Even easier, he seems to have a lot of fawning admirers in the crownless United States, perhaps he could move there.

Devil’s Kitchen: I would be interested to know the empirical base for your claim.

steves: You express what many assume to be the case, that is, with the rise of the career politician comes enhanced party loyalty and slavish devotion to the whips. In fact, as the number of career politicians has increased (as shown in the works of Professor Anthony King and Peter Riddell) so has the willingness of MPs to vote against their own party (as shown in my own work and that of Phil Cowley). Dissenting votes by MPs have reached an unprecedented level. Though various policy competences have passed to the EU, and to various bodies within the UK, there remains a substantial body of public policy determined by the UK Government: Parliament’s role remains crucial in calling government to account and, indeed, checking the various developments that you mention. A great deal has actually been done in this regard.

Franksummers3ba: I am surprised your comments have not attracted a response from some of our readers who – how shall I put it? – do not necessarily share your interpretation. The Constitutional Treaty was designed to push the EU in part in the direction you indicate. I still regard the nation state as the fundamental unit. There is not yet a European demos and I would be wary of moving away from the level of government to which people feel the closest.

From an objective or a moral point of view I cannot be sure the EU should not triumph over all. However, of many possibilities which could have occurred I think the dominance of the EU is one of those least likely to coincide with what I would once have called my interests. While Lord Norton is no stranger to the EU I wonder how much the different views of party expressed in his sort of debate with DH have to do with the subtle emergence of a new political culture. Europe has much that can unite it but nobody should expect that there will not be vast geopolitical cosequences of rising EU importance which are not fully foreseen by anyone — including the EU.

the rise of the professional political animal – who’s only way forward is to eb a party creature for advancemment, with no hope of life in the real world (the public sector and fake charity world is the only alternative) – this means all mps have to toe the line or be unemployed

the house of commons had abrogated its powers either to the EU, Quango’s or teh deveolved parliaments, and so is an overpaid under worked rubber stamp where self importatnt minows strut and believe that by passing more useless laws they are somehow in power

whats needed are less goverment, less regulation, part time poorly paid mp’s and a return to liberty

We have, of course, progressed substantially since that time: now we have organised party corruption.

DK

Parliamentary sovereignty is becoming a theoretical concept as more powers are devolved to regional parliaments and to the EU; incorporation of international laws, and the proposed establishment of a Supreme Court. You may counterclaim that parliament can repeal any of the acts that give effect to the preceding but the reality is that is what has become the theoretical concept. The UK parliament will not revoke a treaty simply because it wants to assert its sovereignty over an area where the EU now exercises that sovereignty.

Hannan, I suspect, feels that more voices should be raised in objection to this process of undermining parliamentary sovereignty; and that promoting a culture where MPs speak more freely serves that purpose. I’m not so certain.

In his case, he is not an MP, so that means of expressing his dissent from his party’s line and asserting parliamentary sovereignty is not available to him. He, however, has left the sting of party retribution in the form of an ad hominem attack from his party leader in regard to his remarks about the NHS and from others who seek to make political capital from his comments. He is basically arguing for a more liberal approach from the Whips and the media, et al, in regard to the quality of political debate (on which you are both agreed).

It is not always desirable that MPs should vote against the government (along party lines) simply to promote the interests of the constituents that they were elected to represent (where the regional interest conflicts with the national interest). National affairs would be unmanageable without a party whip, so loyalty is needed as a general rule.

So, his point is broader than the narrower focus you apply.