A route map to where?
Ever since the days of Magna Carta our leaders have usually only agreed to limit their powers when seeking to regain the trust of those they govern. So it is today. Gordon Brown's long believed that unless he can restore trust in what this Labour government says voters will simply not listen to anything ministers do say. That is why this is the first statement he's made as Prime Minister.
Without ever uttering the words he's telling the country I am not like Tony Blair. Thus Parliament's guaranteed more say over the decision to go to war and the scrutiny of intelligence...thus the Attorney General will lose any say in many prosecutions - like, we're helpfully informed, those which may follow the cash for honours investigation.
What's still far from clear is the final destination of what the new Prime Minister called a route map and not a final blueprint. It could be a long long way from where we are now - a written constitution, a Bill of Rights and electoral reform - or it could be somewhere quite close to home. One thing which suggests more rather than less change is the interest of all the major parties in constiutional change.
There is one power which Gordon Brown did not change today but is acutely aware of. It's a power that didn't exist in the days of King John. It's the ultimate power we have if we no longer trust our rulers - to kick them out.
I'm 
Comments
Nick tells us that we, the English people, have one ultimate power if we no longer trust our 'rulers' - the power to kick them out.
Which would be fine.
Except for one tiny detail ... those who will fill the boots are yet another untrustworthy shower.
So, the way the political system is currently cast, we, the English people, have no real choice.
I'm sure that Demosthenes would be suitably horrified but maybe not totally surprised that his idea could become so corrupted.
This man, with his thankfully vanished buddy tone, are responsible for the loss of trust in politics!
He Brown thinks he can change all that but he is wrong.
Brown wont move on the West Midlothian question, or the PROMISE of a referendum on the E.U.
Forget the consultations and focus groups lets have some real democracy - like full participation in the second chamber populated from the electorate drawn from the electoral register
Lots of power to parliament, except the one that most people can see is paramount except for Gordon and Labour. The West Lothian question. None so blind as those that will not see. Lop-sided voting powers. If ou are going to fiddle with constitutional issues, at least have the guts to resolve the one that sticks out like a sore thumb.
... Pity we don't have the power to do anything about having a PM from Scotland until the next election. Constitutional reform and devolution only seems to work one way at present - and that is in the interests of the party that brought it in 10 years ago - Labour. If Gordon Brown will address the 'West Lothian question' - then he may just earn my trust....
Another day, another spin operation nothing about the open constitutional sore that is the West Lothian question and nothing about a referendum on the EU Constitution (sorry now renamed treaty). In other words in all probability today was largely meaningless. The war powers and attorney general stuff are basically just a response to Labour's abuse of the system in the first place, its a bit like Gordon whacking someone with his clunking fist and then legislating against the use of clunking fists. Also it all sounds extremely vague and I have got the feeling that it will be exactly like a Brown Budget whereby by tomorrow everyone will be have had a proper look at the proposals and will come to the conclusion that it is all smoke and mirrors.
Nick, can you describe which "rulers" we can kick out. We can get rid of the Labour govt, and replace it with Tory or Liberal or vice versa.
As 80% of our laws are made in Brussles by our Euro rulers what difference does it make who is in power in Westminster.
This talk of citizens juries, new constitution etc is only smoke and mirrors because unless all power to make British laws, bill of rights etc. are returned to the UK from Europe and become the sole preserve of the British government then and only then will there be true democratic accountability.
By the way, one other perrogative that should be stopped and that is the PM,s power to call a general election whenever he wants.
Governments should last on fixed 4 or 5 year term. The current system is a farce, which may be good fun for the Westminster people but compared to other businesses, looks disorginised and farcical
People are always quick to blame the leader or follower, depending on which side of the fence they're on. While politicians have been responsible for some failure, recent events have helped throw the broader shortcomings of society in peoples faces. My judgement is that both leaders and country have looked over the edge of the abyss and there's going to be a little pulling of socks all round. That Gordon Brown is going down the road of constitutional change is enlightened but, also, inevitable. As much as he appears to be leading events he's following them just as much as everyone else. To succeed all he has to do is follow the Daoist dictum of "do nothing". Nice trick, if you can pull it off.
I'm minded to think that where law, people, and the natural world are more compatible, less stupidity arises. By looking at the lessons of history and in other cultures, from Pagan Britain, to Rome, to the Shinto shrines of Japan, the lessons of individual and collective success look the same. It may only be a small detail but this small spark of change helps increase my belief that the British people will get on the same page, and get along and get ahead more easily and successfully. It may not generate a boom but I feel confident in better times continuing.
