Oct 23 2009
Parliament hits another low
Yesterday was another one of those Thursdays. The government chooses its topic for debate from Gordon’s book of spin. They call it a “topical” debate.
Yesterday you might have thought the topical debate would be about the Postal strike. It is a nationalised industry. Taxpayers pick up the tab when it loses money. Ministers support the modernisation plans that lie behind the dispute with the workforce. Or they might have chosen the topic of who should be invited onto BBC programmes, as the media and political classes seemed grippped by that issue.
Instead we were offered a debate on economic recovery. No worry that we had had a full day debate on the economy on Monday thanks to an Opposition motion. No worry that Labour had run out of speakers that day, and were unlikely to have found any more enthusiasm three days later. The Labour book of spin said it was time to repeat the new mantra “The Tories have been wrong on the economy” – replacing the little mourned “No more boom and bust” and “We will do whatever it takes”.
The Minister told us nothing of interest about where we have reached in the recovery. He told us nothing new about how they would assist or handle the recovery. He ignored money printing and borrowing. He spent most of his time misrepresenting the Conservative position on most things.
At one point he had five backbenchers to hear him, at another he had just three. The Liberal Democrat spokesman was on his own on his benches. No single Labour MP wished to speak in the debate, leaving it free for Conservatives.
Parliament deserves better. Minsiters should mainly talk about what they are doing and what impact that is having. More government backbenchers should turn up, either to support or to badger them to do better. This Parliament is dying.
24 Responses to “Parliament hits another low”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Who do you blame for this, John? the govt? the MPs themselves? the party leaders? the speaker? How can it be reversed?
I wouldn’t have been surprised to discover that Labours idea of a “Topical” debate involved an argument about Gordons favourite chocolate bar.
I am just reading about Gladstone and Disraeli. Disraeli faced this problem by turning up regularly and then suddenly accepting a ridiculous proposal and outvoting the government which, of course, was away having dinner, leaving Mr Gladstone rushing through the corridors shouting for support!
If only….
I often wonder whether this country is simply determined to destroy itself. We have given away all our democratic rights to the Celtic fringe and to Europe.
Open Europe is full of who supports Mr Blair for President and who doesn’t.
And that’s democracy?????
This Parliament has been dead for some time. Is it any wonder that people look for alternative parties to represent them? However, the failure of Labour and Liberal Democrats to perform in a debate shouldn’t have deterred the Conservatives from packing the benches and putting across their views – did they?
Obviously why parliament is closing early for Christmas- through lack of interest.
John Redwood, you are right. I watched most of the debate and I could hardly believe what I was hearing and seeing most of the time. A debate on the economic recovery, no less, and the HoC was effectively empty. As you say there was one lowly govt Secretary to the Treasury [Ian Pearson], throughout supported by between 2 – 5 labour MP’s. None other than the secretary spoke [except as interventions - usually raking up situations long, long ago] and the secretary himself was woeful – I think several times uttering the current govt mantra ‘..the conservatives were wrong on the bank bail outs..wrong on the recovery … and they are wrong now.. etc. etc’. Where were his arguments? Where were his answers to the Conservative points and the lone Liberal. The conservative speeches were sharp, intelligent and to the point whereas Labour [Ian Pearson] were lamentable. This parliament is dead- we’re in limbo – with the govt hoping and praying that they can get through till May without utter collapse each day wracking up huge further debt. What a nightmare.
“This Parliament is dying.”
No Mr Redwood….this Parliament is dead. You just happen to be one of the last to leave the wake.
Traditionally, a wake takes place in the house of the deceased, with the body present.
Time to pay your last respects at the Bunker!
Further, your own speech was excellent. I noticed that Greg Hands – your Shadow Minster colleague – who also made a good speech said – in reply to your intervention question re QE – said that QE should not be withdrawn. I am a bit confused at this.
The Minister told us nothing of interest about where we have reached in the recovery.
What recovery? Its still going down the toilet.
What a mess. Can an MP somehow no-confidence a debate or call for its adjournment? Can an MP complain to the leader of the house if he feels its time is being wasted?
After the next election, I would love to see Parliament shut for one year and all MPs take unpaid leave. After that year determine how much the Country will have benefited!
Perhaps ministers were aware of today’s economic figures, and wished to stifle any further debate by holding it in advance of the bad news. Once the economy reaches the instability that it now has, only radical measures will restore it to an even keel. There is still a huge danger of capsize into hyperinflation or deflation which would have enormous social consequences as well as economic ones. The Labour party are pathologically incapable of admitting their guilt in promoting this situation, and because they persist in denying the reality, they are unable to frame appropriate policy to handle it.
