We all should be grateful to Dr Andrew Blick, a Senior Research Fellow at Democratic Audit, and to Lord (Peter) Hennessy for a report they have co-authored. Called The Hidden Wiring Emerges the pamphlet provides the best and most comprehensive analysis yet of the Coalition’s draft Cabinet Manual, published in December 2010.
The report raises interesting questions – along with what I think may be some unnecessary worries – about the nature of such a Manual and its constitutional significance.
The genesis of the idea was from Gordon Brown but we shouldn’t let that put us off. In the dying days of his government, he suddenly decided that a written constitution might be a good idea (and, if he won re-election, an excellent legacy). The Cabinet Secretary was duly instructed to ‘consolidate the existing unwritten, piecemeal conventions that govern much of the way central government operates…into a single written document’. And so the first draft of the Manual was born in February 2010. It has since been updated by new Ministers.
Despite the grand intentions of its progenitor, the document is rather less significant than a written constitution. It does not make rules, it describes them.
However, the authors of the report worry that its contents will be – and are being – used to change the rules of the game, rather than to elucidate them. In particular, they highlight the idea described in the Manual that, following the resignation of a Prime Minister after a General Election, the person ‘seemingly most likely to be able to command the confidence’ of the House of Commons should be appointed as new Prime Minister.
“Some commentators”, say the authors, “have argued that the actual convention in circumstances of a House of Commons with no overall majority is for the leader of the largest opposition party specifically to be given the first opportunity”.
If the Manual really were making a new rule in this area, there would be genuine cause for concern. But it isn’t. The Government is simply describing what it believes the convention is, and in doing so it has the support of recent events.
Consider the scenario that would have occurred if the numbers in the Commons had been different after May 2010; perhaps with different arithmetic the Liberal Democrats could genuinely have “chosen” whether to work with Labour under a new Leader (i.e., not the Prime Minister in office at the time) or with the Conservatives, promising to defeat in votes of confidence the party they had not chosen. It seems inconceivable that the Sovereign would appoint as Prime Minister the leader of a party which had not won the election, and could not persuade another party to support him in the Commons. There would be no point, whatever the commentators have “argued”. So the Manual seems to describe plain commonsense with some degree of accuracy. If circumstances change, so will it.
Constitutional guides through the last two centuries have worked in this way. The authors cite Bagehot, but his descriptions of conventions are no more immutable and no more unquestionable than those of the Manual today. Similarly Erskine May, which describes parliamentary practice, is updated regularly to reflect new circumstances.
The Manual, for now, should be seen simply as the Government’s view of present practice; certainly Parliament and the Judiciary are not bound by it. These two academics only scratch the surface of whether a document of this kind could be used formally to agree some of the relationship between, for example, Parliament and the Executive. Then it would have more constitutional – if not actual legal – force.
I very much agree with their recommendation that “An existing parliamentary select committee (or specially convened joint parliamentary committee of some kind) should take on the role of conducting annual assessments of the manual, taking evidence from the public and drawing attention to any problems or changing circumstances.” This is the best way to ensure the Manual remains a dynamic guide – updating itself like a Sat Nav system does its maps – to the constitution rather than a set of rules constraining change to it.
The Hidden Wiring Emerges is very much recommended post-Summer reading. The Government would be wise to take notice of it.
And where’s the voter in this?
Not one mention. No difference there. Lords and masters rule and dictate, and as plebs we have to suffer the consequences.
Well, unless you as the electorate, you are ruling without consent.
No different from Ghadaffi or Assad in that respect.
How for example, does a citizen withdraw their consent?
Often repeated by politicians, is the statement that they rule by consent.
If that’s the case there needs to be a constitutional right to withdraw consent.
Ah yes, you want, no need, our money to fund your lifestyles.
Meanwhile, we have a good example of the two fingers to the electorate approach.
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has pledged to change the law so that no further powers can be transferred to Brussels without the approval of the British people in a referendum.
