ConservativeHome quite rightly links to a powerful invective in the WSJ by Iain Martin, attacking the mooted 55 per cent threshold for bringing down the coalition in Parliament. Even at first sight, such a change betrays the most basic and fundamental principles of how a democracy works. A majority of MPs could vote down a government, and yet it could keep on trundling in power.
I am not sure where this idea came from; it has rather a tinge from the days of the sacked European Commission.
Having pondered the revolutionary change last night and pored over Erskine May this morning, the reality seems even more striking. I could find in its many pages no actual definition of what constitutes a majority in Parliament. The centuries-old presumption is that it is a majority of one. Ink is expended explaining Speaker Addington’s decision of 1796, and three decisions by Speaker Denison between 1860 and 1870, where votes were tied and the Speaker’s vote (and his deputy’s) counted. But beyond that, the definition of a majority is so obvious it requires no comment or definition.
That is the measure of the revolution at hand. A peremptory 55% in the Chamber on one issue today could (as the WSJ piece points out) lead to 60% later. But it could also lead to other changes designed to limit the ability of simple majorities to undo coalition work, for instance in committees employing dissident coalition MPs, or in formalising limitations of the Power of Rescission and reversing decisions already made.
It is the slipperiest of slopes, worthy of a stage in Total Wipeout.
Erskine May was last amended in 2004, and reflects current practise. As such, it is already I am told in the process of being amended to cover what is happening under the developing terms of the coalition. The voters of Buckingham have returned their incumbent to the House. What will he – and other potential Speakers should there be a challenge – make of it all? Mr Bercow’s enduring reputation as a guardian of Members’ rights over the Executive may yet be made.