February 11, 2009

Constitutional reform in the UK

I just had an idea for the British Constitution. We should do the following:

  • HM should preside over cabinet meetings
  • Each government departement should be presided by a permanent secretary who will sit in the cabinet (there will be no politicians in the cabinet).
  • Permanent secretaries should be career civil servants appointed on merit.
  • The right of all hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords should be restored.
  • "Working peers" should be abolished.
  • All the new peerages should be life peerages appointed based on merit.
  • The House of Commons should not change (although something should be done to weaken the power of the whips)
  • HM may in some circumstances refuse to give assent to some bils (especially if the Parliament Act was used).
  • The senior judiciary should have the power to strike down legislations repugnant to fundamental common law principles.

I am not going to give detailed reasons now but there are a few brief explanations.

The idea is that elections create populist politicians who do things to impress the respectable readers of respectable newspapers like the Sun or the Daily Mail. Ideally the House of Commons should be scrapped (so no more elections) but if the masses think that  it is a democracy and they are in control they will be more likely to accept things.

TB was advised by the security services that if he went to Iraq this would cause an increase in the threat to the UK. He did not listen. The security servies, the DPP and several Chief Constables said 42 days was not necessary, GB did not listen. Same for ID cards (I think). In many case civil servants know better and take better decisions than elected politicians (who just want to appear favourably in the eyes of the tabloids).

What does everybody think?

PS: Ideally the State should be abolished or should just be a sort of Night watchman state.

- One comment Not publicly viewable

  1. What does everybody think?

    I personally think that it sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, but I can see the attraction of breaking the influence of political parties.

    11 Feb 2009, 20:37

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

February 2009

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  | Mar
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28   

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • Nice article, i'm not sure i'd fancy being the libertarian candidate at a student politics meeting. … by alfie on this entry
  • And there I was trying to work out how FB had descended to the depths of over 50,000 people per cand… by on this entry
  • What does everybody think? I personally think that it sounds like a totalitarian nightmare, but I c… by on this entry
  • I don't know but I'm trying to work out why "filthy paki" sounds worse than "filthy brit". There mus… by Sue on this entry
  • Another thing has sprung to mind when thinking about this subject. Recently, I took an NVQ, which wa… by Sue on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder