Parliament

Speaking in Downing Street this evening, Theresa May has urged people to go about their business normally tomorrow. In a statement that struck an appropriately defiant tone, May said that the targeting of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament ‘was no accident’. But that that any attempt to defeat the values of ‘democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law’ through ‘violence and terror is doomed to fail’. Talking of the police officer who died in the attack, and the others who have been injured, she praised the ‘exceptional bravery of our police and security services who risk their lives to keep us safe’. This is the first terrorist attack

James Duddridge is not wrong. The Tory MP for Rochford and Southend East, who has put down a ‘no confidence’ motion in Mr Speaker Bercow, says John Bercow has abused ‘his employment contract’ by his openly political remarks. The last straw was telling students at the University of Reading that he voted Remain in last year’s European referendum. Duddridge is a fiercely outspoken Leaver, but his complaint is that the Speaker should not have revealed any preference at all. Few should contest this. Anger over the Reading revelation builds on a history of complaint: the most recent example is still fresh. It was wrong to create the news story that

As we have been reminded this week, the most famous words (apart from ‘Order, order’) ever uttered by a Speaker of the House of Commons were those of William Lenthall. When King Charles I entered Parliament in search of the ‘five birds’ in 1642, Lenthall knelt to the King but told him, ‘I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me.’ It is only on that basis that the Speaker speaks. As soon as John Bercow said — of the speculative possibility that Donald Trump should address both Houses of Parliament — ‘I feel very strongly that our opposition

At last, says the Guardian, MPs will finally have a proper say today on Brexit. David Davis has said the debate comes down to a simple question: do we trust the people? But for the Guardian, it’s a mistake for MPs and peers not to try and ‘get in the way’ of pushing the triggering of Article 50 back beyond Theresa May’s ‘self-imposed deadline’ of the end of March. It’s clear that the outcome of last June’s referendum left Parliament reeling: ‘casually drafted regulations’ backed up the vote and ‘with no leave process mapped out, the Commons failed to muster the resolve to force its way into the process of

The English tradition of dissenting judgments in important civil cases is a good one. They are often better than the majority view, because they tend to be advanced by judges who resist the self-aggrandisement of their profession. In the Miller case on triggering Article 50, before the Supreme Court, Lords Reed, Carnwath and Hughes dissented from the other eight. This is what Lord Reed says: ‘…the argument that withdrawal from the EU would alter domestic law and destroy statutory rights, and therefore cannot be undertaken without a further Act of Parliament, has to be rejected even if one accepts that the 1972 Act creates statutory rights and that withdrawal will alter

Whose fault is the bloodshed in Aleppo? Yesterday the House of Commons discussed this at some length in an emergency debate on the onslaught by Syrian and Russian planes on the city. One of the most powerful speeches came from George Osborne who spoke about the impact that the 2013 Commons vote had on Syria and on American politics. It is worth reading in full. ‘Of course, once this House of Commons took its decision, I believe it did have an impact on American politics,’ he told MPs. ‘We cannot have it both ways – we cannot debate issues such as Syria and then think that our decisions have no

After MPs voted last night to back the Government’s plan to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, the Guardian says it’s good news that Parliament is now finally using its powers to shape the Brexit process. The paper says it’s ‘extraordinary’ that so much time has passed since the referendum, given how there is still no ‘real clarity about the government’s general aims’ in upcoming negotiations. It says yesterday, however, ‘some fog began to lift’: ‘At last, the great issue of the UK’s future relations with Europe was finally being discussed where it matters most of all, in our elected parliament,’ the paper says. But despite the merits

As a general rule, any day the government loses in court is a good day. So yesterday was an especially fine day. A delicious one, too, obviously, in as much as the fist-clenched, foot-stamping, whining of so many Brexiteers was so overblown and ludicrous it toppled into hilarity. People who shouted for months about the urgent need to restore parliamentary sovereignty now reacted in horror to the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. ‘That’s not what we meant’, they spluttered. We meant governmental supremacy only when it suits us. Well, tough. A certain amount of squealing was only to be expected since, if Nigel Farage has taught us anything, it is that the Brexit-minded

Is there anything more absurd than hearing a bunch of Remainers claiming that they have achieved a great victory for Parliamentary democracy in today’s High Court ruling that Parliament should vote on the exercise of Article 50, beginning Britain’s exit from the EU? Parliament voted for a referendum, in which the British people voted to leave the EU. All that today’s judgement does is frustrate that process. As I wrote last week over Heathrow, the judicial review system is fast-turning Britain into a Krytocracy, in which judges wield the real power. All that said, why is the government bothering to fight the judgement? If the Remainers want more Parliamentary democracy,

Quite extraordinary scenes here at the Labour Party conference. I’m typing this in the main conference hall and have just watched Mike Katz of the Jewish Labour Movement give a short speech against anti-Semitism. This ought to be utterly uncontroversial, but it has become a wedge issue between the two tribes who now make up the Labour Party. Between those who were members before May 2015, and those who joined after. There have two very different outlooks, and are at war with each other. Katz’s speech was cheered effusively, like a rallying call, by about a third of the hall. And, amazingly, heckled by other members. When Katz said: ‘We

After the Government released its childhood obesity strategy last month, Theresa May stood accused of sidelining the issue. So, Mr S was pleased to receive an invite to an event focussing on the issue. Sharon Hodgson — the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for School Food — is holding a breakfast on Tuesday morning to call on the government to do more to tackle child obesity. However, Hodgson is not alone in her mission — the Labour MP appears to have teamed up with Flora. In an email for the event sent out to hacks, Hodgson invites attendees ‘on behalf of Flora’. In fact, the brand of margarine gets a grand total of four mentions in the email invite