Nothing on Nick Griffin.
You’ve complained bitterly on your blog about the machinations of the broadcasters trying to frame you into debates to misrepresent, demean and discredit your views.
Last night, that lynch mob was out in force. A whole studio, a panel and a chair baying for blood like some McCarthy hearing.
What parliament? Since it hasn’t done much for years why should it suddenly realise that now is the time? We have a corrupt and incompetant executive out to harras the normally law abiding people whilst ignoring the “religion of peace” threats on the streets, they have spent far more money than is available and are still at it like drunken sailors……. so of course we don’t need a parliament, whatever next..an election!
Not only is this partliament dying but, unless we de-ratify the Lisbon Constitution on taking office, all subsequent parliaments are going to have the life squeezed out of them.
I know that politicians do not like answering hypothetical questions but what is meant by “If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all 27 member states, we will not let matters rest there.”? We are a lot closer to having to answer that decision than we were a month ago.
Let me put it simply. Most people would prefer something like the 1986 Single European Act to define our relationship with the EU. For the avoidance of doubt, that means repealing the acts implementing the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties. And it would be best at that stage to define a two ring Europe, an inner federal ring with the Euro as its currency, and an outer ring consisting of member states with their own currencies. It would be best if this was negotiated in a pleasant way, so that the inner core did not re-create a common external tariff.
If the choice is between living under the Lisbon Constitution and leaving the EU altogether, it is going to be a difficult decision.
Reply: I am clear what I want – a negotiation to get powers back, and then a referendum on the results of that so the people decide.
Given the latest ONS figures they might want to keep quiet about the economy for a bit.
I wonder what’s next. Oh yes – economic suicide by climate change – Copenhagen and the worse negotiator we’ve ever had off to Denmark to give our futures away for nothing in return.
As for ‘Question Time’ [someone referred to it earlier] – for the first time I decided not to watch it. One of the first things the BBC said this morning was the big increase in viewing figures – up around 3x. We can see what’s coming. From my point of view it was mostly a gimmick to increase viewing figures – the BBC and ‘Question Time’ are approaching ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ and ‘X-Factor’ territory. From my understanding of what happened the programme was a disgrace with the whole of it [audience and panel] dedicated to ‘get’ Griffiths. Utterly pathetic and sensational.
Yes Parliament does seem dead (at the least in terminal decline) at the moment.
And no there is no recovery at the moment either. So a rather pointless debate.
Pleased you are one of those still trying, but it seems like almost everyone else has almost given up.
Perhaps this is the reason for a 3 week break over Xmas.
As I understand it Parliament will sit for a total of 128 days this year, what an absolute disgrace, given the state of the Country, and the fact that we are also at War.
If an MP cannot be bothered to represent his constituents in the House of Commons, even after a twelve week break, then they automatically make themselves redundant; Parliament and democracy itself too. If David Camerson, should he win the general election, does not introduce a written constitution – proof against Labour and Judicial meddling – then we might as well abolish Parliamentary democracy and resign ourselves to rule by a bureacratic dictatorship from Europe and quangos. That is what is happening by the back door anyway.
Maybe the timing of the “debate” was not so misplaced. Could there have With two “debates” on the economy in a week, the government has its excuses lined up for not having a debate on why it has misread the situation in the past three months.
Mr Redwood, perhaps you could ask the Chancellor if the timing of the debate was due to
a) the Government being tipped off about the figures,
or
b) whether they simply knew that the rhetoric about “green shoots” was at odds with the underlying reality.
JR Reply to Lindsay McDougall at 1:25PM: “I am clear what I want – a negotiation to get powers back, and then a referendum on the results of that so the people decide.”
In preparing for this negotiation has the putative Conservative government identified what concessions it may have to make in order to obtain the agreement of all the other member states? Assuming William Hague is Foreign Secretary, and bearing in mind his past comments about the EU and his infamous “foreign land” speech, how likely is it that the other 26 member states will be well disposed towards him and thus a quick resolution of the problem? Therefore, it seems possible that the earliest date for a referendum on any settlement is likely to be in 2012 or 2013. Will Cameron hold one, though? If he lost – perhaps because many voters decided to use the referendum as an opportunity to give the government a mid-term kicking over domestic issues – then that will hardly be seen as an endorsement of his government and arguably damage Conservative re-election prospects in 2014.
I don’t know — Newsnight seem to think Dr Brown’s economic miracle is topical: they’re running a special tonight on the 80th Anniversary of the Wall Street Crash.
You’ll be suggesting next we close Parliament and just be ruled by Regional Govts and the EU.
Adrian Peirson,
Aren’t we?
Derek