democracy without the people

The Conservative Party's objective is this: to redistribute power from the powerful to the powerless...

Of course it isn't always possible to devolve power down from national government. That's why there should be a clear, unbroken line of accountability between the British people and those who make decisions on their behalf. The lynchpin of this line must be a strong Parliament.

David Cameron, Campaign for Democracy

So how are they doing, 6 months into the process, at empowering the powerless, and building a strong parliament, a scrutinising organ, a lynchpin of accountability? How have those golden words translated into deeds, and have the powerless among us felt the whiff of power, as it is redistributed throughout the nation? Perhaps the Mighty PR Guru is himself a weakened, slimmed-down, all-empowering PR shadow of his former mighty self.

There should be much less whipping during the committee stages of a Bill, leaving MPs free to consult their conscience and their constituents and act accordingly...

Another of those promises, from the same article

“The whips are really turning the screws,” said one Tory backbencher. “I know a couple of MPs who have been told their careers are over if they don’t vote with the government on this.”

Tories fight to contain tuition fee rebels

.

You can't help wondering what the point is of less whipping at committee stage if whipping of actual votes is just as strong as ever. 'The Boss says you can consult your conscience and constituents. Until you need to make a decision that really matters. Then you must do as the redistributors of power say'.

It's a bit like democratic protest: protest as much as you like, as long as you recognise that it won't make any difference to our well-laid plans.

A scrutinising parliament

Parliament also gets its strength from the pride people have in it. There’s not much of that around today. An institution that was once famous for its radical legislation, elevated debate and forensic scrutiny of laws has turned into a giant franking machine that stamps whatever Acts the government wants sometimes hardly even thinking about it.
The Mighty PR Guru, Rebuilding trust in politics Before the election, of course

... And that's if you're lucky. Because here are 3 stories, all from the first 6 months of government, when you might have expected just some of those grand statements to be adhered to - but where Parliament does not even get a look-in - not as a franking machine, not as a scrutiniser, not as nothing.

The first was shot down a couple of days ago by the High Court:

.Introduction of immigration cap deemed 'unlawful'

A temporary cap on the number of skilled workers from outside the EU allowed into the UK was introduced "unlawfully", the High Court has ruled.

Home Secretary Theresa May introduced the cap this summer as an interim measure ahead of a permanent cap.

But a legal challenge to it was upheld with judges ruling that ministers had "sidestepped" Parliamentary scrutiny.

BBC

Woops.

The second story involves the roly-poly package of 200 quangos, all to be wiped out with a simple stroke of Parliament's scrutinising pen. The Public Bodies Bill has been designed so that our democratic representatives can vote for 192 public bodies to be abolished, or they can vote for 192 to remain. But heaven forbid that they might consider individually whether 3 or 4 are worth saving, and cull the rest.

Oh, and wrapped up in that package are several additional powers for Ministers (the powerless?) to abolish, merge, or modify those quangos that remain, through powers (more powers) created by the Bill itself:

The powers are to be exercised by "Orders" (in the form of Statutory Instruments). Although those orders have to be laid in draft form before Parliament and an "affirmative resolution" of each House obtained, the reality is that, in practice, only rarely will there be any debate.

From the law and lawyer's blog

This is what the Select Committee on the Constitution has had to say about the Bill:

The [Public Bodies] Bill grants extensive powers to Ministers to abolish, to merge, to modify the constitutional arrangements of, to modify the funding arrangements of, to modify or transfer the functions of, or to authorise delegation in respect of a very significant number and range of public bodies, as listed in the Schedules to the Bill.

4. The majority of these public bodies were created by statute (some were created by Royal Charter). Thus, the Bill vastly extends Ministers’ powers to amend primary legislation by order. Such powers are commonly referred to as ‘Henry VIII’ powers. We have several times in recent years reported on the extended use of such powers. As we have previously acknowledged, while they may have become an established feature of the law-making process in this country, they remain a ‘constitutional oddity’. That is: they are pushing at the boundaries of the constitutional principle that only Parliament may amend or repeal primary legislation.

5. Where the further use of such powers is proposed in a Bill, we have argued that the powers must be clearly limited, exercisable only for specific purposes, and subject to adequate parliamentary oversight. .When assessing a proposal in a Bill that fresh Henry VIII powers be conferred, we have argued that the issues are ‘whether Ministers should have the power to change the statute book for the specific purposes provided for in the Bill and, if so, whether there are adequate procedural safeguards’. In our view, the Public Bodies Bill [HL] fails both tests.

House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (emphasis in the original)

That attempt to bypass scrutiny has also been temporarily blocked by the House of lords itself. But as the linked article points out, following 2 recent defeats in the House of lords, the Government has just created an additional 54 peers, 27 of them Tories, and 15 Liberal Democrats. To better scrutinise, no doubt.

The last great indicator of the government's true intentions is a piece of work begun under Chairman Broon, in the dying days of his imperial rule. Here's Antony Barnett:

The cabinet secretary, Gus O'Donnell, has just issued a 150-page draft cabinet manual that sets out how we are governed, and is being widely hailed as the foundation for a codified constitution. Although an unelected mandarin, he took it upon himself to give an interview in advance to the Telegraph and told them: "I think those who are in favour of a written constitution will start with it … It has never existed before; we've been waiting decades and decades for this."

Really? Let's put that little "we" on hold for a moment.

The document is not in any way a draft of a democratic constitution. It is a manual for British dictatorship. It is quite open about this. It states: "It is written from the perspective of the executive branch of government". It adds: "It is not intended to have any legal effect or set issues in stone. It is intended to guide, not to direct." In plain language, we can change it whenever we think it is best and it sets out how the executive can get away with whatever it can get away with.

'We the people' deserve something better than a high-class villain's charter

.

So it sums up pretty well the ideology and actions of this government. And the one before that. And the one before that...

Where's scrutiny got to in our new found 'constitution'?

Ministers should consider publishing bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, where it is appropriate to do so.

Clause 205

No pressure then.