Richard Gordon (RG below) contributes to an important debate: what to make of the UK's governance at a time when parliament is in disrepute, no doubt in large part because it is formally sovereign, but in reality in thrall to the executive or largely unacknowledged limitations.
His approach is eclectic, tidying up the monarchy and the attorney general, part-reforming the House of Lords (renamed "Senate"), and introducing a "citizen's branch" to make extemporaneous proposals. His experience should be taken seriously--he has drafted constitutions and has a distinguished career in the field. He modestly says that he offers his book to start a debate.
RG dispels the misapprehension that Britain has never had a written constitution: Cromwell had two; and he draws attention to the uncertain character of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, with some jurists claiming that it falls out of common law and thus becomes fully subject to judicial interpretation.
This takes us to the central problem of our constitutional dilemma--there are no de jure limits on our legislature, Parliament, but that it has been captured by the executive for generations (as far back as the forties, Harold Wilson got his first in PPE by writing an essay on the topic), also surrendering powers by treaty, in particular to the European Union but also to a piecemeal programme of judicial intervention. This hotchpotch was intended by no-one, leaves many confused and dissatisfied, so opening the door to proposals like those from RG. Do they do the trick? That's hardly the point: after all RG makes it clear that he is trying to provoke a debate. So just a couple of points.
First, when it comes to a Bill of Rights, that is the cardinal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, RG goes well beyond governance to policy, by guaranteeing free health, social care and education; a healthy environment and an adequate standard of living. This feels like nothing so much as a shopping list from the soft-left. This is reinforced by the notes on Article 181. The article itself is couched in more or less unexceptionable language, but the note refers to Wilkinson and Picket's Spirit Level, a rousing call for social engineering to diminish inequality. If we are to take our policy from popular political science why not Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist, which ascribes all human progress to the impulse to trade. Answer: it's a matter of taste. This must explain why the guarantee of property rights includes weasel words from the European Human Rights Act : "Nothing in these provisions shall impair the right of a state to...control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes..." Not much of a right here.
Second, the "citizen's branch" seems a needless complication. With no powers, it would be nothing but a talking shop. If the objective is to give powers to the public, why not primaries, plebiscites or recall rights?
Net, net, however, the exercise is worthwhile, offering a solution to with Britain's central constitutional dilemma, the equivocal character of parliamentary sovereignty. Oddly enough, since the book's publication, the Brits have happened upon another approach: a formal coalition agreement. Now to see how that goes.