Does the 55% Rule rule out democracy?

With everything that's been going on this week in the wake of the election and the Cameron/Clegg marriage, the proposed 55% rule hasn't had even half the impact it would at any other time. However, it's certainly sent waves through Parliament, with even veteran MP Richard Ottaway, a prospective chair of the powerful Tory 1922 Committee, entering the row by warning the move could end the "primacy of Parliament."

The happy couple...but for how long?

(Image credit: Daily Telegraph)

In short, the rule will mean that for Parliament to be dissolved prior to the end of the newly fixed five year terms, at least 55% of MPs must vote in favour, rather than 51% as has previously been the case. David Cameron agreed the rule with his new Liberal Democrat friends to reassure them that his party will not back out of the coalition deal should his party achieve opinion poll success and call a General Election safe in the knowledge that the Conservatives could gain sufficient MPs to form a majority.

You might be thinking that this seems unusually altruistic, and you'd be correct: from Cameron's point of view, it also has the valuable side-effect of meaning that, should the coalition fail - as many supporters and activists of both parties believe it ultimately will, with many MPs in all likelihood secretly thinking the same thing - it means that the opposition, be it Labour or a future Labour-LibDem coalition, would find it very difficult to garner enough support to call for Parliament to be dissolved prior to the end of the five year term. This means that, should the pact fail, the Conservatives would be able to continue as the ruling party even without a majority - almost a guarantee that they could stay in power despite their failure to win last week's election.

Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Southampton Itchen between 1983 and 1992 and Christchurch since 1997, warns: "If the present government was to lose its majority in Parliament and wasn't able to operate as a minority government because it didn't enjoy the confidence of a sufficient number of MPs, then what is being suggested is that it would carry on."

"It is not the duty of Parliament to prop up this coalition," says Charles Walker, the Tory MP for Broxbourne in Hertfordshire (really nice Chinese restaurant called Sky City at the Tower Centre by the way, folks). He continues, "This is a matter of convenience, because clearly the leader of our party, David Cameron, wants a five year Parliament and the Liberal Democrats want fixed terms and they don't want there to be a General Election along the way. But if Parliament and the nation lose confidence in this coalition government, there should be a General Election, whether that is in two years or three years or four years."

Richard Ottaway, who like Mr. Chope has had a break from Parliament for just five years since 1983 after he lost his Nottingham North seat to Labour before winning Croydon South in 1992, calls the rule "constitutionally incoherent."

Cameron, naturally, defends the concept, claiming to be "the first Prime Minister in British history to give up the right unilaterally to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. This is a big change on our system, it is a big giving-up of power."

Is Cameron one of the many who privately expects the coalition to fail? You can choose to believe he's doing this to give more power to MPs of all parties and to reassure the LibDems or you can choose to believe that he's seeking a way in which he can guarantee himself a full five year term even if the nation wants him and his party out of power, but you'd have to be a very committed DavCam fan indeed if you didn't think he had a bigger smile on his smug face when Nick Clegg put this one on the debating table than he does when his butler whips the cloche off a silver platter piled high with lobsters, white truffles and Beluga.

Osborne possibly faces possible reprimand, possibly

The name Julie Brighouse probably means nothing to you. We'd never heard of her until now either. All we really need to say about her is that she lived with her partner for seven months in a house near Tamworth - the trouble is, she was claiming housing benefit and income support during that time and "forgot" to let the benefits agency know she was not living alone. As a result, she was paid £5,329.89 to which she was not entitled.

Ms. Brighouse got caught, and was accused of benefits fraud. Once found guilty, she had to pay back the full sum along with costs amounting to £725 and was also required to complete 100 hours of community service.

You have almost certainly heard of George Osborne, because he's the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the MP for Tatton in Cheshire and a man who has been the target of more than one article here - we maintain a particular loathing for him as one of Cameron's cronies and make no claims otherwise. Your man Ozzy finds himself standing outside the headmaster's office this morning because Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon says that he shouldn't have stated the mortgage on his constituency home - which he had declared to be his second home, thus making himself able to claim the mortgage payments on his expenses bill even though the second home allowance is actually supposed to be for MPs to buy a home in London so they can attend debates in the Commons (more about Ozzy's mortgage-related shenanigans here) - was £450,000 when it was, in fact, £445,000.

