WITH an estimated 0.3% of the adult population having the right to vote for either Jeremy Hunt or Boris Johnson, the UK has become a “rotten borough” reminiscent of Blackadder’s Dunny-on-the-Wold (“Population: three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named Colin and a small hen in its late 40s.”)
That’s not quite an accurate description of the Tory membership, but the tiny selectorate that will choose the next Conservative leader is a similarly unrepresentative gathering – leaning white, male, old, rich and English. How, in a country still calling itself a democracy, can this state of affairs be tolerated?
To find an answer, we have to dig into history. When Queen Anne died in 1714 there were plenty of other princelings with better hereditary claims to the throne, but Roman Catholics were excluded by virtue of the Act of Settlement 1701. George I, Elector of Hannover, might have been slow-witted, socially awkward and unable to speak English, but at least he was Protestant. George was a king-of-convenience, hired to play the part of king to a people who needed the pomp and circumstance of monarchy but were highly suspicious of giving royalty more power than they could handle.
He couldn’t even handle the half-portion of royal authority left uneaten by parliament after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Whereas Queen Anne had been leader of her own government, George rarely attended cabinet meetings. The ministers started taking decisions among themselves, and their leader – the head of the Whig faction in parliament, Sir Horace Walpole – became the first recognisable “prime minister”.
Walpole ruled the kingdom by his “advice” to the king. He could do so, however, only because he ruled the House of Commons. The process was gradual, but by the end of the 18th century it had become clear that the House of Commons, and not the king, was the real power. Whoever had the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons could govern as prime minister, and a prime minister who has lost the confidence of the Commons would have to either resign or face a General Election.
This arrangement has been the cornerstone of parliamentary government ever since. It unites executive and legislative leadership in the hands of a cabinet headed by a prime minister who is in effect chosen by, and is responsible to, the representatives of the people.
Of course, the UK being what it is, these rules were neither actively devised nor written down. They just emerged through happenstance, were accepted out of expediency and endured out of habit. Eventually, they came to be canonised as the cardinal principle of the whole system. By the latter half of the 20th century, they were being clearly stated in the written constitutions of Britain’s newly independent former colonies.
Perhaps we can say, therefore, that parliamentary government was discovered rather than invented – and what a happy discovery it was. When it works, it provides a governing system that is efficient and effective, responsible and responsive.
The government can govern with a free hand, but only to the extent, and in the direction, that the majority in parliament will permit. The government leads parliament, but only so far as parliament is willing to be led. If the government insists on going where parliament will not follow, either the government must resign and a new government be formed, or a General Election must be held.
Clearly, this isn’t working any more. Brexit has strained collective ministerial responsibility beyond breaking point. The cabinet has been unable to formulate policies and to get legislation through parliament. Above all, the normal deadlock-breaking mechanism – dissolution – has been rendered inoperable by the well-intentioned, but badly drafted, Fixed Terms Parliament Act.
Constitutional rules cannot fix a political crisis. But unclear or unenforceable rules make matters worse. Scotland realised this in the 1990s. The Scotland Act provides a more robust and legitimate process for the formal election and removal of a first minister by parliament, which any future Scottish constitution should replicate.
So back to Boris and Jeremy. Some have suggested that prime ministers should be directly elected by the people, like a presidential system. That would be a grave mistake.
The solution is not to weaken parliament, but to strengthen it. It might be wiser for party leaders to be chosen by their MPs rather than by party memberships – at least in principle that should help promote moderation and screen out those rendered unfit for office by their character or temperament. But whoever becomes leader of the Conservative Party can only become, and remain as, prime minister if the House of Commons supports him. Given the divided state of the parties, this is by no means certain. A vote of no confidence may bring him down and force a General Election. Then the people will, quite rightly, have their say.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel