Written evidence submitted by Professor
Dawn Oliver, University College London
9. What are the implications, if any, of
the fact that these proposals lack a popular mandate?
As long as the proposals are put forward as
being in what the proponents honestly believe to be the general
or public interest, and the population will acquiesce, the lack
of a mandate does not matter.
I do not consider a popular mandate to be essential
for proposals for constitutional change. What is essential is
that any proposals should be put forward in what the proposers
honestly consider to be the public interest and should not be
motivated by desires for partisan political advantage. That does
not preclude a political party or MPs from proposing changes that
would advantage particular sections of society: if that were not
the case women would never be able to propose sex equality legislation
and ethnic minorities would not be able to propose anti discrimination
legislation. But the justification for reform proposals—indeed
for any government policy—must be that it will promote general
public interests. The mandate "principle" (not really
a principle at all) is supposed to promote the public interest
principle, but of course it cannot be guaranteed to do so. A mandate
can indicate popular consent to a new policy, and government by
consent/acquiescence is an important principle of the UK constitution.
However the fact of the matter is that no government for many
decades has won the votes of a majority of those who voted in
an election, given the fact that most constituencies are won on
three or four etc cornered fights and the winning candidate seldom
wins a majority of the votes cast. Thus winning an election does
not necessarily grant a government a "mandate".
11. Should the head of government or Cabinet
require the endorsement of the House of Commons, by way of an
investiture vote?
No. This would be too formal.
I consider it a positive aspect of our constitutional
arrangements that politicians operate within a culture of responsibility
and not just by rules, whether of a legal or purely conventional/political
kind.
Compliance with a culture of responsibility/sociality
is demanded by the general population and is widely reflected
in press and media comment. Politicians are conscious of this.
The public and press reaction to the expenses scandal illustrates
this.
My understanding of general public opinion is
that MPs of all parties, and any government, single party or coalition,
and opposition parties ought not to act in a partisan way and
ought to exercise their judgment as best they can in the public
interest, honestly and without being improperly influenced by
selfish considerations.
After the election it was obviously not possible
for the coalition partners to insist on implementation all of
their manifesto commitments. The population generally realises
and accepts this. Our electorate is fairly sophisticated in these
matters.
If matters such as the formation of a coalition
or of a single party government required endorsement of the House
of Commons, then the focus might be on the letter of the rules
rather than the spirit of the constitution, which assumes inclusiveness,
trustworthiness and good faith, and punishes lack of trust heavily
through public opinion. That would not be right—unless and
until the culture of the constitution changes so that the general
interest is considered not to exist but to be a myth. There is
currently no sign of such a shift.
It would not be good for the country if combinations
of parties which lack a majority could prevent the formation of
a new government if the previous one no longer had a majority
by refusing endorsement. Eg if there were two main but minority
parties and say three or four smaller ones, the position could
be reached where no government could be formed because the smaller
ones vetoed every permutation, seeking to bargain for special
deals. For instance, if Labour had formed a government in May
on the basis of an investiture vote after doing deals with the
nationalist parties that their regions/nations would receive special
funding, that would have been a very partisan outcome and contrary
to the general interest principle.
2 October 2010
| 
