Bloody Hell. Doesn't he go on....?

[caddyman]

This started off as a response to agentinfinity's comment on my last post.

As it growed like topsy, I decided the debate (if such it is) would be best served with a follow up post in its own right.


I am ambivalent on the question of devolution. Adding an extra layer of bureaucracy and administration is of no use if it has no power, even if it is subject to a popular mandate. In fact, if this is the case, I suspect voter apathy will increase.

The problem as I see it (and we're going off the topic of my original post big time, here), is that the continued accumulation of power in the centre largely makes what few elected bodies we have pretty much worthless. It is largely futile to complain to your local council about the state of local housing, for example, because although they prioritise local expenditure, the amount of resources available to them is largely out of their hands. It is governed by HM Treasury. The power is central, but the accountability is local.

Adding another layer of government will not change that, and neither will the Government's attempts to combat voter apathy. Most people have at least cottoned on to the fact that a vote - especially at local level, is largely a grand exercise in public opinion monitoring. Nothing more, nothing less.

Democracy is not served by increasing numbers of elections as an end in themselves. Consultation of the people is pointless and insulting if it does not lead to change.

I would contend that we have quite enough layers of government, thank you very much. What we do not have is accountability where we need it. Most of our elected representatives - unless that person is a cabinet minister have little real power, and unless he or she is an MP, very little influence.

It is fashionable for some reason, to denigrate the American habit of voting for just about every public executive on a four year cycle. I have never quite understood this apparent distaste. The people vote for an individual and that individual then has the power to actually carry out the function he or she was elected to undertake. If the results are not to the liking of the electorate, not only will re-election in four years be problematic at best, but in the case of gross incompetence, that person can be impeached by the electorate before the four year term is up. This applies to every public official from the US President down to the county sheriff and beyond.

The American system may not be perfect - and neither are the people who operate as political animals within it - but it is a closer and more effective expression of democratic principles than anything we have in the UK. The people have real power to make their elected officials do as the people want.

And people generally turn out to vote on local issues in the US despite the overwhelming number of vacancies to vote for. I suspect that the same would be true in the UK if a local vote had any weight, the candidates any real power.

But back to yesterday's topic.

Even in the US, the judiciary is appointed rather than subject to re-election through the ballot box. And that is a recognition of the fact that the judiciary have to be seen and at least try to be above volatile public opinion. The judiciary is effectively removed from both the legislature and the executive so that it can stand alone and interpret and apply the law. It is not their job to frame it. That falls to the legislature, and they do not implement or evolve policy, that is the job of the executive. The job of the judiciary is to take the law that is handed to them and apply it impartially to one and all, allowing for precedent (unless precedent runs in the face of statute) to ensure, as far possible, a consistent application of that law.

A politician cannot do that because the very nature of the politician's job precludes any pretence of impartiality.

And finally, back to what got me started yesterday.

The constitution of a country is supposed to form the framework in which that that country governs itself. It so happens that much of the UK constitution is unwritten and depends upon precedent and custom. But the entirety of UK law, be it Statutory, English Common Law, or Case Law and Precedent falls within the UK constitution.

This is both a strength and a weakness, for much of what we consider to be our inalienable rights is buried within this vast written body of law. And it would take a clear and determined (not to say public), long-term sustained attack on the very body of the law to completely strip the rights of the individual.

That is a strength.

The fact that much of the UK constitution is unwritten and the remainder subject to the will of Parliament is a weakness. Because being subject to the will of Parliament - by which I mean Parliament can vote to change it, if it so wishes - means that the Constitution is the plaything of any party which commands an operating majority in the House of Commons. This is doubly true of a government which commands a large majority, because a large majority means that the government of the day can ignore the wishes even of sections of its own constituency.

No one political party should be able to change the constitution. Where there needs to be change, it should be overseen by the entirety of Parliament, with recommendations put to the people - after they have been fully appraised of the consequence of change.

But it should not be undertaken for short-term political advantage by a single party.

Look at the hash the Government made of (still unfinished) Lords Reform. It didn't get what it wanted from Parliament and so dropped all proposals, leaving the country neither here nor there.

Remember this when (if) the time comes to decide on the Euro and on closer ties with the EU.

Must stop now.

Blood pressure becoming an issue (this is why I prefer to rant in a pub, not in writing).