Citizens of Tatton! Want to see your MP picking the dog eggs off the grass and fishing the Special Brew cans out of the lake in your local park? We thought you might - we would too, even though doing so would mean travelling considerably further north than we're generally comfortable doing (even after immunisation shots). However - you can't. That's because George Osborne is one of the Special People and doesn't get punished for fraud like us common folk.

Five grand doesn't sound a vast amount of cash when we're talking about the price of a grotty council flat off half a million quid. But as Councillor Robert Pritchard of Tamworth Borough Council said following the prosecution of Ms. Brighouse, it's "a considerable amount of money which should have gone to someone who really needed it." As in, not to somebody who has a fortune of over £4 million and stands to inherit both the Baronetcy of Ballentaylor and a tasty share of his dad's profitable interior decor business. In other words, not somebody like George Osborne. With a salary of at least £64,766 he could in all probability be said to be in a position to pay his own chauffeur fees and still have change to buy a couple of DVDs of a speech given by himself, rather amusingly on the subject of value for taxpayer's money.

Now, never let it be said that Acid Rabbi treats people unfairly (even though such an allegation is undoubtedly true). In Ozzy's defence, we'll mention the fact that John Lyon has accepted the MP's claims that everything he claimed he claimed in good faith, having quite rightly sought advice from Commons authorities. We'll accept that - Lyon doesn't seem the sort of chap who will fall for any old bullshit to us. We do wonder, however, if those authorities standard reply to any question that boils (with very little heat) down to "can I rip off the British electorate please?" is: "Hey, why not? Go ahead, and sod the proles!"

Despite all that, Lyon believes that Osborne has not been entirely honest in his claims and, later today, George will hear whether or not he is going to face any sort of reprimand. One thing that seems certain is that he will be required to pay something back, something said by the BBC to be a "relatively small amount of money." Not the full amount plus costs then, like Julie Brighouse? It seems safe to assume you won't be able to see Osborne picking up litter and removing graffiti in any Cheshire parks while doing community service, either. Pity, really - I'd take a few dogs down there the night before and get them to do what dogs do best.

Ms. Brighouse may be a benefits cheat, but we think her punishment was sufficient and we're sure she's very sorry. She really doesn't need to have the obvious fact that MPs are not subject to the same laws to which the rest of us must comply rammed down her throat too.

Cost of Parliament falls

New figures revealed in a written answer from Baroness Royall to the peer Viscount Tenby show that the cost of running Parliament fell by just over £30 million in the last year. The House of Commons went up by more than £12 million, in part because the total cost of MPs' salaries and pensions rose by £6 million, but the Lords dropped by to £46 million£106.5 million leading to an overall cost to the tax-payer of £498.4 million compared to £531.8 million the previous year.


MPs' salaries and pensions cost a total of £157.2 million, while Lords administration costs dropped from £152.5 million to £106.5 million. Wonder what the figures will be like next year, now that they have to declare expenses and aren't quite so keen on screwing us for every penny they can?

We'll be very surprised if there isn't at least one minister on the news later droning on about how these figures demonstrate what good value Parliament is - so we'll probably watch something else instead.

Exclusive: Mandelson has reconstructive surgery

The Archimandrite Mandelson, leader of the Starveling Cult and probable Most Evil Man in the Universe (Darth Vader lists him as a reference on his curriculum vitae and claims he was "the bestest teacher what I ever had" on Rate My Teachers.com), is already known for his chilling appearance and bloodthirsty ways. Some years ago he famously had his genetic code altered so that his eyes became a terrifying red colour; he has also had his skin lightened and is believed to have had a number of changes carried out to his genitals, allowing him to inject any combination of an assortment of different chemicals - including truth serum - into his partners.

As if all that isn't freaky enough, a recent photograph appears to show that the First Secretary of State - who is widely said to have been the architect of New Labour - has had further surgery in order to radically redesign his hands so that each finger is now tipped with a smaller, fully-functioning hand of its own. This leaves him with a total of 40 fingers and ten thumbs.

Don't worry - we're not going to make you look at a photo of his genitals.

