I’m closing down this blog.
I don’t really have time to write and follow politics in the same depth any more, and don’t think a full blog is suitable for my general writing either. My legal writing at Garrulous Law has started to get underway properly, and I don’t have the time to devote as much attention to this blog as I did at university. I am also becoming less interested in comment writing, and prefer reporting, journalism and writing with expertise to general comment.
I have enjoyed writing for this blog immensely. It improved my writing style, introduced me to people I would never have otherwise met, and made me much more intellectually curious and informed than I was when I started this project. At the same time, there is much I have written on this blog that I would no longer agree with. This isn’t so much a transformation in ideology as a greater maturity and understanding of nuance than I had when I started. Frankly, some of the opinions on here are embarrassing. Nevertheless, if I hadn’t written (at times) ill-informed nonsense, I would never have learnt as much as I did.
Thank you for reading. I may return, but don’t count on it.
Or, a title I never expected to write.
David Cameron’s current public offer to the LibDems is a parliamentary committee on voting reform, rather than an outright commitment to PR. Unsurprisingly, many LibDems aren’t happy with this, and feel one of their key issues may be being kicked into the long grass. That’s an understandable position, but I don’t think there’s really any alternative to the committee option.
First, there’s no such thing as a “PR” system. When we say “PR”, we actually mean an umbrella term for a whole variety of very different systems, with a bewildering array of acronyms. Each has its benefits and trade offs. The party list system is the most mathematically “correct”, but removes the constituency link and makes individual MPs more accountable to their party than their constituency. A “top-up” system may preserve the constituency link, but risks a two-tier system of MPs. STV, though the best for maintaining the constituency link, is a logistic nightmare for counting: we’d lose election night, which we know would be very unpopular.
Within these options there then need to be various calibrations to suit the political climate of Britain. The party list would likely need the threshold set at an appropriate level to prevent a situation like that in Israel, where extremists and ultra-religious parties act as perpetual kingmakers. STV has the logistic issues I’ve alluded to earlier. Top-up systems also have their own problems. These need to be the subject of detailed debate and discussion before they ever get anywhere near the ballot paper. More importantly, this needs to be sorted out between all three parties; the electoral system has to be fair, and to do that we have to listen to the second-largest party. This is a change that needs to be done slowly and carefully, with the consequences thought through. It would at the very least guarantee a more informed debate on any referendum.
Moreover, PR would likely be just part of a wider series of constitutional changes. Given the voter lock-outs and allegations of electoral fraud, we need to take a wider look at our electoral system beyond the method of marking and counting our ballot papers. If we’re reforming the composition of the Commons, it also makes sense to look at the composition of the Lords. If we do that, we may then have to assess whether it’s appropriate to keep the convention that Cabinet ministers be drawn from Parliament. This might also raise wider issues about the exercise of executive power: potentially putting the exercise of the royal prerogative onto a statutory footing, and perhaps reducing the amount of discretionary power we provide our ministers through the potential to create delegated legislation. Fixed-term Parliaments have been mooted. We may even be looking at reforming the Human Rights Act. If we’re going that far, we might even want to examine codifying the constitution. We either have to find a way to minimise the knock-on effects of voting reform, or choose to deal with them in a methodical and comprehensive fashion.
The changes and their potential impact are too great to be dealt with in either a simple referendum or backroom deal. A cross-party committee is the most appropriate forum.
I’ve been rather silent the past few months, for reasons clearly stated. I have, at several points, considered shutting this blog down, but overall I still want to write for it, so I’m not going to.
To deal with the generally-insane (albeit interesting and enjoyable) workload that my new masters at BPP like to provide me with, I’ve started to work out something of a strategy to deal with this, and the brave/foolhardy decision to set up a second blog.
I’m going to be commenting a lot less within the news cycle. I simply don’t have enough free time to even attempt to stay on top of it, and it’s not actually that fulfilling to write about. A bit more commenting on what I want to, and a little less chasing readers and headlines. The pace is also going to be a good deal slower than before.
My other blog will be growing to deal with legal issues and commentary. There may be some crossover between the blogs, but the latter is going to stay confined to that topic. On that same issue, this blog is going to expand its focus a bit (one hopes) to not just domestic politics, but history, war and foreign policy.
