It was very much the same old Michael Howard on the Today programme, equating Parliament and the Government so as to suggest that the Courts of Law ought to treat the mere opinion of Ministers as if it had the same weight as primary legislation. But the Short March through the Institutions has begun, so we had better join it while we still can.
It is difficult to see why either constituency boundaries or voter identification should still be an issue to a party that had just won a famous victory under the current arrangements, but if the number of Commons constituencies were indeed to be reduced to 600, then the number of MPs might nevertheless remain the same. The whole country should elect 50 MPs, with each of us voting for one candidate, and with the top 50 elected at the end.
The House of Lords should be replaced with a Senate based on the 99 lieutenancy areas. Each of us would vote for one candidate, and the top six would be elected, giving 594 Senators in all, serving for six years. Ministers would not be drawn from the Senate, but they would appear before it for scrutiny. Remuneration would be fixed at that of members of the House of Commons. Eventually, the House of Lords always has to yield to the House of Commons. But the Senate would be under no such obligation.
All non-ceremonial exercises of the Royal Prerogative, including Royal Assent, should be transferred to six, seven, eight or nine of nine Co-Presidents, with each of us voting for one candidate, and with the top nine elected to hold office for eight years. One of the exercises requiring unanimity would be appointment to the Supreme Court, which would also need to be made on the nomination both of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition.
As much as anything else, that would enfranchise the people who incomprehensibly looked to the monarchy to protect traditional values as they understood them. It has never done any such thing. The Queen has to sign whatever the Prime Minister puts in front of her. But the Co-Presidents would be in a very different position. Of course, the monarchy itself would continue to exist.
I will be standing for Parliament again here at North West Durham next time, so please give generously. In any event, please email davidaslindsay@hotmail.com. Very many thanks.
I will be standing for Parliament again here at North West Durham next time, so please give generously. In any event, please email davidaslindsay@hotmail.com. Very many thanks.
The advice of Ministers represents Parliament while their government commands the confidence of the House. The authority of the Monarch to act on the advice of the executive independent of any judicial interference is a safeguard of Parliamentary sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that they teach that kind of thing in public schools. Believe it or not, though, not everything that they teach in public schools is true. The monarch simply obeys the Prime Minister. Who does not in fact require the confidence of the House of Commons. Until the recent General Election, then this Prime Minister had never commanded any such confidence. But that Parliament could have run until 2022.
DeleteI never went to public school. The Prime Minister can only be Prime Minister while he’s both an elected MP and while his party commands a Parliamentary majority. Once an election is called, he remains PM only until a new government is elected. Instead of the Crown-in-Parliament, you prefer unelected and unaccountable judges calling themselves a “Supreme Court” deciding these matters (and thus courts becoming political)? Then you don’t know anything about Britain.
ReplyDeleteJohnson lost a confidence motion months before he called a General Election, and he had been all ready to remain Prime Minister if he had lost his seat. Only the Queen could sack him, and she had to do as he, the Prime Minister, told her. That is how it works.
Delete