Now what do we have?
On 16 December 2010 the European Council agreed a two line amendment (see below) to the treaty that would avoid any referendums. It would simply change the EU treaties to allow for a permanent mechanism to be established.[5] In March of the following year leaders also agreed to a separate eurozone-only treaty that would create the ESM itself.
Yep, modify the treaty. Cameron lied in the first place about establishing the right to a referenda for treaty changes.
What does the treaty change do? Abolish the right to a referenda.
Clear example of the lies and deceit from politicians and two fingers to the electorate.
And the Lords role in this? They just go along with it.
Some much for a chamber to oversee and review the commons.
whether a document of this kind could be used formally to agree some of the relationship between, for example, Parliament and the Executive. Then it would have more constitutional – if not actual legal – force.
Is that not done by ‘convention’ now?
when there is a question of the relationship, convention is refered to?
“Normally this is what we do!” and
“My predecessor did this or that!”
If it is orally/aurally known, is it necessary to codify it, in writing?
============
The question of which party to go to first, was dealt with most politely, in 2010, I thought, even though Angela Merkel seemed to make the decisions on the basis of German coalition experience over the years!!
Is there a need to codify that or write it up in a manual? Nobody is going to forget surely?
That “Nobody is going to forget…”
is no basis for writing-down vital findings, knowledge, know-how, and also recording questions both satisfactorily answered and as yet unsatisfactorily unanswered.
Illustration:
I was at a UK public forum and workshop concerning “assimilating immigrants”, where I felt constrained to ask for our “inescapable common needs” to be made clear and be publicly listed in writing, before we start trying to contrast “our” (indigenous Brits) “Rights” against the foreign-conduct of the immigrants.
There was a stone cold silence, which not even the workshop-facilitator eased; so I said
“for instance right here in this room here and now, only two people have glasses of water, the rest of us have none – this point is that “water is one of our common human Needs…”
several voices loudly chimed in of which both the facilitator and some attendant staff said “you can find a glass in the kitchen and there’s plenty of water in the tap there (so that part is out of order)”; and a longstanding often chairperson lady also stood and declared “We all know what our needs are we don’t need to be told by foreign newcomers”
(substantial & approbational laughter)
“we certainly don’t need to start writing new-age doomsday books about our ‘Needs’.”
The facilitator added the quashing coup-de-grace by resuming the previous already-sticky-enough ‘topic’ of
“these immigrants have to leave their foreign lives overseas where they came from and assimilate to our British ways”.
————-
I hold that it is absolutely and urgently necessary, both to the sane and sustainworthy mind-functioning of humankind, & to the thrival of our (The) Earth’s Lifesupports, for our human-race to thoroughly list and grade our Needs, and the “How-each-such-may-best-possible-be-met”, BEFORE constituting Human-Rights Courts of Law and to lay-down, write, and spend billions of taxpayers-monies trying usually quite vainly to ‘enforce’, which and which-not of those Needs and Hows we (one-human-being-at-a-time, and one-human-community-all-together) has a legal “right” to satisfy, or to ‘have satisfied’.
1453PM.Th01Sep11.JSDM.
Quite apart from the need to make governance transitions ‘fail-safe’ secure, such as maintaining an adequate interim prime-minister and caretaker-government,
there are at least two ‘non-negotiables’ that are serious and necessary enough to warrant writing them into the British Constitution:
(1) That every level of The People must be made and maintained governance-enabled and empowered.
(e.g. through a 24/7/52 graded citizenship course in good-communication, honest-argumentation, and the use of democratic-channels, both printed and interactively-available through (say) BBC TV).
(2) That both collective and individual operating and lifestyling costs be kept well within the Earth’s, World-Civilisations’, the British Nation’s, and the Individual Human-Being’s means.
0203AM.Th01Sep11.JSDM.
