Jeremy Corbyn

|

Brown's big idea

JEREMY CORBYN on the Prime Minister's 12-point plan for constitutional change
LAST week, Gordon Brown made a surprising start to his premiership when he proposed a whole series of constitutional changes in the Commons.
He put forward a 12-point series of reforms, which would see the government surrender powers on the declaration of war, requesting a new general election, recalling Parliament, ratifying international treaties, scrutiny of public appointments, oversight of intelligence services, the appointment of judges, the appointment of Church of England bishops, prosecutions in serious criminal cases, control of the Civil Service, the granting of passports and the granting of pardons.
To many, this may seem a bizarre list of "powers" for the government to hold in the first place.
The rest of Brown's statement concentrated on limiting the announcement that he had just made. But his proposals represent some important changes which are worth examining.
Tony Benn has long concerned himself with the issue of democracy and accountability. He famously told a Labour conference that the three-digit test of democracy is, first, to ask those in power what powers they have, second, in whose interests they exercise these powers and, third, how we get rid of them.
All of Brown's ideas about enhancing Parliament are, in a piecemeal way, welcome. One thing that they do not address is the serious issue over control of parliamentary business.
The lack of a clear written constitution means that the powers of Parliament are vague.
Parliament is an extension of government in many ways. All ministers have to be MPs, the loyalty of MPs to party leaders is easy to buy because of the hunger of backbenchers for office as much as threats from whips.
Patronage is the most powerful weapon at the disposal of a party leader.
Every Thursday, the leader of the House, who is appointed by the prime minister, announces the business for the following week. Any objections are brushed aside or referred to "the usual channels" - ie a quiet chat between the whips of all parties.
This means that any real chance of even having a vote on a non-government Bill is restricted to the lottery of the annual private members Bill raffle.
Even select committees are unable to propose legislation, however powerful their reports might be.
If Parliament is to be effective at scrutinising and placing a check on the executive, it has to have far greater and more defined powers and there has to be real democratic accountability.
The British Parliament is a product of the steady eking away of the absolute power of monarchs. And it has been a very slow process.
The English civil war in the 17th century established the sovereignty of the House of Commons, but the march of democracy was reversed by the "Glorious Revolution" 30 years later.
Even now, over 300 years on, we have a totally undemocratic House of Lords, where the only "change" has been to replace hereditary members with products of prime ministerial patronage.
Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North. He can be contacted at corbynj@parliament.uk
Potential war-making power pitfall
ON paper, certainly, Brown's plan to transfer war-making powers to Parliament is welcome.
Tony Blair was forced into a vote on the invasion of Iraq and we now learn from Alastair Campbell's memoirs that he was prepared to resign if it had got much worse for him.
Before everyone gets too carried away with this reform, we should look at the background to the Iraq war.
After September 2001, the US and Britain rapidly went to war in Afghanistan. The first vote in Parliament was not until several months later, when the troops were already involved in the conflict.
We now know that the first serious discussions between Britain and the US on Iraq adventure was in April 2002 at a barbecue in Texas.
Those of us opposed to the Iraq war supported Alice Mahon's prescient motion placed before the Commons in June that year which gathered the signatures of concerned MPs.
However, the government resisted all calls for a parliamentary debate and vote and preserved for itself the power to make decisions. The US administration did much the same in the face of a much less demanding Congress.
There followed an enormous military build-up in the region. By September 2002, six months after the Blair-Bush meeting, the number of personnel in the area had reached 200,000.
We were told that the troops were there for an "exercise." It looked awfully like a planned invasion of Iraq.
By the time that Parliament finally voted on the war in March 2003, a year after the first plans had been laid and six months after the massive troop build-up, we were discussing a fait accompli.
Brown's war power plans need to be much more refined if they are to mean anything.
Allowing Parliament to vote on a planned conflict following a huge military build-up and media barrage to support "our boys" would hardly represent a transfer of power. It would simply offer the government political protection with the potential to provide cover for a hideously cynical decision.
Proposals with up and down sides
THE powers to sign treaties and to call an election are theoretically held by the Queen.
Brown's proposals include a suggestion that the Commons would be given the right to vote on a prime ministerial plan to call an election.
While it seems highly unlikely that this will happen, the plan raises an interesting hypothetical problem.
In spring 1979, the Callaghan-led Labour government lost a confidence vote by one. An election was duly called.
Brown's plan would mean that a government could lose a vote of confidence but then win a vote not to call an election.
Meanwhile, the proposal to hand Parliament the power to scrutinise treaties must be welcome. This is an important issue, as treaties change law once they are ratified.
But it should be noted that, in the US, this provision has allowed a president to sign a treaty without the slightest intention of having it ratified by Congress. Bill Clinton's approach to the Kyoto treaty is a case in point.
Party democracy under fire
DEMOCRACY and accountability form the bedrock upon which the labour movement is built.
But new Labour lost no time in 1994 reducing the powers of conference and enhancing those of the leadership.
So, while Parliament is debating a Labour leader's proposals to increase its powers, it is shameful to see that Labour Party members are, once again, facing an assault on their involvement on policy-making and their ability to bring party leaders to account.