In our country the judiciary is subordinate to the legislature, not always the case in other domains. This fundamental aspect of our democracy is under threat, as Michael Howard has pointed out, when he spoke in the debate on the Queen’s Speech on curbing the power of judges. His speech, I believe, has gone unreported. So here’s a synopsis.

I did not then foresee the extent to which a challenge to the powers of Parliament would emanate from the judges.

Over the past quarter of a century we have seen a steady shift in power from Parliament and Government to the courts. To begin with, we saw an expansion of the traditional power of the courts to review the exercise of power by the Executive. Traditionally, this power was exercised with restraint. That restraint has more recently become conspicuous by its absence. As the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, … described as the “constitutional imperative of judicial self-restraint,” and he gave three reasons for it.

First, he referred to the constitutional imperative, whereby Parliament gives powers to various authorities, including Ministers, for good reasons and in reliance on the level of knowledge and experience that such authorities possess.

Secondly, he referred to the lack of judicial expertise which, he said, made the courts ill-equipped to take decisions in place of the designated authority.

Thirdly, and most pertinently, he referred to what he called the democratic imperative, whereby elected public authorities derive their authority in part from their electoral mandate. He said:

“The electoral system…operates as an important safeguard against the unreasonable exercise of public powers, since elected authorities have to submit themselves, and their decision-making records, to the verdict of the electorate at regular intervals.”

That, surely, is the nub of it. Governments and Members of Parliament are answerable to their electorate, they can be dismissed and they are directly accountable. Judges are unelected, unaccountable and cannot be dismissed.

The difficulties have been exacerbated by the Human Rights Act 1998. The point about these rights is that none of them can be exercised in isolation. Any decision to uphold one right may well infringe someone else’s right, or it may conflict with the rights of the community at large. What has to be done, therefore, is to carry out a balancing exercise in respect of these competing rights.

Who will be ultimately responsible for striking that balance: elected Members of Parliament or unelected judges? Such a balancing exercise is better left, in my opinion, to elected Governments.

The matters on which I have touched this afternoon do not often hit the headlines. But they are, in my view, fundamental to the rights and freedoms of the people we represent in this House and to our ability to defend them. I believe that that ability has been seriously weakened, and I hope that the next Government will be able to do something to redress the balance.

Nelson Mandela’s and humility go together like bread and butter. Sadly, the great majority of us will never have seen that at first hand. But Labour MP Frank Dobson has, as he recounted when he gave the Loyal Address in the House of Commons thanking the Queen, and opened the debate on the Queen’s Speech. 

“On an earlier occasion, I had had an appointment with President Mandela at the South African high commissioner’s residence. I had met him before that, but only as part of a group, so I did not expect that he would know me from Adam. He greeted me with the words, “Hello, Frank. It’s good to see you again.” The “again” was clearly a product of the briefing supplied by the high commissioner, but then he put his hand on my shoulder and said, “You do remember me, don’t you?”

Foolishly, as it now appears, I’d always imagined that political party’s Chief Whips kept a little black book of MP’s indiscretions and worse. The contents of the book I’d assumed were used to exert control. Here’s was me thinking that Michael Dobbs’s wonderful Francis Urquhart character, in his book House of Cards, had more than a modicum of truth in it.

Foolish, foolish boy. I mean, how in heavens name was David Curry permitted to be chairman of the parliamentary standards and privileges committee. The Daily Telegraph’s revelations today on David Curry do nothing to repair the damage the MP’s expenses scandal has wrought.

The little black book of dark secrets is empty. It’s magic powers are illusory.

A bit more Friday Fun for you. Way back I worked at a company’s head office. Occasionally, I’d nip into the boardroom after a board meeting and grab any doodles and the like on any note pads remaining.

Next, apply a bit of graphology, and doodle science. What did I learn? Nothing earth-shattering, but, it helped confirm and strengthen opinions I’d formed on each board member. Did I tell anybody at the time. Hell, no. Try a bit of your own analysis on these signatures. [Understanding prominent political signatures is quite helpful, although US-focus, sorry].

In case you’re unsure, they are Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, William Hague, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair.

I’ve learned of Surrey County Council’s review of subsidised bus services through popping over to Simon Ashall’s blog. I note that Surrey Heath isn’t affected in this first the first phase of the Surrey bus review consultation.

