The British Gazette

The above is a print of the first reformed parliament following the Great Reform Act of 1832.
The constitution of the United Kingdom has not only been breached; it has been broken. Many times and in many places. The original breach occurred long before the present traitors (Brown, Miliband et al) were born. The first major breach occurred as long ago as 1911 when King George V misguidedly gave the Royal assent to the Parliament Act which reduced the powers of the House of Lords.

The Parliament Act of 1911 was the idea of the Asquith government. Frustrated – and quite justifiably so – by the unelected House of Lords rejecting the Finance Bill, the Liberals resolved to fix the problem by removing the Lords power of veto over the legislative process. This completely violated the constitution as the Bill of Rights is quite clear: the Monarch CANNOT enact ANY law without the CONSENT of Parliament. Parliament is defined as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons.

This brings us quickly to the whole nub of the issue. Consent. In the English Legal tradition going back to Saxon days before the Norman Conquest, for consent to be legally effective it MUST be both FREE and INFORMED. When “consent” is held by the courts as not being Free and/or Informed it is held to be NUL and VOID.

Consider this hypothetical situation:

You have gone to Tesco in your car and are walking back to it with a bag of groceries when a youth accosts you, pulls out knife and asks you for your car keys suggesting that you have a choice of handing him the said keys or having your throat cut! Naturally you will hand the youth the car keys! Now then, ask yourself this question. Did you freely give consent to the youth taking your car ?

The 1911 Parliament Act – and inter alia the Parliament Act of 1949 – are unconstitutional as they remove the ability of the Lords to give consent as the ability to freely give consent means also the ability to freely refuse consent.

This of course lands the county with a huge problem. Namely that as an unelected legislature the Lords can effectively block any measure the wholly elected Commons puts forward – including finance acts. A “convention” is not an abrogation or power – only a settled policy of not using the said power. A policy which can be revoked at any time.

Clearly, this was a most unsatisfactory situation in 1909 when the crisis was at its height and now 100 years later would be even more unacceptable to have a major “first world” power with only half a democracy!

The other breaches of the constitution (Declaration/Bill of Rights/Coronation Oath/Privy Council Oath) have already been detailed in previous articles. What the country needs – along with repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972 – is a new Bill of Rights. By that we do not mean an act of parliament of that name setting out a European style list of citizen’s rights. No. What we need is another treaty between the Queen, Parliament (House of Lords and Commons) and the British People. All four bodies must give their assent to it. The Queen by her actual signature. The Lords and the Commons by majority vote and the British People in a referendum. This of course must mean the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972 and also both Parliament Acts and also Blair’s legislation removing the right of hereditary peers to vote for the original constitution must be made valid before it can be changed.

What we suggest is that the new Bill of Rights should be essentially the same as the old except it be shorn of the anti Roman Catholic provisions and rhetoric but in addition dissolve the two ancient legislatures of the Lords and the Commons replacing them with a Legislative Council and National Assembly respectively. Both of these new bodies would be wholly elected and would both have equal power.

There is of course a clear potential political problem here. What we propose is to restore the House of Lords in both its powers and hereditary membership and then ask that it promptly dissolve itself. In order to ensure that this happens the traditional solution to overcome the Lords veto should be used – or threatened. That is to request the monarch create enough new peers to ensure that the vote is won. This of course is an extremely unsatisfactory solution but it currently is the only lawful solution. This is what would have happened had not King Edward VII had died in 1910. The other guilty party along with Asquith so far as the Parliament Act was concerned was King George V himself. George V was a Conservative supporter (although he endeavoured to be punctilious and impartial in his duties as King) and did not like the idea of large numbers of middle class Liberal peers in the Lords. The last time a government had to threaten the Lords with a mass ennoblement was in 1832 when the Tories objected to the Great Reform Act. The Tories relented under the threat. This however is no way to run a country.

There is of course a logical disparity here: if the Parliament Acts can be classed as invalidating the “freely given consent” of the Lords, cannot the same be said of a threat to create sufficient numbers of new peers to force a measure through ? It would appear so. However it has been the practise in the kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland from time immemorial that the Sovereign has the absolute right to create a peerage on whomsoever the Sovereign wishes. Remember it is the Sovereign, not Parliament who creates peers.