By getting this big decision right, Gordon Brown will play his part in the successes that flow, and the mistakes that are avoided. The theory is as simple as it gets and can be duplicated at any time, and in any place. Mistakes will be made and difficulties will be experienced along the way but as surely as other rulers of history and other countries stimulated success, Gordon Brown can do the same for Britain. It's a little early to be counting the chickens but, I'm sure, the social and economic gains will be considerable, and help usher in a new technological and creative dawn.
It's not heaven, but close enough.
Nick,
It doesn't seem to have had any comment - but what practical impact do you think there would be if a PM needed parliamentary approval before the dissolution of parliament? Presumably not much where the PM has a solid majority, but I can see fun and games were we ever to have a hung parliament or a serious split in the ruling party.
Much of what Brown said today seems very much in character with the man. New to us these reforms may be, but I suspect that what is behind them is far from new to the PM. I got the sense of "at last I can do what I have always dreamed of doing."
Interesting too was the reactions of the Tories and the Lib Dems. Quite a lot of what Brown said you would think would find favour - especially with Ming the Meaningless, and even with the Boy David, when in his more liberal mood.
But no - faced with the possibility that Brown might just find favour with the British People, they upped drawbridges and just accused him of having blood on his hands.
Well, they obviously want change then!
I listen to every argument in favour of change and against change and everybody, those for change and those against change, have valid points to make. Britain has had for many years a Parliamentary democracy with two chambers - one elected and one un-elected - without a system of proportional representation. Other countries like Argentina and Chile have had - practically from the beginning, presidential regimes in which the president and both houses of Parliament have been elected by proportional representation. In terms of democratic credentials, Britain has had a much better record than Argentina and Chile.
Nick, for Gordon Brown to be talking about restoring trust in politicians, apart from the fact that he himself supported Blair, it is particularly galling to see at least two of the other main protagonists of the illegal invasion of Iraq sitting on the front bench, i.e. Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon. Those two were complicit in supporting the lies that Blair was peddling in order to sell the attack and it is to Gordon Brown's shame that he has allowed them anywhere near government office.
It is also a measure of Brown's poor judgement that he has given cabinet jobs to two of Blair's other sycophants, namely Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith. Why o why was Smith made Home Secretary when John Denham would have been the ideal choice?
These decisions will rebound on Brown, especially if he tries to go ahead and introduce the ridiculous ID cards legislation, which will quickly become his Pole Tax.
Beyond the Westminster Village & Political anoraks the English ( in general)Electorate are blissfully unaware of the outrageous voting inequalities... ergo "The West Lothian Question".
As Dave Cameron challenged this flawed policy with the PM in the Commons today,Gordon Browns voiced his intention to retain the present protocol .WHY!!!
Alternatively, Brown is not thinking of the short term problem of trust but of a long term strategy which will enhance the authority of his office. The PM's legitimacy derives from parliament and enhancing its powers and authority will reflect on the legitimacy of the government. Similarly a revitalised cabinet will add to the legitimacy and authority of the PM. Just as devolving day to day monetary policy to the Bank strengthened the Treasury, a more powerful parliament and cabinet will strengthen the premiership.
Look at the man's 10 year record and see his real character - he always presented his budgets in a slippery underhand way to disguise the real impact of tax increases, he denies his £5bn raid on private pensions in any way contributed to the pensions crisis and was the main backer of the Scottish voting issue that has resulted in the scandal that is the "West Lothian question". As PM of course he has no where to hide and the way he has adopted this charm offensive and is continually banging on about "British" values indicates to me just how vulnerable he feels on his past record.
We need two major pieces of constitutional reform - firstly, follow the Canadians who last year moved from Westminster 'elections must be at least every five years' to a very straightforward 'every four years'.
Secondly, we must elect the executive. We elect constituency MPs, but have never elected a government. Whether we use the French model of an executive President, or the Israeli model of a Prime Minister elected independently of their Parliament, the executive has to gain democratic legitimacy if it is to be respected.
First thing Gordon Brown did when he became Chancellor was make the BOE independent. First thing he does as PM is move a few PM only decisions into shared decisions with Parliament. Yes, he is making things more democratic, but isn't it also about taking less responsibility when things go wrong? "You can't blame me, I didn't make that decision".
Every cloud has a silver lining and Brown is using the current terrorism upsurge to 'promote' the flagging notion of 'being British'.
Despite growing English frustration over the 'West Lothian' question, Brown chooses to ignore us English completely and suggests we English fly Union Jacks (he would'nt dare suggest that in Scotland or Wales).
