UK politics: the world is not a better place

31/08/2013

We have a friend in court, or so it seems according to a highly indiscreet piece by Charles Moore in today's Telegraph.

At the emergency Cabinet meeting before the Syria debate on Thursday, claims Moore, only one minister, the DEFRA Secretary, Owen Paterson, objected forcefully to what was being proposed. He complained that there had been too little consultation with ministers, let alone with backbenchers.

Paterson went on to warn that party members were hostile and then wanted to know what outcomes were expected from a punitive strike. He wondered why chemical weapons were wrong in a way that all the other horrible things going on in Syria were, seemingly, not. He considered that Britain did not have a dog in the Syrian fight.

The Cabinet took its stand on the unique wickedness of chemical weapons, however. Mr Paterson's objections were passed over almost in embarrassed silence, as if he had emitted an unpleasant smell.

This version of events is uncannily similar to arguments adduced here and here, particularly when Moore sums up the Paterson approach as having the traditional conservative virtues. These, he says are: "Make sure you answer the awkward questions in good time, don’t try to bestride the world stage until you have got more money in your pocket, don't confuse good intentions with good effects, think hard about real national interests".

It is this business of confusing good intentions with good effects on which we majored, and it is this that confounds the "something must be done" brigade – apart from the fact that monitoring the situation, assessing and analysing intelligence and preparing for different scenarios is not doing nothing.

But despite sympathetic treatment of the Paterson approach, we still have in Moore an old-fashioned, paternalistic High Tory who believes his kind were placed on this Earth to rule over us all. After a lengthy dissertation on royal prerogative, he recalls that in the Middle Ages, a philosopher decided that the, "office of a king is to fight the battles of his people".

Nowadays, Moore the writes, the "king" means, in practice, the king's first minister, but the point holds.

Recognition of that point is interesting for, in The Harrogate Agenda pamphlet that is in the latter stages of preparation, I write about the issue of "separation of powers" noting how there is a defect in the British system of government stemming from our transition from rule by an absolute monarch, to a system of constitutional monarchy.

The executive that emerged to challenge the power of the king, I write, now comprises the prime minister and cabinet. But, in holding the power previously held by the king, it has effectively become the king. Thus, as long as Parliament is the body from which the executive is drawn, and as long as members of the executive are also Members of Parliament, there will be imperfect separation between the two bodies.

Thus it was the case last Thursday that the anti-intervention caucus won by the narrow margin of 13 votes, the government bolstered by the "payroll vote".

Typically, this comprises the 140 ministers, whips and other office-holders in the Commons. But when you add the Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPS) and the "greasy pole climbers" who have hopes of preferment but have not yet been promoted, and the number climbs to 200 or so on the government benches. When it comes to holding the government to account, all these people are compromised.

Even then, this is by no means the full extent of the distortion. The fact that the Commons is the main pool for recruiting ministers - and the only prime ministerial pool – also changes the dynamics of the institution. A goodly number of people who enter parliament have no intention of remaining MPs for their entire careers.

These people want to join the government. For them, parliament is not an end in itself, but a means to a different end, the first step on a career path which ends up in ministerial office. This should not be the case.

What happened on Thursday, therefore, was a minor miracle, and although the vote went the right way – in accord with public sentiment – that does not mean, as Ambrose Evans Pritchard would have it, that this was "a momentous day for British democracy". It rested with a mere 30 Tory rebels voting with Labour and another 31 Conservatives who failed to vote.

Largely, as Autonomous Mind points out, it was an aberration, an artifact brought about by a toxic combination of a weak government, party politics and timing. Given only slightly different circumstances, the vote could easily have gone the other way.

Nor, if Moore is any guide, has the establishment learned any lessons from the experience. The former Telegraph editor clearly laments what amounts – in this case – to the loss of the royal prerogative.

This, Moore tells us, means – in areas of government such as war, foreign policy, espionage, ambassadorial appointments – the right of the executive to act. Obviously, he says, every prime minister is answerable to Parliament for those actions. Mr Cameron can be brought down by Parliament at any time. But if Parliament is from now on to decide first, rather than judge his decisions afterwards, it is removing his power.

On this basis, Moore asserts that there has to be reconciliation between Parliament and the executive. Government cannot be carried on if MPs think that the only sign of their virtue is to rebel. Parliament cannot work if it tries to run the country as opposed to keeping a check on the people who run it.

But here and elsewhere, there is no mention of the people. What we saw – and are seeing – is a power struggle between parliament and executive, as to who comes out on top. But neither institution truly, or at all, represents the people's interests. That Parliament this time came down on the side of the people is almost a historical accident.

Thus, for democracy – real democracy – to triumph, such decisions cannot be left to either a parliament or the executive. Neither pay for their adventures. Largely, it is not their sons and daughters placed in harm's way and they rarely have to bear the other consequences of their decisions.

Real democracy demands that such decisions are made by the people. The mechanisms for rapid referendums are available and, given the appalling standard of public debate we have seen, no one can argue that the quality of decisions made by the people could be any worse or less well-informed than those made by either the cabinet or parliament.

To that extent, we would agree with the Moore headline: the world (or, at least the UK) is not a better place as a result of the vote last Thursday. It will not be until power is held by the people and we make the decisions of the nature that we have just seen.

COMMENT THREAD