This is nonsense, and barely worth a reply. The Representation of the People Acts (1918 and 1928) show the best of Britain's constitutional tradition and its evolutionary nature, and I explicitly defend the first law on these grounds in the piece. There was nothing improper about their passage or implementation, either; to imply the opposite is quite disturbing and shows no true knowledge about the subject. If anything, the relative unanimity for both Acts indicates to me that they should have been passed sooner, and it would have been right to do so. Furthermore, there is nothing reactionary about supporting a constitution which changes with the times as needed, and which generally strives towards the greater inclusion of people into institutions as a means to improve the representative government it embodies through Parliament. As stated in the piece, I also believe there are manifold options for constitutional reform, which means there is neither a predetermined path events must take nor the idea of a perfect reversal (which would not be authentic anyhow).
My contention with the Blair government, specifically the House of Lords Act 1999 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005, is in the throwing-out of the constitutional balance in Parliament and the ebbing of its power, thus sovereignty, to institutions which are less accountable and representative than the House of Lords was (despite appearances). There was nothing technically anti-constitutional about Labour's actions since Parliament is sovereign, but their rupturing of functional historical continuities marked a sharp departure from things that had fundamentally worked in British government for a long time. The severing of deep historical roots and thus the positive spirit of the constitution I support looks set to continue from a lack of contemporary understanding, so an advocacy of British constitutional government and its noble principles today are merited. I recommend you heed my call for learning and understanding the British constitution better, although given your invective I doubt you wish to conduct your opposition constructively or in good faith.
This is nonsense, and barely worth a reply. The Representation of the People Acts (1918 and 1928) show the best of Britain's constitutional tradition and its evolutionary nature, and I explicitly defend the first law on these grounds in the piece. There was nothing improper about their passage or implementation, either; to imply the opposite is quite disturbing and shows no true knowledge about the subject. If anything, the relative unanimity for both Acts indicates to me that they should have been passed sooner, and it would have been right to do so. Furthermore, there is nothing reactionary about supporting a constitution which changes with the times as needed, and which generally strives towards the greater inclusion of people into institutions as a means to improve the representative government it embodies through Parliament. As stated in the piece, I also believe there are manifold options for constitutional reform, which means there is neither a predetermined path events must take nor the idea of a perfect reversal (which would not be authentic anyhow).
My contention with the Blair government, specifically the House of Lords Act 1999 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005, is in the throwing-out of the constitutional balance in Parliament and the ebbing of its power, thus sovereignty, to institutions which are less accountable and representative than the House of Lords was (despite appearances). There was nothing technically anti-constitutional about Labour's actions since Parliament is sovereign, but their rupturing of functional historical continuities marked a sharp departure from things that had fundamentally worked in British government for a long time. The severing of deep historical roots and thus the positive spirit of the constitution I support looks set to continue from a lack of contemporary understanding, so an advocacy of British constitutional government and its noble principles today are merited. I recommend you heed my call for learning and understanding the British constitution better, although given your invective I doubt you wish to conduct your opposition constructively or in good faith.