It's often said that Britain relies on a "good chaps theory of government": that the British constitution only works if operated by "good chaps", who choose to obey the rules.
"Far from trusting politicians to be “good chaps,” British politics was once on a hair-trigger for bad or unconstitutional behaviour". As Lord Acton put it in 1887, “Great men are almost always bad men”. And the presumption of wrongdoing should “increase as the power increases”.
"The problem today is not that leaders have ceased to be “good chaps,” but that we no longer seem to care when they behave badly". We have lost our sense that "bad chaps" matter: and that it is our responsibility to police their conduct.
"The problem is less one of “constitutions” than of “constitutionalism”: a reluctance to uphold constitutional norms and punish those who break them". So long as “bad chaps” win elections, too many seem happy to indulge them.
"Bad chaps are a feature, not a bug, of constitutional govt; & the best preservative is a public that is intolerant of abuses of power. It was a lesson that was understood by previous generations, steeped in the dangers of “bad kings” & tyrants. It is one we'd be wise to relearn"
This article, on the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, raises a question that needs more public discussion: who wields the historic powers of the Crown once the monarchy is no longer politically active? Should there be *any* limit on their use by a prime minister? THREAD
2. Some of the highest powers of the British state still technically belong to the Crown: from declaring war & making treaties to suspending Parliament. Those powers are now exercised "on the advice of the PM". But they do not *belong* to the PM, & might, in theory, be withheld.
3.For example: the 1950 "Lascelles Principles" set out three conditions under which a monarch might refuse to dissolve Parliament (a "Royal Prerogative" pre-2011). Others might include "when the Oppn is in the middle of a leadership contest" or "when electoral fraud is suspected"
"The politics of support have trumped the politics of power to such an extent that the Conservative Party has broken with almost everything it might once have seemed to be its function to defend". Richard Vinen on "The Conservative Nation" since 1974. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
Lots to think about in this essay. How did the "politics of support" go from being a vehicle for "the politics of power" to subsuming it altogether? A leadership class drawn from PR/the media, with very short careers & little prior experience of govt, must be important here.
Or is it inevitable in democracies - in which "power" depends on the organisation of electoral "support" - that the boundary between them will eventually collapse: that parties will stop thinking of campaigning as a means to power & start regarding govt as a tool for campaigning?
Lying to Parliament was once thought to be among the most serious offences any Member could commit. That's why the *allegation* of lying was treated with such severity.
Now that the sanction against lying has collapsed, punishing the allegation simply protects the offender.
A culture in which ministers can lie with impunity, while MPs are punished for calling them out, is manifestly absurd. If the House will not punish dishonesty - which would be the best solution - it must stop pretending it never happens.
Above all, our democracy needs to stop treating those who lie as roguish scamps, scrumping apples from the orchard. To quote @OborneTweets, "political lying is a form of theft. It means voters make democratic judgments on the basis of falsehoods. Their rights are stripped away".
"No prime minister of modern times has been so deeply rooted in the Establishment. None has been so routinely tipped for greatness. And yet few retain such an enduring air of mystery".
Comparisons between Blair and Cameron were always overblown. Unlike the Labour leader, Cameron was not temperamentally drawn to change.
"Cameron had secured for his party "the right to be heard". But having cleared its throat and stepped up to the microphone, it appeared to have nothing much to say". It was the financial crisis of 2008 that was to give Cameronism the purpose it had previously lacked.
Can "everyday politics" breathe new life into the Left, in an age of populism & popularisation? Really interesting discussion on the @MileEndInst podcast, featuring @colm_m, @mds49 & @ea_robinson, inspired by Marc Stears' recent book: "Out of the Ordinary" anchor.fm/mile-end-insti…
As @mds49 noted, one challenge for the Left is that it rightly wants to talk about big ideas & heroic changes; but as soon as it does that, it risks becoming detached from the experience & language of normal life. I wondered whether there's a longer-term reason for that?[cont...]
Fighting breaks out in the House of Commons in 1893. The newly-elected Labour MP, Keir Hardie, describes the scene for the papers.
"As for Mr Gladstone, he was pallid to the lips. To him it must have been as the desecration of the Ark of the Covenant to Moses of old."
Conservative MP Ernest Beckett: "‘I seized one of them [the Irish Members], at which three others threw themselves upon me and by sheer weight of numbers bore me to the floor … A general mêlée began, members striking out wildly at each other". Hardie takes up the tale...
The Unionist Edward Carson thought a Radical had started it, and blamed Gladstone. Conservatives accused the PM of failing to step in and stop the fighting. (Spoiler: he was 83 years old).