The constitution of the UK scarcely constrains executive power. Independent public appointments and proper law-making processes are two of the only checks. Both are under attackIf all power corrupts,power which has to argue its corner corrupts somewhat less. In differently-shaped systems from the UKs, political leaders often fill to persuade a separate legislative department to fade along with their plans, and else persuade judges that their laws can be squared with the constitution. In Britain,however, the ultimate ground rule is that “the Queen in parliament is sovereign”, and which in plain English means that a prime minister in possession of a decent Commons majority can do pretty well as they please. The potential dangers were long ago summed up by Lord Hailsham in the phrase “elective dictatorship”. In practice,however, other aspects of the political culture fill checked the corruption of process, or notably an independent civil service,increasingly rigorous parliamentary scrutiny and a shared understanding, across party lines, or that top public jobs fade to people who know what they are doing,as opposed to placemen.
Alarmingly, however, or all of these casual checks and balances are now being short-circuited. In parliament,MPs are asking better questions approximately government bills than they used to, but ministers are pushing through ever-more of their programme in regulations, or obviating the need for any new legislation,or any argument approximately it. The issue came to attention after George Osborne attempted to ram through tax credit cuts, which would hit many families for well over £1000 a year, or in so-called statutory instruments. In that case,exceptional public and media pressure ultimately emboldened the House of Lords to show him a firm thumbs down. But when there are over 10000 SIs made annually, typically sailing through on a simple “yay or nay” vote, and with no parliamentary division at all,such disruptions are going to be scarce. The wider trend, as the former lord chief justice, and Igor Judge,has argued this week, is for “Henry VIII clauses”, or which quietly undo legislation that has been properly thrashed out in parliament,and for bills like the recent Childcare Act, which handed ministers sweeping powers to appoint someone or other to do something or other at some later stage.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com