So, how should the new bicameral legislature be set up ?

We suggest that the National Assembly – which would sit in the same chamber as used today by the House of Commons – should consist of 56 nine member constituencies using the Single Transferable Vote electoral system. Nine members ensures a great deal of proportionality – minor parties are fairly represented.

Thus the 646 member House of Commons would be replaced with a 504 member National Assembly. The 142 fewer members would confer the following advantages:
Cost: Fewer MPs=Fewer expenses.
Effectiveness: That great parliamentarian the late Enoch Powell considered that a debating chamber such as the Commons should not exceed 500 members – as more would mean that it was difficult to get the Speaker’s eye.

There will however be certain difficulties with this as some of the 56 constituencies will be very large in sparsely populated places such as the Scottish Highlands. This aspect has been considered but it is felt that given that overall the United Kingdom is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet this should not prevent the adoption of an otherwise excellent system. The Single Transferable Vote is generally considered to be “the Rolls Royce” of fair voting systems.

Electing the National Assembly in this way will have one inevitable consequence. No one party will have an overall majority. This would mean that were the Queen to ask the leader of one of these parties to form a government it would be a coalition government. This of course is a major problem. It means that the electors will always get a compromise. That is generally felt (in most democratic countries outside the USA and UK) to be better than having one group of electors having their way over another group especially when the vote will have been distorted by a third party. The First Past the Post system currently used in the U.K. fails as it cannot fairly deal with three parties. In the USA where they effectively have two parties – Democrats and Republicans – the First Past the Post system works – and works well. In fact, Americans call the system “the two party system”. This emphasises the fact that the First Past the Post can only work fairly when there are only two parties.

We suggest that the limitations inherent in the 504 STV member National Assembly be addressed by electing a 252 member Legislative Council using the Second Ballot method of election. The 252 member Legislative Council would replace the House of Lords as the upper house and sit in the present Lords chamber (which can hold around 250).

The Second Ballot works as it is described. Voters go to the polls and vote for their preferred candidate. The candidate with the largest number of votes together with the candidate the second largest number of votes (the runner up) go into a second round (run off) election. The second round is in fact the First Past the Post but with only two candidates. The Legislative Council would have 252 single member constituencies across the UK which would assist people in sparsely populated areas such as the Scottish Highlands to have easier access of an elected representative.

In addition to these proposals we suggest some “twists”:

Firstly: we think that we should, in part “go back to the (long distant) past” so far as the Sovereign’s government is concerned and see to it that the Sovereign’s ministers are not members of the new lower house, the National Assembly that would replace the House of Commons. To a great extent this is the U.S. practise – the administration is separate from the Congress. However, whereas the U.S. President (whose role replaces that or monarch) is directly elected, our monarch is not. Furthermore there is great value in having government ministers held accountable in a debating chamber. We therefore propose that it be enshrined in the new treaty, “…..that the sovereign’s ministers be composed of members of the Legislative Council…..”
This would mean that British governments would very much carry on in a similar manner as before: that the sovereign would call upon the leader of the largest party in the Legislative Council to form a government. Under the new system, we propose that the Prime Minister hold the new title, President of the Executive Council. The Executive Council would be the government of the country. Such a government would have a clear majority in the Legislative Council which would enable it to get any propose legislation through this chamber.

Secondly: we reject – in part – the idea of fixed term parliaments. A Prime Minister always should have the right to decide when to “go to the country”. U.S. Presidents suffer from the “lame duck syndrome” – we do not want British Prime Ministers to suffer similarly. As a result the sovereign – acting on the advice of the Prime Minster – will have the power to dissolve the Legislative Council, thus bringing about an election. Furthermore we propose that the maximum term for the Legislative Council be set at seven years – as per the Septennial Act of 1715 – which would however be implicitly repealed by the replacement of Parliament being defined as Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons – with the Legislative Council and National Assembly. However, we propose that the National Assembly be set up differently, with a four year fixed terms. This would remove from the Sovereign the right to dissolve and recall this body. In this respect it would be independent of the sovereign. We propose that elections for the National Assembly be held on Midsummer’s Day (24th June) every Leap Year. This would mean that the elections could take place on any particular day of the week.

