Those who voted Leave in the Referendum citing a desire to
regain “Parliamentary Sovereignty” as their main reason must look on in horror at
the events of recent times. Since the less-than-landslide General Election, government
has tried every trick
in the book to ensure that whatever Parliament is, it ain’t Sovereign. As they
have no genuine majority in Parliament, they are simply ignoring the fact that it
is supposed to be the body that shapes the country, and that policy and laws generated
from that policy should get Parliamentary backing.
Government this week ignored, for the third time since the
election, an Opposition Day motion which went against them. This time it was a
motion to pause the rollout of Universal Credit – a flagship Tory policy that
many of their own MPs see as grossly unfair – so to avoid embarrassment put
their strongest sanction, a three-line whip, into abstaining, not even voting
against the motion – because they knew there was a chance some Tory rebels
could, erm, rebel.
In Parliamentary terms, in order to have a division when one side calls a motion, at least two people have to shout “NO”.
Also you need two people to act as tellers for each side, who count and verify
the votes but don’t have a vote themselves. None of this is usually a problem
in a normal run of Parliament, because both sides play ball. In this instance,
the opposition benches actually had to have their own people oppose their own motion
to cause a division (again, due to the odd way all this works, those people
couldn’t then vote for it in the division, but they could abstain) and opposition
had to provide all the tellers. Government had simply thrown all their
Parliamentary toys out of the pram and refused to play. They lost the vote 299
votes to 0, with one Tory MP, Sarah Wollaston, voting with the Opposition.
However, after the vote, government say “these kinds of votes
are non-binding so we can ignore them” (somewhat overlooking the fact that the
biggest non-binding vote of this century was the Referendum, and they’re not
ignoring that). Some on the government side were actually trying to convince
the Speaker that this wasn’t the true “Will of the house” because they hadn’t
voted. It’s like playing a football match but not actually going on the pitch,
then saying the opposition’s hatful of goals don’t count because you weren’t
there.
Government wasn’t the only group to ignore this outcome after
the vote - media outlets were strangely keen to follow suit. Reading major
online news, you’d be hard pressed to spot that the government had suffered its
third Parliamentary defeat since the Election, and only the fourth since 2009 (settlement
rights for Ghurkas under Gordon Brown as PM, thanks for asking). This is
the BBC Politics homepage on the morning after the government was defeated in
Parliament on its flagship proposal: -
Spot the Government Defeat (you can’t, it’s not there)
It seems government are happy to be absolutely crushed in
motion after motion rather than vote in them and risk being narrowly defeated
by a few Tory rebels. Which is fine as long as you don’t enrage the Speaker in
the process (they did that too, and he has a lot of power to make life
difficult for government if he chooses).
In a Parliament with a decent majority these
votes usually are listened to and do have an effect. A closer than expected opposition
vote is taken as a sign that the policy is flawed and needs some rework, even
though a large majority government would obviously defeat any Opposition
motion. And with Universal Credit there’ll no doubt be some changes announced
in the Budget, money permitting. But the current government is so close to the
cliff edge that they can’t accept a defeat and can’t even risk one, or the
whole House of Cards could collapse (Note to self: there’s probably a TV series
in this drama – must try to think of a name for it).
In Thursday’s session, Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh bravely spoke up in
Parliament about government’s disdain for norms, saying "The road to
tyranny is paved with executives ignoring Parliaments" Though
fortunately for them he did this after obediently abstaining from the vote he
was complaining about them abstaining from. He must be trying to emulate that
famous advocate of consuming, while simultaneously retaining, foodstuffs.
Sir Edward did make a good point though – government has potentially
opened Pandora’s box with this. If/when there’s a future Labour government that
is defeated in a Commons vote, do they return to the moral high ground, accept
the Will of the House and amend their plans, or do they proceed with the new
norm that it’s fine to ignore Parliamentary votes which they don’t like? Further,
will the current government continue to ignore them for as long as it lasts?
Truly the road to tyranny. And not what many would call
Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Comments
Post a Comment