Tony Blair and his Legacy

The article that I decided to dissect is, “A Revised British Constitution: Tony Blair’s Lasting Legacy?” by Donley T. Studlar. Originally the article was a 1998 Taft Lecture to the Political Science Department of the University of Cincinnati. It was printed in the International Review, Spring 1999, and revised in November, 2006.
The article begins with a brief discussion on when Tony Blair will resign (June 27, 2007, according to CNN.Com) and a brief statement on the platform of constitutional proposals from which Tony Blair originally ran. These were as follows:
1. Devolution to Scotland and Wales
2. An elected mayor and council for London and potentially other urban areas
3. Removal of the voting rights of hereditary peers in the House of Lords
4. Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law
5. Electoral reform at various levels of government including a referendum on changing the electoral system for Members of Parliament.
The article was subdivided into six main points.
Traditional British Constitutional Principles is the first subheading. In this section, he describes a bit of British history and current design.
1. There are political elites in British government who give lip service to making the government less incestuous, but are loath to share power.
2. Simple voting majority of the House of Commons can change any law, including those rights of individuals. There is no “Bill of Rights”.
3. There is a sharing of power between the executive and legislative branches, the judicial branch has little to no power in the organization of the government.
4. Only Parliament guarantees civil liberties.
5. British government has been secretive and hides most of its’ workings.
6. Large cities do not elect mayors or governing councils.
Labor’s Constitutional Promises
This section discusses the goals of the constitutional proposals outlined above, mainly participatory British citizenship.
Developing a Program for Constitutional Change
This section tried to describe the position that the Labor party was in when it was decided that constitutional change was going to be its new agenda. Particularly, it points out that after losing four consecutive general elections, it decided to unite the groups in Brittan that were already interested in constitutional change.
Constitutional Change Under Labor
Under this section, he outlines how much of the goals outlined above were met and how that was achieved.
1. There are legislatures with devolved powers in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
2. All of 92 hereditary peers have been removed from the House of Lords.
3. The European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into British law.
4. London has her own elected Mayor.
5. The Freedom of Information Act creates an independent Information Commissioner’s office and allows some public access, but it is still one of the most secretive governments in the democratic world.
6. There have been some changes in the electoral process, but not as much as was indicated when Mr. Blair was trying for the office.
In what was most likely an addition during a recent revision, there is a section on the joining of the United Kingdom with the European Union. UI law now supersedes British law, including judicial review by the European Court of Justice. Brittan still won’t adopt the Euro as its currency.
Last in this subsection is an subtle attack on the monarchy as outdated and elitist.
Conflicting Views on the Constitutional Changes
This is the section that I found most confusing. He attempts to describe the reaction of the British people to the reforms. Most of these reforms are more than five years old, and have been integrated into the British public.
Further Constitutional Changes on the Horizon?
In this section, he describes an England which is still adjusting to some of the broad changes made under Tony Blair. The Conservatives have now picked up the government and are trying to help Britain find the changes it likes and wants to keep and which should go aside. In addition, a larger issue of changing the electoral process is still in debate.
Thanks,
Janet Johnson