The case for a written constitution

One fact which both our politicians and our educational system hide from us is that Britain is one of the few developed countries in the world without a written constitution. This suits politicians just fine, of course, since it means they can do whatever they like. Within our pseudo-democratic system which is in reality dictatorship by prime minister, our glorious leaders have carte blanche to ruin the public finances, give away our sovereignty, and take the country into a war which was probably illegal and definitely unwanted. Does it not seem strange that these things can be done without even a referendum?

So far as the public finances are concerned, a written constitution would bring many benefits. We could for example enshrine the right (for the electorate) or the obligation (for the politicians) of a balanced budget. Government could run a deficit in difficult times, but only to the extent that they had accumulated a surplus in previous, better years. Similarly, the constitution might require that any  Government borrowing had to be on index-linked terms, and made available to retail investors, thus both affording an opportunity for people to save for their retirement without fear of inflation, and giving Government a vested interest in minimising inflation rather than, as at present, maximising it.

You will find a link to a poll on this question on this blog. Please do record your vote and also feel free to post your comments and views, either here or on Twitter. Unlike our politicians, this blog believes in true democracy.


Filed under Constitutional reform

2 responses to “The case for a written constitution

  1. richard

    We do have a written constitution. Its not formalised into law which is its strength. Keep it away from the law makers and Pollly Titians.

    • I studied constituional law at University, so I know where you’re coming from, but it is true that the UK does not have a written constitution in the same sense as, say, Germany or the US. Certainly not one which allows people to challenge political actions as unconstitutional.
      As for law makers and policy advisers, I agree with you! If you read the book, you’ll see that this is not what I have in mind.
      Many thanks for your comment. Please feel free to continue to contribute to the debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s