It will reopen as a museum

It seems that the rodents are a problem in the Palace of Westminster. We are not told whether the beasties in question are four-legged or two-legged and whether they are to be found under ground and behind the plaster of those fine walls or actually in the offices and on the benches. But, wherever they are, they may force Parliament to close down, according to this news story.

Would that be such a terrible thing, I hear my readers (well, some of them) ask. After all, what on earth is Parliament for these days? We do not, however, speak of the institution, which has been somewhat lacklustre in the last few decades, but of the building.

The Houses of Parliament may close for up to five years for refurbishment, under plans being discussed by MPs. Parliament could be convened in a replica chamber or a conference centre for the duration of the repair work, which could start in 2015.

2015, incidentally, is when the next elections is scheduled and the elected House of Commons will sit for the five years of the repair work, assuming that this is agreed to and assuming that those builders will break all the rules of the trade and complete their work on time (and, perhaps, within budget).

It seems to me that many problems could be solved in these circumstances. First of all, do we actually have to have Parliament assembling while the building works are being carried out? Why not simply go through the election, a process that is dear to the heart of all who is interested in politics in this country and then suspend the sitting for five years or until such time that the Palace of Westminster is functioning again.

Naturally, in the meantime, honourable members of the House of Commons will not be paid or given expenses as they will not have to appear in Parliament so they will have to think of some way of earning money. That can have a very good effect and their minds will be concentrated.

Moreover, I am not convinced that the newly refurbished Palace of Westminster needs to see the present-day activities resumed in it. Why not re-open it as a Museum of Democracy with actors performing debates of the past when such things mattered and visitors paying entrance fees to watch it all, to wander through rooms where, in the past, important decisions had been taken and important events had occurred and to take refreshment in the various bars, cafes and restaurants. Menus of former days could be reproduced and, at a price, dinners of past politicians could be prepared and consumed.

Think about the income that would generate.

The Queen's Speech

The long parliamentary session came to an end finally last week with very few achievements to its name and today the new one opens with the Queen's Speech, which will be analyzed later on. In the meantime, the blog's readers can watch it for themselves.

Reading the alternative Speech from the Adam Smith Institute makes one sigh for lost opportunities as do they.

The wrong question

Earlier today I was interviewed on the BBC Russian Service (it still exists but only just) about the curious story of the Palace of Westminster falling down sinking. Well, at least, the Clock Tower, which houses Big Ben, is falling down. Or something.

The story was amusing enough to crop up in a number of outlets so I shall link to the Londonist blog, which sums it all up. What with being built so near the river and having an underground car park as well as the Jubilee line extension constructed, the poor old(ish) building has cracks in it and the Tower is definitely leaning, though not as much as the one in Pisa. The Daily Wail seems to have excelled itself in idiocy by coming up with random figures as to how much it will cost to prop it all up, how much the site is worth and a quote from an unnamed insider that there is talk of selling it all to some Russian oligarch or Chinese party apparatchik who happens to be a billionaire. After that, presumably the journalists finished drinking and went home, having first filed the story.

Let's be rational, as I tried to explain to the Russians. The Palace of Westminster is a Royal Palace and, as such, cannot really be sold to anybody. The notion that MPs will simply up and depart to another building and get away with that is laughable. Nor is the news really news. Ever since the building has existed (which, in its latest manifestation is only about 170-odd years) there have been problems with it and these were, indeed, exacerbated by the two major constructions: the car park and the Jubilee line. The fact that the subject has now become important enough to discuss in a committee does not alter the fact that there is practically no time when some kind of refurbishment is not going on inside or outside the Palace. As soon as the two Houses rise, the builders and decorators move in; at any given time one can find scaffolding on some part of the outside. The chances are that the decision will be that there needs to be an investigation as to how the Tower and various other bits and pieces can be propped up at the lowest possible cost.

That, however, is the wrong question. The right question would be what exactly is the purpose of the building and all that goes on inside it.

There are several excellent libraries there, to be used largely by the members of the two Houses. Whether they are used is another matter. Finding information about legislation, both domestic and European, has become easier with the internet but there are certain advantages to being able to go to the Printed Paper Office in the Lords to ask about events, committees and reports. Furthermore, the main building (not the one that looks like a crematorium) is very fine, full of interesting rooms, corridors, statues, portraits and some of the worst paintings in the world.

The truths is, however, that Parliament no longer legislates in this country and holds the Executive to account only intermittently in the Lords and never in the Commons. The House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the land any more than Parliament is the ultimate legislator. So, do we actually need it? Or do we need it to be quite as big as it is now?

