Years ago at school, teachers used to set us essay exercises by printing a bald statement, often outrageous or improbable, followed by the word "Discuss".
Let me try my hand at setting an essay: "Britain is slowly but Systematically being transformed from the world's most participatory parliamentary democracy into an elective dictatorship.
Discuss."You will object that this is too wild a proposition even to discuss.
Us?
The Brits? Dictatorship?
The very idea is absurd. I wish I could agree. But I cannot. Let me put my case.
Suppose a young Prime Minister came to power with a huge majority; suppose that behind an exterior of limitless personal charm he nursed a ruthless desire for untrammelled and perpetual power, what would such a man have to do to achieve his ends? I think the answer is clear.
He would have to dismantle our constitution, which has given us 300 years of political and social stability, and replace it with one better suited to his purposes.
The fact that ours is an unwritten constitution, and has no constitutional court to protect it. would make his task easier
Naturally, he would not use words like "dirmsntle" or "replace". He would use euphemisms like "new" and "modern" and "reform".
After all, what sane person objects to "reform"?
Such a Prime Minister, of course, would have to set himself clearly defined tasks if he wanted to produce a new constitution,
a more Germanic one, better suited to elective dictatorship. I can
think of seven.
First. he would have to trivialise the House of Commons. He might do this by making it seem a mere side-show, irrelevant to the business of government.
Second, he would have to marginalise the Civil Service by replacing advisers at every ministerial level with party fanatics, to be known as "special" or "political" advisers. Third, he would need to reduce the back benches to impotence by imposing draconian discipline - the - the threat of deselection, for
example.
This way he could be sure that non-payroll MPs traipsed sheeplike through the division lobhies to rubber-stamp
legislation.
Fourth, my notional Prime Minister would have to manipulate the media, and through the media the public, and thus ensure almost unanimous adulation.
Fifth, he would have to emasculate any last source of continuing opposition or contradiction; expunge the independence of any last institution that was accustomed to speak its mind and vote with its conscience.
Sixth, he would have to break up the United Kingdom, perhaps under the guise of "regionalism" or "devolution"
regional parts, competing against each other for central funds, could be the more comfortably
manipulated.
Finally, he would have to create an electoral system designed to ensure that what he had done to his predecessor at the polls no successor could ever do to him: in other words, devise
a structure able to deliver almost perpetual power.
It is my contention that just one year after New Labour entered office all seven tasks are well in hand.
I will be accused of exaggerating.
Those who concede that Mr. Blair is ruthless will no doubt
object that other Prime Ministers have been equally ruthless.
In fact I believe Mr. Blair is unique.
Certainly Margaret Thatcher was a powerful, and ruthless Prime Minister, and twice had maibrities over 100.
But, though she dominated the House, she never treated it with
contempt. She was assiduous in attendance (there have been 141 divisions since May 1. 1997, and Mr. Blair has
bothered to show up for only seven ); unlike Mr Blair, she made most of her major announcements from the Despatch Box; and she never treated Speaker George Thomas with contumely.
Speaker Betty Boothroyd's antennae are not so blunt that she is unaware of exactly what is going on and why.
It is true too that Conservative ministers brought their chosen and preferred advisers within the ambit of a Civil Service appointment, but never in such amazing numbers as Labour and never as a replacement of senior professional advisers. Nor was the Conservative Party ever as contemptuous
of its own MPs as New Labour has proved to be, with spin- doctors even going so far as to
harangue elected ministers.
All governments seek a benign press and will do what they can to
achieve it.
But under New Labour just about every announcement to the
nation is by inspired and slanted leak; and the raw abuse of critical journalists and the slavish obeisance towards Rupert
Murdoch indicate an almost obsessive hatred of adverse comment.
True, the government was badly shaken by the 50 back bench MPs who revolted over single-mother benefits, forcing a rapid back -off, but this was a one off slip.
I doubt it will happen again.
With the Commons virtually a servant to Number 10, the last truly independent body left is the House of Lords, which not long ago embarrased the Government by condemning predatory pricing in a move aimed at Mr Murdoch. Think what you will of hereditary principle; the true reason for the pending emasculation of the Upper House is precisely its rugged
independence.
The Lords alone still have the guts to say, with extreme courtesy, "No, Prime Minister, we fear you have got it wrong."
In Blair's brave new world, there is no place for such people.
They are the last trammel to power without accountability.
The breakup of the UK is well under way, but the dismemberment of England is still covert.
Unpublicised conferences regularly take place to examine how best the goal may be achieved.
Meanwhile, the "first-past-
Yet if Mr Blair has his way, our trusted electoral system will be swept away, perhaps with another slanted referendum like
those for Scotland and Wales.
Already a commission or inquiry under the most passionate
advocate of PR in the country Lord Jenkins of Hillhead,
[Blair's Fabian Mentor - ed.] is at work.
Its finding is a foregone conclusion.
There are those, of course, who will point out that the Government has been busy addrersing the problems of health, education, youth employment, Ireland and and the economy.
Maybe it has; but as for a solid achievement, only time will tell.
But on our tried, tested and trusted constitution which
has proved itself over so many centuries while Europe tore herself to pieces, the evidence ismounting and grim.
I sniff tbe night wind and I smell something deeply
dangerous.
The source of that smell lies right at the heart of Downing Street."
Posts
