Look at the Supreme Court finding in favour of sex defined as immutable biological sex and not temperament-based gender woo.
As clear as anything, right from the top.
And what do we have as a result?
Total inertia and downright resistance from so many public bodies, whether the NHS, civil service, sporting bodies, academia.
So, even when there's a legally indisputable finding, almost the whole of the British establishment are in vocal dissent and outright obstruction.
On the basis of this real world example, why would we think the British state and it's public bodies would ever bend to a wholesale reversion to pre-1997 norms, even if a Great Reform came in?
I thought that was gold plated public sector pensions, lol.
Just been re-watching Simon Schama's A History Of Britain, politics was certainly interesting and pivotal back in the day, from Hardrada to Hastings in no time at all.
Are we really approaching DDay for the Tories as the Liberals found out just over a century ago?
Will Brits truly vote in a "there will be much pain" party and leader in 2029?
I think we are already past the point where any form of normal politics can save us. A party that was serious about doing what needed to be done wouldn't actually be able to state clearly in advance what they were about to do - it would have to be secret and enacted almost as a 'coup' against the system.
Remove the excuses provided by politicians and MSM and you are left with the real reason.
The ECHR are a part of the problem, the main part is politicians and the British legal system.
Nevertheless, procrastinating over the ECHR is pointless, it is a poor institution.
It takes away authority from British voters and governance and should be disposed of like the EU, like WHO, like the UN and like the numerous quangos that bedevil our ‘democracy’.
With the administration of the state dispersed across 400+ quangos that can and do act independently of ministers there is little prospect of fundamental change. WIth Sultana and Corbyn forming a new party - Jezbollah? - politics will increasingly mirror demographics and the many cultures therein, all too many reflecting conflicts abroad to which the various silos have primary allegiance.
The Chief Executive of Warwickshire council refused to take down a pride flag despite a democratically elected Reform council ordering it to be taken down. Evidentally, the public sector does not feel bound by elected officals. Yes, it's just a council, but imagine the blob, from civil servants to the judiciary via most of our institutions, dealing with a goverernment intent on constitutional reform (if one with a sufficently large majority ever comes about).
Peaceful change, whether evolution or restoration, appears to be merely a chimera in the minds of old England only.
Couldn't agree with you more. Reform are either controlled opposition, or maybe have genuine energy and desire to change things, but will be hampered every step of the way.
"Yes, Minister" is still the template for this country, but Sir Humphrey has moved on from stifling Jim Hacker on cutting back on waste and red tape, to paralysing the country re impeding growth and embedding identity politics at all levels of the British state.
Having experience of Switzerland, I would like to see a reformed democratic process nearer to the Swiss model. It includes the common man and woman so much better. We followed the Edmund Burke recommended system which relies on a Representative being better educated and informed than his constituents and being given a free rein. Not so now.
We have had a rash of activists with big heads and ex-Etonians with rhetoric but no idea about structure, accountability or efficiency.
We need to get back to the 18th century reformists and learn some lessons. Mostly we need leaders with insight, courage and determination rather than personal ideology fixations.
So agree with you. I have studied this a little and long believed that a scaled up Swiss system would be a great basis for constitutional reform. Pete is correct in his analysis here: it is impossible to tinker with a model of governance that is rooted in a different world. 19th century England does not exist any more. Our system of government is hopelessly outdated. We need constitutional reform as an essential first step. Pointless and hopeless trying to achieve anything without it.
This will never work unless you define the 'common man' as descended by blood from the pre 1945 population and paying income tax (i.e. don't earn anything/enough to pay tax then you get no say in how the money is spent)
So you think the average Swiss citizen is anything like the average UK citizen? The average wage in Switzerland is DOUBLE the UK. I think it's you who needs to learn a little more about Switzerland instead of engaging in the same fantasies of the past 75 years.
I have had a home there for over 25 years. The Swiss don’t earn double what we do and they are very much like us, except possibly more polite. They don’t fantasise about Monarchy and have a much more egalitarian democracy. Don’t be rude to strangers, Mr Blah. You never know who you’re talking to.
IDGAF who you are. You are talking rubbish so I am calling you out on it. You certainly have never lived in a council estate or inner city London in the UK because if you had then you would know the Swiss model will not work on the UK. The people are very very different.
