In the first three parts of this series, we’ve looked at the broken state of our political system, the bones of our living constitution, the rise of the political parties and their corrupt control of the business of Parliament. In this final part I’ll offer some ideas about what we could do to fix things.
But first we need to summarise just how rotten, corrupt and controlling the whole system is.–––
In Part One I ended by stating that the party system is the revolution. If you think that’s stretching things, consider the true nature of the Labour Party, especially the iterations since the Blair/Brown years of 1997-2010 and the present Starmer regime. Then ask yourselves how much of the collective measures of all Labour governments since 1945 has been reversed by the Conservative Party when it has been in government? Barring the Thatcher years when the unions were tamed and state-owned industries were privatised – now being gradually reversed – the answer is precious little. The great millstones around our necks, the Welfare State and the NHS, are still there and deliberately so, because they provide an excuse for massive taxation. Others have been created – the NGOs which really govern our lives in place of Parliament – the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Climate Change Committee, Ofgen, Ofcom, Ofwat and so on. The real levers of power are kept away from the people and their so-called representatives in Parliament.
All of this means that for a long time, at least a century now, we have been living through a revolution which is moving towards its end game. It has been a slow, steady process in which we have gradually been persuaded to accept each turn of the screw, each click of the ratchet, with the charade of Tories versus Labour played out to keep us entertained and maintain the illusion that our votes can materially alter anything in our favour. Meanwhile, the blue wing and red wing of the Uni-party work in harmony against the people. We are the boiled frogs.
In an ideal polity, for the prevention of tyranny, there would be complete separation of powers. In Britain there is no separation of powers. The executive arm of government sits in Parliament (the legislature) and it controls the business of Parliament. That is, it decides what Parliament will debate and vote on and when, leaving little space for anything that might come from the floor of the House. Private Members’ Bills (PMB) can be initiated in Parliament, but they usually run out of time (because not enough time is allotted) and a PMB will have little chance of becoming legislation unless the government of the day chooses to adopt it.
As well as having two Houses of Parliament stuffed with Uni-party members, the actual government of the country is carried out by a professional civil service who remain in post from one government to the next. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always wins and, as we have seen, the civil service can frustrate or even sabotage the policy of any party it has decided it does not like (usually the blue ones).
It would be nice to think that the Judiciary is separate from, and independent of, the executive but, no, it isn’t. Judges are chosen by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, so it is an arm of government which to all intents and purposes means the civil service. The civil service, the British Deep State or ‘Blob’ as we call it, chooses the judiciary. The judges are on the state payroll so the chances of them passing any judgement that doesn’t fit in with government policy or the ‘Grand Narrative’ are slim to non-existent.
The effect of actual political power being moved further and further away from the electorate is that large numbers of people are not represented in Parliament. The original idea was that everyone would be bound by the decisions made in Parliament because everyone is represented in Parliament, if not in person, as were the Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual, but then in the form of a Member of Parliament who would represent the interests, collective and individual, of his or her constituents. However, MPs represent their party and only their party.
It gets worse if one’s MP is a government minister, especially a senior one. Members of the executive sitting in Parliament are so involved in executive work that they cannot effectively represent their constituents. They must delegate representation to someone who has not been elected. What do they do if a constituent has a grievance that is a direct result of government policy? I’ll just leave that unanswered, hanging in the air, but it is a highly relevant question.
We need to separate the executive, the legislature and the judiciary and we need to restore the true constitution of England - sorry, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you’re going to have to go along with this - to bring the sovereignty of the people to bear on the government. How might we do this? Here’s my offering which you can sling mud at, argue against or generally tear to pieces in the comments.
First, there has to be a mass uprising against the party system. We’d need to put at least a million people on the streets in Westminster regularly to demand the end of political parties. I’m under no illusions as to the difficulty of achieving this; the people have been completely brain-washed to believe that the only way politics can be done is through political parties.
Those who think that Reform UK will be an answer are deluding themselves. It serves as a disrupter for now but, when it becomes a major party in Parliament, we should be under no illusion that it will not be penetrated, subverted and corrupted by the same powers which have control of the Uni-party now. The same would apply to UKIP if it rises from the ashes, or any other minor party.
The easiest start could be made at local council level. It could be demanded that all District, Town and County councillors disavow their membership of a political party, for even local councillors have to follow the party line from party HQ. That must end.
Second, we must restore the provision of the Act of Settlement (1700) which debars anyone from sitting in Parliament who is in receipt of moneys from the Crown for executive responsibilities. That should also extend to local councils. If you have been following President-elect Donald Trump’s government appointments you will have noted that those who are Senators, such as Vice President elect J D Vance or Members of the House, such as Attorney General selection Matt Gaetz, must stand down and their place must be taken by a nominated replacement who will serve out their elected term or until the mid-term elections. This applies at State Level in the USA too. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem stands down to run Homeland Security in the new administration.
Third, we will have to decide whether we are going to remain a Constitutional Monarchy or become a Republic (I know Dr David Starkey argues that, de facto, we already are one). That can only be done by referendum and since it is a major constitutional change a simple majority for a Republic will not do; it would have to be a super-majority (at least 50%, or even 60%, of the whole electorate).
My inclination is to keep the Monarchy (no President Blair, Brown, Cameron or Johnson, thank you). However, one could argue whether or not the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, aka Windsor, is still suitable given that both Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III betrayed their Coronation Oaths, She in relation to our accession to the EU and various EU treaties, He with the Great Reset and UN Agenda 21. Perhaps a committee of 25 barons could be persuaded to threaten the King with Article 61 of Magna Carta unless he sees his error and changes his stance on the globalist agenda.
