Brown is using his solid majority in this discredited rump parliament to continue its scorched earth policy of leaving an emasculated House of Commons behind him, when what it needs is greater aiuthority over the executive. This lot have had nothing much to do and we all know what ‘idle hands’ get up to.
To do such a thing to the mainly Labour incompetents there now is one thing but to wreck the next parliament to be elected by us containing people we choose is outrageous.
If we decide that we want MPs with some non-political experience of the real world to run our country that will be our choice. We don’t need a discredited prime minister to come between us and our choice. I hope Cameron will not accept this.
It’s rich that the Telegraph should now write a preening and half-sensible editorial having, with its wild, indiscriminate smears and failure to allow any response from those accused, largely caused the House - rather than a feww crooked MPs - to be so discredited. The Telegraph will have to answer to history for its wrecking tactics. Maybe this editorial is a dawning realisation that they have shown excess zeal in their demolition job.
Christina Speight
EUREFERENDUM Blog 24.6.09
Repent at leisure
There is not much more that can be added by way of comment on Brown's plans to regulate parliament, beyond that offered by Charles Moore on 16 May, which we explored on this blog.
The Daily Telegraph leader [see below -cs] has a go, noting that the proposals for cleaning up Westminster are a "demeaning moment for Parliament." It is an admission that those who are elected to run the nation's affairs cannot run their own.
This paper's main concern, though, is with the detail, particularly the controls over MPs with second jobs. The fear is that these will drive out high-quality people, or inhibit them from standing in the first place. There seems no concern about the principles embodied in the proposals.
For that, you have to go to a blogger, Raedwald, who calls it a "pernicious and malign Bill". In fine style, he declares:
The last thing this nation needs is an Act that would pack the chamber with vile apparatchiks and 'professional' politicians, rob the Commons of its authority, turn our parliament into just a department of government and treat our MPs - returned by us to Parliament to exercise the thunderous powers and sovereignty of that body - as mere hirelings, irrelevant juniors
.
Such is the sagging morale of our MPs, and their slender grasp of constitutional and democratic principles, that they look to approving this with minimal debate and scrutiny, intent only on "restoring public confidence" in Parliament. Not for them the lesson of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the classic illustration of the principle that rushed law is always bad law.
As to The Telegraph's concerns about inhibiting high-quality people from standing for Parliament, the main deterrent is the singular fact that, progressively, this institution has been robbed of its powers (with the willing assent of its incumbents). Yet this Bill seeks to neuter Parliament even further, continuing its march towards irrelevance.
What is lost here is the very rationale for having Parliament in the first place. It does not belong to the MPs, or government. It is – or should be - our Parliament, there as a bastion against an over-powerful and oppressive executive. Anything that diminishes Parliament diminishes us.
Having lost the plot so long ago, however, our MPs are now conspiring in destroying what little authority they have left. But while they act in haste, we will be the ones to repent at leisure.
TELEGRAPH 24.6.09
Partisan rules on MPs will deter the talented
Telegraph View: Through their own venality, MPs have forfeited the right to be held accountable by their peers, and will instead be kept in line by an independent watchdog.
Yesterday morning, this newspaper posted on its website the unexpurgated details of MPs' expenses claims. This allows all voters to see whether Members of Parliament have been using their Commons allowances honestly – or whether they have been exploiting them as a tax-free salary supplement. A few hours later, with fortuitous timing, the Government published its proposals for cleaning up Westminster. This is a demeaning moment for Parliament. It is an admission that those who are elected to run the nation's affairs cannot run their own. [ NO! It is an assertion by a Labour government and the Telegraph- cs] The self-regulation that has for centuries been the hallmark of the House of Commons is to be replaced by control at the hands of an outside agency, the Parliamentary Standards Authority. Through their own venality, MPs [This lot -cs] have forfeited the right to be held accountable by their peers, and will instead be kept in line by an independent watchdog.
It is arguable, however, that the material our website will act as a far more effective deterrent to misbehaviour than a cumbersome new quango. So, too, will Sir Christopher Kelly's review of parliamentary allowances, which is set to impose stringent rules. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown's commitment to "complete transparency" rings hollow after it emerged last night that the expenses for 2008/09 will have the addresses redacted when they are published, just as happened with the claims from the previous four years, which were released last week. This will make the exposure of the worst excesses impossible. The Commons authorities argue that it is required by statute; if that is the case, the law must be changed.
One of the chief attractions of the new watchdog, at least in the Prime Minister's eyes, is that it will oversee the registration of MPs' outside interests. We have suspicions about this, too: it seems a partisan move by the Government, for it is aimed almost exclusively at Conservative MPs, who tend to have more extensive outside interests than their Labour counterparts. Yes, voters have the right to know what their MPs do outside Parliament, but if the level of detail that must be declared proves as intrusive as is planned, it will drive out high-quality people, or inhibit them from standing in the first place.
This is dangerous.
The decline of Parliament's reputation in recent decades is not unconnected with the emergence of a professional political class at the expense of politicians with wider, real-world experience. The poor quality of legislation, the contempt with which Parliament is treated by the executive and the low public esteem in which MPs are now held suggest it is time that this tide was turned.
Posts
