What next ? the monarchy?

[FetchingHag]

What next ? the monarchy?
(Filed: 16/06/2003)

The abolition of the Lord Chancellorship has brought
out all of Tony Blair's old vices - contempt for established institutions, arrogance, unthinking support for anything that can be called "modern" - as well as a new one: ineptness. It is now clear that the Prime Minister had no idea of the consequences of what he was proposing, even on the most technical, procedural level. An office that has existed for 1,400 years, and the delicate constitutional arrangements that surround it, is being rubbed out on a passing whim.

Mr Blair sees himself as the heir of a reformist tradition which, at its best, is a very fine one. There is an honourable case - although not one with which we agree - for adopting a more Continental style of governance, based on a written constitution, a supreme court and so forth. Yet this is not what motivates the Prime Minister, except in the sense that he is uncomfortable with anything "fusty".

Mr Blair has not sat down and asked himself how the judiciary ought to function, what is the proper role of an Upper Chamber and whether current arrangements are working. Rather, he seems to have decided that there is something unacceptable about a minister with a wig and a medieval title. Never mind what to put in his place: he'll work that out in due course.

Paradoxically, if Britain had the kind of Continental constitution for which New Labour yearns, such change would be impossible. One cannot imagine, say, President Chirac abolishing the Conseil d'Etat or Chancellor Schr?der making the Bundesrat directly elected: they simply do not have the power. In Britain, lacking a written constitution, we depend instead on the decency and self-restraint of our government. Sadly, such restraint is not part of Mr Blair's make-up.

This is curious, since the Prime Minister is the product and beneficiary of many old institutions: a public school, Oxford, the Bar, the House of Commons. Yet he has apparently passed through them all without having the humility to recognise that an institution can sometimes be greater than the person occupying it. Lord Irvine, fittingly enough, is now a victim of the same capricious neophilia that he and the Prime Minister jointly inflicted on the hereditary peers. In both cases, Mr Blair had an inchoate sense that he was dealing with something indefensibly old-fashioned.

This was so obvious to him that it did not really matter what the alternative was. He argued, in all seriousness, that nothing could be worse than the old House of Lords. This was silly, since it was always possible to imagine something worse - and, indeed, Mr Blair has now contrived to produce it. By the same token, poor Lord Falconer spent yesterday promising to "consult widely" about the coming change. Once again, the likelihood is that he shall end up with arrangements appreciably worse than those we enjoy now.

What, incidentally, are Lord Falconer 's qualifications for this role? It falls to him to devise and carry out a legal revolution, yet he comes with no particular expertise in constitutional affairs. Our point is not to be rude about Lord Falconer, who is one of the more engaging and reasonable members of the Cabinet, but the fact that as one of Mr Blair's chums he has no independent standing in the Lords, or anywhere else. Indeed, his one attempt to win election failed when the local Labour party turned him down for nomination.

It was reported yesterday that the Queen was unhappy about the abolition of the Lord Chancellor's office. If so, she has reason. It is, after all, a position older than Parliament, older than the United Kingdom, nearly as old as the Crown itself. If Mr Blair feels able simply to sweep it away, then he could logically do the same to her. In fact, to pursue the parallel for a moment, imagine that Mr Blair had announced that the monarchy was abolished, that he would "consult widely" about what to put in its place, and that he was in the mean time appointing an old friend as acting Head of State. The only difference between the two institutions is that the monarchy is popular. Otherwise, logically, it would go the same way as hereditary peers, foxhunting, the pound and every other institution that Mr Blair regards as archaic. Hardly a comfortable position.