Expert: Phil Woodford - 11/30/2004

Question
As they say: "You've been reading my mail!"

More specific Question:

Would you agree or disagree with the following hypothesis:

Were a person to ask all of the several hundred members of Parliament to write down their conception of just what, exactly, are those "conventions, laws and unwritten rules" which comprise, "the British Constitution", there would be just that many substantially different replies?

Regards,
Dan




-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Hello, Phil.

We've talked before.

Right now, I would like to know something that has been bugging me for more than thirty years.

There has always seemed to be much debate over exactly what "the British Constitution" actually is--or indeed over whether one actually does exist, or not.

I have always thought of it as "The way we do things is the way the nation is Constituted"--in short, a sham and nothing more. But am I wrong in this?

Question: IF one exists at all, just what is it?

Regards,
Dan O'Hanlon
Answer -
Hi Dan

Ah, yes.  The great unwritten British constitution.  Personally, I favour written constitutions.  Imagine if a political party - or even a local society or golf club - had no set of written rules that governed its behaviour.  Members would fear anarchy or the possibility of people pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.  So why do we have no written rules about the relative rights and responsibilities of the different elements of government?  

The argument from someone of a conservative disposition would probably be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  We seem to get along pretty well with our unwritten conventions and have, by and large, avoided major crises.  But if a crisis ever did arise, the weakness of an unwritten constitution would quickly become apparent.  

Many people complain that Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair have, over the past couple of decades, moved the UK towards a more Presidential style of government.  I think this is pretty undeniable.  But we lack the checks and balances that most presidential systems build into their constitutions.  If Mr Blair has become a de facto president, what executive powers have we really granted him?  What relative powers does parliament have?  And what about the judiciary?  These would all become vitally important issues if he decided to push things too far.

In answer to your central question, our constitution consists of a whole range of conventions, laws and unwritten rules that affect the behaviour of our elected representatives and unelected rulers.  In the modern age, this seems wholly inadequate to me.

Phil

Answer
Hi Dan

I think there's no doubt you would get a wide range of weird and wonderful answers from MPs on this question.  Between you and me, most of them are not elected because of their in-depth knowledge or appreciation of constitutional and philosophical issues.

Best wishes

Phil