I have more experience of Swiss people than you. You just have hearsay. Wikipedia is nothing to quote. The cost of living is much higher in Switzerland so they are not richer in real terms, Mr Blah. You haven’t factored in that essential bit of information.
You have no ability to debate this issue. Goodbye.
It is a general term which includes women, those not in employment, pensioners, isn’t colour sensitive and means the electorate as defined by law. Your notion of reducing the franchise to ethnic white British in paid employment is a bit extreme don’t you think?
Thank you. So interesting. After only one reading I can’t say I’ve analysed it all yet but it looks very good. It demolishes The Royal Prerogative which is in place to expedite emergencies but also gives a Prime Minister total control on treaties etc, which I am deeply opposed to. In the wrong hands with a weak, aged or stupid Monarch, it causes disaster. I will look at it again in more detail but thanks for bringing it to me!
It’s going to get a lot worse under Labour. 16 year olds, prisoners, illegal immigrants et al. The Southern Irish are still entitled to vote for some reason still. But defining the franchise had nothing to do with my point if you read my comment again.
This is what I wanted to see from Brexit, real questions asked about the constitutional settlement and how it could work better, of course all we got from parliament was business as usual .
Moreover, the constitution that existed in 1997 was a tripartite system contingent on a functioning Commons, church and monarchy, all of which are debased beyond repair.
out of interest would you have the 'presidential' and parliamentary elections running at the same time, or maybe halfway through a 4 year parliament? it would be ideal to stagger the two for a bunch of reasons. One is by then any honeymoon period will almost certainly be over, so you might get a parliament that can apply genuine scrutiny.
There's also the absence of personal affinity and we would of course have separate party leaders in parliament. Only issue is...let's say the elected head took on a MP of many years (who then loses his seat) only to fall out with and then sack the guy 6 months later. Is it a case of them's the breaks or would a safeguard be in place?
It'll be good to get people into the government who aren't politicians or quangocrats as well. What's important is that team is named and put up for media scrutiny beforehand.
I get the idea of separation of powers but I am not sure a US style system works. I wonder if compromise would work
We elect the house of commons by a method. The commons then elects a PM (or a recommendation for the king to appoint etc). The PM then appoints a cabinet of say 20. The PM and the cabinet have to resign as MPs (if they are) and they can nominate substitutes for the time they are cabinet members.
That way you still get the link between commons and govt but on a day to day basis it is weak as no senior member of govt sits as an MP. It also helps representative democracy as at present Starmer's constituents don't have a constituency MP.
This still allows for votes of confidence etc.
The problem with the US system is that you have 2 power bases.
My reforms for the house of lords are even more radical...
Sadly Andrew our revered pm does not deem it necessary to go through the voting lobby nor does he spend any time in the tea rooms or on the terrace. As far as he is concerned none of the MPs ,of whatever persuasion , have any value to him or his front bench. Or maybe he’s just FRIT
Most of his MPs have never spoken to him. Says it all sadly.
I know you're busy so I don't expect us to go back and forth multiple times, but if you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you gave it a look. All the best
Look at the Supreme Court finding in favour of sex defined as immutable biological sex and not temperament-based gender woo.
As clear as anything, right from the top.
And what do we have as a result?
Total inertia and downright resistance from so many public bodies, whether the NHS, civil service, sporting bodies, academia.
So, even when there's a legally indisputable finding, almost the whole of the British establishment are in vocal dissent and outright obstruction.
On the basis of this real world example, why would we think the British state and it's public bodies would ever bend to a wholesale reversion to pre-1997 norms, even if a Great Reform came in?
You don't make them bend. You build a parallel system and pension the whole old lot off. Money talks. Ever heard of the Danegeld?
I thought that was gold plated public sector pensions, lol.
Just been re-watching Simon Schama's A History Of Britain, politics was certainly interesting and pivotal back in the day, from Hardrada to Hastings in no time at all.
Are we really approaching DDay for the Tories as the Liberals found out just over a century ago?
Will Brits truly vote in a "there will be much pain" party and leader in 2029?
Is Farage the man for the moment?
I think we are already past the point where any form of normal politics can save us. A party that was serious about doing what needed to be done wouldn't actually be able to state clearly in advance what they were about to do - it would have to be secret and enacted almost as a 'coup' against the system.
