Parliament

This week, breakage. Next week, super glue. Given the noises emanating from Downing Street, there’s little doubt that the Tory and Lib Dem leaderships are going to do a repair job on the coalition once the AV referendum has been decided. As Rachel Sylvester puts it in her column (£) today, “Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg have had several amicable meetings to discuss how to handle the fall-out from the referendum. Both agree that whoever wins should be gracious, and allow the lower to take a bit more of the limelight in the weeks after the vote.” They will be looking for quick and easily triggered bonding mechanisms, not least

Andrew Tyrie promised that the Treasury Select Committee would be an assertive, insistent body under his stewardship — and he hasn’t disappointed so far. The committee’s recent evidence sessions have been fiery affairs, particularly by the usual standards of these things. And today they have released the result: an extensive and prescriptive report into last month’s Budget. Several of the report’s observations are worth noting down — not least that advance briefing of the Budget is “corrosive of good government,” and that “almost all the evidence received [about the government’s Enterprise Zones] is unsure about the extent to which they will contribute to UK growth.” But more significant is the

Grenades are seldom expected – yet Andrew Lansley knew that one was going to fall into his lap this morning. The Health Select Committee has today released its much trumpeted report on the government’s plans for NHS commissioning. In normal circumstances its dry take on an even drier subject would evade public notice. As it is, with the coalition rocking and reeling as they are, this is fissile stuff. It is yet another voice in the chorus of opposition to Lansley’s reforms. The report’s recommendations are plural, but one stands out: that the government should drop its plans for GP consortia, and instead create “local commissioning boards” that involve not

Sometimes, one does really wonder about the British judiciary. Its decision to issue injunctions which bar people from talking to their MPs about an issue, as revealed in The Times this morning, displays a shocking contempt for parliament. It suggests that the court have learned little from the Trafigura case. The justification for these so-called ‘hyper injunctions’ is that if someone tells an MP about a case, it can then be raised in parliament and what the MP said reported under parliamentary privilege. But parliamentary privilege exists for a reason: MPs must be able to raise any issue they want in parliament. For judges to try and limit it goes against

This PMQs will be remembered for the Cameron Balls spat. As Cameron was answering a question from a Labour MP, he snapped at Balls who was heckling him, shouting ‘you don’t know the answer, you’re not properly briefed, why don’t you just say you’ll write to her’. A visibly irritated Cameron shot back, ‘I wish the shadow Chancellor would shut up and listen for once’. At this the Labour benches erupted, their aim at PMQs is always to get Cameron to lose his temper and they had succeeded. Cameron then produced a brilliant comeback, saying that Balls was ‘the most annoying person in British politics’ and ‘I suspect that the

If you want to get an MP going, just ask them what they think of IPSA — the new expenses watchdog. The body is hated: when Cameron joked at PMQs this week that it should be relocated to Croydon there was laughter across the House. IPSA is regarded as rude and inefficient. When Tory MPs were in a particularly grumpy mood before Christmas, David Cameron went to the ’22 and promised that IPSA would either have to mend its ways or be mended. Today’s revisions to the rules by IPSA (£) will go some way to addressing the concerns of MPs. The old rules only allowed children to be treated

The House of Commons has just voted by 557 to 13 to support Britain’s participation in the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. This came at the end of six and a half hours of respectful debate rounded off by a speech from the Foreign Secretary that reminded us why he was for so long regarded as the best parliamentary performer on either side of the House. Hague offered an assurance that if the mission changes, the government will return to the House. This was widely understood to mean that no ground troops would be committed without the support of the House. He also confirmed that the costs of