The Lords' Power Ended in 1911, the Commons' Ends in 2009

The Telegraph ^ | May 20, 2009 | Gerald Warner

[nickcarraway]

"Getting it" is the current craze. "They still don't get it" is the exasperated verdict on MPs who seem to believe it will be business as usual, now that Speaker Martin has been thrown out of the sleigh into the jaws of the pursuing wolf pack.

In fact, how many commentators get it? How many of them, alarmed by mounting public anger, hastened to don their Mr Sensible persona and began to counsel us not to get things out of perspective? It is as if, in 1688, they had said: the King has been driven from his throne, the constitution has been rewritten, a Dutchman is going to rule Britain under the control of a few Whig families - but don't get things out of perspective. Calm down, dear, it's only the Glorious Revolution.

Siren voices are already questioning whether it is desirable for an outside body - "another quango" - to discipline the House of Commons. The answer to these purblind business-as-usual junkies, with their infatuated sense of entitlement, is that these are the only terms on which the British public will consent to be governed by the House of Commons.

This year, 2009, is for the House of Commons what 1911 was for the House of Lords. A severe curtailment of powers in anticipation of progressive further disempowerment of this discredited chamber is the inexorable prescription of history. The peers went down the tubes in 1911, this time it is the Commons' turn.

We need a Triennial Act, enforcing general elections every three years, to make MPs constantly accountable. There must also be a constitutional instrument - call it a Bill of Rights, if you will - restricting the areas in which Parliament is permitted to legislate.

[arthurus]

Hear! Hear!

[JSDude1]

Wow NEVER thought I’d hear the Brits advocating for an American Style Constitution/Parliament/Congress.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

I don’t think its calling for it now...