Martin Shipton
is a political author and the Chief Reporter for Media Wales. This guest post is taken from his preface to the series of essays included in the publication.
There are those who would
have us believe that the discussion of constitutional questions represents
little more than a diversion for those who shy away from confronting the real
concerns of ordinary people. Politicians in that camp will tell you that when
they canvass voters, hardly anyone mentions the constitution. Instead, they
want to talk about ‘bread and butter’ issues like jobs, the cost of living, the
health service and their children's education – as well as more parochial
concerns like parking and street-cleaning.
To a degree this is correct,
of course. It's natural for people to be preoccupied by fundamental issues like
having enough money for a decent life, and the expectation that public services
will be of a certain standard. Yet it's disingenuous to suggest that ordinary
people are neither affected by nor interested in constitutional issues. Last
year a higher proportion of voters participated in the UK's EU referendum than
in any General Election since 1992. What question could be more
constitutionally focussed than whether the UK should be in or out of the
European Union?
Throughout British history,
constitutional questions have been closely linked to putting right material
injustices. The Chartists, for example, had no doubt that improving the lot of
ordinary people could not be split off from constitutional aims like extending
the ballot. ‘Sovereignty’ may not in itself put food on the table, but the
referendum Leave campaign was able to garner support by making the concept
resonate with many who wouldn't, if asked, define it as a constitutional
concern.
It was a sense of injustice
that drove people to campaign for devolution in Scotland and Wales. And now,
concerns over the EU (Withdrawal) Bill focus on what would be another
injustice: a power-grab by the UK Government at the point of Brexit. Despite
the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, there is a
sense felt by many that the UK is not functioning well. Current arrangements
are showing the strain, and the voices for change are getting louder.
Action to deliver reform
will not take place automatically, however. The propensity for inertia must not
be underestimated. We like to think of ourselves as living in a well-developed
democracy, yet one of the UK Parliament's two Houses remains wholly unelected
by the people and is composed entirely of individuals who are the beneficiaries
of past or present patronage. This is hardly a good advertisement for British
democracy, yet attempts to get rid of such a constitutional travesty have been
a complete failure.
We can either bury our heads
in the sand and pretend that things can carry on as they are – the approach
largely adopted by the current UK Government. Or we can listen to those who put
forward reasoned proposals for change. The suggestions to be found in this
series of essays by a new, self-styled ‘Gang of Four’ are motivated by the
desire to see greater fairness in the way we are governed. In this respect,
they form part of a long and honourable tradition, and deserve to be taken
seriously.
While the present UK
Government will be reluctant to take any of the proposals forward, there are
indications that a future Labour-led government would be open to examining the
case for constitutional change.
These essays are helping to
prepare the ground…