Much of what Peter says is right, but why does he hold the ECHR in such regard?
The selection process is seedy, the members are iffy and the decisions are politically motivated.
Kat Harvey’s suggestion of a Swiss type referendum system is logical.
Who qualifies is one of a few important details like - how do you police fraud of electronic systems and/or ballots?
Still, if the country is so corrupt that accuracy of voting in referendums can’t be guaranteed, can elections?
Which takes us to the case brought by the English Constitution Party over the accuracy of the Runcorn by election.
If proven it indicates corruption of election ballots at a national level, but particularly in Labour run constituency’s.
Nevertheless, the result that shook me was Andrew Bridgens derisory vote in North West Leicestershire.
There’s something rotten in the land of Anglo Saxons.
He doesn't hold the ECHR in high regard but it isn't the main problem as other EU countries like Denmark prove.
Remove the excuses provided by politicians and MSM and you are left with the real reason.
The ECHR are a part of the problem, the main part is politicians and the British legal system.
Nevertheless, procrastinating over the ECHR is pointless, it is a poor institution.
It takes away authority from British voters and governance and should be disposed of like the EU, like WHO, like the UN and like the numerous quangos that bedevil our ‘democracy’.
With the administration of the state dispersed across 400+ quangos that can and do act independently of ministers there is little prospect of fundamental change. WIth Sultana and Corbyn forming a new party - Jezbollah? - politics will increasingly mirror demographics and the many cultures therein, all too many reflecting conflicts abroad to which the various silos have primary allegiance.
The Chief Executive of Warwickshire council refused to take down a pride flag despite a democratically elected Reform council ordering it to be taken down. Evidentally, the public sector does not feel bound by elected officals. Yes, it's just a council, but imagine the blob, from civil servants to the judiciary via most of our institutions, dealing with a goverernment intent on constitutional reform (if one with a sufficently large majority ever comes about).
Peaceful change, whether evolution or restoration, appears to be merely a chimera in the minds of old England only.
Couldn't agree with you more. Reform are either controlled opposition, or maybe have genuine energy and desire to change things, but will be hampered every step of the way.
"Yes, Minister" is still the template for this country, but Sir Humphrey has moved on from stifling Jim Hacker on cutting back on waste and red tape, to paralysing the country re impeding growth and embedding identity politics at all levels of the British state.
Nothing short of Milei with his chainsaw will do.
Having experience of Switzerland, I would like to see a reformed democratic process nearer to the Swiss model. It includes the common man and woman so much better. We followed the Edmund Burke recommended system which relies on a Representative being better educated and informed than his constituents and being given a free rein. Not so now.
We have had a rash of activists with big heads and ex-Etonians with rhetoric but no idea about structure, accountability or efficiency.
We need to get back to the 18th century reformists and learn some lessons. Mostly we need leaders with insight, courage and determination rather than personal ideology fixations.
So agree with you. I have studied this a little and long believed that a scaled up Swiss system would be a great basis for constitutional reform. Pete is correct in his analysis here: it is impossible to tinker with a model of governance that is rooted in a different world. 19th century England does not exist any more. Our system of government is hopelessly outdated. We need constitutional reform as an essential first step. Pointless and hopeless trying to achieve anything without it.
The old system of voting was designed for the technology of the time.
Advances allow everyone to get involved in decision making.
But Governments are loathe to offer referendums due to them not wanting to vacate powers to the hoi poloi.
An odd situation when they are more than willing to transfer powers to foreign organisations like the UN & WTO.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/ - for a free pamphlet contact me off the website.
This will never work unless you define the 'common man' as descended by blood from the pre 1945 population and paying income tax (i.e. don't earn anything/enough to pay tax then you get no say in how the money is spent)
Learn a little about Swiss democracy. It works extremely well.
So you think the average Swiss citizen is anything like the average UK citizen? The average wage in Switzerland is DOUBLE the UK. I think it's you who needs to learn a little more about Switzerland instead of engaging in the same fantasies of the past 75 years.
I have had a home there for over 25 years. The Swiss don’t earn double what we do and they are very much like us, except possibly more polite. They don’t fantasise about Monarchy and have a much more egalitarian democracy. Don’t be rude to strangers, Mr Blah. You never know who you’re talking to.