Simon seems concerned about one service – No 73 from Chobham to Woking via Horsell. It’s mentioned on the interactive map on the Woking News & Mail website. While not specifically mentioned in the list of proposed changes, the County Council are asking for views on the service.

Hmm, a quandary arises. Our main bus services are routes 34 and 35. Should I recommend we all start using these buses, to strengthen the case for them? If we do, what’ll happen is that the amount subsidised travel will increase, making Surrey Heath’s deficit on this even larger than it already is. Answer, no. I think the case for routes 34 and 35 is strong. Tinkering with the times is OK, as it’s always useful to match times to customer need, but major changes must be highly unlikely. 

The review of bus services in Surrey Heath is set to be in phase two of the review beginning in September 2011. Looking at the timetable for changes in phase 1 of the review, it seems that it’ll be almost a year before the changes take place, which means no likely change for us until September 2012.

Maybe it was an ‘elephant in the room’ moment. So obvious that no-one in Gordon’s war room wanted to discuss the topic of MP’s expenses, when they compiled the bills for inclusion in the Queen’s Speech. Or maybe it was because there was no potential ’dividing line’ between Labour and the Tories that Gordon so favours to inform his decision making. Whatever.  There’s a flurry of comment about the omission of enacting the Kelly reforms to parliament,

• Iain Martin thinks it was a strategic blunder by Gordon Brown
• Peter Riddell thinks that the least parliament should do is clean up politics
• Conservative Home provides a background on the Tories attack
• Jon Craig has a MUST READ post on the real dividing lines over MP’s expenses
• Peter Hoskin reckons a phone call to Kelly won the day 
• BBC reports Gordon Brown attacked on expenses ’silence’

Even Sir Christopher Kelly has spoken about the omission,

“It is disappointing that today’s Queen’s Speech did not contain measures to address the changes we believe to be necessary affecting the remit, powers and independence of the new body being established to regulate expenses. There is no reason why the relatively straightforward legislation needed in this area should prevent the new regulatory body from getting other important changes underway.”

The well of public trust in government and politics is already polluted, from the McBride smear campaign, MP’s expenses, and prevarication over helicopter support for troops in Afghanistan.

Now, the well has been poisoned.  Certainly for Labour, although unfortunately the rest of politics too.  The contents, or lack of them, in this week’s Queens Speech this week is the cause.

While Daniel Finkelstein has said, and Anthony Wells agreed, the Queen’s Speech is generally of little import to Joe Public, I firmly believe that the omission of anything on reforming parliament, by enacting the changes recommended in the Kelly Report, will do great damage to Labour and politics. This error will give support to arguments that the rest of the Queen’s Speech is all about Labour’s shallow positioning of itself against the Conservatives. “Governing in the national interest”, says Gordon. Phooey and bunkum, just the opposite.

The result of this cynical political calculation will be greater abstaining from voting, where the voting public want nothing to do with politics. Alternatively, voters will turn to the ‘others’ candidates – UKIP, BNP, Greens or even credible independents, whom they imagine not to be tainted by scandal.

Curzon Supper Club, most likely you’ll not know of it.

The chairman is local businessman Robin Horsley, who is applying his considerable energies to provide regular, low-cost dining events, with high quality speakers. Giving people in Surrey Heath the opportunity to meet and hear from prominent politicians, journalists, business leaders, and celebrities, all in relaxed and informal settings.

As it’s organised by Surrey Heath Conservatives, there’ll be local conservatives in the audience. However, these events are open to people with no party affiliation, who live or work in the Surrey Heath Parliamentary Constituency. Despite being called a ‘Club’, there isn’t a membership requirement, or membership fee. You can attend events on as many, or as few, occasions as you choose. Everyone is accorded a warm and friendly welcome.

The next event is on Sunday 13th December at the Half Moon Pub in Windlesham, from7.30 to 10.30pm. Tickets £15.  The speaker is Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who is reckoned to be the tallest MP  in the House of Commons. Book online HERE.

Stuart MacLeod is the County Councilor for Bagshot, Lightwater, and Windlesham. I should add, he’s also a Surrey Heath Borough Councillor, and a Parish Councillor for Lightwater.

Busy boy. But it does make him remarkably effective, able to get speedy action, when necessary. Oh, and mustn’t forget to tell you he’s got a blog, do take a peek, HERE, it’s quite informative on local issues.