Why not reduce the numbers in proportion to the amount of work they have given away to the EU or various quangos, send the few remaining MPs to some purpose-built glass building and turn the whole place into a Museum to Democracy with actors performing some of the more stirring events of the last nine centuries? In no time at all the refurbishment would pay for itself.

Were this to be proposed seriously we might actually see Parliamentarians concentrating on what matters and that is an exit from the EU and a restoration of the British constitutional structure.

What matters to the Cleggerons

Only one thing, as far as I can see, and that is staying in government, for they are not exactly in power. With all the problems this country faces, the House of Commons is debating the Fixed Term Parliament Bill that its own Select Committee considers to be "unnecessarily rushed" and one that raises a number of legal and constitutional questions.

We have already had attempts to muzzle the 1922 Committee and, undoubtedly, there will be legislation to ensure that votes of no confidence become as difficult to pass as possible. All to the greater good of keeping the Cleggerons in government for many more years. And just to make sure that nothing interferes with that plan, they are proposing to postpone the next Queen's Speech, due in a year's time till spring 2012 so that sessions do not come to an end before every bit of planned legislation is pushed through.

On the whole, I am not a fan of Denis MacShane's but I do agree that this constitutes a major power grab for the sake of "a smooth transition to a new system of fixed-term Parliaments, when general elections would take place every five years". Whenever I hear of any proposals for a smoother running of government I start wondering whether I should take up an offer made to me by a Texan friend to go over and learn to shoot. The smooth running of government is not a desideratum in a free society. Mind you, I cannot understand why they want to grab all this power over the electoral cycle and the running of Parliament - they have given away powers to legislate to the EU.

MEPs' passes

The 4th Report of the House of Lords House Committee deals with parliamentary passes issued to UK members of the Toy European Parliament. Hitherto those members were automatically issued with passes that

entitled [them] to access Peers' Lobby, the Galleries of the House, the Committee Corridor, the offices of the European Union Committee and the Guest Room. Similar access rights have been granted by the House of Commons.

All this is about to change. Members of the House of Commons, who saw nothing wrong in welcoming unrepentant terrorists who had tried to murder the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet and, in fact, succeeded in killing five people and injuring many more, into Parliament’s hallowed portals, have decided that they could not live with the thought of said portals being polluted by members of the BNP.

An effective ban on British National party members of the European Parliament entering Westminster was imposed by MPs. Leader of the House Harriet Harman, tabled a motion withdrawing automatic access hitherto available to all MEPs.

The only trouble is you can’t do that. You can’t decide that some MEPs can and others cannot have a pass to the Houses of Parliament. So they had to withdraw access rights from all UK MEPs.

3. On 20 October 2009, following a recommendation from the Administration Committee, the House of Commons agreed to remove the access rights of UK MEPs, and therefore their entitlement to a Parliamentary photographic security pass.

4. The decision of the House of Commons in practice cannot take effect without the assent of this House since photographic security passes grant access to the whole Parliamentary Estate.

Now we have a problem. What are the members of the Toy Parliament going to do if they wish to wander round the Real Parliament, whose powers they have usurped? They can come in as guests or they can acquire parliamentary passes within the existing structure, as officers of the House, spouses or partners of Members or staff of Members. If a new category is created for them, the same problem will emerge: if there are special passes for some MEPs there has to be special passes for all of them. And you can be quite sure Nick Griffin will not let them forget it.

Is there any way ...

... by which we can stop even highly intelligent people from saying rather silly things about politics? I am thinking about Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home who has an article on Comment is Free today in which he gives a good and very pithy analysis of what is going on around the Prime Minister.

He does not mention that getting rid of a Labour leader is considerably more difficult than of a Conservative one but, in a sense, that is irrelevant. What he wants is for Brown to resign and for a general election to be called, not a particularly logical development in any case. A new leader would, most definitely, go to the wire.

As it happens I never thought Brown would resign or call an early election and am on record as saying so. Mr Montgomerie seems to be coming round to that point of view.

What I really object to is the following sentence:

The parliamentary Labour party has shown it can't run the country and it is now looking like it can't run a leadership coup.

Amusingly phrased or rather re-phrased from previous sayings. The only problem is that it is not the job of the parliamentary Labour or any other party to run the country. Even theoretically, they are part of the legislative not of the executive.

MPs have a double role: they must legislate (as little as possible) and hold the executive to account (as strictly as it is humanly possible). They do neither, having given away their legislative powers and being able to do nothing but occasionally squeal at the huge flood of it coming it and having decided that they cannot be bothered to do the second. Running the country they neither can (being unable to run the proverbial whelk stall) nor should.

How long before our political commentators finally grasp this simple concept?