,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Corbyn & May have one big thing in common, which is at the core of our current problems: both draw their authority from a vote outside Parliament, & regard decisions by MPs that conflict with it as illegitimate. In a parliamentary constitution, that's a recipe for chaos. [THREAD]
2. For May, legitimacy comes from (her interpretation of) the referendum. So it was simply an irrelevance when MPs refused to endorse her deal. For Corbyn, "the mandate" comes from Labour members. So when MPs voted "no confidence" in his leadership, that, too, was an irrelevance.
3. Both leaders embody intellectual traditions dismissive of parliament: for May, an authoritarian populism that pits "the will of the people" against MPs; for Corbyn, a Bennite tradition that sought "a new popular democracy" to replace "parliamentary democracy as we know it".
4. The problem is that, in a parliamentary system, governing requires MPs to do things. The Leave vote or the Corbyn project can only be enacted by legislation. So MPs have to be beaten into line: by delaying votes, mobilizing the Cyber-Corbz, or unleashing The Canary/Daily Mail.
5. So the governing philosophy of both party leaderships makes the kind of assault May launched on Parliament yesterday, or the firestorm directed at Luciana Berger & co, a structural feature of British politics. Intimidating Parliament is now almost a necessary part of governing
6. That's why I respectfully disagree with those who deny that this is a "constitutional crisis". The British constitution is an amalgam of practices and assumptions, not just a set of institutions. And the assumptions of those who have to work the system have radically changed.
7. Our institutions are currently almost unworkable. If we want to fix that, we need major institutional change: either to the state, institutionalising the personal mandates claimed by leaders (perhaps in a directly-elected executive), or to the parties, restoring control to MPs
8. Politicians are trying to force a representative, parliamentary democracy to function like a plebiscitary, presidential system. It is an attempt that can only end in gridlock and constitutional conflict. We may be only in the foothills of a new and ugly political order. [ENDS]