News has come in today revealing that Lord Mandelson is a member of around 35 separate Cabinet committees that have been created in order to cover matters related to economic, domestic and foreign policies. There are 44 committees in total, of which Prime Minister Gordon Brown is a member of fewer than Mandelson, leading Conservative MPs to criticise what they term the unelected minister's "powerbase." "It is obvious that Peter Mandelson is the real unelected prime minister pulling the strings at No 10," says a Tory party spokesman.

Acid Rabbi nipped down to Westminster where he was lucky enough to bump into one of the Lord's many under-secretaries who, once we'd finished with the thumb-screws, was happy to act as an unofficial spokesman as long as we guaranteed anonymity since he was afraid his boss would punish him. "It's no secret now that Lord Peter sits on almost all Parliamentary committees," he told us. "He's involved in all sorts of things from those that discuss Africa to the Olympics to immigration. Basically, once he reached ten of them he found he was spreading himself a bit thinly, so he's had the reconstructive surgery on his hands so that he can keep a finger in 42 pies simultaneously."

Acid Rabbi - undoubtedly the finest investigative journalism on the Internet.
Yarmulkes off to Iain M. Banks, who we hope won't be offended at us nicking his ideas and adapting the cover of The Algebraist (having some idea of his politics, we suspect he won't).

Goats - and then there was one

Gordon Brown has received news of another blow to his leadership as Lord Darzi, one of the five non-political figures enobled and brought in shortly after he became leader of the Labour party in 2007 as part of his "government of all talents" (Goats), announced his intention to step down as Health Minister.

Lord Darzi's departure comes soon after that of Lord Malloch-Brown who was seen as one of the Prime Minister's closest allies yet delivered a stinging attack on Mr. Brown's policies - which he compared to those of Latin American nations - soon after quitting. Lord Carter also plans to go, and Lord Digby-Jones left last year, reducing the Goats to just one surviving member in Lord West, the Security and Counter-Terrorism Minister.

"As you know, I have maintained my busy clinical practice and research contributions during my time as a minister," he says. "The time has now come for me to return to care for my patients, lead my academic department, and continue my research on a full time basis." He will continue in an advisory position and Mr. Brown thanked him for his "outstanding contribution" to the Government.

However, there are suggestions that the decision was not entirely amicable from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says: "This was surely coming for a long time. Ara Darzi's laudable focus on quality was increasingly at odds with the Brownite fixation with targets and command and control." LibDem health spokesman Norman Lamb is of a similar opinion. "Losing yet another minister will be a massive blow to Gordon Brown," he claims. "As a respected doctor, Darzi led the initiative on the NHS for Labour and questions must be asked on whether there is more to his resignation than meets the eye."

Perhaps if the Prime Minister fed his goats as generously as Boris Johnson feeds his chickens they'd stick around.

Niall Dickinson, who heads health think tank organisation the King's Fund, drew attention to what he called Lord Darzi's "personal commitment" to improving the British health services which, following his 2008 ten year NHS plan, have focussed on improving patient care and finding ways to cut costs without reducing quality. Dr. Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, also speaks of the Minister in glowing terms: "He [Lord Darzi] leaves a lasting legacy on the health service and it will be important to continue to focus on quality and safety and not to let financial pressures take centre-stage over the coming months and years."

As a surgeon committed to his work, and as a minister who was committed to improving the NHS, many of us will be wondering if Norman Lamb is right in suspecting we're not being told every aspect of Lord Darzi's decision.

Keens win back home

Ann and Alan Keen, the MP couple who have been in the news regularly of late since Hounslow Council contacted them wanting to know why they hadn't lived in the property designated as their official main home for at least seven months and threatening to take possession of it if they didn't come up with some convincing reasons pretty sharpish, have won the legal fight to evict the squatters who moved into the house and hung a massive sign reading "reclaiming your taxes" on the front.


According to Commons rules on claiming expenses, an MP's main home should be the one at which they spend most nights. They are then required to foot the bill for that property, but are free to make claims to cover the costs of a second home nearer Parliament (nine miles away, in the Keens' case) - which is what the Keens have been doing with their £750,000 flat in Westminster, even though it was claimed in court that they had not lived in the Brentford main home since August 2008. Though the couple say that they have lived in the Westminster flat only while renovations are in progress at the main home - reports suggest that no work has taken place there in eight months - Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards John Lyon seems to feel the case is questionable since he has agreed to carry out further investigation.