Did you check your facts before replying? No you didn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
IDGAF who you are. You are talking rubbish so I am calling you out on it. You certainly have never lived in a council estate or inner city London in the UK because if you had then you would know the Swiss model will not work on the UK. The people are very very different.
I have more experience of Swiss people than you. You just have hearsay. Wikipedia is nothing to quote. The cost of living is much higher in Switzerland so they are not richer in real terms, Mr Blah. You haven’t factored in that essential bit of information.
You have no ability to debate this issue. Goodbye.
It is a general term which includes women, those not in employment, pensioners, isn’t colour sensitive and means the electorate as defined by law. Your notion of reducing the franchise to ethnic white British in paid employment is a bit extreme don’t you think?
No. What was extreme was extending it as far as it's been extended. Look at the results!
Exactly - read this and if you want a pamphlet FOC connect me off the website.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
Thank you. So interesting. After only one reading I can’t say I’ve analysed it all yet but it looks very good. It demolishes The Royal Prerogative which is in place to expedite emergencies but also gives a Prime Minister total control on treaties etc, which I am deeply opposed to. In the wrong hands with a weak, aged or stupid Monarch, it causes disaster. I will look at it again in more detail but thanks for bringing it to me!
It’s going to get a lot worse under Labour. 16 year olds, prisoners, illegal immigrants et al. The Southern Irish are still entitled to vote for some reason still. But defining the franchise had nothing to do with my point if you read my comment again.
This is what I wanted to see from Brexit, real questions asked about the constitutional settlement and how it could work better, of course all we got from parliament was business as usual .
You’ve got this bang right Pete!
Moreover, the constitution that existed in 1997 was a tripartite system contingent on a functioning Commons, church and monarchy, all of which are debased beyond repair.
Good thinking Batman!!
I think direct democracy should be considered. Similar to Switzerland and various US sates. . If you have time it might be worth investigating.
thought-provoking stuff Pete, thanks for it...
out of interest would you have the 'presidential' and parliamentary elections running at the same time, or maybe halfway through a 4 year parliament? it would be ideal to stagger the two for a bunch of reasons. One is by then any honeymoon period will almost certainly be over, so you might get a parliament that can apply genuine scrutiny.
There's also the absence of personal affinity and we would of course have separate party leaders in parliament. Only issue is...let's say the elected head took on a MP of many years (who then loses his seat) only to fall out with and then sack the guy 6 months later. Is it a case of them's the breaks or would a safeguard be in place?
It'll be good to get people into the government who aren't politicians or quangocrats as well. What's important is that team is named and put up for media scrutiny beforehand.
I get the idea of separation of powers but I am not sure a US style system works. I wonder if compromise would work
We elect the house of commons by a method. The commons then elects a PM (or a recommendation for the king to appoint etc). The PM then appoints a cabinet of say 20. The PM and the cabinet have to resign as MPs (if they are) and they can nominate substitutes for the time they are cabinet members.
That way you still get the link between commons and govt but on a day to day basis it is weak as no senior member of govt sits as an MP. It also helps representative democracy as at present Starmer's constituents don't have a constituency MP.
This still allows for votes of confidence etc.
The problem with the US system is that you have 2 power bases.
My reforms for the house of lords are even more radical...
Sadly Andrew our revered pm does not deem it necessary to go through the voting lobby nor does he spend any time in the tea rooms or on the terrace. As far as he is concerned none of the MPs ,of whatever persuasion , have any value to him or his front bench. Or maybe he’s just FRIT
Most of his MPs have never spoken to him. Says it all sadly.
Constitutions only work if the political and judicial systems are reasonably honest.
US institutions got dangerously close to being so corrupt as to make their Constitution powerless.
A British constitution would suffer the same problem.
Hi Pete, I've written a response to this blog here: https://speedicutsbrother.substack.com/p/my-response-to-pete-norths-blog-on
I know you're busy so I don't expect us to go back and forth multiple times, but if you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you gave it a look. All the best
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/ for a free pamphlet contact me off the website.
Thanks for an interesting response Pete! I'll have to take a bit of time to think about the points you raised before I offer a response.
And consider this https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/!!
I read it a while ago, but I will give it another look!
Makes more sense each time you read it especially if you register there is no instant fix for our salvation!!