The 2019 Conservative Manifesto promised that ‘in our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission…to look at the broader aspects of our constitution.’ The Queen’s Speech confirmed that promise. We should welcome this with both hands, and use it to challenge the government’s agenda with our own.
Boris Johnson wants to reassert executive power against parliament. The manifesto’s criticism of ‘the failure of Parliament to deliver Brexit’ shows impatience with criticism and debate. Dominic Cummings wants to cut through the cautious policy-making of the civil service and impose radical changes to central government. Right-wing think tanks have attacked judicial review and the Supreme Court. He manifesto wants to maintain our current voting system, but tighten up on postal voting and voter identification. We have a very different agenda – but a Commission will give us the opportunity to press our case against theirs.
The British constitution desperately needs critical examination and reform. Johnson has broken several of its accepted conventions, and now that he has a majority wants to break more. Popular alienation from Westminster politics is widespread. The Tories’ manifesto promise that ‘we will ensure…that every vote counts the same’ refers to redrawing constituency boundaries, not to any adjustment of the voting system. Liberal Democrats, along with any NGOs, have called for a constitutional convention. We’re not being offered exactly what we want – but we should grab hold of what is on offer and do our utmost to reshape the government’s assumptions.
That means we must argue the case for liberal democracy against populist democracy, persuasively and it detail. Democracy is not just about voting – though the opportunity to vote, open campaigns fairly conducted, and effective choices when it comes to voting, are essential foundations to democracy. It’s about citizen engagement, at local and national level. It’s about the rule of law, and constitutional checks on the abuse of power by executive government. And it’s about continuous dialogue about policy choices, scrutinised by Parliament and by local and regional bodies – not elective dictatorship through votes once every five years or referendums that provide misleadingly simple answers to complex and changing challenges. The designers of the American constitution built in checks and balances, limits to executive authority, and judicial review – thought President Trump is challenging many of these. The British constitution has rested on the belief that ministers would accept established conventions about respect for law, reasoned opposition and executive restraint – and Johnson and his supporters are challenging many of those.
We want to make Britain more democratic, not shift power at the centre back from parliament to government. We want to restore local democracy, which is where citizen engagement can be most direct, after years in which Labour and Conservative governments have centralised decisions and finance. We defend the rule of law and the importance of regulation, against libertarians who insist that markets and money can resolve most issues well enough. We want to distribute power away from Westminster, to regions in England as well as other nations in the UK; Conservative advocates of an English Parliament, instead, have not understood the need to rebalance political power within England as well. We want a stronger federal Parliament, to hold national government to account, with an elected second chamber representing different regional and national perspectives. And we want a more open voting system at all levels, to lessen the two-party grip on nomination and election of representatives.
Political reform has been one of the motivating principles of liberalism from the beginning. But it’s hard to excite the broader public about the intricacies of constitutional structures and processes, and easy for the popular media to dismiss such arguments as nerdish. But popular alienation from Westminster, and the Conservative response in offering a Commission, are bringing these questions back into the centre of political debate. Let’s make the most of the opportunity.
* William Wallace is Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues in the Lords.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Shropshire zoo seeks runaway 'beloved' capybara
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Firebird
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
Steve Trevethan
Chris Moore
Peter Martin
Steve Comer
John Waller
15 Comments
William,
Beware of Tories baring gifts. That will implement what they want and say but the Lib Dems agreed tis their fault and people will fall for it. Stay away from the obvious traps, did the coalition teach you nowt.
I share your concern about constitutional changes that Boris wants to achieve and we must be involved in order to fight for alternatives. Improved Democracy is basic to our principles, but the public are not that interested, as you say in your last paragraph. In spite of that there are probably enough people around who care about this.
I am not sure that popular alienation from Westminster is the motive for bringing change; it is rather the opportunity right wingers see for increasing their power. Does not this alienation provide us now with the opportunity to campaign for improved local government ? Should not our very first priority be the local elections in May ?
There are people who share our concern, such as ‘Unlock Democracy’ and other campaigners in ’38 Degrees’ ; can we work with them to spread the word that localism is the way at the moment for improved public services and improved democracy ?
A very interesting piece by Lord Wallace and there are many points I agree with and in another time and place we should be backing those suggestions, but I too would not trust this government with doing anything that is not in their long term interest and with their narrow self serving philosophy, not in the interest of the Conservative party. I have read lots of comments on Lib Dem Voice regarding our GE performance, all I can say is that I am very very disappointed with the result and the position our country finds itself in.
What Frankie said – we should be steering clear of anything like this that’s clearly being run by the Tories for their benefit and according to their ideology. At best, we would get a few minor concessions on issues that are unimportant to them and then be tied to the rest of the recommendations – and we’ve seen from Michael Howard’s recent comments that the aim of this exercise is to target institutions like the judiciary who might prevent us being ruled by Johnsonian fiat.
Much better for us to advocate a true Constitutional Convention at which all parties and others can be equal participants in drawing up a new set of rules.
Proceed with EXTREME CAUTION!
NEVER trust the Tories.Be wary of what is on offer. Yes ALL parties should be involved.
Do not dismiss the idea that England should have its own parliament to decide matters like English law, education in England, England’s NHS etc – why should England not have the right to make its own decisions of these issues just like the other countries of the UK?
What Charles Kennedy said at federal conference in Glasgow. He went to help Tony Blair in TB’s constituency in the regional referendum.
What this means is the Tories didn’t like the courts decisions about withdrawal from the EU and we seek to undermine an independent judiciary.
they seek
What is missing from this discussion is the possibility that somewhere, not far down the line, the “UK” will consist of merely England and Wales, and that constitutional changes – if any – will only apply to these two countries. What then?
This is an opportunity that we must take to widen the debate and insist on voting reform, more powers for local government and a better balance between the judiciary, executive and legislature. Part of the reason for this becoming topical is the possibility of Scotland and N Ireland separating. This in turn is due to the federal government not granting sufficient powers to those seeking them. We should maintain the supremacy of parliament elected by an improved method.
No, I’m surprised that William is welcoming this initiative, when there too many unknowns about the how it will operate – I agree in principle that a non-partisan commission on constitutional issues would be a good thing. The key issue though will be the Commission’s terms of reference – these will be set by the Government and indicators are that the ToR will try and prescribe a particular direction for the Commission’s work (eg reviewing the role of the Supreme Court, the Human Rights Act and the scope of judicial review). Secondly who will be on the Commission – again they will be handpicked by Government, likely from tory lawyers and think-tankers who already have a certain perspective.
Yes I would love a proper written constitution – but not one written by a Tory government. we cannot be seen to boycott this process but should make sure the press office is working overtime to get OUR message out. that means making sure the wider membership always knows what the Liberal Democrat message on the process is.
We should all listen to what Jonathan Sumption said in his brilliant Reith Lectures; avoid the significant problems of a Written Constitution, press for Voting Reform of FPTP and other wise advice.