The Monarchy is About Power, Not 'process'

Incredulity. A flash of irritation. Then a half-amused, dismissive laugh. You don't have to know Tony Blair well to predict his range of expressions on learning that the Fabian Society has produced ideas for the reform of the monarchy. There he is, surrounded by a morass of problems, from foundation hospitals and jury trials to the chaotic political aftermath of the Iraq war - and what is the thinking left thinking about? A completely irrelevant side issue, which helps him not at all.

The monarchy is off the agenda and will be so long as Tony Blair is in power. He is the man, after all, who thinks he understands Middle England and sticks relentlessly to its issues. Today's Fabian intellectuals, he will conclude, are about as useful to New Labour in its travails as Michael Foot, waving his stick around in the Downing Street garden on Monday evening. So, sorry, Fabians: when Blair heads off for his Washington and China, he is likelier to have a fun-pack of Jackie Collins novels in his bag than the work of this commission.

Part of me hopes I am wrong. Part of me still yearns secretly to believe that there is a flicker, a fragment of radicalism inside the Blair frame. But we all know the answer. The great irony of this is that in fact the Fabians are not radical at all; their proposals for the succession of the eldest child, for Charles to be allowed to marry Camilla, and on the religious hangovers of ancient monarchy, are impeccably Blairite in tone. They are sensible, tidying-up acts of - dread word - modernisation. The private reaction from the palace has been positive. This is just the kind of debate real supporters of the monarchy would like to get going. It is only Number 10 that is dismissive.

As an old republican who would prefer to see the conversion of the palaces into social housing for migrant families, I was left underwhelmed by the Fabians. But even republicans have to accept, along with Blair, that this is no longer an issue. Don't we? It seems only yesterday that, after the Queen's "annus horribilis" and the death of Diana, the very future of the institution was in doubt. Yet here we are, with the papers filled with gushing copy and pictures of the princes as they become men, and Charles still waiting for his time to come.

What has actually happened to the monarchy is that it has moved from being the apex of the social and political system to being supported by tourism and the media. The Queen no longer really rests on the loyalty of the Lords and Whitehall, the regimental messes and the curtseying debutantes. Her popular support is from the tabloids, serving up the endless soap opera WestEnders - Queen Liz, not the Queen Vic, but with a storyline to match. This is a fickle kind of support, and the royals must know it. Monarchy as a soap opera requires villains and disasters. If Prince William and Prince Harry are to play their part, one of them will have to be turned into a hate-figure.

This is a fate that Tony Blair, playing his role in the political soap opera, ought to understand very well. He knows all about heroes turning into villains, and the media's restless interest in the lurid. Remember Cherie Blair's icy question to the Sun's Rebekah Wade - "Did you really believe I had a rub-down in a shower with Carole?" No. "Well why did you put it in your paper then?"

But what the prime minister does not seem to understand is that constitutional questions are not simply about "process", or drily abstract. They are about power and therefore about how Britain is run. And they relate directly to many of his current and apparently more immediate problems today.

Take the continuing row about Iraq and the use of intelligence. The paper trail of draft dossiers and the turning of raw, sometimes contradictory stories into a single "case for war" publication, all took place at the dark heart of Whitehall, where even select committees cannot shine their torches. It is still a system where, at the last gasp, the crown is supreme and parliament is not. Prime ministers can declare war on the nation's behalf thanks to the royal prerogative. This PM, sensibly, took the decision to the Commons anyway. But in other circumstances, he could have fired first and asked MPs the question later.

Then there is Alastair Campbell. His power over key civil servants derives from an order in council. Whose council? The privy council? Whose privy? Yes, you guessed it. On the other side of the fence, the BBC, defending its independence, is worried about what? Renewal of its charter. Its what charter? Yes, its royal charter. To say that the constitution is irrelevant to the political media war that has been raging through Westminster is simply ignorant.

Now take the current troubles Blair is in over foundation hospitals and jury trials. He has a huge majority in the Commons, and MPs are just beginning to get worried again about their own political futures. These problems are only acute in parliamentary terms because of the Lords, where Tories and dissidents are ganging up to give the elected government a hard time. As it happens, many people will be on their side. But Blair could have sorted the Lords. He has had plenty of time to do so. But, because of a long argument between Robin Cook, when he was leader of the Commons, and Derry Irvine, when he was Lord Chancellor, Blair could never quite be bothered. It seemed irrelevant to "delivery". Well, he knows better now. And the more he has to depend upon Scottish Labour MPs to push through controversial England-only legislation, the more he will be reminded that the constitution counts.

The argument could be extended much more widely. If the government is facing a crisis of control and leadership in public services, which are delivered locally, then perhaps this has something to do with its disdain for local government and local leadership. The years of Whitehall bullying and target-setting have taken their toll on people's willingness to shoulder responsibility locally. This too is a constitutional question; but it is about good schools and good hospitals as well.

Or look ahead to the next big argument, about the European constitution. There is a case for this, but it cannot be made without an explanation of the political system we will then live under, and what it means for the state and democracy. We have had not a cheep from the prime minister about any of this. It is as if he finds it boring. I suspect that unless he starts to find it interesting, and to make a vivid case to the country about what Europe means in terms of popular politics, not simply summits and treaties, this is another argument Blair is fated to lose.

In the end, as Michael Foot could have told him, you cannot wield power effectively without a sense of the constitution and a sense of history. You can use that understanding to effect radical change. But without it, you are condemned to flail around in bewilderment. Better pack that Fabian report after all.