Time for change on our terms!

Some of the runners in the deputy leader’s election within New Labour have mooted an interest in revising the constitution of the UK. Of course New Labour will never let this happen, at least not to their detriment when it comes to imposing draconian laws on the ordinary working man and woman.

So, despite this, if we are to ensure that ordinary working people are protected from the likes of New Labour now and in the future, should we not be debating whether there needs to be a fundamental restructuring of our constitution? Indeed, do we actually have one today based on how it operates in reality as opposed to what scholars and academics think?

In this short article, I will discuss what we actually have and how it is being manipulated. I will also look at issues we should be debating now.

We need to look at what we do have by way of a constitution and thereafter how it works today.

The UK constitution has no fundamental written source, and is ever changing. It relies much on unwritten convention. This results in what has been described as an electorate that are politically sovereign. In reality, Parliament is legally sovereign and our constitution is an uncodified body of law which constitutes the rules for how the country functions. It consists mostly of written sources (not a document(s) such as the American constitution), including statutes, judge made case law and international treaties.

A constitution should impose limits on what Parliament could do without a legal majority. To date, the Parliament of the UK has no limit on its power other than the possibility of extra-parliamentary action (by the people) and of other sovereign states (pursuant to treaties made by Parliament and otherwise).

What prevails is a system that uses of the parliamentary party’s lobby fodder to push through the unacceptable, such as de-listing the Commons from freedom of information legislation.

What we have seen at under New Labour is an abuse of the constitutional system we supposedly have in this country with decision making removed from the collective responsibility of the cabinet (when is the last time any of them retired following a political/ministerial error) and ultimately either no scrutiny by the commons, or railroaded, knee jerk legislation pushed through by use of pagers to call the faithful to vote.

Today we are more likely to be subject to laws that started off on a settee in the PM’s office, or in a focus group meeting where what sounds good is advanced as being good if it can be pushed through in spite of our so called constitution.

On top of this, we see attempt after attempt to bring in laws that avoid even this limited scrutiny combined with constitutional skulduggery by going straight to the Queen seeking the archaic royal prerogative such as was granted to New Labour to crush the courts judgment in 2000 when the Chagos islanders won a historic victory in the high court, which ruled their expulsion from Diego Garcia was illegal.

So what should we be looking for?

The first step could be a codified constitution setting out who could do what and providing a clear separation of powers between the normal division of branches of government into the Executive (in our case the closest we have is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet), the Legislative (Parliament), and the Judicial (Courts) to avoid situations such as we have seen recently with the Attorney General stopping the investigation of crimes for political reasons as with the BAE bribe allegations where Blair is alleged to have personally intervened.

Also, with a written constitution we could set in stone the ability of the courts to intervene or for the citizen to ask them to do so on their behalf. The present system of Judicial Review can only ask the decision maker to go away and reconsider their actions. The exception we see to this system at present is the court’s ability to overrule on Human Rights matters.

The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law has granted us the citizens specific rights and gives the judiciary some power to enforce them. Courts can encourage Parliament to amend legislation by a "declaration of incompatibility," and courts can refuse to enforce or "strike down" any incompatible secondary legislation.

However, any actions of government authorities that violate these rights are only illegal except if carried out pursuant to an Act of Parliament. A written constitution could specifically prevent this happening thus placing rights before political ambition.

Ironically, one of the best examples of a written constitution is that of the United States of America as referred to above. It has clear separation of powers and specific rights that are codified and set out for all to see with a Supreme Court to enforce them if required. Not all rights under the US convention will meet with everyone’s approval (such as the right to bear arms), but they have a mechanism for revising the defined rights under their system. Maybe we should ensure that the ability to revise, remove and add rights is written into any proposed convention.

What is clear is that our present constitution is failing us due to the present regime of spin and be damned with the PM sending the children of the working class off to war (because he can for whatever reason he wants under the current system) without as much as a nod to the millions who took to the streets in protest. Even an attempt under our current system to challenge the decision to go to war was unsuccessful as seen recently in the case of R (Gentle and Clark) –v- The Prime Minister and Others [2006] (which may be successfully appealed).

It is about time we looked at the revision of our constitution before it is hijacked by capitalists who will use any proposed constitution to further erode the rights of working people, whether here at home or in some foreign field where they have been sent to die.

New boss, old routine

What a sight the mounted police in Manchester were during Sunday’s Stop the War demonstration. Indeed, so numerous were they that you could believe there were more horses in Manchester on Sunday than took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War. Of course the GMC mounted force was well supported by many more officers on foot and a very noisy helicopter.

The image of thousands of Stop the War demonstrators hemmed in on all sides as they moved through the city in stops and starts, under the control of the folk in yellow who were clearly instructed not to crack a smile, should have allowed you to consider the strength of feeling and arguments of all involved.

However, the sad reality is that you were denied seeing it in the British “free” press as spin and control seized the helm of the media, just as TB had taken control during his time as PM/Dictator.

