Magazine article Public Finance

Commons as Muck

Magazine article Public Finance

Commons as Muck

Article excerpt

The parliamentary Christmas recess, which starts next week, cannot come quickly enough for Michael Martin, the embattled Commons speaker. The immediate danger to his position might have passed, but his predicament is a metaphor for everything that has gone wrong with Parliament: its loss of authority; a lack of clarity about its role; a failure to understand its central historic importance; a supine readiness to get pushed around; and a querulous attitude when all this is pointed out.

The decline in its status predates the Labour Party's arrival in office in 1997 but has accelerated since then. The encroachment of the European Union upon Parliament's sovereignty has been the biggest change, undermining its power and selfconfidence. But it has been instrumental in its own diminution, lamely trodden all over by a government that spent two terms in office with a three-figure majority and still displays the arrogance that goes with such power.

Throughout most of this period, the prime minister was a politician who, by his own admission, 'never pretended to be a House of Commons man' yet who was, preposterously, given a standing ovation as he left the chamber for the last time in the summer of 2007. Tony Blair proceeded to show his indifference, even contempt, for Parliament by immediately resigning his seat, something none of his predecessors had done.

David Lloyd George, ousted as prime minister in 1922 when the Tories withdrew support for the wartime coalition, did not leave Parliament until 23 years later. Margaret Thatcher, ousted by her own party in 1990, stayed on until the next general election two years later.

But Blair couldn't get out fast enough. It spoke volumes about the diminished status of an institution to whose slow death he had been the principal contributor.

In 1997, Prime Minister's Questions, hitherto held on Tuesday and Thursday, were changed to a single Wednesday session. This was defended on the grounds that it amounted to the same amount of time - 30 minutes a week. But there is a world of difference between the prime minister being required to face the Commons once a week and twice. They are less likely to get away with dissembling if they have to come back two days after an infelicitous answer and are more likely to be required to address topical matters.

But it was an imposition accepted by Blair's predecessors. It should be restored.

Then there were the changes to the hours, ostensibly to make the Commons 'family-friendly' but in reality to limit the opportunities for late-night plotting, or plotting of any sort since it meant MPs began to visit Parliament less often. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.