Bogdanor on the constitution

I thought Professor Vernon Bogdanor was on top form last night at his Gresham lecture.

Bogdanor outlined the two main themes in his book.

First off, he said that there had been 15 separate and significant changes sinbce 1997 to the traditional model of UK constitution. These, unlike changes that have taken place in the majority of other western democracies, were piecemeal and were a response by Labour that were practical and related to particular problems. All of these changes, it was said, limited the government of the day. For instance governments now have to think whether a particular policy will, since the passage of the HRA meet resistance from judges.

As a result of these reforms, the sovereignty of Parliament had been damaged and government was much less of an elective dictatorship than the pre Blair era. Bogdanor was keen to stress that whatever one thinks of Blair’s policies, he left government in a a weaker position than it had been hitherto. An examples of this was Blair’s frustration with the asymmetric funding arrangements for higher education that had arisen as a consequence of devolution.

The second main theme was that the effect of these changes didn’t really impact on the popular consciousness. They didn’t really matter much since constiutional reform has been a story of power moving sideways from one part of the political hierarchy to another, ie from politicians in Westminster to politicians in Scotland, or from Downing Street to the new building at Middlesex Guildhall.

What Bogdanor expects, and indeed is in favour of, is power moving to the people. Bogdanor said he was in favour of greater consultation with the public on issues of the day. This would mean more referendums, and the opportunity for voters to trigger votes on issues via initiatives. This theme was picked up in the Q&A where Bogdanor expressed his admiration for the system of initiatives in California.

I left feeling unconvinced that this was a desirable direction for Britain to take. I accepted Bogdanor’s point that many of the arguments against greater use of direct democracy parallel those used against the extension of the franchise in the early 19th century onwards, but the Golden State is hardly a shining example of the efficacy of government (the Governor of the state is at present hamstrung by the fact that a series of voter initiatives have left him unable to raise various methods of taxation to cover the shortfall in the budget).

For more insight into Bogdanor’s views on the constitution, I seriously recommend a copy of his book. Out now in paperback.