AS revision: decline of Parliament

Geoffrey Wheatcroft has penned a must read article on the role of the House of Commons in today’s Guardian

The highlights for an AS student looking to consider this topic as part of their revision programme for the UK government paper follow, but I strongly suggest this article is read in full.

‘There is no myth about the golden age of parliamentary government. It really existed, in the reign of Victoria. With the old system of crown patronage and jobbery dying, and the modern party system as yet unborn, parliament was master. No ministry between 1783 and 1830 resigned because of a parliamentary vote, and only one has done so in the past 50 years. But every government between 1837 and 1874 fell thanks to a vote in the Commons. Even now the Commons on occasion defies the government, as in November 2005 when MPs admirably defeated the proposal for 90-day detention. But such rare exceptions only highlight the rule, which is the dominance of the government.

The shift since then in the balance of power has been marked also by a deplorable increase in numbers of MPs who are ministers, whips or parliamentary private secretaries, all part of the tame “payroll vote”. The figures are astonishing. In 1900 there were in all 33 salaried cabinet ministers, junior ministers and whips out of 670 MPs, and no more than nine parliamentary private secretaries (PPS), who are expected to vote always with the government. There are now 99 paid ministers and whips, and a preposterous 48 PPSs, in a house of 646.

Press coverage of parliament tells a sombre story of its own. Forty years ago, serious papers devoted a couple of pages every day to unadorned reports of parliamentary speeches. Now there is nothing at all but sketches. Editors challenged about this have a reply which is the sadder for being plausible: parliament is no longer worth covering.

And a parliament not worth covering or listening to, whose members seem to spend more time claiming dubious expenses and dealing with the minor constituency matters, is a parliament which has ceased to represent, or serve, the nation. Is it any wonder that turn-out has plummeted at elections, from 84% in 1950 to 59% in 2001?

This week Guardian writers have been proposing excellent constitutional reforms. But these do not necessarily address the immediate problem, the decay of parliamentary government. We do not want to return to a Commons of country gentlemen, or clowns like Inglis. But is it really impossible to combine modern electoral democracy with a parliament which speaks for itself, and for the people?’