This would mean that over the course of its term, the Executive Council would likely be faced with a mid term election in the National Assembly. Furthermore due to the nature of the proportional voting system – STV – it is extremely unlikely that the Executive Council would have a majority in the assembly. This would mean that they would have to argue their case and or compromise – make deals and concessions. This of course is the inescapable price of proportional representation. This system would however mean that because the National Assembly would not be the chamber from which the government draws its mandate one of the biggest drawbacks to a parliamentary use of proportional representation would be avoided. That is where a minor party or parties, holding the balance of power can and do demand a seat or seats in governments and/or specific policy pledges from governments. This gives them an influence out of all proportion to the size of their vote. Under our proposed reforms this would not and could not happen. Having the National Assembly elected using the STV form of proportional representation however would stop the worst excesses of “the elective dictatorship” that is the current British parliamentary system.

Thirdly: So far as the two stage Legislative Council elections are concerned we feel that a further “twist” should be added. One of the problems in British Elections is low voter turnout. The Australian answer to this is compulsory voting. It works. Very much in the manner of the GATSO camera. Few motorists – save for those in foreign plated cars – will knowingly break the speed limit in front of a GATSO camera as they do not want a £60 fine and three penalty points. By the same measure few Australians fail to turn up at the polls of Election Day as they do not want to pay a fine. However, we do not propose making it compulsory for British Electors to vote in all three elections (National Assembly/Legislative Council 1st & 2nd rounds). Instead we propose that only the 2nd (final) round of the Legislative Council elections be made compulsory. This would in fact help the political process as the minor parties would realise that with a small voter turnout in the Legislative Council first round elections would give their candidate a greater possibility of coming second and therefore going through to the run off. This in fact happened in France when the Front National candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen got through to the second round as a result of a low poll.

Overall we feel that this new bicameral system would give the country a fully democratic system that would combine the advantages of a government with a clear majority in the Legislative Council but with the requirement to seek compromise and consensus from the National Assembly with its spread of parties.

Finally, there is another issue that needs to be addressed:

A big problem with British politics stems not from the way we elect our politicians but who we elect.

The core problem is the party system itself. Back in the nineteenth century, after the Great Reform Act of 1832, British politics worked quite well. This was because those who took part in it were drawn from a small and exclusive group. British politicians were either scions of the great aristocratic families or rich and successful men who had “made a name for themselves” wither in commerce or the professions. These were men of substance. Men of independent means.

Most of today’s politicians are anything but. They are generally careerists. Sons and daughters of generally middle class parents who read politics at university, became political assistants and/or local councillors whilst working for a quasi-political organisation, such as a charity or well funded pressure group/think tank, and then entered “paid politics” as a back bench MP. These young people are keen to clime the greasy pole of career success. The Miliband brothers are prime examples of this.

If as a nation and a people, we want to improve the standard of politics and government we have to raise the standard of the personality involved.

One of the great old men of British politics Anthony Wedgewood-Benn famously said: “it is about politics, not personalities…” Well, Anthony, you are wrong. It is about both.

The trouble with this is that the solution to this problem is in itself unfair.

But then life is unfair.

One of the most obvious reasons for explaining the disenchantment is the expenses scandal. This is in large part due to the fact that the MP’s are “money motivated”. This does not mean that they are necessarily dishonest. It means that they are like the typical commission only salesmen. Interested in maximising their income. During the 1970’s in an attempt to placate public criticism, MP’s salary increases were scaled back and they were given the “nod and the wink” to make it up on their expenses.

The way to improve the standard of MPs is to pay their travelling expenses, provide their offices and staff funded directly by the taxpayer but not to pay them a salary.

This of course will mean that being an MP will generally be the preserve of the wealthy. Clearly it will be vital to make sure ensure that there can be no “conflicts of interest”. This can be done by insisting on full public disclosure of their business and financial interests.

This proposal will produce a huge amount of criticism. However, the Britain of today is very different to the Britain in the middle of the 19th century. There are now large numbers of people who, although not multimillionaires, are of sufficient means as to be able to undertake the duties of an MP receiving only their incurred travelling and other sundry expenses.

There are many organisations, such as Amnesty International, the Freedom Association and Greenpeace who would be prepared to sponsor an MP.