Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

Dissolution on 55%

There is a good deal of political, academic and legal noise building up over this. If you take it literally as an unchangeable statute, it is unsustainable. If you treat it as a current plan to guide the Prime Minister, who by moving to a fixed term Parliaments of 5 years has given up his right to seek a dissolution early, on what to do if a dissolution is after all the best course, then it is fine but pointless.

 This is because there is a difference between a Constiutional Convention for which there is no established mechanism to vary (a written Constitution would provide for ammendments subject to conditions of approval) and Laws or Stautes, which can be varied at any time. Thus it is certainly within Cameron’s remit as Prime minister, invested with all the Royal Prerogative powers, to push  a  Bill through both Houses saying that he will not ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament unles 55% of the Commons tell him to, but this could be overturned by another variation at any time. The idea of a fixed term parliament is that it cannot be dissolved early otherwise there would be no point in it.  

The only person, in fact, in law and under whatever Constitution we do actually have, with the power to dissolve parliament is the Queen. She can do this whenever she likes. In practice she does it only if asked to do so by Her Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does so only if an opportunity for a renewed mandate is spotted or if the five year term runs out and is not extended by both the Commons and Lords voting for an extension. If a law is passed removing the power of the Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Prerogative, it does not mean that the said Royal Prerogative ceases to exist.

It is in these arguments that the extraordinary constitutional position of this country is laid bare. There is much talk that Parliament is Sovereign. In a democracy the People are Sovereign. Our country was, is and remains a Monarchy. In a Monarchy, the monarch, only the monarch, is Sovereign. A whole plethora of customs and practices dilute that sovereignty and lend it to a parliament, elected by the people. It is high time that all of this was written down and approved by the people. A written Constitution cannot be long delayed. 

Meanwhile the declaration by this brave new coalition government that it will press on for five years and pass a bill to that effect is welcome. It can reach whatever agreement it wishes between the participating parties concerning its own break-up. It cannot legally bind Parliament itself on the matter of its dissolution, simply because Parliament has no power in the matter whatsoever. That remains, whatever it does, with the Queen. She will act only upon the advice of her Prime Minister. Whoever he or she is. Parliament can restrain that person, but not empower them. Power, all of it, comes from the Queen. 

This is what a Monarchy is. It is also why many countries prefer a Republic.

Foreign Policy

William Haig is off to the US immediately to meet Hilary Clinton for talks. This is very good news. Hilary should be impressed. Haig has the potential to be the best British foreign secretary for some time. This blog has always followed the theme of my book to urge a more independent foreign policy than that of the New Labour era, which is less focussed on the U.S. Present circumstances demand some revision of that position.

Obama and Clinton are steadily gaining in prestige and the U.S is now following a more enlightened and pragmatic foreign policy that for decades. This is very good news and already tensions are easing. However in the U.S itself there is still a neo-con agenda, there are woeful voices like Palin and Bolton still to be heard, all proclaiming a message which is simplistic, naive and dangerous in equal measure. Obama and the voices of reason need unstinting support.  We should now offer that, coupled with realistic appraisal of what can and cannot be done in the areas of difficulty and in particular those where troops of both nations sacrifice their lives daily. 

America has become more relaxed with Russia and we should follow suit and find an end to the spat over Litvinenko’s murder, even if we have to agree to differ. Israel is no longer getting a free ride in Washington and we should support that. We should kick out Blair from his Middle East role where he is a complete waste of time and put in somebody who can get some progress. 

We must talk about Afghanistan very seriously. The present policy is very similar to the Russians’, which failed and the American policy in Vietnam, which failed there. The idea that the Afghanistan is prevented from going over to Al Qaeda is futile. If we sterilize Afghanistan they go into Pakistan and destabilise that rather fragile nuclear power, or off they go to regroup in Yemen or wherever.  Moreover the Karzai government is impossibly corrupt, delivers rotten government and will be overthrown as soon as we leave by the Taliban, aided by the security forces we have trained and equipped, who will follow tradition and change sides. There is no mileage in the current  policy which is not a realistic strategy. It is wishful thinking. It is not worth brave lives. New thinking is needed.

The Constitution.

Both in my book, in this blog and in a separate campaign, most of which through lack of media interest goes on behind the scenes, I have pressed for a clearer understanding of our Constitution and ultimately one which is written down. Some controversey is now breaking out over the coalition proposal to introduce a 55% rule to dissolve parliament.

Parliament has no power to dissolve itself, by whatever method or vote. The plain fact of the matter is this country is presently structured as a monarchy with absolute power. That power is then delegated to the monarch’s government. The government must have the backing of parliament, either because it has a majority, or because the majority allows it to govern. It has become customary for the Queen and her modern predecessors to grant a Prime Minister’s request for dissolution. This is made either if the government loses a vote of confidence or if the government sees potential electoral advantage in going to the country for a new mandate.

The introduction of fixed term parliaments, as opposed to the current arrangement of parliaments with a maximum term, creates a situation where governments can change without a dissolution. This means that a loss of a confidence vote by one party or coalition of parties, would not cause the Queen to summon a new parliament, merely to summon a different member of parliament who could command a majority, to form a new government. This government would serve only until the end of the fixed term.

In present circumstances it is possible to envisage a situation where over the first two years or so with a raft of very unpoular measures arising from the extremity of the economic crisis, ten bye-elections occur in which Labour gains all the seats from the Tories. Labour would be then be able, in coalition with the Lib Dems, the SDLP and the Alliance to have a majority and form a government. This would  require the Lib Dems to change sides, unlikely now, but possible in theory. This provides the tension and drives up the standards of government, again in theory, of mixed party government. Willi Brandt’s first Social Democrat government in West Germany came to power when the Free Democrats, in coalition with the Christian Democrats, changed sides.

With a fixed term parliament, the question arises as to whether it should have the power to dissolve itself at all. I am not sure it should. If it did the mechanism has to be some sort of vote that requires the prime minister and the government to resign and go to the Queen for dissolution. The government itself should fall on a simple majority of one vote. If Parliament is to deny itself the right to form another government, there surely has to be a  sizable majority of turkeys voting for Christmas. The Coalition proposes 55%.  It is a good point. It may not get through. It is doubtful whether it would be Constitutional anyway. Maybe the answer is to have a fixed term parliament without the provision of self dissolution. After all, in law, the Queen has the right and the power to dissolve parliament whenever the fancy takes her.

Hitherto she and her forbears have done this only when her Prime Minister has requested this.The time has perhaps come to end that arrangement altogether. If the power of self dissolution is given to parliament it may be wiser to go with the arrangement for keeping parliament sitting, as in 1940, when the general election  was postponed until the end of the war in 1945. For Parliament to extend itself, a clear majority is required in both Houses, Commons and Lords. It would be neat to have the same provision to end itself. 

In practice the two party system creates a kind of tribalism which drifts far from the needs of good  government and the aspirations of the governed. Once there are more than two parties in play, loyalty is driven much more by objectives and outcomes. This is a more vibrant model of democracy and engages the participation of the governed in a  more specific way which is much more judgemental of the politicians themselves. Politicians will not like it, because they will be judged on what they do, more than what they are.

Our Constitution is flexible enough to cope with this, largely because so long as the Queen agrees, it can do almost anything, and she will agree if parliament approves. Missing from this equation are the people. They have no clear protection of their democratic rights nor any clear definition of what they are. All they have is a franchise of who can vote and a maximum length of time between being given those opportunities. This is why we need Constitutional, Political and Electoral reform. The responsibility to oversee this has been given to the Deputy Prime Minister. Nick Clegg has a lot to do.