Comments on: You couldn’t make it up

By: John

John — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:09:51 +0000

We learn that they might close the Commons for up to three years to spend lots of money on modernising it! That would a fitting tribute on this government’s grave – “

er -this is not a small thing.
parliament is not a government building . it is parliament and the government cannot simply order it to be closed . it would take a vote by the members of parliament to close it which the government could do as they have a majority

They would have to make a case and a debate would have to be held

details – is there simply to be no parliament for three years or indeed ever again ? Slippage in the refurbishment timetable could be used to close it forever .

The complacent tone of your remarking upon this topic Mr Redwood leaves me very worried. Brown could just close down democracy under such a pretext and it would seem the Tories wouldn't be too disturbed – other than a bit bemused!

Reply: I am not complacent but critical. I do not want them to close the building or spend so much money, but they have the majority so will be able to do so. They do intend to let us meet elsewhere.

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:33:48 +0000

Actually, what with Lord Levy and Peter Mandelson's statement about being completely relaxed about capitalism, then the reaction to the banking crisis, you have just described New Labour.
Did you mean to?

By: adam

adam — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:07:57 +0000

Walter Mitty seems to have decamped to Brussels permanently now, so he can save the western world, whats the odds they suggest you all decamp to Strasburg to learn how to be good Europeans.
Anyway, three years! ? What on earth does the modernisation involve. I bet when you return the thing will be demolished and replaced with some post-modern office that looks like it belongs to a well-to-do insurance firm. Think Scottish Assembly.
Wembly Stadium style building overruns, incompetance and corruption will mean it is never finished and the talking point will be we dont really need parliament as regional assemblies are better and local.

And that will be that.

By: Andrew Forbes

Andrew Forbes — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:21:09 +0000

To be fair, I don't think I'd bother to turn up for an Ed Balls speech, either.

By: Stephen Jenner

Stephen Jenner — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:10:10 +0000

How does the number of days a parliament sits in a year equate to quality of government?

This Labour government could sit 24/7/365 and still bugger everything up.

Notably the Swiss parliament sits for around 72 days per year.

By: Bazman

Bazman — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:00:12 +0000

The Tory party. Bankrolled by the city and bailed out by the taxpayer. You could not make that one up John.

By: David Eyles

David Eyles — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:34:29 +0000

These ever longer Parliamewntary holidays combined with the reduction of PMQs from twice a week to once a week appear to be a steady erosion of Parliamentary democracy. The government is gradually reducing the number of occasions when it can be publicly held to account.

Is David Cameron going to restore democracy to the UK?

By: Acorn

Acorn — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:03:15 +0000

Just a minute, how come the Audit Commission has got £10 million to stash in a bank anyway!!!

Why are they not working out of a Treasury current account at the BoE or a Treasury clearing bank current account.

They are a Quango; they should not have £10 m "on deposit" anywhere.

By: Donitz

Donitz — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:38:27 +0000

Are MP's in competion with teachers?

Start work at 9 and finish at 3:30 with an hour and a half off each day for tea/lunch breaks. Thats a 5 hour day.

Of course there are the 15 weeks of annual holiday. Christmas, Easter, Summer and 3 half terms.

By: StevenL

StevenL — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:45:57 +0000

"They do say we might be able to meet somewhere else …" (JR)

Perhaps they could find a room for you all in Brussels to rubber stamp the directives and regulations in?