The UK has had a long history of muddling through in constitutional matters.

The primary reason that we have existed so long with an unwritten constitution is that there has been broad consensus on what limits the unwritten words place on the executive, parliament and the Judiciary.  This is no longer the case.

With the end of the cold war, and Labours abandonment of socialism to become New Labour, the major UK parties had difficulty in differentiating themselves.  They all stated to sing from the same economic song sheet. With no real ideological differences, politics in the UK degenerated into crass popularism.  Both major parties out bid each other to appear tough on criminals, youths in hoidies, gypsies, asylum seekers and any other politically weak group.  The only calculation was “Will attacking this group win more votes than it loses?”

So the consensus on personal liberty disappeared in a sordid lust for power.  Age old liberties were swept aside for the sound-bite opportunities it provided.  We were conditioned to live in fear of each other and the rest of the world, with only the government able to protect us.

But Power Corrupts
When the inevitable abuses from the currant populist attacks on civil liberties become apparent, then there will be a backlash and a search for ways of protecting the people of the UK from a repeat of such stupidity.

One of the primary advantages of a written constitution has over an unwritten one is that it takes a large consensus to get a change.  One person can not decide the “rules have changed” and suspend jettison constitutional safeguards that have existed for hundreds of years.  But if there is a broad consensus that there is a need for change then the changes can be enacted.

Similar to the way the bank of England was eventually made independent as no one (even politicians) could trust politicians not to manipulate interest rates for short term political advantage.  So a bill of rights backed by a written constitution will be seen as the only protection against politicians who whip up fear and loathing then attack civil liberties for short term advantage.

That would be a truly fitting legacy for Blair and New Labour.

first posted on Two for Tea 

I have been trying to put my finger on what made Blair’s “I don't destroy liberties, I protect them ” so chilling.  Then I remembered this quote

 “In our state the individual is not deprived of freedom. In fact, he has greater liberty than an isolated man, because the state protects him and he is part of the State. Isolated man is without defence.”

Tony Blair’s modernity appears to be fashioned from the same cloth as Benito Mussolini's world view.

Read More at : Two for Tea 

The passage of legislation regarding 'religious hatred' could still be dangerous, despite key government defeats.

Yesterday, Tony Blair wrote I don't destroy liberties, I protect them in the Observer. Sam Leith in the Torygraph today asked:

Today's release of the Power Inquiry report, 'Power to the People', is a welcome development, although at 311 pages it will take some time for us to digest the contents of the report in full – which rather suggests a missed point on the inquiry's part as the people who need to engage with this report most; the electorate, are likely to be the people least likely to read a document of this length.

While its too early for us to give a definitive view of the report and its contents, it is worth giving a brief reaction to the main recommendations of the report, which number thirty in total, divided into three sections; 'Rebalancing Power', 'Real Parties and True Elections' and 'Downloading [sic] Power'.

We should also get the obvious comment about the title of the report out of the way before we start, as well. For those of us of a certain age, the term 'Power to the People' still conjures up the image of Wolfie Smith with his Che Guevara beret and the 'Tooting Popular Front' – if only politics were still so entertaining.