(2)
Things are possibly likely to get more challenging in Europe. A position on how to handle the mechanics of it all may be a useful thing to publish…
The question LT raises of the distinction between Oral/aural convention and written convention, is, and always has been, an intriguing one for historians.
Somebody’s decision to maintain a written record of them, does nothing to impede the value and use of the convention, which is passed down by word of mouth.
It would be interesting to know, for example, of the opinion of a historian such as Tawney,
or his mould of thinking. Starkey may also have an opinion, of the effect of putting down, in writing, something which was previously only spoken, but just as effectively passed on.
Historiographers like Woolf ,university Dean in Ontario,(Toronto?) would also be quite keen to express an opinion, since historiography is intended to provide view points of history from certain points of a historical time frame. If ,for example, you missed a generation of civil servants in a particular department, a historiographer would be able to create a ‘mock up’ of the oral convention 30 years before.
the classic example of this was in Russia in
1990, when capitalism took on a frenzied form simply because there was no such expertise in
the relevant government departments in that country who knew how to deal with the problems of capitalism. The Lord G Howe took
a distinct interest in that question at the time, having been our own Chancellor of the Exchequer for a while.
You might also say that the standard of department secretaries may vary from generation to generation and that to ensure
‘convention’ historicism, a written record is essential.
My own preference is for remembered convention, (put another way it may be called modifying tradition, which is distinctly less pretty), and that a written code is superfluous, but then I am welsh and I am descended from Hywel dda, writer of the First book of Laws of these islands.
He wrote it, and I remember the genealogy.
Reading this through made me very uncomfortable. The first point being, anything GB had a notion of, must, by it’s very origin, be detrimental to society.
Regardless, what irked me, when Blair was ousted, was the acceptance by both Houses that Brown should take up the place of PM without first going to the country. That is outrageous in concept and deed. And it should never happen again. Any government who, for whatever reason, loses it’s ‘elected Prime Minister,’ should be considered as simply an interim administration until a general election has taken place and another leader found acceptable to the people. This general election to be called within six months max.
However, to take that one step further, this prospective leader should have been taken into the viewing ring and walked around a few times in order for the voter to size him and his intentions up. His policies should be known, in full, up front. And if he is then elected on the understanding of implementation of those policies, he must take action, once in office, to proceed on the promise he made in selection. If he veers from this action, another election should be called. And if, as Blair did, he takes the country to war on a lie, or, without ‘just cause’ example, in defence of the realm, in honesty, not a make up job, then he should be treated as a traitor to his country and jailed for life, along with the minions who supported him in his cause. This should include any family member who promoted and aided in his duplicity.
This would be a good first step.
Europe has become a secret society to the British people and this is the next step toward a truly open government. Exposure of the reality of that union has to be revealed in its full glory and debated in Parliament and put to the public prior to any further submission by our present government to that organisation.
I am pro Europe. However, the gasps of insight we get, via the gravely biased press, who must feel they have something to hide, as they are frequently too far from the truth in their reports not to have some covert reason for their obvious loathing of the concept.
The Public are blinkered and led by various stories and kept from the true purpose of such a union. What is being hidden from view and why? The laws taking us into a society of madness is blamed on this contract we have with Europe, yet, these same laws are not seen taking up room in the rest of the continent. Now why is that? All 27 countries have a population who is avidly against open door immigration, yet, their resistance is ignored and denigrated and often denied. Why?
There are so many questions that must be addressed. Why are both Houses being so closed mouthed about our concerns? Which should be as haunting for them as it is for the voters in all these European States.
What is going on here? And why are we not trusted with the facts?
To suggest removal of the use of referendum is ridiculous. And an obvious subterfuge. We should have the right to call for a referendum, as in Switzerland, should enough people sign up for it, on any matter of concern. And maybe this is one of them.
I fear Maude misses the point entirely in her most recent post.
@Puddle:
Elaborate….. What do you believe the point is that I have missed?
