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).

Comments

[ellefurtle.livejournal.com]

You know, sometimes I wonder if I have any thoughts at all....

[ephraim.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with everything that you have said. This government has seemingly decided that it has a mandate to do whatever it likes. I can see three immediately apparent reasons for this. The current government have a vast majority, and an ineffective opposition. Even when Duncan Smith was offered the opportunity to broadside Blair over the "cabinet reshuffle" debacle, he still failed to land a palpable hit. The Commons parliamentary system only works if there is some form of organised resistance to the government. At the moment, the Lib Dems and Labour backbenchers seem to threaten Blair more than the Tories do (and the idea of anyone finding the Lib Dems threatening faintly silly). The second reason for Blairs arrogance is a (mostly) compliant press. It seems that the old order of papers like the new Tory Tony; and when someone does stand up and say something that the government doesn't like (The Beeb) they are targetted by Campbell and his Cronies. The press have given up reporting politics in anything but the broadest of brush strokes, as these days the populace are way more interested in whether Mr Beckham will pass his medical than in anything really meaningful. Informed political debate requires information, and it is become progressively harder to get ones hands on that information (although admittedly teh intaweb helps). Lastly the arrogance of this government is fuelled by voter apathy. But apathy almost seems to be too weak a word. I'm a good example of this. I am politically vocal, politically active, and generally pretty savvy. But I didn't vote at the last general election. It just didn't seem worth it. I think that twenty years of governments with enormous majorities have wearied me to the point where disillusionment with the whole democratic process is total. There just seems no point to voting where the politicians are the same, the parties have only different names to seperate them, and integrity and honesty are hocked to pay for focus groups and soundbites. Politician is a byword for liar these days, and the game of westminster more important a qualification than the ability to make reasoned rational decisions for the benefit of the country. I'd change it all in a second, surely this isn't the way politics is meant to be, but the power is all in Whitehall and the Whitehouse and we can't touch it. Voter Apathy is now (in my case at least) voter despair.

All of this results in a government that is free to follow whatever path it's crazed ego-maniac leadership choose to take it. And I don't see how any of this is going to change.

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

Accountability - that is a good word - I would really like some kind of way that election "promises" have to be kept properly rather than being meaningless propaganda.

I completely agree with you about changes to the constitution too.

I would also like some degree of actually being able to know what the government is doing. I used to be signed up to info4local which mailed me lists of white papers etc. but there was so much there it was hard to find time to read it all let alone understand it...

[agentinfinity.livejournal.com]

Something about publicly elected sheriffs makes me feel uncomfortable.

Isn't it strange - voting for people is seen as the logical answer to the question of representation, but it is also exactly why we then don't trust them to represent us.

I think a second house in this country that was formed in a different (not necessarily elected) fashion might solve problems. But as to who gets in, I'm not sure. Possibly trade union leaders and people who are actually experts in various things useful to running a country. It might just create new problems, but it would create change.

I think I voted last time out of guilt... for the lib dems, who had offended me least. I also liked the idea of proportional representation, which I understand they have now dropped.

The failings of various US institutions to represent the American people is a (long) rant in itself so I'll stop there.