Constitutional Change: Who Gains? Who Loses?

Last night over 200 Hansard Society supporters gathered in Westminster to debate Constitutional Change: Who Gains? Who Loses? On the panel was Graham Allen MP, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, David Howarth MP and Sir George Young MP. The panel discussed how far we have come and where we need to go to encourage greater public participation and open up our political system.

First up was Professor Vernon Bogdanor, highlighting the key themes of his recently published work The New British Constitution. Professor Bogadnor was keen to point out the importance of the constitutional question in the upcoming General Election; a question that he feels is too often missed by public debate. Professor Bogdanor noted that although it has happened in a ‘very British, piecemeal manner’ a great deal has changed since 1997, citing devolution and the Human Rights Act to name but two examples. The principle theme of Professor Bogdanor’s argument looked to limitations on Government, suggesting that the House of Commons is now far more rebellious than ever before, acting as an effective check on the executive. However, he was also keen to note that Parliament remains ‘a house without windows’ and the future of constitutional change must be pushed forward by popular momentum.

David Howarth MP provided, by his own admission, a gloomier outlook. Mr Howarth did concede that the autonomy of the judiciary is now more assured and less ‘political’. However he claimed that ‘we are nowhere with the House of Lords’. On the question of electoral reform he took a firm stance against the introduction of primaries suggesting that such a move would merely exacerbate our ‘spectator democracy’, one akin to the X Factor; people look in and make judgements without actively participating in the process. Mr Howarth suggested what we need is to encourage discussion and dialogue, talking to one another to reach ‘creative solutions to existing problems’. In response to a question on powers of scrutiny Mr Howarth was highly critical of Parliament’s inability to scrutinise spending before it happens, a process that is essentially the basis of policy making. He therefore concluded that ‘parliament is not effectively engaged in policy making’.

Graham Allen MP was equally dissatisfied with the ‘classical British incrementalism’ that has prevented meaningful constitutional reform. Citing his personal experience under both Blair and Brown he noted that governments don’t get more radical in power, they get less so. Mr Allen thus referred to the lack of separation of powers, the ‘tyranny of the executive’ and a state where ‘we are not even trusted to have an independent local government’. The thrust of Mr Allen’s argument was a drive towards pluralism and greater autonomy at a regional level. He noted that this is not ‘dry constitutionalism’ but the ‘lifeblood of our democracy’.

Sir George Young MP discussed the future of constitutional change under a Conservative government, admitting his own disappointment in the Constitutional Reform Bill. Sir George challenged David Howarth MP, stating that he believed primaries to be of great value, broadening the base of the party and offering an opportunity for necessary restructuring. Sir George was in agreement with the panel that there was indeed ‘unfinished business’ when it came to the House of Lords, stating he was in favour of a predominantly elected second chamber and that the adoption of (should this say one-term?) term peers would be a stepping stone towards effective reform. Further changes under a Conservative government would take the form of greater flexibility for Committees, a refinement of policy on the West Lothian Question, rebalancing the inequity of the current system.

Leave us your thoughts on the event or constitutional issues in general below. Please read the rules of commenting here and please note that comments are moderated between 10am-4pm.