Skip to main content

Seven changes for a better constitution?

Some interesting proposals from some good people.

By me.

At Substack:
emptycity.substack.com/p/seven…

At my personal blog:
davidallengreen.com/2024/06/se…


Seven changes for a better constitution?

d. a. t. green (The Empty City - a law and polity blog)
in reply to d a t green

Dave T-W
Dave T-W
• •
Are they talking generally about the UK constitution, or is this revisiting the idea of a single codified document? When huge changes to the civic fabric are made without consideration of an overall framework, more things break and can be corrupted. I'm thinking specifically of regional assemblies, changes to Lords, and obviously Brexit, which have made it even more complicated to think about a Constitution.
in reply to Dave T-W

Alexandra Lanes
Alexandra Lanes
•
@Dave T-W @d a t green Read the piece; they're not suggesting significant structural change but rather a strengthening of some of the existing systems of control and regulation, and a return to the idea of constitutionalism in the workings of the UK state.
@d a t green @Dave T-W
in reply to Alexandra Lanes

Dave T-W
Dave T-W
• •
@ajlanes Yes, good point. I was getting ahead of myself.
I still think it was that disjointed approach to various aspects of constitutionalism which allowed those systems of control and regulation to lose sight.
@Alexandra Lanes
in reply to Dave T-W

d a t green
d a t green
• •

@davoloid

I think the letter speaks for itself, and answers your questions, if you read it.

@Dave T-W
in reply to d a t green

Epistatacadam
Epistatacadam
• •
the Fixed term Parliament Act was designed to remove one form of PM patronage. That didn't last long when the PM (or elected dictator) decided he didn't like it. Is there any legal reason why a PM couldn't vote to remove everyone from the electoral role who had an income below £1m for example? They might find it difficult to pass but in principle there would be no constitutional obstruction if the crown in parliament decided to do that, or remove elections altogether.
in reply to d a t green

Ben Thompson 🐕
Ben Thompson 🐕
• •

tension is a great word in this context.

The proposals are laudable, but I have many questions, not least whether public trust in government is even a good thing!

in reply to d a t green

lippyduck
lippyduck
• •
There's a big one that I would like to see more discussion on. The constitutional ethics of allowing members of the governing party decide who becomes prime minister *during* a Parliament. A PM comes to power based on a nationwide mandate for his or her manifesto. How can we let this be overridden by a tiny, highly unrepresentative minority (leading to Truss etc.)? Only MPs can claim to have a mandate to make that choice. That should be recognised in the constitution.
in reply to lippyduck

Alexandra Lanes
Alexandra Lanes
•
@lippyduck @d a t green You would get the same result even if you had Parliament vote on who should be Prime Minister, as happens in the Scottish Parliament and Senedd. The government's majority would ensure in almost all cases that Parliament would select the same person as the governing party. This becomes somewhat more of an interesting proposal if coalitions or multi-party governments are in play but they're relatively rare beasts with our electoral system
@d a t green @lippyduck
⇧