Keith Sutherland (Exeter, Imprint Academic): Imprint Academic’s new book series on political lotteries and citizen juries is launched this week. The series is our response to the growing sense that the institutions of liberal party democracy are damaged beyond repair. The 1997 election was a watershed as it was quite obvious that Labour was prepared to say anything in order to win power. From then on political parties would no longer ‘represent’ anything other than the whims of a few thousand swing voters in key marginals, leaving everybody else, in effect, disenfranchised.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has today published a report on the prospect of a UK bill of rights. Committee chairman Andrew Dismore argues that the report's recommendations offer a solution to the thorny question of how such bills should deal with social and economic rights. The Human Rights Act is a parliamentary model of human rights protection. Courts have an important role, but parliament has the final say. Our new bill of rights could build on this unique relationship between the courts and legislature. It could provide, for example, that economic and social rights are not directly enforceable by individuals against the government, but make it the government's duty to achieve the progressive realisation of those rights, with a limited role for the courts to review the measures taken. 

Tom Griffin (London, OK): This morning's Daily Mail reports on a campaign by MPs against the parliamentary oath of allegiance to the Queen, which has aroused the ire of Lord Tebbit: This seems to me to be an attack upon the State itself. The monarch is the one embodiment of the State which is outside the political, partisan process. The people behind this campaign must either oppose the idea of anyone who is non-partisan having a role in the affairs of state, or they would rather be swearing allegiance to Brussels.'   What has sparked Tebbit's anger is an Early Day Motion put down by Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker in June, although its dire subversive implications were apparently not recognised until the dog days of August. Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In order to get the the Counter-terrorism Bill through the Commons in June, the Government promised a parliamentary vote if it was necessary to extend the detention of terror suspects temporarily for up to 42 days. That proposal has been systematically taken apart today in a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee which warns that Parliament is 'institutionally ill-equipped' for the role which is being thrust upon it. Read the rest of this post...

Matt Wardman (Wardman Wire): Parliament closes this week until after the Party Conferences, and reopens in October. It is the best season of the year for a certain sort of blogger or journalist. It is the time when Government Departments publish Written Ministerial Statements by the shedload, in order to “clear the desk”. Certain unsympathetic people will note that it is also the optimum time to publish unpopular proposals which will affect public image, since it is the time where there is the maximum delay - until October - before scrutiny in Parliament will be possible. For specialist bloggers, campaigners, and perhaps for occasional Comment is Free writers, it is an opportunity for detailed research without the day to day grind of political knockabout as a distraction.  Read the rest of this post...

James Graham (Unlock Democracy): The latest Lords reform white paper is both a step forward and a step back.  It is positive in that for first time ever an official government document is unambiguously in favour of second chamber which is either mostly or fully elected.  It also nails the lie about an elected second chamber being a threat to Commons primacy: The Government welcomes a confident and assertive second chamber. It sees this as further enhancing our democracy and something that is entirely consistent with the primacy of the House of Commons. That primacy rests in the fact that the Government of the day is formed from the party or parties that can command a majority in the House of Commons. It also rests in the Parliament Acts and in the financial privilege of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and most senior ministers are also drawn from the House of Commons. A more assertive second chamber, operating within its current powers, would not threaten primacy.  Read the rest of this post...

