The Parallax Brief has been more than a little concerned about both the practical and moral impact of introducing a 55% super-majority requirement for votes to dissolve parliament. On the former, the practical implications, he feels that in a deadlock situation, Parliament would be faced with a choice between California-style legislative constipation, and all the consequences which go with that, or opaque political horse trading. Either would be indecorous and dangerous, and are cast in stark contrast to our current system, which elegantly and brilliantly allows for a swift dissolution of Parliament so the people can break the deadlock with a new election.
On the latter, the moral aspect, it is a fundamentally undemocratic process which, when combined with the effect of a coalition on Lords voting dynamics, strengthens the executive even further at the expense of the legislative.
But the potentially fragile coalition must be preserved. Potential enemies must be knocked out before battle even commences. Enter Admiral Yamomoto stage left.
David Cameron has today launched a sneak attack on the 1922 Committee, the voice of Conservative backbench MPs and the bulwark of the Conservative Party’s legislative resistance against the executive.
In what James Forsyth, the editor of the Spectator, calls, “a move of breath-taking audacity,” the Prime Minister will attempt to bounce a vote through the 1922 Committee on whether ministers, that is, MPs on the Government payroll, will be allowed to become full voting members in the 1922 Committee.
This, if voted through, would remove much of the 1922 Committee’s independence, preventing it from being the thorn in David Cameron’s side in the way it has been for Prime Ministers of Christmas past.
If the vote is passed, it would leave the legislative, that is Members of Parliament not in the Government from both sides of the House, with far, far less power, and, combined with the proposed reforms on fixed terms, the impact a coalition has on voting dynamics in the Lords, the decision to install Lib Dem and Tory loyalists in the Lords, and the 55% dissolution super-majority, would continue the process which started under Thatcher and continued right through to Brown: centralising power with the executive.
The contrast to Nick Clegg’s lofty words and admirable program for governance is stark.
The contrast to the Liberal Democrat and Tory manifestos is even worse.
Seriously concerned.




Bagehot, the Economist’s British politics columnist, believes that 
The Guardian ran with an interesting article yesterday — albeit one that blatantly played to the foibles of its natural readership — highlighting the 








Comments [ 0 ]