If you feel you have followed the gist to it’s conclusion, tell me where you feel I have gone wrong in my submission.
There are many points being contributed;
thereore I try to apply, from the 3 principles of good-communication and honest-argumentation, the second principle of Charity = openly recognise the good-intention in the other participant’s submission.
The first principle also helps, insofaras very often not even the initial Post by the Peer is “Clear” –
much essential is omitted, red-herring-like bits are included, and very often an overarching or underpinning Topic that is determinist to the presented “topic” or “point” is missing.
(And I have reason to think such exclusion of a greater determing Topic often to be dominantly deliberate and malfeasant).
——–
So, to start all over again, what ‘Point’ do you identify ?
and by what other point or points is the other participant missing-out,
or ‘deceiving’ us ?
1006F030911.jsdm.
Now come on folks, lets look on the bright side; once this thing is written down we wil have clear documentary evidence of the wonky way our country is run and the glaring holes and peculiar paradoxes that leave ordinary voters like you and me feeling the political elite are playing some kind of shell game with us.
In effect the politicians are making the case for constituional reform for us, lets not stop them.
Come on Barry, we (and you) as repressed democratic citizens need to be much clearer and more incisively scrutineering than our so-called Parliamentary representatives and their “Select” committees.
The “this thing needing to be written down” is in Truth not merely the covertly undemocratising, stealthily-oligarchising wordings of the new British Written Constitution as is being cobbled together now by not-too-bright Special Advisers and ex-Special Advisers (many of whom under the Tories Heath, Thatcher and Major were “arrogant youths” who had hardly yet begun to shave, one of whom was called David Cameron)*
We also need to have indelibly written down, verbatim, all the input from us democratic citizens, including our individual choices from amongst the seriously relevant authors available from Libraries or Other places.
Unless we can digest and deliberate upon every possible side to an Issue (in this instance Constitutional Reform),
and then stand with equal voices in the ensuing Debating stages,
and in the choices of actual-wordinga for the legislation,
we shall remain an Individual-Capitalism-Owned Three-Party State Oligarchy posing as a Democracy.
Rather than “stopping them” (which is becoming increasingly impossible under our Special-Advisers-corrupted political system*, anyway) we need to be giving continuous voice to our Needs, to our possibly affordable Hows thereto, and to our Undertainties and Questions.
* Quentin Letts “50 People Who B*******d Up Britain” (page 267 and 268).
When censored or otherwise denied or suppressed, I for one post alternatively to my non-profit democratic-citizen’s website
(www.75l25w.com or http://www.lifefresh.co.uk ).
1959pm.St03Sep11.jsdm.
I just try to focus a little bit on Lord Tyler’s
(“)I very much agree that a Parliamentary Committee should take evidence from The British Public and draw attention to any problems or changing circumstances, as the best way to ensure the Manual remains a dynamic guide to the Constitution – (updating itself like the SatNadoes updates its maps) – rather than as a fixed set of rules that in effect constrain (retard, prevent) updating-changes to it(“).
————————————
and I wonder how the following idea might clinch or clash with it:
The glaringly real but totally-denied and still-totally-absent Need of democracy, is for a constitutional People’s Upwards Medium, legislatively constrained to BOTH relay upwards to the Parliamentary level ‘verbatim’, faithfully-summarised, and initially classified, all contributions, questions, life-experiences and criticisms from people including from individual persons AND ensure simultaneous publication of such democratic material laterally, often no doubt ‘downwards’ included, to every level of the People-Public.
That Upwards Channel must EXCLUDE all of the existing ‘populist’ and ‘downwards’ Media (including BBC, Guardian, FT, Telegraph, Wikileaks, and Private-Eye) ;
but the intrinsic need for simultaneous publication back to The People could perhaps be achieved partly by ‘verbatim’ publication by the current ‘downwards populist’ Media (jsdm)
——————
2217PM.Sunday04September11.JSDM.