Letter: After the Lords
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It is important when advocating constitutional change to think of the political system as a whole rather than cherry-pick individual pieces for reform.
The Prime Minister has already found that devolving power unevenly to two parts of the United Kingdom raises questions about the English dimension. Being rid of the hereditary element in the House of Lords leads to overwhelming support for an elected Second Chamber, but with little thought given as to how this might work in a bicameral parliamentary constitution. Membership of the European Union, which has a developing constitution of its own, further complicates the problem.
To seek, as you do, an elected monarch (leading article, 8 November) smacks of the same kind of irresponsible approach to constitution-making.
The Australians at least knew what the alternative to their constitutional monarchy would be, and I am not surprised they rejected it. The powers of a constitutional referee in a parliamentary system are rarely used without controversy, as Sir John Kerr found to his cost, but to give the politicians the right to elect that referee is not a solution. On the other hand, direct election of a monarch or president is likely to lead to rivalry between prime minister and president, even where they are of the same political colouring. Britain, with a parliamentary constitution, it lacks a constitutional court, which might take over the referee's role.
If we are to have articles like that by Steve Richards (8 November), they might discuss such problems rather than assume that change can be easily accommodated.
Further, if the Crown is to go, a codified constitution will have to be established, since much of our current practice is written in terms of limits on the powers of the Crown, and the Prime Minister's powers derive almost as much from exercise of the Crown's prerogative as from leadership of a parliamentary majority.
JOHN BARNES
Government Department
London School of Economics
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments