Parliament

There is a debate in the Commons this afternoon, urging the government to spare the BBC World Service from cuts. The resistance is being led by Richard Ottaway, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and author of a report condemning the Foreign Secretary’s decision to cut funding for the service.   Ottaway is likely to be well supported, as the Tory right is exercised by the effect that cuts are having on Britain’s standing in the world. John Whittingdale is on side, and there were plenty of backbenchers (among them, David T.C.

In yesterday’s speech to commemorate 12 months of the coalition, Nick Clegg promised a stronger liberal identity in the future. His party was ‘not left, ‘not right’ but ‘liberal’ and would judge other parties by their commitment to liberalism. Above all, and despite professed disavowal of tribal politics, he claimed that the Lib-Dems were ‘more committed at heart to fairness than the Conservatives’. Critics of the coalition on the Tory backbenches are often dismissed as the Tory Right, a term intended to paint them as disgruntled reactionaries who can’t reconcile themselves to partnership with the Lib-Dems.

Amazingly, the forces of conservatism derided by Tony Blair, are in the ascendant, their enemies scattering and in retreat. Bin Laden is dead, the oil price tumbling, the Royal Wedding was a triumph and now Labour and the Lib Dems beaten at the ballot box. Surely, we tell ourselves, this is an alignment of the stars, a Conservative moment. David Cameron must seize the day, or at least the year, by abandoning the Coalition and calling a general election soon. Landslide, here we go! Hold your horses. Britain’s electoral machinery is off the road, its parts all over the workshop floor. Thanks to the constitutional tinkering of the Coalition, the procedural and practical obstacles to holding a general election in the next four years are substantial and rising.

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 to repel Labour's charge that the coalition is damaged goods. But the question is: what do those bonding mechanisms look like?

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.

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.

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 the spirit of our unwritten constitution.