So the news yesterday came out about Jack Straw's desire to turn a "Bill of rights" that Gordon Brown favours in to a fully fledged modern constitution. Unfortunately his statement was wishy washy and quite devoid of any real substance, the result of this being that I think most people are looking at it with interest and then saying "tell me more when you actually have details". I can only find two other bloggers actually commenting on it as of the time of writing this. Is Straw's idea really necessary, and is it really the best move for the country?

I find it interesting that Straw spoke of this constitution less like that of the country that he was standing in, USA, and more like some kind of contract that Labour are so preoccupied with at the moment. I am by no means an expert on constitutional US law nor of law in general, but my understanding was that the USA constitution was born from a massive time of conflict and flux and was written to protect America from the British in the first instance, and also from the idea of an authoritarian government telling them what they could and could not do.

Jack on the other hand is talking about civic duty, about what the state can expect from it's citizens and vice versa. This doesn't sound like the type of constitution we probably most think about, it is to my mind an opportunity for a government to set down rules of living in this country as a citizen. Perhaps my judgement is just being clouded though, with contracts being suggested between those in housing benefit and local government, or between parents of under age dirnkers and the government....ASBOs being the most promiment type of societal contract we have in force...I can't really see this idea of a defining written constitution as being especially productive for our nation.

In fact we already have a constitution of sorts, written in various parts of treaties and law, and for Jack Straw to state that the public can't put "their finger on" their rights is more to do with a lack of presentation rather than a weakness in the way our democracy works. I really don't believe that most people don't have a general idea of their rights, especially post 98 with the Human Rights Act.

So colour me sceptical, this is an idea of reform coming from a man that will drop the word referendum wherever he can to make it look like the public will have a say, in a position where he's stated no reform of government can happen until the house of lords is reformed, in a government where the over-riding tactic for instilling order and peace is to control our every waking moment with contracts and compulsory action.

Read his full (boring) statement from the Ministry of Justice here