Our dubious Constitution (continued)

[Sanford Levinson]

I note, FWIW, the lead editorial in this week's Economist, which basically calls for Tony Blair to step down unless he truly believes that he can push through some of what the Economist (and presumably Blair) believe are "necessary" reforms.  Otherwise, they argue, he should give Gordon Brown the chance to establish his own personal as PM before the next election.  
 
The main point I would make is that there is no tone of crisis at all in the editorial.  It's a sober analysis of the kind of leadership the UK (and the Labour Party) need in the next couple of y ears and a tentative conclusion that he is unlikely to provide it.  One can agree or disagree, but it's "par for the course" in the UK.  And, presumably, at some point Labourites themselves might start initiating a change in leadership, not least because Blair's most recent legislation, on education, got throughonly with Tory support.  I'm not at all sure that British parliamentarianism ,coupled with sovereignty-limiting membership in the EU (and, of course, recognition of the authority of the European Court on Human Rights), doesn't provide an optimal solution.  Given all of the emphasis on American states as "little laboratories of experimentation," it's a real shame that none of them decided to go a parliamentary route and that only Nebraska has demonstrated the possibility of an alternative to bicameralism.  
 
sandy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060318/783c7d6a/attachment.htm