The Government are not in power

It has been reported that the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has denied that he has been ‘pushed around’ by party rebels over the proposed abolition of the 10p income tax rate.  The party leadership- including the Chancellor Alistair Darling- stand accused of performing a u-turn under pressure from a backbench in revolt.  In response, party rebels have withdrawn their threatened amendment to the legislation.  I find the macho posturing, the hyperbole and the language used ludicrous.   News articles should report the news, when I want a commentary I’ll read an editorial. 

That this story has been reported as a sign of Brown’s faltering leadership, however, raises a number of important issues about the nature of government in the United Kingdom.  It is of concern to me that Brown’s decision to listen and respond to the opinions of the rank and file of his Parliamentary party is the subject of derision.  For me, it is precisely what I want to see from him.   One of Brown’s many weaknesses is his secretive, autocratic nature.  The image of him brooding over his decisions with his circle of trusted advisers in the privacy of his bunker exists for a reason.  Similarly his predecessor had a very autocratic style of leadership listening only to his Kingmakers and across the chamber the (very) few decisions that his opponent makes are the product of a ‘think tank’ which is very much an exclusive club.  So this situation doesn’t look like it will change any time soon.  And it is not what our government is meant to be like.

The House of Commons is comprised of 646 Members of Parliament each representing the population of a geographical constituency.  646 men and women representing over 60 million Britons.  And yet the majority of decisions are made by a small cabal of politicians and their unelected advisers in private meetings.  Of course their decisions have to go through the process of Parliament, but this is generally a farce with Party Whips ensuring that MPs vote in accordance with the Party leaders wishes on legislature shaped by that cabal.  And so, on those rare occasions that backbench MPs decide to follow their conscience or the wishes of their constituency it is reported as a revolt.  A sensation.  This should be the norm.  A Member of Parliament is elected to represent the people, not to acquiesce to their party establishment.  What we have lost sight of in this country is the significance of the word represent.  In its stead I regularly see the governing party being described as being ‘in power’.  Parliament rules the country, where the country should rule Parliament.  The Government are not in power, they are in the service of the people.

The obstacle between the situation as it is and as it was originally intended to be is the party system.  It’s a utopian vision, but imagine for a second that political parties were done away with.  No inner-circle of cabinet ministers, no whips, no block voting, no vested interests.  From amongst the 646 independent MPs a Prime Minister and Cabinet of Ministers are selected to draft legislation which is then shaped and amended by the free debate and free votes of all 646 MPs.  It has never been considered because the status quo suits too many people of too great a financial influence.  What a pity that it does not suit the needs of the electorate.

And what a pity that our constitution fails to give them the people of Great Britain the Government that they deserve.

~ by theraffishdandy on 23 April, 2008.