Guido Fawkes, the king of political bloggers, raises an interesting conundrum. Pointing out that it may be merely a question of semantics, he noticed that during one court exchange only Mr. Keen was named as the Brentford property's owner. This does rather force one to wonder, if that's the case, how it was that Mrs. Keen was then able to claim expenses for the second home since if Mr. Keen is the sole legal owner of the Brentford house the Westminster flat is technically her only home and as such can only be designated her main residence. It certainly seems that she may have at the very least bent the rules somewhat there...unless, of course, there's a third property tucked away somewhere, of which she is the legal owner. You'd have thought that were that the case, we'd know about it by now but then again, when it comes to people of this calibre you never can tell. We'll be keeping a very keen eye out for anything interesting that the Commissioner's investigation may discover.

The example set by MPs

There has been much in the news during the last few months on the apparent need for Parliament to clean up its act in order for it to set a good example to the public, a subject discussed by the really quite adorable Reverend Richard Coles - possibly Britain's only truly cool vicar - on yesterday's Daily Politics TV programme in his typically eloquent way.

Reverend Richard Coles - possibly Britain's only truly cool vicar.

MPs and their ethics, of lack thereof, has of course been the topic of a million news reports and probably even more blog posts (a sizable percentage of them here on Acid Rabbi). Rev. Coles is in a very good position to comment upon the supposed failure of Parliament to provide the electorate with moral guidance because of his position in the Church of England, an organisation that also once served in such a capacity but which has seen its authority all but vanish within the last couple of generations. But why did the public feel that they no longer needed to look to the Church for an ethical example? After all, a surprisingly large section of the population still believe in God - when asked, more than 70% will describe themselves as Christian (0.7% list their beliefs as Jedi - which amusingly outnumbers the 0.5% of us who are Jews).

Perhaps, in these days when almost all of us benefit from an education and access to a far larger amount of information than ever before, we feel that we are capable of deciding for ourselves. Most of us have well-formed values and morals of our own and will make our own minds up when confronted with decisions.

According to a 2007 BBC survey, 83% of the public believe that Britain is in a moral decline. Yet that same surveys reveals that 92% of people would stop to help a stranger who had collapsed in the street. Interestingly, 97% of those who claimed to have no religion said they'd help in this way, compared to 92% among those who claimed to be Christian.

Imagine that you are walking past a cash machine when it suddenly ejects a £20 note. What would you do? In April this year, a couple were sentenced after they took £61,000 from just such a cash machine. Wondering whether this was an indication that the British are indeed no longer to be trusted, the Times decided to carry out an experiment in which a reporter visited cash machines, withdrew £20 and then walked away without taking the money to see if passers-by or the next person in the queue would pocket the cash. The experiment was carried out four times in London's Moorgate and on each occasion the next person in the queue caught up with the reporter and handed over the money. In Shoreditch, one man kept the £20, another returned it. In Islington, the reporter tried it twice - both times, the money was returned to him. The same thing happened in Portsmouth, even though the reporter spent two hours playing the same trick. Six people in Cheshire did likewise, and again in Wilmslow even though the reporter pretended not to hear the person trying to get their attention. "It's just a case of behaving as you'd want people to behave to you," said one Cheshire resident.

In Gateshead, in the same month, a high street branch of Barclays was left unlocked overnight by contractors. The first person to discover the mistake immediately alerted the police. A similar incident took place at a North Yorkshire branch of HSBC in February. We read often of elderly people being mugged and beaten, but little of the hundreds of thousands of people in this country involved in charitable work to raise funds to improve old people's lives, nor those who work in jobs supporting them. Every British town has at least one charity shop, staffed by volunteers giving up their own time to help some deserving cause or another. These are hard economic times for many of us, yet we gave £1.3 billion to charities in the financial year 2007-08.

If we no longer need the Church as a moral compass, do we need politicians to set us a good example? Are they even in a position to do so?

Do we need the church as a moral compass anymore? It seems that many people do not, and will act in a trustworthy and charitable manner simply because they choose to do so. Do we need politicians to set us a good example or, as well-informed adults, are we capable of making our own decisions and living out lives in a way that we decide for ourselves? Besides, aren't MPs supposed to be our servants rather than rulers teaching us lowly and simple common folk how to live in the correct way?

