Published:

138 comments

Parliament, the media, the armed forces, even the monarchy: all these institutions have, at one time or another, taken a knock during the past 30 years or so – some more than others.

The armed forces are infinitely better regarded than, say, MPs, but even they came in for criticism after military failures in Iraq.  Ditto the Queen herself, very briefly, at the time of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

However, the judges have survived pretty much intact – for all the complaints over human rights laws and, sometimes, judicial review.

Occasionally, an individual judge will be criticised in the media for a particular judgement.  But both old and new media have tended to steer clear of probing judges’ views, private lives, interests, families – and so on.

In all likelihood, this consensus represents an abiding respect for the judiciary, and a belief that judges are public-spirited, learned and above politics.

Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project – which argues that the judiciary has acquired too much political power, for a series of reasons – is very much a voice in the wilderness.

So it may be that Party members’ views, as registered in our survey above, are simply not typical of those of most voters.

However, it is possible that, in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court ruling on prorogation, they are a kind of advance indicator: seven out of ten respondents want change.

Half of them prefer going back to the Law Lords model than sideways to an American-style one, complete with confirmation hearings.

Which shows a deep cultural resistance to embedding the judiciary in the political process.  And note: despite last week’s ruling, one in four respondents say, in effect: leave well alone.

138 comments for: One in two Party members say: bring back the Law Lords. Our survey.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.