![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Parliamentary Government matters. Jack Straw's right.
Jack Straw has decided not to appeal a decision and instead the Cabinet has voted, using the power allowed it by law the law, to prevent the release of documents, for the first time since the FOI Act was passed. Y'know what? I disagree with Jennie and most Lib Dems on this. He's right to do so. We can, and should, be attacking this, but not because Cabinet minutes aren't going to be released. Cabinet minutes should not be released, it's one of the basic principles of our Parliamentary democracy. Here's how it's supposed to work:
The problem lies not with the way this individual decision was made. The problem lies with the corrupted system that our Parliamentary democracy has become. This is the way it actually works:
British politics has allowed, over the last 60 years, to become increasingly corrupt and partisan. This is a fault of the electoral system, and specifically the introduction of uniform single member constituencies and the abolition of alternative voting methods made by the Representation of the Peoples Act 1948. We need to remake and revitalise the Parliamentary system of government. For that to happen, we also need to examine how and why the Cabinet system works.
If it's decided that the Cabinet should have disagreements in public, that Collective Responsibility can be abolished, etc, then so be it. I can see arguments favouring that, especially in the new information age.
But to call for the abolishing of a fundamental feature of the British system, that has been working effectively for over 300 years, over a single, specific issue in which an abominable decision was made, is to throw out the baby with the rather murky bathwater.
Parliament voted for the Iraq war. The nation almost certainly opposed it. That is the real problem. In defending the principles of our democracy, for once in his life, Jack Straw is right.
And if you think I liked typing that last sentence you really don't know me.
- The House of Commons is elected as a representative cross section of British interests and opinions
- A Cabinet is formed representing the views of enough members of the House to command a majority
- Appointments are made based on support within the house and talent
- The Cabinet discusses all major aspects of policy and agrees major decisions
- The Cabinet is bound by Collective Responsibility and do not disagree in public
- Ministers that cannot agree to a decision at all should resign
- If the Cabinet no longer commands the support of the House, then the government should fall
The problem lies not with the way this individual decision was made. The problem lies with the corrupted system that our Parliamentary democracy has become. This is the way it actually works:
- The House of Commons is elected using a gerrymandered system created in 1947 that encourages:
- an unrepresentative House with a two-party duopoly
- A predominance of white middle class men in suits
- Safe seats allocated by party fiat in which the rebellious are penalised
- Party loyalty over individual thinking
- A Cabinet is formed by the party leader, made up mostly of his/her friends or political allies
- Appointments are made based on presentational ability and sucking up
- The Prime Minister makes most major decisions and reveals them to Cabinet
- Groupthink is both likely and encouraged
- Discussion and debate is discouraged
- Ministers who disagree with the PM are aware that challenging is a threat to their career
- Super majorities from one party mean the Majority is rarely threatened
British politics has allowed, over the last 60 years, to become increasingly corrupt and partisan. This is a fault of the electoral system, and specifically the introduction of uniform single member constituencies and the abolition of alternative voting methods made by the Representation of the Peoples Act 1948. We need to remake and revitalise the Parliamentary system of government. For that to happen, we also need to examine how and why the Cabinet system works.
If it's decided that the Cabinet should have disagreements in public, that Collective Responsibility can be abolished, etc, then so be it. I can see arguments favouring that, especially in the new information age.
But to call for the abolishing of a fundamental feature of the British system, that has been working effectively for over 300 years, over a single, specific issue in which an abominable decision was made, is to throw out the baby with the rather murky bathwater.
Parliament voted for the Iraq war. The nation almost certainly opposed it. That is the real problem. In defending the principles of our democracy, for once in his life, Jack Straw is right.
And if you think I liked typing that last sentence you really don't know me.
no subject
Not exactly. The common law is developing the notion of constitutional statutes including, but not limited to, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Communities Act 1972, and pretty much all the Acts concerned with devolution to Wales, Scotland and Norn Iron. This essentially means that the doctrine of implied repeal doesn't apply to them in the way that it applies to every other Act. This doesn't prevent those Acts being amended or repealed, but it prevents Parliament from doing so accidentally. Parliament has to express the repeal in words that cannot be misunderstood - in all other cases, a later conflicting statute will repeal an earlier statutory provision, in so far as the two conflict, even if the later provision makes no mention of the earlier one.
Sunderland City Council is ringing bells here. Pikiwedia suggests Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151.
no subject
Who seems to be on a one man crusade to rewrite the basic terms of the UK constitution in a way that it actually makes sense. Until he declared these constitutional laws to be superior, they weren't. Now, under the terms of his ruling, they are.
Legally, he's set a precedent. I don't agree with him, but legally, he's right, until it's overturned or we get a resolution.
no subject
Lord Denning (MR at the time, I think) ruled in Macarthy's Ltd v Smith that Parliament would need to expressly repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and that the courts would then be obliged to follow that explicit legislation. This is merely obiter and comes about partly because of the 'construe' wording of the ECA, but it seems to have been more or less a settled point of law for the last 30 years - Parliament can repeal the ECA, but needs to say so explicitly. (Repealing the ECA would essentially require us to leave the EU/EEA, but could be done.)
Lord Denning was hardly uncontroversial - his time at the Court of Appeal is marked by some of the more amusing recent attempts to get around House of Lords rulings, with him writing some amusing slapdowns in the HoL - and he wasn't exactly strong on following precedent, but his words do seem to carry a lot of weight.
1 ETA: Note that this doesn't actually require Parliament to do anything harder to repeal the Act - it's not entrenching it in a formal sense of requiring, say, a 75% majority of both houses to repeal it. It just requires the wording to be explicit.
no subject
But that's a specific case of international treaty law being domestically applicable. It didn't previously apply to the Acts of Settlement or Union, and most certainly never applied to the Bill of Rights, which was never passed, merely accepted as being part of the natural order of how things should be.
But we're quibbling. Essentially any individual law can change the constitution, and they frequently do, albeit in minor ways. Thus constitutional law is a lovely little minefield in which everyone reserves the right to go "ah, but whatabout..."