Lords may stop Brown's anti-sleaze legislation getting onto the Statute Book by summer recess

Gordon Brown, who appears to have finally realised that the Government's reputation is even more tarnished than that of other parties in the wake of the expenses scandal, has made it clear that he wants the new anti-sleaze rules - which will introduce new rules governing what constitutes acceptable behaviour among MPs - to be in place in time for the summer recess which starts in just two weeks. The Conservatives and LibDems agree.

"Oi thank 'ee koindly, good sar. 'At penny'll pay fer moi 'ip replacement." Sometimes, the Lords are on our side.

Although MPs will continue working in their constituencies (and no doubt enjoying a junket or two in many cases), the Prime Minister is doubtless well aware that if the row is simply left for the two and a half months until their return without any obvious moves to bring an end to the widespread abuse we have all been made aware of in recent weeks, he is likely to find the public seething with discontent on his return. But rushed, desperate legislation is liable to be full of loopholes and overlooked mistakes.

Last week, we wrote: "However, hurriedly cobbled-together legislation such as this, designed to be rushed through and entered into the statute book in time for the summer recess, is not the way ahead. Haste, according to the old proverb, makes waste - this new bill must be carefully and intelligently thought through in order for the public and MPs alike to be certain that it contains no loopholes and will be effective in preventing the widespread abuse of expenses and other Parliamentary systems that we have seen in recent months."

A 12-strong Lords committee now says: "We are wholly unpersuaded by the government's case for this bill to be fast-tracked. There is an undoubted need to restore public confidence in the parliamentary system. It is not, however, clear to us that a cobbled together bill rushed through parliament will help rebuild public trust; on the contrary, if parliament cannot be seen to be scrutinising proposals with the thoroughness they deserve, public confidence in parliamentarians is likely to be further undermined. Governments should find the strength to resist falling into a temptation simply to see something done, which is no substitute for properly prepared policy and legislation." Sounds familiar, doesn't it - could it be Acid Rabbi has an aristocratic fan or two?

"It appears that the key driver for the bill is public perception, rather than any specific policy outcome," say the committee. The Lords seem to be more in tune with the commoners than the Commons these days. We do want something to be done, of course, but we want it done properly. Mr. Brown needs to start making the necessary changes immediately - in doing so, he'll prove to us that he really does mean to sort this mess out. Then, when the Commons returns, he can take a bit of time and ensure the job gets done correctly (and he'd better - a day may be a long time in politics, but two and a half months will most definitely not be long enough for the electorate to forget all about this). One way to really show he means it would be to abandon the recess, as some have suggested, this year; to realise that this is the biggest and most damaging scandal in British politics in a very long time, to recognise the emergency and importance of the situation and have all MPs continue working through the summer to get their House in order.

In these days of fast food, fast travel and soundbites we all tend to expect a quick solution. Sometimes, however, a problem requires care, attention and time if it is to be properly dealt with once and for all so that it never comes back. Mr. Brown can be certain that now the public understand the full extent and utter shamelessness of the abuse carried out by our Parliamentary representatives, we will be keeping a very close eye on claims made in the future. If there's a loophole and we catch even a sniff of someone taking advantage for their own personal ends, we'll be down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks - and Brown will be seen to have utterly failed.

If, on the other hand, he gets it right and prevents anything like this from ever happening again, he might just end up being considered one of the great Prime Ministers after all.

MPs no longer "honourable"

New Commons Speaker John Bercow, who has already angered Parliament's conservatives-with-a-small-c by ditching the robes worn by speakers past in favour of a simple modern suit, is set to shake things up even more by ending the age-old tradition of MPs referring to one another as "the honourable member."

Since becoming Speaker, Mr. Bercow has been having a right old laugh scaring some of Parliament's more traditionalist members with his dangerously subversive ways. Good man!
Image from Wikipedia. Credit: Office of John Bercow. Used in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.

In the past, MPs with a military background were referred to as "gallant members" and those from the legal profession as "learned members." Bercow and supporters of the move believe that the use of proper names will make it easier for the public to follow who is saying what when watching or listening to Commons debates.

