Skip to main content

Johnson's dangerous game

Our executive is answerable to parliament. That is how our system works. We meddle with it at our peril. Boris Johnson has stepped over a line by preventing Parliament from holding him to account, while his government make momentous decisions that will affect all our lives for decades. Boris is not a President, and we are not a Republic. This is why behaving like Trump is unsuitable for our system. Boris is not a President. He is not a head of state. No MP and no Prime Minister should be above the laws made by parliament. Looking for technical dodges to circumvent the will of parliament disrespects our constitution. Whatever our views on Brexit are, we must not allow them to destroy the legislative principles so many have fought for in the past.

The United Kingdom has been plunged into a constitutional crisis.   A minority government with no mandate to govern, propped up by the DUP, has effectively stymied debate.  Proroguing parliament for no other reason than preventing it from holding his government to account is a travesty of the conventions of our unwritten constitution.   Sadly, the country is so divided on Brexit that it colours our reaction to this travesty.  

Views divide on Leave vs Brexit sides.  That is dangerous.  It is like saying, as long as I agree with the policies pursued by the government then they can ride roughshod over our constitution.   One day we will awake to find that the very parliament we need is gone.  The government can no longer be held to account.   

When we see governments abroad suspending parliaments our government, of whatever hue, usually condemns it.   Yet, effectively that is what this government has done.  It has suspended parliament and prevented it doing its job of scrutiny.   For a few weeks, the government has taken all power.  MPs have had to wrestle information from the executive about the consequences of leaving with no-deal.  Information the government sought to deny the people's right to know.  

The United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution and largely it runs on conventions and Acts of Parliament.  Crucially Parliament can only work by cooperation on the agenda, with the government and opposition ensuring time is made available for scrutiny and debate.  There is no single Act of Parliament that specifies the role of Prime Minister.   A Prime Minister does not have a personal mandate over and above that of the political parties or Parliament. 

The Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game when he seeks to set 'the people' against their elected representatives, and also against the judiciary when it seeks to uphold the rule of law and the sovereignty of parliament.  It also sets people against people, and it brooks no compromise let alone disagreement.  It sets those who disagree as 'the enemy of the people'.  It is the stuff of Stalin and Hitler, not of our parliamentary democracy.  

We are heading for a general election. The likely outcome is another hung parliament.  Political parties are jockeying for position. Already they are setting out their red lines on who they would or would not do a deal with.  Thus, the LibDems say they would never do a deal with Labour. They set themselves up as the 'pure' remain party with a likely commitment to revoke article 50 and stop Brexit.  Alas, this solves no problem.  The LibDems are unlikely to be in a position to enforce such legislation.  It is yet another divisive statement digging us further into our trenches.  No doubt, voters will be once again bewildered by the inability of MPs across the parties, unable to agree and unable to find a compromise. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha