I am returning to a theme which has been a long held view, about the modern ultra neutral and detached role of the Monarch in the political life of the State. Whilst dominant in the ceremonial spectaculars and traditional rituals, the Queen is now by consent debarred from taking any but a supportive role in the Kingdom’s political life.
When we had a simple adversarial system with two dominant parties, with parliamentary power somewhat restricted by Executive control, i.e the government, including the ability of the prime minister to ask for parliament to be dissolved and an election called, the conventions worked well. Indeed during the Queen’s reign she has allowed her grip to loosen to enhance the level of democracy.
However if we go back to the crisis of 1930/31 we find George V playing a proactive role in organising cross party discussions which led to the setting up of the National government. The reason for that was the rise of the Labour party, but not to majority level, and the existence of both the Liberals and the Conservatives. In other words a three, not two party split. So somebody neutral had to herd the politicians to do their job.
This is common across the world where parliamentary republics have a non executive president as head of state. Indeed in the Commonwealth, the old dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand continue to recognize the Queen as head of state. Her representatives, the governors general, can and do lead such discussions when called for, as well as formally swear in prime ministers and occasionally dismiss them.
In the UK we now have a parliament which contains not only the two main parties, Labour and Conservative, but also nationalist parties from each of the countries of the UK, plus the Lib Dems and the Greens. Various adjustments have been made at the margin to our entrenched conventions, which have reduced the power of the executive and enhanced the power of parliament. This is not a bad thing in principle as the House of Commons is directly elected by universal franchise and the government is not.
However when the government has no majority and cannot get its legislation through the parliament as now, whilst able to cobble together a majority to win a confidence vote to keep itself in office, things are no longer working. Add to that, which ought to be bad enough, a parliament split in all directions and across party lines by the issue of the day, so that it can unite sufficient for a majority only on what it is against but not what it is for. The moment has surely come for someone to blow a whistle.
But the UK is in the absurd position that nobody is now empowered by the constitution to do that, or not in a timely fashion, if the Supreme Court has crossed your mind. So within the framework of democracy we must now either empower the monarch to exercise limited enabling actions to ensure the maintenance of effective government, or appoint some other officer to do that. In other words a political head of state, perhaps elected by the Commons and confirmed by the Lords and, like the PM, appointed by the Queen, with powers similar to her Governors General.
The alternative is to scrap the Fixed Term Parliament Act, another Cameron stupidity which seemed a good idea at the time, and return to the PM having the power to ask for a dissolution to trigger a general election, plus restoring the rule of the government automatically falling if it is defeated on flagship legislation in the Commons. That would restore the authority of the prime minister over the cabinet, as well as the power of parliament over the government. Although by defuse means they are still there in theory, in practice, as we can see now, they are neither of them fit for purpose.