Some MPs worry that not addressing one another by name prevents debates from descending into personal abuse, though anyone who has been watching televised Parliamentary sittings in the last few weeks will doubt it was ever a very efficient way of doing that. Concerns have also been raised that the move will be linked in the public mind to the expenses scandal, which has highlighted distinctly dishonourable behaviour amongst some members. One suspects it might be just a little bit too late for that - if MPs wish to be known as honourable, they need to act in an honourable way; most people are bright enough to decide for themselves whether their MP is honourable or a scumbag. A larger percentage than before will now just assume that all MPs fall into the latter category; but hey, that's their fault, not ours.

Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP, says that the term "reminds people of what we are meant to be." The public already knows what MPs are supposed to be (and a good few of them look likely to be reminded of that in the next General Election), and if any member is incapable of remembering without constant reminders that their prime objective at all times must be the wishes of their constituents then they are eminently unsuited to the job.

However - be all that as it may, surely they have better things to worry about right now?

Dodgy Git Of The Week

Yet another tricky decision this week - and to think we thought this'd be an easy way to fob readers off with a story that'd require absolutely no effort on our behalf whatsoever! It's been yet another good week for Dodgy Git spotting even though it's gone a bit quiet as far as new expenses revelations go - presumably the newspapers are concentrating on Michael Jackson for a bit and thought they might as well save the expenses stories for a bit till things have quietened down (and sales have tailed off).

George Osborne is in the news again, of course. Mr. Osborne has shown himself to be a Dodgy Git of very high standard, but he won the Dodgy Git Award (woo hoo!) a couple of weeks back for the very things that have got him the column inches all over again. Harry Cohen too has demonstrated himself to be a man given to extreme Dodgy Gittiness after he claimed the £100,000+ that he received for his second home forms part of his salary. Then there's Davyboy Cameron, who has been acting like the insincere little vote whore he is this week and pretending he likes gay people despite a past voting record that suggests very differently. But we eventually settled on...who else but the big man himself:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown!

Gordon's PMQs this week will remain famous forever because of one little statement:

0% growth

Hansard will no doubt record what followed as an interruption, but it's obvious to anyone who watches the video that what it means is "The entire house fell about the place, laughing their heads off at the fool. It's lucky this wasn't the Lords because a few of them are getting on a bit and can't handle excitement of this type." One of the funniest bits is the look on new Speaker John Bercow's face as he tries not to join in with the merriment. What could he have meant? Did he - as Harriet Harman tried to claim on Thursday night's Question Time - genuinely mean to say "0.7%?" He's been promising us for ages that the economy will soon start picking up and his party will increase spending, rather than decreasing it as the Tories have been claiming pretty much non-stop (honestly, they've been going on about it so much you wonder where they've found the time to shovel in the caviar and lobsters that they live on at the tax-payers' expense). Is it possible that, once he was up there in front of the packed House, he was unable to provide figures in support of his promises and, so desperate was he to avoid admitting there will in fact be no increase (and to avoid the dreaded C word*), he thought he could get away with using transparent bullshi...jargon to befuddle our inferior non-Prime Ministerial minds? Gordon, please - only the Dark Lord Mandelson himself can pull off absurd nonsense of that calibre! Anyway, we're choosing to go with the latter; and just for having sufficiently steely balls to even think about trying his luck with that one, Gordon gets the award.

Gordon's had a tough couple of months, and to top it all off this week some teacher's pet of a Tory swot only went and grassed him up for getting ink on the Dispatches Box. We hope that winning this prestigious award will help put a smile back on those cheeky little Scottish chops of his.

*Cuts.

Should the Dispatches Box be fitted with a lie detection machine?

We Must Be Heard, a regular poster over on the Sky News discussion boards, asks:

"There is plenty of Ministers being accused of untruths in the House of Conmen. Could this be averted, if the Box that Brown keeps thumping was wired to flash if a lie is told?"

Nice idea. But Acid Rabbi foresees one problem - if the machine was set to sound an alarm or flash every time it detected a porky, it'd use so much electricity we'd need about 50 new nuclear power stations just to keep it running.

Image from UK Parliament's Photstream at Flickr. Used in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license.