Save for a few outlets, there was little if any coverage of a demonstration led by the parents, siblings and friends of those young people sent to die in a far off field so that a gallon of petrol flowing into the tank of an SUV in Jerkwater USA is as cheap as it can possibly be. No respect for their point of view in the press. No acknowledgement of their sacrifice by the media or governmet.

Instead, all we had was a man who stood unopposed and surprisingly “won” bowng to us, with his victorious deputy making a speech wherein she told the great and the good of New Labour that the government should acknowledge the anger felt over Iraq, but at the same time support British troops.

So seriously did Brown and New Labour take her on the day, that not one person in the party acknowledged the thousands outside the conference who were showing their anger, to include people like Rose Gentle who still awaits being told why her son Gordon died at the age of 19, sent to war on a pack of lies.

If anyone thinks that New Labour and the mainstream British media will depart from TB’s idea of spin and lies, then just reflect on just how long it took for Gordon et al to fall back into the same old routine – a matter of hours.

Not missed at all Goldsmith

So Lord Goldsmith has decided to leave office at the same time as Blair and as he goes, it is clear that no one individual has done more to encourage the call to de-politicise the job before.

The man who was treated with such contempt by Reid when he announced in the press that the new Ministry of Justice would be formed before telling him (even the most senior judge found out from his Sunday paper to be fair), and who when asked by members of a select committee what it was he did even stumbled through that one, will not be missed by some.

His decision to stop the investigations into alleged corrupt dealings between BAE and the Saudi government left him wide open to attack for this and refusing to stand aside from his constitutional role in determining whether any prosecutions should proceed in the cash-for-honours affair. In reality only he and those who depended on him thought this not to be a problem.

What he did more than any other of Tony’s Cronies was to confirm just what little protection those who should be doing an impartial job have from political interference from a Prime Minister determined to win at any cost.

One must wonder if Gordon is any different after fixing even his own rise to the top from any challenge.

Too straight our George is – that’s his crime!!

We hear on the same day that Lord Goldsmith denies that he hid details from the OECD of payments from BAE Systems to ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, that the Charity Commission has criticised George Galloway and other Mariam Appeal trustees for failing to make sufficient inquiries into the source of donations.

What a load of rubbish!

We have no evidence of this and the very person they needed to speak to in order that charges and accusations could be put to him and a response obtained – George Galloway – they never even had words with! Where is the natural justice? Where is the evidence of “sufficient” enquiry to be seen here?

The reality is that if you are one of Baby Bush’s cronies, you are given a free ride – oh by the way, did you know Father Bush works for the Saudi royal family? No clash of interests there then.

I am at a loss as to why this hatchet is continually handed on from one government or public body to another in an attempt to land a lucky blow.

Too straight our George is – that’s his crime!!

When good men did something

Listening to the reading out of hysterical emails on the radio yesterday, or to the unwise comments of former military commanders who referred to the successful defence pleaded by Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard against charges of criminal damage in the B-52 case as “bullshit” (yes, and on Radio 2 during lunch yesterday!), you could be forgiven for thinking that traitors were running wild in the country. In reality, they are not and these were simply two brave men who stood up to be counted.

Both admit that on the face of it, they were guilty as they intended to damage B-52 bombers in an airbase on 18th March 2003, something they never denied. They knew that the information they were carrying with them when they went into the base gave the prosecution all the evidence necessary to pursue charges.

However, and to the clear agitation and displeasure of the “hang em high” brigade, the law makes provision for the fact that a person may do something that would otherwise be criminal while acting to prevent a greater crime or while trying to protect the property of another. That crime was of course the illegal war in Iraq.

Having listened to a week of evidence on the consequences to Iraqis of "Shock and Awe" and the indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions and depleted uranium, the jury found them not guilty. Further, it was stated in court that there was never any intention to endanger the flight crews, as they took the step of carrying signs to forewarn the ground and flight crews of the damage they attempted to carry out. Maybe some of those who thought they should have been put up against a wall and shot should have actually listened to the facts before suggesting that they endangered military personnel.

To their credit, both men did not think that this was a victory, for as Toby pointed out after the verdict: "The worse case scenario for us would have been prison - but nothing compares to the horror that has been inflicted on innocent Iraqis."

Ironically some who argued against their direct action referred to what Toby and Philip were protesting against as not being war crimes, using the illustration of the Nazi concentration camps as an example of what they considered to be a “real” war crime. In doing so, what they completely missed was their point, that is that if those who stood back when those camps were being built and used had protested in some way similar to Toby and Philip, there may not have been the slaughter of the innocents.

As Edmund Burke put it, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Tony Boy - Gordon

So Mr Brown twisted enough arms to secure 308 nominations prompting left-winger John McDonnell to concede.

John was 16 nominations short of the 45 required; or to put it another way, New Labour managed to avoid any semblance of a democratic process in shoehorning Gordon through the front door of Number 10. John rightly called this sham a "blow to democracy".