SpyBlog (London): We would have liked to have been able to comment on the latest Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual report, which appears to have been leaked, at least in part to The Guardian newspaper, but it does not yet appear to be online on the Cabinet Office website. The Guardian is running a story on the cancellation of phase 2 of the delayed SCOPE intelligence sharing computer system: Multimillion pound security project shelved by ministers  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The row over MPs expenses continued today when David Cameron used Prime Ministers Questions to revisit Gordon Brown's failure to vote for reform two weeks ago. MPs will return to the issue this evening, albeit largely symbolically, thanks to a Conservative motion and a Labour amendment which both call for the abolition of the now-infamous 'John Lewis list'.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Jack Straw has today published the Government's white paper on reform of the House of Lords. The proposals call for a chamber which is 80-100 per cent elected, with members serving a single non-renewable 12-15 year term and a third of the chamber retiring at each election One key point that emerged from Anthony Barnett's discussion with David Marquand below is that the choice of electoral system is likely to be crucial, not just to the future of the second chamber, but to the case for reform of the Commons.The White Paper leaves that issue very much open:  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Counter Terrorism Bill continues its passage through Parliament today, with its second reading in the House of Lords. Most of the controversy around the bill has focused on 42-day detention, but there are a number of other provisions that deserve serious scrutiny. Inquest has produced a briefing that focuses on part 6 of the bill, which it calls "a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in England and Wales."  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): It's been an unedifying few days for the House of Commons.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): As Gareth Young reports below Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force has come up with a new answer to the West Lothian Question The current devolution settlement contains long-term risks to the Union. The Democracy Task Force recommends to David Cameron a modified version of ‘English Votes for English Laws’, incorporating English-only Committee and Report stages but a vote of all MPs at Second and Third Reading. We believe that this proposal can remove the main source of English grievance at the current devolution settlement without some of the risks to political stability that critics have seen in proposals for a completely English procedure. (Answering the West Lothian Question) Gareth is none too happy with this "crude technical" solution, but how have others reacted? Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): It looks as if the DUP could be a decisive factor in tonight's Commons vote on 42 day detention. The Guardian predicts the party's 9 MPs will vote with the Government. The DUP insists it will make a decision based on principles, but is also seeking concessions on retaining water charge revenues, which are scheduled to be phased in over two years. There was speculation at Westminster last night that up to £200m has been placed on the table for Northern Ireland. The Irish Times also sees growing indications that the DUP will support the Government. It's London correspondent, Frank Millar, worked with DUP leader Peter Robinson on the Unionist Task Force two decades ago, and proved well-informed about the party's heave against Ian Paisley earlier this year. Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Telegraph has an interesting leak from the Conservative Party's long-awaited Democracy Task Force report. It claims that Ken Clarke's committee has rejected Malcolm Rifkind's proposals for an English Grand Committee. Instead, he is said to have advised allowing all MPs to vote on English legislation at the initial second reading stage of parliamentary scrutiny. But only English MPs would get to vote during the detailed committee stage of the legislative process, where real changes can be effected. At the third and final reading, all MPs could once again vote, but a new parliamentary undertaking would prevent any party using Scottish votes to block amendments made by English MPs.   A sceptical Gareth Young has dubbed the plan 'English pauses for English causes.' Iain Dale has denounced it as a sop.  Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): If you are used to seeing the old regime at play in Prime Ministers Questions you must take a look at this clip of First Minister's Questions in Scotland's beautiful Holyrood parliament. I can't get the clip into OK so go on it here via the BBC report. The future of the UK is being debated by Wendy and Alex - a much more important contest than Boris and Ken. Note the point that Alex picks up at the beginning. Labour has conceded an absolutely stunning constitutional principle: it has accepted that the Scottish parliament has the right to call a referendum that will decide on that country's independence. This is not in legal terms a devolved power; formally only Westminster can decide constitutional issues. But Labour has has now agreed that the referendum, including its all important wording and timing, will be determined in Holyrood.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Consider the life of a regular family. The twelve year old is just coming back late from school after skateboarding and hanging out with some friends, a younger sibling has had a dreadful cold. The oldest is taking A-levels and the financial issues of a possible university course are looming over the household. Mum has a good but pretty stressful job. Dad is changing his, as globalisation if he is in the private sector, or perhaps another government re-structuring, takes place. Mortgage payments have just gone up, but not too badly. One grandparent is chronically, how can we put it?, growing old, the others, all told, are fine, but all live more than an hour's drive away. One set of grandparents are divorced. Mum and dad are looking forward to a Mediterranean package holiday but concerned abut the weakness of the pound against the euro. It's sunny out. The family is as happy and hard-working and anxious as a good family can be. Dad was home already and is tinkering with the car. Mum comes in with the dinner. She checks out the younger one with the cold, breaths a sigh of relief, and, before making supper, lights up a joint. Read the rest of this post...

Jon Bright (London, OK): The leaders of both major UK parties, in slightly different ways, promised some kind of "new politics" when they first assumed their respective offices. Brown promised revitalised governance, respect for parliament, an end to spin. Cameron promised an end to "Punch and Judy" politics, called for serious debate rather than points scoring. Today both, in different ways, have admitted abandoning those goals. Read the rest of this post...

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): It's unfortunate - and rather worrying - that the article in ConservativeHome on the opposition's approach to the role of the judiciary in today's Britain, by Nick Herbert MP (who is the Shadow Minister of Justice), displays such a shaky acquaintance both with the law and with the principles supposed to underly our present constitutional settlement. Especially because it does make some good points. In particular, Herbert is right to remind us of the words of Justice Antonin Scalia (of the US Supreme Court), who said: Read the rest of this post...

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): There is an astonishingly muddled article by Tom Winsor in today's Finanical Times on the High Court's decision in the SFO/BAE case. Firstly, he has not grasped that clause 40 of Magna Carta ("To no man will we sell, deny or delay right or justice") was a promise by the king as to how his judges would behave in administering royal justice - hardly a definition of judicial independence, as he claims! Though the promise is, nevertheless, an important component of the rule of law. Read the rest of this post...

