Home page A better constitutional settlement Gordon Brown has written a somewhat tortuous document to set the dual theme on what he considers to be British values and a justification for some initiatives he is introducing in support of a new British constitutional settlement. His paper, which was delivered at the University of Westminster on 25th October, 2007, starts off citing many of the statements of well known historic participants in the process of promoting individual freedom or liberty and he registers his desire to give the principles of liberty a new life by avoiding the past forces against liberty such as excessive laissez faire or imposed equalities. Gordon Brown also affirms his belief that freedom helps people shape aspirations and is the means to achieve them. He then, and here one can see what is coming, refers to security (the backdrop being terrorism) and of the need to safeguard liberty against arbitrariness of acts taken by government to achieve better security. It is at this point that this paper's content tips over from being an erudite review of the history of British concepts of freedom to a long list of proposed or current government initiatives and within which the central message of upholding freedom is lost. Political system constraints, largely imposed by political parties on individual freedom Activity Significant constraints General election 20 Parliament 16 House of Lords 2 Application of the Law 10 Political party funding 2 Parliamentary reform 1 Sovereignty 7 Whole process 58 Source: The Briton's Quest for Freedom - Our unfinished journey1 The Briton's Quest for Freedom The reason the upholding of freedom is lost is because Gordon Brown writes as if he were Jack Straw, and he strenuously avoids mentioning the significant impacts of two vital constitutional elements on individual freedom in Britain, one negative and one supremely positive: the role of political parties the role of the community conscience in the form of a jury Political parties When it comes to those who represent the people, Gordon Brown limits himself to only refering to the adjective "public" or "government" and as such he prempts any possible questions on the increasingly troublesome role of political parties in diverting governance from a course of upholding individual freedom. That political parties in their constant self-interest act in a way which distorts both constitutional elements, the law and most of the principles concerning the encouragement, the upholding and the defence of freedom is analysed in detail in Hector McNeill's "The Briton's Quest for Freedom - Our unfinished journey." 1. Some 58 instances of political party practice, severely constrain freedom of expression in the form of preferences of the electorate are identified in the activities of the general election, formation of government, Parliamentary legislative procedures, the House of Lords and application of the Law. In reality, the constitutional crisis in the United Kingdom emanates from the behaviour of political parties. The community conscience in the form of juries An even more fundamental omission on any discussion on British freedom is Gordon Brown's failure to refer to the essential role of the community conscience in the form of a jury. In spite of Gordon Brown's attempt to fashion the seminal steps in freedom as being something to do with the British political system (read political parties), McNeill explains that in comparison with the paultry 150 year record of an elected Parliament and political parties, the community conscience, in the form of juries, have an 800 year record of establishing the principles of freedom of speech, religious tolerance, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and most significant human rights. What is of enormous importance is that the seminal steps to assert these rights as precendents were made when juries nullified the laws of Parliament by declaring an accused as not guilty, often against the advice of the judge. What politicians do not like to admit is that such essential advances in our common law which by defending the individual against arbitrary decisions created the essentially British as well as American vision of safeguarding human freedoms resulted from decisions by members of the public. These seminal decisions were taken without the need for a general election, without a Parliamentary deliberation or voting, with no politician in site, with no whip or political party, with no executive involvement and always in contravention of what the judge was advocating. With a jury everyone stands as an equal before the law. The fundamental essence and carrier of individual freedom and its protection from arbitrary decisions has always been a the jury of common people who have been moved to counter injustice by enforcing their expectations of acceptable behaviour on the legal system, that is the state. Such conviction or expression lies, of course, in the cradle of the freedom of the jury to act free from coercion and to reject the "values" upheld by the state in each instance and the default decisions which would be derived from them being upheld by the government of the day. Authoritarianism Gordon Brown mentions in his paper that the security and freedom conflict causes the government to be considered to be authoritarian and, indeed, they are. Jack Straw, the Minsiter for Justice, has in the past tried to reduce the role of juries a largely British development specifically designed to prevent authoritarianism and arbitrary decisions. This government has promoted the use of magistrates who on balance acquit less than juries raising the terrible spectre that magistrates take decisions which are not beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore contain an unaccetyapbel degree of arbitrariness. Freedom also includes the right of a people to freedom of expression and to not have tiny private organizations, otherwise known as political parties, impose their preferences on the people. Irrespective of promises past or present, irrespective of mandates gained on the basis of the support of just 19% of the electorate governments should respond to the expressed desires of the people of the country if new issues arise. Not to do so is authoritarianism, not derived from rights of governance but rather as an expression of a political party placing its own interests over that of the country. Another constitutional settlement The issue facing the people of Brtain is that we do not have a Parliament of representatives of the people but rather a body who represent political parties. Parliament is controlled by the effects of patronage of the Prime Minsietr of the day who invariably commands a voting majority because of the distortions of the first past the post voting system. As a result Parliament is not supreme and it does not reflect the will of the people; this is the constitutional challenge facing the people of Britain. But Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have no intention of addressing constitional issues on such vital issues to the people of this country because irrespective of the rhetoric they want to sustain the invisible political party heirarchy within the governance of Britain which works to reduce individual freedom. Most of the propsoals for constitutional change contained and emanating from the paper "The Governance of Britain" are timid and of marginal importance. A far more robust and fundamentally liberating constitutional settlement for the people of Britain is set out in the book "The Briton's Quest for Freedom - Our unfinished journey". Here no hidden allowances are made for the interests of political parties, whips are banned, juries are expanded on the basis of a system whereby the quality of justice is increased and the costs reduced, Parliamentary representatives are required to vote in line with community wishes, Parliament is separated from Government and Prime ministrial patronage made ineffective. Minority principle Central to this proposal is a constitutional principle known as the minority principle which is formulated from the essence of how juries operate by balancing the personal views and interpretations of each juror (voter) against well argued cases (propositions) so as to end up with unanimous decisions (legislation) which represent a convergence of previously divergent individual preferences. The minority principle dispells the absurdity of our majority principle system which has failed to such an extent that minority factions gain control of government on the basis of 19% of electorate support. The minority principle also removes the drawbacks of "proportional voting" which tends to serve political party interests more than the freedom of the people and invariably ends up with confused decisions. Britain's over-centralization of policies is explained to be a tactic whereby political parties gain illicit power over those who are selected to carry out funded services or provision of goods within the public sector. Central to a successful constitutional settlement for the people of Britain is true participation in decision making at the national and local levels. The minority principle achieves this by grading revenue capture to fund initiatives to cover appropriate associations of communities according to the policy in question. 1 "The Briton's Quest for Freedom - Our unfinished journey", McNeill, H.W., Hambrook Publishing Company, July 2007, ISBN: 978-0-907833-01-7, Price: £17.50 (Paperback) Size & format: 418 pages, 234x156 mm Posted: 29th October, 2007 Updated: 3rd November, 2007