Well it looks like it is full steam ahead for the New Labour machine, stifling democratic processes where it matters whilst funding the side-show that is the election of Gordon’s deputy.

McDonnell's challenge would have given Labour voters a chance to vote for a left-wing alternative to Brown, but unfortunately Blairism reigns on. You can’t profess to be a new man when you stoop to the Old Master’s tactics.

So what do we have to look forward to.

Firstly we have the disaster that is Iraq – we’ll back the USA says Brown.

We have lack of investment – we’ll stick to PFI.

I could go on, but I think you know what Tony Boy Gordon will do – the market rules!

Get some RESPECT

With the May 3rd elections, we all have the opportunity to get a little "respect" by voting RESPECT!

So lets get together and show what true politics is, free of big business and crawling to the US drum nowhere to be seen.

Get out and vote!

Speak up now, or Iran is next!

So the US aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis has been sent to the Gulf as part of a buildup of forces that Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, hopes will show Iran that the US is serious about using military might. This comes as the rumor factory is running the “attack in two weeks” message.

What is clear is that regardless of the cost, the US strategy of using “preventive” (not to be confused with preemptive) force to bring governments to heel, will be used in the Iran situation. However, Iran is no walkover like Iraq was.

The rationale behind the US approach is that the “threat” to US interests must be so weak, that they fall like a deck of cards in a summer breeze as the armed forces of the greatest military power the world has ever known washes over them. In doing this, the rest of the onlookers become paralysed with fear and the US is allowed to do whatever it wants.

Unfortunately, what we have seen in Iraq is that the “war of the flea” is not as easy a victory as the high tech US military predicted. What with the “just in time” introduction of military personnel and assets, Uncle Sam is feeling the heat as a rag-tag band of civilians keeps them pinned down and bleeding on regular basis. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really isn’t that worried after the display of impotence displayed by the very expensive, body bag adverse US military machine.

The reality is that working class kids from GB and the US will die in what George Galloway described as something akin to “ ..the film Zulu, but without the happy ending”. In other words, more body bags and big contracts for Bush’s corporate mates who get paid to supply the bombs that destroy the buildings that they later get paid to rebuild – though they never seem to be able to do that.

Please do mankind a favour Bliar and tell Bush it’s not on – if you have the guts.

The Cowboys strike again!

What is clear to everyone now is the heavy price Britain is paying for the total disregard the US has not only for its “enemies” (previously regarded as the good guys when they did Washington’s bidding), but also its allies.

This has been once more illustrated by the fact that a failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq is seen by many as the reason why just weeks later, the Iranian’s seized 15 service personnel belonging to the US’s ally – the 15 British sailors and marines.

Not only can we see once more the cowboy approach to international law – ignore it if it gets in the way – but also an incredible lack of foresight and the taking of responsibility for the potential consequences of these illegal actions.

The British service personnel detained by the Iranian’s are there not just because they were seized by Iran, but because the US have once more started something British forces will have to spill blood to finish.

The Attorney General -v- The Constitutional Affairs Committee

What a joy it was to see the RT HON Lord Goldsmith QC having to be lectured by Alan Beith and his fellow committee members on the Constitutional Affairs Committee about what he actually does for a living.

What we were privy to was a fine example of the man who advised the PM about the legality of going to war, getting confused about the most basic thing we must all know – our own role in life and work. See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmconst/uc306-i/uc30602.htm

The problem we have here is that whilst he bounced off the ropes under intelligent, but nonetheless 'wet lettuce leaf' questioning, he was unable to define his own role and worse, his role in some of the most important decisions taken by our own government.

An example of this was the issue of discontinuing the enquiry into the alleged bribes in connection with the Saudi arms deals. Despite admitting that he had the overall superintendency of the SFO and the DPP, and that he attended meetings where the decision to discontinue the enquiry was discussed, he insisted that the decision was not his, but was down to the Director of the SFO.

We can of course imagine a meeting with the boss where a significant issue is decided and even though we are supervised by that boss, he didn't have any input into that decision!

The truth is of course that the boss not overriding the decision is the same as participating in the final outcome – in this case the decision not to continue with the investigation into bribes that the SFO were about to confirm with the paperwork awaiting them in Switzerland.

On the question of 'advice', he even undertook to make known the advice of counsel on other issues, but to this day we await the sight of his advice to invade Iraq. He is OUR lawyer, but cannot tell us what his decision making processes were when advising OUR government.

Turning to the latest hot potato, the 'cash for honours' scandal, he as a lawyer can see no problem in sitting with the government, and at the same time being the supervisor of those who will potentially be tasked with prosecution of the members of that government. Is there not a conflict of interests here?

There are two ways to interpret what we saw on the 7th.

One viewpoint was that we had a man who doesn't even know what our unwritten constitution entitles him to do, and he the governments own lawyer; the other was a man protected and enabled to do as he pleases by our wholly inadequate and unwritten constitution, even if what he is doing is saving his boss and colleagues from the full application of the law.

Time for a clearly defined separation of powers then.