You may wonder why political parties publish manifestos, or publish manifestos that contain such a wealth of detail. Primarily of course these are election pledges to the voters - a written contract, if you like. They are also a 'here I stand ...' document, committing the leader and every parliamentary candidate to a slate of policies. They are as well tick lists of measures pitched so electors may balance personal costs and benefits. Yes, they are all those things.
But this detailed Conservative manifesto is, I suggest, something more. We have a House of Lords, deeply hostile to Brexit, an upper chamber that is utterly unrepresentative of public opinion, a chamber that has been subject to 'state capture'. Whatever government takes the reins on December 13th, it faces getting a legislative programme through the Lords. And here is where the title of the post comes in. The Commons itself says
The Salisbury-Addison Convention is a parliamentary convention to which the House of Lords has adhered since 1945 ... The House of Lords should not reject at second reading any government legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons and that carries out a manifesto commitment. In the House of Lords, a manifesto bill:And that is one reason why so much is crammed into manifestos. Boris makes no specific commitment to reform or abolish the Lords in the manifesto, but, after the disaster that Bercow has proved to our democratic institutions, and after the vexatious abuse of lawfare by Gina Miller and others to subvert democratic legitimacy, the Conservatives make a clear pledge
- is accorded a second reading;
- is not subject to ‘wrecking amendments’ which change the Government’s manifesto intention as proposed in the bill; and
- is passed and sent (or returned) to the House of Commons, so that they have the opportunity, in reasonable time, to consider the bill or any amendments which the House of Lords may wish to propose.
After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.So whilst there is no clear conclusion on what should be done about the Lords (and we all know that something needs to be done) they will face a level of scrutiny they have not faced under any government since the evolution of the Salisbury-Addison convention in 1945.
There is a warning here for the wreckers, the abusers, the illiberals and the anti-democrats. Our unwritten constitution is likely to be robust enough to renew and reform itself endogenously, from within. Wellington's rope harness.
Whilst I'm not shedding luvvie tears of wonder like Lily Allen over this document, it really is a winner - and contains also clear and specific measures for electoral and administrative reform and other things that I will look at in detail over the week. I commend it to you.
17 comments:
So this is wallpaper then Raedwald, since there has been no marked improvement in the performance of either house during the ensuing period. Indeed, I would say that they have both been pursuing an ever more absurd trajectory.
The only way to ensure that these people stay true is to hold a great big stick, called "direct democracy" and be willing to use it.
The Brexit Party has such a contract, as do the Gilet Jaunes, but of course the big parties like the Tory party cannot possibly allow "ordinary people" tio have power over their own lives...
That would never do.
As the High Court made clear 15 years ago over the Lisbon Treachery, the electorate has NO RIGHT to expect Manifesto "Promises" to be kept and implemented.
When the crosses are dry, they can scrap the lot.
I'm pleased to say that Mr Farage is fully behind the Conservative manifesto - "Nigel Farage praises a Tory manifesto he can finally approve of" - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7720845/Nigel-Farage-praises-Tory-manifesto-finally-approve-of.html
The significant difference though is that the tories say they want to do this stuff to us, where as Nigel says we should do some of the same stuff together.
This is the significant difference between the two....
As for the similarities...
What Nigel said.
Updating of the Human Rights Act is only possible because of rulings by the ECHR.
A recent one would, for instance, allow for the right to a private and family life to be amended to the effect that it does not prevent the State from expelling those, where appropriate, who are convicted of non-trivial offences.
The rest, is, as expected, an attempt to turn government into more of an elected dictatorship than it already is.
Given that it will almost always be returned on less than half of the vote, claims by anyone that it would be defending democracy are contemptible, therefore.
JPM...the great defender of democracy that you are...did you write that tongue in cheek ?
Jaded
@JPM
"Given that it will almost always be returned on less than half of the vote, claims by anyone that it would be defending democracy are contemptible, therefore."
Like the 51.9% who voted to leave? That democracy?
"Primarily of course these are election pledges to the voters - a written contract, if you like. "
Which it has been established in English law, are not worth the paper they are written on.
Ah! I see DeeDee makes the same point.
@DeeDee99
Indeed, manifestos have no legal status as contracts - but they do provide a retrospective snapshot to judge a political party's time in office for the next election.
What would be beneficial is more attention to be paid by pundits to past performance rather than breathless support or condemnation for future vague promises.
I don't know whether Raed is enthused or deluded! Show me ONE old manifesto that has been implemented to even 50% of the promises made let alone fully.
Similarly the Tory manifesto simply gives credence to those with the power to arrange that power to their own liking. I have every doubt the whole idea of Parliamentary reform will be swept aside - if not with immediate effect then with slow, but then real speed, shortly after the Tories take office.
No-one shits in their own back yard.
But the Brexit Party have less 'form' than the 99% of career politicians we see in Parliament and the BXP promises for change don't/won't affect their status as 'new' party members so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Given the 'manifesto' for Parliamentary change as it stands I could support it if the BXP were instigating it but stand seriously pessimistic of the Tories making any progress with it.
Don't forget, the 'great Tory leader' (Cameron) promised that the result of Brexit would be upheld regardless of the result - that's not a difficult thing to achieve but look at the right balls-up (deception) they made of THAT. And you think the new Tory manifesto has 'value'?????
FFS.
The good thing about the Tory manifesto is not the things they have promised to do, which seem mostly reasonable, but the crazy schemes that they have not promised and the others have.
All I want is a reasonably sensible government led by a good manager who is not afraid to pick a strong team.
Don Cox
Having been interested in democratic reform for many years, I recommend the demands of the Harrogate Agenda be enacted. It's obvious to me that we cannot trust people to run our country using the current levels of accountability.
I think the important point made in this piece is not that we can expect many, or even any, of the promises to be kept. Rather that it give a new government a big club, which it can use to beat down opposition to any reform it tries to make.
If absolute freedom of speech were proposed, as the Americans enjoy, who could oppose it? What could their reasoning be?
Unless there is another vote, which is won by those who want to Remain in the European Union, then the UK should definitely leave, I'd say, DJ.
But governments have never been elected with more than half the vote for decades now.
How many times?
The Harrogate Agenda implies a "Superconstitution", untouchable by any accountable authority, and above the proposed one, which consists simply of the prejudices of those who wrote it.
It is absolute bollocks, therefore.
JPM said...
How many times?
The Harrogate Agenda implies a "Superconstitution", untouchable by any accountable authority, and above the proposed one, which consists simply of the prejudices of those who wrote it.
It is absolute bollocks, therefore.
THA proposes codifying our unwritten constitution. Certain things need to be put beyond the power of parliament such as constitutional amendment, just as in the US. The FTPA should never have happened. I'd also state that parliament should not have the power to delegate its powers to another legislature such as the EU. All the abuses we've been subjected to were written in Locke's Treaties. We have learned nothing.
Post a Comment