Finally, I’m going to need a few gimmicks to help pad this out and deal with the slack in writing. Guest posters are always welcome, although hopefully this time round their posts won’t get destroyed by a massive hacking attempt on my host. Anyone interested in podcasting should also get in touch.
I’ve started up a new blog on legal issues. You can find it below:
Garrulous Law.
I’m probably going to be blogging more there at the moment as I don’t have much of a life outside the law at the moment.
No better way to return to blogging than to turn around, face your party and tell them they’re wrong!
As I am currently en route to a constitutional law tutorial, it only seems appropriate to talk about the constitutional issue running through the blogosphere this week: Cameron and Hague’s proposed Sovereignty Act. This act, we are told, will assert UK supremacy in the area of EC law.
The problem with this legislation is that it is a pile of logically absurd and constitutionally dangerous nonsense.
First, look at the underlying logic of the act. The only time you need to pass an act declaring you are a sovereign body is when you are, in fact, not sovereign. Yet, if you are not sovereign, you do not have the authority to pass such an act. A sovereignty act is, perforce, ultra vires. The only time such measures do not self-contradict is when they are accompanied by revolutionary violence. Somehow, I don’t think this is what David Cameron is promising.
Fair enough l, you might say, but this is politics; academic legal and logical purism should be subordinated to the realities of power; the logical conundrum will have little practical relevance.
Except that it will.
The problem is that what the Sovereignty Bill proposes is already the legal status in the UK. Parliament is sovereign, and the EU’s authority in this country derives solely from an act of the same: the European Communities Act. The danger comes in that creating a redundant piece of legislation that states the bleedin’ obvious will impose on the courts a duty to interpret it as somehow altering the constitutional order. The courts cannot simply disregard the act on the grounds of it being a grandstanding gesture. This risks driving a steamroller through a delicate area of jurisprudence on the sovereignty of Parliament and its limits. Worse, a challenge to the Bill could even further muddy the waters even further, and this is all before interests in Parliament attempt to amend the Bill to the point that the whole constitution is destabilised.
Conservatives should not support such a potentially destabilising and pointless piece of legislation.
I just found this about me on politics.co.uk. Suffice to say I am flattered (even if they did misspell my name).
I feel sufficiently motivated and will try and find a way to keep this updated, but expect a bit of a change in tone as this moves in a more legally-oriented direction, as well as a degree of GDL-induced irregularity.
Earlier this month I started a Postgraduate Diploma in Law.
This is an eight-month intensive course that gives non-law graduates an academic qualification of similar standing to an LL.B.
As a result I am rather short of the free time needed to maintain this blog. After quite a bit of agonising, I have decided to, effectively, suspend it.
In practice this means that I will be posting on a much less frequent basis, and only where I happen to have something to write about, as opposed to just chasing topics. I may also start a law blog if I can find a way to integrate it into my studies.
I don’t want to turn this into a long farewell post, as I do hope to restore this blog to regular activity at some point. Nonetheless I would like to take a brief moment to thank everyone who helped me with this through advice, criticism, drinks, links, parties and contacts. You know who you are and I am very grateful. Thanks also, again, to those who voted for me in the Total Politics poll.
I shall return, and occasionally haunt this place from time to time. You can still find me on Twitter @benjaminfgray
Was it really a good idea to rip up the Sun and insult its readership?
I am sure it played well with the crowds and pleased many of the demoralised delegates.
That, however, is the problem.
Peter Mandelson, in a more lucid time, said that one should act not as if addressing the conference, but the country az a whole. Tony Woodley ripping up The Sun marked the moment when Labour leaders stopped talking to the country and started talking to itself, complete with telegenic action.
If talking to oneself personally is a sign of insanity, in political terms it is a sign of a loss of mandate.
Astute political leaders understand that to govern, one needs a broad church of support. Parties must be diverse in membership, and votes courted beyond the core. Blair understood this with his talk of Big Tent politics, and The Cameron project has the same understanding.
Yesterday, however, Labour turned its back on big tent politics in favour of pleasing the crowd.
That may help a post-defeat leadership contest, but it won’t reduce the chances of defeat.
![davidwright[1]](http://benjamin-gray.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/davidwright1.png "davidwright[1]")
Follow on Facebook
