As a non-member of the Constitution Committee, I have only just had time to look at the transcript of the Deputy Prime Minister’s evidence, which Lord Norton refers to. This has just been published, if you want to read it for yourself.
There was one issue in particular, which I thought should give heart to those who want to improve the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Nick Clegg made clear that he was open to amendments to ensure that the reduction in the number of MPs did not increase Executive domination in the Commons. He said:
There is a strong argument that says you must look at this and adapt the number of people who are on the government payroll so that you do not get a lopsided imbalance between those on the payroll and those holding them to account. I totally accept that. It is something that I am very keen to work on and it is an issue for the next Government, not for this one, so we have a bit of time. There are lots of different ways to do it and we are open to suggestions and amendments. The issue of principle is one that we do not contest in any way.
This fits well with the theme I suggested in my previous post, that the Government should not be (and evidently isn’t) resistant to some change to this Bill. The Lords will have ample opportunity to improve it in ways which do not undermine the key purpose – to bring about a referendum on May 5th 2011, and to bring about fairer constituency boundaries.
“There is a strong argument that says you must look at this and adapt the number of people who are on the government payroll so that you do not get a lopsided imbalance between those on the payroll and those holding them to account.”
Unlike in the House of Lords where we`ll pack it with our supporters….Who after any election are really the only ones holding Government to account. And who hopefully fully realise that any referendum by any Government is a political ploy and really not a consultation of the people, whose main desire has been statistically proven to be a referendum on EEC membership.
Politicians are no longer fooling people, if you desire to have the trust and respect of the people back again stop talking nonsense.
“Adapt the number of people so that you don’t get a lopsided imbalance between those on the payroll and those holding them to account”.
What is being done to address the even worse lopsided chronicly-sick and disabled imbalance between those on the payrolls in Parliament and in the CivilService, and those Citizens and Peoples not only not on such a payroll but neither enabled nor empowered to hold any part of or even the whole of the Governance Structure of Britain, to account ?
============
JSDM0439F22Oct10
I watched the video and thought the DP was wrong footed on the evidence behind his judgement. In the closing moments Lord Irvine of Lairg red faced with indignation discussed with the DP the prospect of open revolt and use of the Parliament Act to get an elected house through. Again the DP was less than convincing as to the need for legitimacy in the upper house.
So I would make Lord Irvine of Lairg a proposition:
“Passion seeks out history whilst reason hides from it”
The executive exceeded its constitutional authority by allowing the Commons divisions on Iraq whilst the Life Peerages Act 1958 was still in force.
One must conclude that the executive felt that the HoL did not have the necessary legitimacy to take part in the vote in spite of many constitutional precedents that show the HoL has always shared power on matters of national importance. Had the HoL taken part in the vote, reason would have prevailed and our armed forces would not have been committed.
If we talk of the casualties of that campaign we must include democracy and the good standing of Parliament itself. When the executive in a legislature abdicates its power to their chamber what are the electorate to do? They cannot at a stroke remove that legislature by use of the vote. Such legislatures act on the basis of perfection because there is no democratic accountability or remedy for what they do.
Our constitution in the written form of the Bill of Rights 1688 for good reason passes the Royal Prerogative to the ministers of a government only and it does not authorise that government to abdicate its duty to the members of its house.
The HoL is no place for passion but the place for legitimate reason.
Ref: Commons divisions on Iraq: 26 Feb and 18 Mar 2003
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/documents/upload/snsg-02109.pdf