The deposition of the Speaker of the House of Commons ought to be a disturbing event to both conservatives and liberals alike. The Speaker, who represents the institution of Parliament itself, has been unseated by the Prime Minister, the leader of Her Majesty’s Government. Whether the Prime Minister directly deposed Michael Martin or did so indirectly by declining to lend him his support is inimportant; from a liberal point of view, the Prime Minister who in a constitutional monarchy exercises the Royal Prerogative has triumphed over Parliament – surely a shocking return to the days of Charles I for those who despise the notion of royal interference in Parliament. For conservatives, it is horrifying that the leader of the Government should triumph over Parliament. It has been said repeatedly that the institution of Parliament has been damaged by the expenses scandal, and that may be true, but the thought that the authority of Parliament should be subordinated to the Government so utterly is more unpleasant, and will have more lasting consequences, than any amount of ‘mortgage flipping’ by MPs.
The behaviour of MPs with regard to their expenses is, ultimately, a matter of their personal integrity, and it is deeply regrettable that the Palace of Westminster cannot operate like a ‘gentleman’s club’ – that is to say, on honour. Such a concept clearly no longer exists in politics. Short-sighted commentators are evidently delighted that MPs have forced Michael Martin to quit the Speaker’s Chair, acclaiming it as a revolutionary assertion of the power of the people. In reality it is an assertion of the power of MPs and political parties against Parliament – and primarily an assertion of the power of the government, which in spite of having its MPs discredited is now able to shunt the blame onto the Speaker’s shoulders. In this regard, the Archbishop of Glasgow’s comments on Michael Martin’s departure are the most sensible I have yet heard.
Constitutional iconoclasts, who would like to see the constitution demolished, are gleeful; everyone else should be saddened and concerned by this episode. In my own view the only acceptable solution to the expenses crisis would have been the dissolution of Parliament by the one person who does genuinely hold an authority that exceeds Parliament’s – the Queen. The expenses scandal has shown the members of Parliament to be flawed; ought we therefore to accept proposed changes from a Government composed of those same members? In the British constitution the only authority that exceeds that of Parliament is not the people’s but the monarch’s. If that principle is not maintained the constitution is heading for its latest disaster, and the subordination of Parliament of which Tony Blair could only dream will be achieved by accident by Gordon Brown.
1 Comment
May 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm
It is surely a truism that Parliament is utterly subservient to the executive, and has been for generations (it’s sometimes blamed on Thatcher or Blair, but not since Victorian times has the Commons been the master of the ministry).
One way of helping to break this stranglehold would be to take away all financial compensation paid to MPs and prevent them from undertaking other work while serving. This would exclude from Parliament all but the independently wealthy. Such people would owe a good deal less to their respective party machines than today’s career politicians, and they would be unlikely to be possessed of a subservient mentality. Something of this sort is true of the US Congress.