If we retain the Monarchy, we have a constitution to return to, as we saw in Part Two, and that is what we would have to do; if we were to choose to be a Republic, we’d need one.
In the latter case we could do worse than take the US Constitution as a starting template with suitable amendments to reflect our history and make it pertinent to our situation. First would have to be a firm commitment to our inalienable rights. Foremost among these will be life, liberty, property, freedom of speech, freedom of travel and the right to defend oneself, one’s family and one’s property with up to lethal force. It should be based on the Common Law (God’s Law, Natural Law). To do this there would have to be an emergency government of national unity which would have to be convened out of the existing members of the Two Houses of Parliament with no precedence for the members of the Commons and no party allegiance or whipping. Such an Emergency Government would be of short duration (two years?) with a general election and selection of ministers to take place once the new constitution had been enacted.
Assuming that we have decided to remain a Constitutional Monarchy, we could proceed as follows:
There will have to be two early major Acts of Parliament: An Abolition Act which makes political parties illegal and a Great Repeal Act (which should already be extant) to remove all vestige of EU legislation from the Statute Book.
A General Election will follow in which all candidates for the House of Commons must be independent. Subsequent elections will be held every five years. In order to be a candidate, a person must secure the provable written backing of at least 100 (actual number to be varied by experience) of their fellow citizens. On doing so public funds will be made available to them (up to a limit to be determined) to finance their campaigns. They may also make appeals for donations but no large donations from corporations or wealthy individuals will be permitted by limiting individual donations to £25 per campaign. The election winner in each constituency will be the candidate with the highest number of votes. Persons may serve as Members of Parliament for as long as they continue to gain re-election.
We will retain The House of Lords, but all existing life peerages will be forfeit. We will still need an Upper House as a repository of wisdom and as a revising chamber for all legislation before Royal Assent is given. I would propose the election of 650 ‘Lords’, one for each Parliamentary constituency, along similar lines to the election of members of the House of Commons. Candidates will have to be at least 50 years old and have provable experience of senior positions in government, business, the professions, the armed forces, the police forces or academia. Hereditary peers may stand for election to either House of Parliament, but their titles will bear them no preference or advantage. The Lords will also review and revise legislation passed by the devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before it is given Royal Assent.
At the same time as Parliamentary elections, there will be elections for the Offices of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Candidates may come from any walk of life, the only restriction being that a serious criminal record will debar them. They must present themselves for election as a team of two. To gain nomination they must have provable written backing of at least 1,000 of their fellow citizens (the number subject to revision with experience). As with MPs, public funds will be made available to finance campaigns and an individual donation limit of £100 per campaign will apply.
Once elected, they will be confirmed in office by the King or Queen and they may then appoint a Home Secretary, a Foreign Secretary and other Secretaries of State and their junior ministers. All government appointments will be subject to ratification by both Houses of Parliament and Parliament may propose its own candidates for each post. In this case an election within parliament for each contested ministerial post will take place. All candidates achieving government appointments who are already elected representatives will be required to stand down and by-elections will be held.
The chosen Ministers will form the Executive which would formulate policy and present Bills to Parliament for debate and a vote. Parliament’s decision would be binding on the executive. Parliament would also have the power to formulate policy initiatives which it would present as Bills to the executive after a debate and vote. Again, Parliament’s decision would be binding. The executive would NOT have the power to call a national emergency under any circumstances without a Parliamentary debate and vote.
All Bills passed through Parliament must be given Royal Assent in person by the King or Queen before they become an Act. The King or Queen may withhold Royal Assent with written objections and send the bill back to Parliament if, in his or her opinion, or in the opinion of his or her advisers, the proposed legislation is defective or injurious to the lives, wealth and well-being of the people. Royal Assent could not be withheld indefinitely, only for a period long enough for Parliament or the executive to reconsider their decisions. The will of the democratic arm of government must prevail.
The Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretaries of State will make periodic reports to Parliament and will subject themselves to questioning by Parliament both in committee and in plenary session.
That leaves three matters still to deal with: The Supreme Court, the Judiciary and the Church of England Bishops.
In the case of the Supreme Court, abolishing it would mean the re-establishment of the Law Lords in the House of Lords which would run counter to the elected principal unless the Law Lords themselves were to be elected. If that were to be done the traditional role of Lord Chancellor could be restored. He or she would be responsible for the candidature and election of the Law Lords from among eminent members of the Judiciary. Currently there are 12 Supreme Court judges who would automatically become Law Lords; election to be a Law Lord should be for up to 15 years or retirement at a maximum age of 80, whichever comes first, with a minimum of four places to be up for election every five years. A function of the Lord Chancellor ‘s department should be the selection of the judiciary from among eminent KCs. Membership of, or affiliation to, any political organisation (e.g. The Fabians) will be banned.
If the Archbishops and Bishops were to be removed from the House of Lords that would be the de facto disestablishment of the Church of England. While some would no doubt welcome that, the result of would be that there would be no more singing of “Zadok the Priest” in Westminster abbey at Coronation Time. Would there even be Coronations of future Monarchs at all, bearing in mind the long-standing religious association of Monarchy? I’m inclined to think that would be a step too far; the Lords Spiritual should remain for the time being but, on the firm understanding that they really ought to be Christian and concern themselves solely with the spiritual life and nourishment of the Nation.
In the words of a certain well-known, bearded and long-haired Scottish truth-seeker and freedom warrior, all of this is of course, just my opinion, and you're free to disagree. Have fun chucking the brickbats at it in the comments.
In the meantime, I’m off to read Mark Shaw’s free.pdf book, The Counter Revolution – a Blueprint for Reconstructing Britain to see where we agree. Or not.