That actually flies in the face of what is actually going on in this island but we English can't really expect people like Brown to 'vote like turkeys for Christmas'.
Brown (and NL) know that they are doomed if the English actually regain control of their own country.
As the ex-PM Tony Bliar pointed out, the 'default mode' of most English people is more towards the 'right' than the 'left'.
So there it is, an English impasse .. for the present.
Can any of you remember the origins of the west lothian question?
Does it not occur to Brown that if he were serious about restoring trust in politicians he should just start being honest with the electorate?
I notice when he was interviewed by Nick and others shortly before his coronation as PM, he still insisted that there was nothing dishonest about raising NI by 1% shortly after being elected on a manifesto that promised not to raise the basic rate of income tax.
If he wants people to trust him now, he needs to at least start by saying "sorry, we lied about that".
And don't get me started on WMDs...
I don't support Labour and never have, not even in the months running up to the 1997 election which saw Blair take power. But I must admit that with the elevation of Gordon Brown to the PMship, there is a definite feeling that true seriousness has re-entered politics, that politics are no longer another branch of the British celeb industry and that Labour can once again be taken seriously. No one should underestimate the challenge Brown faces in re-gaining trust for Labour, and I don't think Brown does. It would, of course, help his case if he made many of the taxes imposed these past ten years more equitable, particularly inheritance tax. But as, as Chancellor, he was responsible for imposing them in the first place, that is rather unlikely. The future will look interesting, particularly as Oppositions don't win elections, but Governments lose them.
As these comments demonstrate only too clearly, there is a growing awareness (and anger) about the iniquity for England in the devolution arrangements introduced by the government of which Gordon Brown was a major player. He would be very wise to address this issue properly. England is more than a collection of regions (the unnatural boundaries of which were anyway drawn up in Brussels); it was a unified country hundreds of years before Scotland became truly governable beyond the lowland fringe. The English know that.
His comments about creating 2 classes of MP at Westminster is nonsense anyway because he has already done that. The first class (sitting for English seats) can affect the domestic issues of their constituents, the second (those sitting for Scottish and Welsh seats) cannot. This second class can, however, vote on the domestic affairs of the constituents of the first class. He may see the logic and fairness in this absurd arrangment (though I doubt it), but I bet he can see the danger in disenfranchising the second class of MP when it comes to English matters, given that he is staring at a minority of Labour MP's in England after the next election. The present situation is a modern version of the Rotten Boroughs.
I have always admired Gordon Brown for his grasp of the THEORY of politics. His announcement was both interesting and stimulating to a student of politics. However, his record of delivery of results has shown that in PRACTICE his ideas did not bring about a closer identification with politics by the electorate, nor has ten years of controlling the nation's purse strings delivered the excellence in public services promised. Our expections are therefore low, despite the clever theories. We want leadership not academic prowess at the head of government.
Hands up all those who think that Hazel Blears annoucement of 'more power' for local people in ENGLAND has absolutely nothing to do with UK Government political manoeuvres to fend off growing English anger over devolution, and the unfair treatment of England in this 'arrangement'.
For this Englishman, these moves are too little, too late.
The time for English self-determination is almost upon us.
I wrote earlier to your column, expressing my view that Brown is lucky to have a chance to right many of the wrongs of his /NL failed core policies. I do believe the thrust of his 'new beginning' is only really to lay down polices to win the next election. Policies he does not really want, but policies that will isolate opposition parties and woo the electorate into thinking the true 'middle ground' has finally arrived. What is particularly sickening about all this are those members of the Cabinet that have been peddling the old policies for ten years. Let us be charitable and say they have all seen the light. However, having financially wrecked the lives and retirements of so many people, sent us into an illegal and unbelievably expensive war, do these people deserve another chance? Frankly I think this NL Government has been one long social experiment for which the UK population has suffered. Now they are seeming to say 'Ah got immigration, education, health and centralised Government wrong, let us now try something else'. These people have been paid to wreck our lives, they may have learnt a lot over the past ten years and so have we. However, we are the ones that are paying and many will never recover. These same Politicians are all set for life and their 'Social experiment' will affect them not one jot. I do hope the electorate remember that NL promised not to increase income tax. They did not but instead they taxed eevrything else that moved. Once bitten twice shy.
I don't think there's much mileage in "allowing" Parliament the final say in many of these proposed matters when Parliament is effectively controlled by the Executive.
Nick you are correct that our constitution has the ultimate safety valve, but I think it's high time that the constitution began to reflect (again) the whole purpose of Parliament which is to hold the Executive to account.
Our Prime Minister "doesn't do floods"!....