However, we think it's an idea with potential. We suggest that, since "dispatch" can also mean "kill without delay" or "murder: kill intentionally and with premeditation", how about if we had a special hotline and if enough of us rang it - say 51% of the UK population - the PM received a shock of 10 million volts killing him/her instantly? If you did it during a well-attended debate, when the Cabinet are packed onto the front bench, you could probably get most of 'em. That's what we call real Parliamentary reform!

Government suffer further setbacks

Gordon Brown's beleaguered Government, still reeling from a series of recent embarrassments, has suffered yet another setback as part of its rather hastily-laid out proposed Parliamentary clean-up legislation was defeated by 250 votes to 247.

The rejection of the new law, a defeat described as "scandalous" by a Commons spokesman, would have brought an end to Parliamentary privilege - meaning that recorded Commons debate would become admissable for use as evidence in courts. This would have effectively made it much easier to secure prosecution in "cash for questions" cases, when an MP receives payment from a third party entity or individual outside Parliament in return for asking questions intended to bring benefit to that third party.

The poor old UK Parliament is looking about ready for the scrapyard these days...
Image by Dave_7, taken from Wikipedia, used in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license.

Several MPs have complained that the law could also prevent them from tabling questions related to issues raised by their constituents. Though defeated by a very narrow margin, it will bring further embarrassment to Mr. Brown and his party as it comes so soon after a different section - intended to make the proposed new code of MP conduct legally enforceable - was also dropped. That concession was made shortly after the Government was forced to agree that the Iraq inquiry should be carried out in public, which in turn followed Labour's disastrous performance in June's elections and the publication of details on expense claims which, though damaging to all parties, are particularly problematic for Labour as they have sullied the Government's reputation amongst voters to a greater extent than that of Parliament as a whole. This week, they have also had to change plans to partially privatise the Royal Mail and announce that British citizens will not have to carry compulsory ID cards.

The electorate have expressed widespread and extreme anger over MPs' conduct in the wake of the expenses revelations and the Government are keen on being seen to be doing something about it. Nobody - with the possible exception of those MPs who are now wishing for the good old days when they could live a life of luxury at the tax-payers' expense - has any doubts that new legislation is desperately needed because the Commons has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to regulate itself. Public opinion of the Government is lower than it has ever been and, if that is to be improved, changes need to happen.

However, hurriedly cobbled-together legislation such as this, designed to be rushed through and entered into the statute book in time for the summer recess, is not the way ahead. Haste, according to the old proverb, makes waste - this new bill must be carefully and intelligently thought through in order for the public and MPs alike to be certain that it contains no loopholes and will be effective in preventing the widespread abuse of expenses and other Parliamentary systems that we have seen in recent months.

Take your time, Mr. Brown. We all know you want to get this done as soon as possible so the Conservatives are prevented from stealing any more marches on you, and we all know that you want both yourself and your party to look good ready for the next General Election; but this is more important to the future of this country than who gets the biggest share of the vote next June. This legislation must be as near as possible to perfect - the negative effect on public perception of Parliament created by cock-ups will be far greater than the positive effect of successful sections. We've already seen that many people's disenchantment is so deep that they are willing to vote for extremists, even the BNP, just so long as parties of that type advocate radical change, which a huge percentage of voters believe is necessary if they are not to fall prey to what they perceive as a huge scam ever again.

...But all she needs is a bit of loving care, attention and elbow grease at the hands of Uncle Gordon and she'll be good for a few thousand miles yet.

Image taken from Wikipedia, used in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License.

For the public, it's a bit like deciding whether or not we need to buy a new car. The kids are telling up to get rid of the old wreck because it keeps breaking down. But you, Mr. Brown, can be the wise uncle who recommends prudence, gets his spanners out and shows us how the old girl can be given a new lease of life. It doesn't matter if getting these new rules right takes until next year, and it doesn't matter if David Cameron becomes the next Prime Minister - you just need to ensure you do get it right and show us that once Parliament's had a bit of a sprucing-up and a few minor tweaks it'll be good for a few thousand more miles.

If you can manage that, we may even look back in a few years time and start thinking you were a great Prime Minister after all. That'll reflect well on the Labour party, which you claim to love, too - it might not be until after a few terms with a Conservative Government, but what a way to achieve immortality.