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): An important part of the context of Mr Justice Collins' ruling today, that sending a soldier into a battle inadequately equipped may be a breach of his or her human rights (thereby implying that the courts might have to say what “adequate equipment” is), is one of the more stark assertions by Lord Justice Moses in the BAE / SFO case. He opens paragraph 126 of the courts judgment (opens pdf) with the words “the principle we have identified is that submission to a threat is lawful only when it is demonstrated to a court that there was no alternative course open to the decision-maker.” Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): The Downing Street e-petitions site has been a neat and popular little tool for people to voice their concerns on all sorts of issues and, though constitutionally toothless, it has caused at least one embarrassment for government over fuel pricing. Historically, however, Westminster has been the proper site for petitioning and since we're still pretending we have a sovereign parliament (rather than an executive monarchy) it seems only right we should be able to petition and embarrass them too. Well, pretty soon we'll be able to do if the Commons Procedure Committee has its way. They have just published a report recommending the introduction of e-petitioning through the Parliament website. They recommend that the constituency link be retained with the petitioner's MP acting as a "facilitator". The e-petitions would be presented in Hansard and sent to select committees and Government would be expected to reply within a few months. They also suggest that three times a year certain e-petitions would be debated in the Commons in Westminster Hall. Read the rest of this post...

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): Is Parliament equipped to do the job required of it if the Governance of Britain reform programme is to be made a reality? In the constitutional renewal white paper and draft bill, the government describes all sorts of powers and tasks it wants to hand to the legislature. Taking decisions on going to war, ratifying treaties, holding pre-appointment hearings for major public offices, making sure Attorney Generals are accountable for the performance of their contradictory role, regulating demonstrations in Parliament Square... I could go on. On the surface of it, Parliament is going to be a busy place by the time Gordon is finished with it. But does it have the resources it needs to do its existing job properly, let alone take on new tasks? Read the rest of this post...

Simon Barrow (London, Ekklesia): In spite of widespread disapproval of the tenor of his remarks on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, it appears that Cardinal Keith O'Brien and his cohorts have won a free vote for Labour MPs on three controversial sections of the Bill, but not the whole instrument. In other words, say critics, the government has given in to bullying. Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Iain Dale has just written a striking lament about the disgrace of sham consultations. Those who succeed in getting elected as MPs can feel like this too, and we know what it is like for the rest of us. It raises the question of who takes decisions and how they do so - leaving aside why. In part it is the hypocrisy of the process that is so galling. It would be much better with planning decisions if those in authority said: "We want to take this decision, for this reason, to achieve this objective, we know that these people will not like it, we are proposing this compensation and now we are having a consultation in which we will listen especially to those who can suggest a better way of achieving our aim by other means." Instead, we get the evasions, dishonesty, and distortions that drive people to direct action. See Katrina Forrester's post in OK about the Plane Stupid demo on the roof of the Commons after the "consultation" on the Heathrow third runway which did not allow members of the public to let it be known if they were against it. Which, as she puts it, shows, "the extent to which Government strives to keep people impotent".

Jon Bright (London, OK): This was brought to my attention by SpyBlog this morning (plenty of others are also up in arms about it) - the Constitutional Renewal Bill, which was released on Tuesday this week, contains this piece of legalese which will be worrying for anyone who followed the progress of the 2006 Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill: Read the rest of this post...

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The government is proudly presenting its new draft constitutional renewal bill, which Anthony blogged yesterday, as a handover of power from the executive to Parliament.  I hope it is not unduly cynical to suggest that ministers are perhaps willing to put forward this package because they know that MPs can be relied on to do the right thing with their new responsibilities: that is, not much, especially as they are so under-resourced. Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): All MP's expenses are likely to be published. The result predicted by Nick Robinson is that they will need to be paid more. It is, he said, if I heard him right on the 10 o'clock BBC news, "a revolution caused by transparency". If only! Let's see what he says in his blog. Answer: he didn't use the phrase

Debbie Moss reviews Keith Ewing's IALS lecture on Constitutional Reform. Ewing makes a convincing case that Parliament and not the courts ought to guard our liberties. Professor Keith Ewing gave a lecture Monday evening at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies on how best to protect our rights and liberties in the face of the executive's onslaught. He had planned to talk on the Judges and Parliament, but having heard Michael Wills lecture last week on the proposed Bill of Rights and Responsibilities he felt that more pressing issues need to be addressed. So, will the Bill protect our liberties? And just what do ministers mean by those ominous "responsibilities"? Read the rest of this post...

Jon Bright (London, OK): I remember, back in 2003, when the Labour government took the decision to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug - meaning that casual users would receive a slap on the wrist at worst. It seemed to me a brave move in the face of a media that is pretty hostile to any notion of being "soft" on crime (a poll of Sun readers has apparently just found 99% in support of bringing back the death penalty, for example). It reminded me why I voted for Labour in the first place. Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Guardian's veteran political correspondent Michael White cultivates a knowing, seen it all, it won't change, nor-should-it-if-it-comes-to-that, attitude that is only bearable because he works fairly hard. Finally, after thirty years, his faith in the system may have been rocked. In today's political briefing he reports that Parliament's Lisbon debate "rings hollow", Read the rest of this post...