The English Settlement

I have long believed that Constitutional Reform was necessary to modernise our democracy. I look to something  beyond just the voting system. Modernisation of the Monarchy, the House of Lords, the Church of England and the way Parliament functions are all on my Agenda, which goes as far as a Written Constitution, but stops short of proportional representation. I do believe every MP should have a majority of the votes cast and that is best achieved by a second run off election, of the top two candidates, on the French model. I believe also in an independent Scotland ,Wales, Ulster ( if not eventually united into one Ireland) within a single United Kingdom, which would include an independent England. Each would have its own parliament and electoral system, but a United Parliament would manage defence, foreign policy and the currency. None of this was ever likely to happen; after yesterday it definitely will not. 

The British people, or those who care in numbers which surprised commentators, voted to keep our British system exactly as it is.  All the nations which make up our kingdom have their own parliament or assemblies (except England) and have a proportional element in their electoral arrangements. The question posed was therefore about changing the core element in the government of the whole UK, but a YES would have been received as a bigger change in England than in the regions. The rejection was a resounding declaration that first past the post is best. The landslide view was that it works and Britain is one of the most stable of all the world’s democracies. That is true, but at its centre it is one of the least democratic. How does it work?

The British Constitution remains a Monarchy with some delegation of powers to Parliament, of which only one Chamber is elected. The country is actually governed by a mixture of permanent civil servants who run everything and the Royal prerogative which determines policy and is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. All is financially restrained by Parliament which alone holds the cheque book. All operate through a multitude of quangos and State forces including the armed services and the police. Only the Commons are elected. All the rest is not.

In this amalgam, which is called, mysteriously, the Establishment,  lies all authority.  All power lies with the people, not so much because they were given it, but because that is the outcome of the technological revolution. The Establishment and all its parts stand because the people not only allow it, but are happy with it. If they all rose up together in revolution all would be swept away.

The safety valve which allows excessive pressure to be released is the House of Commons. It holds the purse strings and supplies the Prime Minister and the majority, but not all, of the Queen’s Ministers. It has to approve new laws. It is elected by universal franchise of all citizens over the age of 18. Voting is not compulsory. Those who exercise this right and a third do not, cast their ballot on the first past the post system. This means that loads of people are elected with far fewer than half the votes cast. It also means that all single party governments, which is most of them, have a majority of seats which bear no relation to the percentage of all votes cast. Therefore most people have voted against almost all governments, but it is in this peculiar arrangement that the strength of the whole democratic settlement lies. Because the majority  have voted for parties not in government, this makes the Oppostion not only a constitutional pillar, but very much more powerful than in many other electoral systems. It ensures a creative tension between governors and the governed which guarantees liberty and inhibits extremism. Unless there is broad support for a policy it cannot happen. Even the most powerful are toppled. Eden and Suez. Thatcher and the Poll Tax. Blair and Iraq.

The odd thing is that the present coalition has a majority, quite a big one, of the votes cast in May 2010. We now know the voters do not feel comfortable with that. They took it out yesterday on the one and only party that made the deal possible. They did that because it is not what they voted for in the first place. They voted Lib dem because they believed it was a permanent party of opposition. This was why they liked it and supported it. Once in government Lib Dems lose their brand.  Better to vote for one of the big players. The NO landslide was not just a vote against changing the voting system. It was a vote against what such a change would introduce as a permanent feature. Coalition government.

Friday was a very intersting day politically. Very interesting indeed.