|
« Dunces' corner
Main |
December 10, 2003
The new Jacobinism
Great letter in the Telegraph from law professor Sir John Baker (Constitutional creep) protesting that the full seriousness of the constitutional revolution entailed by the proposed axing of the Lord Chancellor and the imposition of a supreme court has simply not been properly understood. Key passage: 'The upper chamber of Parliament has been mangled without any overall plan for its future composition, at any rate not a plan that has been divulged to the public. The Cabinet no longer seems to govern collectively. The Civil Service has been increasingly sidelined, so that ministers now rely on partisan advisers and favourites who have no apparent expertise except in spin. 'Now it is the turn of the judiciary. No one questions that the judges of our superior courts are of the highest standard in the world and completely independent. So why change a system that works? It is said to be because it falls foul of a supposed doctrine of separation of powers. But the British constitution does not rest on a total separation of powers; if it did, we would not allow - let alone require - government ministers to sit in Parliament. 'The Lord Chancellor does not act as a party politician when selecting judges, but is bound by his oath and by the high traditions of his office to shoulder a personal responsibility for one of the most important functions in the land. The abolition of his office was self-evidently decided on without Civil Service advice, or competent legal advice, or indeed any serious reflection on the consequences; and yet the Government says the decision is not open to challenge. 'In place of the Lord Chancellor, we are to have a semi-autonomous quango, appointed (on one model) by the Government, subject to instructions from the Government - for instance, about "representativeness", a new and dangerous concept in relation to the higher judiciary - and perhaps even reporting to a party politician, who in making final decisions as an ordinary minister will be free from the traditional constraints that bind the Lord Chancellor. How is that an improvement? How will that secure an independent judiciary to protect our liberties and our human rights?' How indeed. The intention is, of course, precisely the opposite -- to bring the judges under political control. The great question is whether the Lords themselves will activate their role as constitutional guardians of last resort and stop it, along with that other even more fundamental assault on British independence itself, the EU constitution. Posted by melanie at December 10, 2003
Comments
Lord Woolf made a speech on similar lines in Israel. The Blair regime is attempting a coup d'etat just as Hitler did in subverting the Presidency and Gleichschaltung of the federal states making them subservient to Berlin in new Gua; with the Prussian State Police the Gestapo under Goering extending throughout Germany. Blair is acting outside the boundaries of legality and legitimacy. Lloyd George had 2 elections in 1910 to get a mandate for Lords reform......Blair should call a general election...he has no mandate. Posted by: John of Gaunt at December 10, 2003 11:55 AMWhy do you call Sir John a constitutional creep? He seems to talk perfect sense to me! :-) Posted by: chris at December 10, 2003 03:07 PMThe fascination of Blair lies in the tension between the average and the pathological as revealed, respectively, by his public image and political reality. One scarcely expected that the former could survive scrutiny for so long. That it has - and he still enjoys good ratings - is a depressing comment on public suggestibility. Some consolation, then, that when the tension eventually resolves itself, as it must, there will no median point at which opinion may stick. The moment we cease to believe in Blair the ordinary sort of guy we are bound to see Blair the power-hungry manipulator. Posted by: Guessedworker at December 10, 2003 05:46 PMGiven the choice: If I were innocent of charges, I would prefer to have my ultimate fate in the hands of a more-or-less unbribable coterie of disinterested soi disant aristocrats with property one of whom was Jeffrey Archer and many of whom don funny costumes from time-to-time. But if I were guilty I would prefer a lot of New Labour types. Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at December 10, 2003 06:14 PMGuessedworker, I have never yet met anyone the length and breadth of the country who likes Tony Blair.......I try to meet a croos-section on long-distance trains, shopping centres etc.....but I cannot validate these opinion polls (on much at all).......I just wonder if they make their 1000 phone calls to the same random selection at Labour HQ ? Posted by: John of Gaunt at December 11, 2003 11:40 AMJ.O.G, That's quite true. Likewise, I've never met a working man of English stock from whom one could not tease some surprisingly colourful views on immigration and multiculturalism. But they put up with it in the profoundest of silences all the same. Public opinion is a performing lion. As regards opinion of Blair we seem to be travelling an overhang which may or may not be in imminent danger of collapse. Eventually, collapse it must. Gordon Brown's reputation is in already plummeting. The thin veneer of "the prudent Chancellor" no longer supports the reality of traditional Labour tax & spend. And we still have 18 months to run! A marginal by-election in the first half of next year might be highly provident for the Tories. Posted by: Guessedworker at December 12, 2003 10:19 AMI always had to laugh at Brown calling himself the "iron Chancellor"....it is just how Labour's first Chancellor Philip Snowden described himself. He abolished in 1924, the Corporation Tax Austen Chamberlain had introduced in the previous Conservative Government ! Posted by: John of Gaunt at December 13, 2003 07:34 AMThey're doing the same here too with our so called Supreme Court. It's uncanny that things like this like many other threads of society being unwound are happening together in different parts of the world. almost like a conspiracy? Mike NZ Posted by: Mike NZ at December 15, 2003 01:47 AMMorality by consensus is frequently morality by convenience. Posted by: Nielsen Lief at January 26, 2004 06:56 PM |
