Parliament

We are about to find out how many coalition MPs are lobby fodder. In half-an-hour or so, the House of Commons is going to vote on whether any reduction in the number of MPs should be matched by an equivalent reduction in the number of ministers. If this measure is defeated, the power of the executive will be increased, the payroll vote will be a larger proportion of the House than it is today. Sadly, it looks as if the executive will defeat Charles Walker’s amendment. Tory MPs admit that there is absolutely no intellectual defence for the government’s view that the number of MPs can be reduced by 10 percent but the number of ministers must stay the same, but they are still going to vote against the amendment out of a mixture of loyalty and self-interest.

In opposition, nearly every politician talks about the dangers of an over-mighty executive. But office has a habit of changing peoples’ views on this subject. Charles Walker’s amendment (which he discusses over at ConservativeHome, here) to match any reduction in the number of MPs with an equivalent reduction in the number of ministers, so that the proportional size of the payroll vote remains the same, is an early test of whether office has begun to erode Cameron’s commitment to a proper balance between the executive and the legislature.   If a reduction in the number of MPs is not matched by a reduction in the number of ministers, then the executive will become more powerful and the House more of a creature of it.

Another good speech from Pope Benedict XVI, grand in historical sweep and intellectual clarity. His softly spoken, yet heavily-accented, English demands some mental concentration. And it was funny watching some of the tired looking politicians squinting as they tried to figure out what on earth the Pontiff was saying.   But if his voice was tricky to hear, his message was reasonably clear. He was effusive in his praise for this country’s parliamentary history, for common law, and for British democracy. At the same time, he did not shrink from suggesting that modern Britain is at risk of detaching itself from the Christian philosophical tradition that underpins everything that he believes is good about our free society.

To these eyes, this afternoon's phone hacking debate was a surprisingly sedate affair. Chris Bryant – proposing a motion to have an inquiry conducted by the Standards and Privileges committee into the News of the World's actions – seemed to go out his way to depoliticise the argument, and other Labour MPs followed his lead. And so there was relatively little mention of Andy Coulson, with the emphasis instead on the wrongs that might have been done to the House by the police and the media more generally. It was, then, little surprise that Bryant's motion was passed unanimously. There were some flashes of controversy and acid, though. Bryant himself went quite hard on the police, claiming that they had not fulfilled their "duty of care".

I bumped into a Tory MP earlier who one might have expected to be rebelling tonight. But he told me he was, reluctantly voting for the AV bill, because “I owe him [David Cameron] this.” His logic was that Cameron had come to the parliamentary party and told them he was going to offer the Lib Dems this so the party was honour-bound to vote it through. This argument has resonance with Tory MPs. The only thing that limits its appeal is a feeling that Cameron might not have been entirely straight with them about why he had to offer the Lib Dems AV. I expect tonight’s rebellion to be relatively small, 10 to 12 according to those on the backbenches who should know. But the real drama will start in the committee stage when all sorts of amendments are put down.

So, Cameron and Clegg end the summer break much as they started it: with a public statement on the aims and successes of the coalition government. Their article in today's Sunday Telegraph hops across all the usual touchstones – reform, deficit reduction, people power, and all that – but it lands with an unusually combative splash. In anticipation of tomorrow night's bellwether vote on the AV referendum and redrafted constituency boundaries, the two party leaders write: "This is an important moment for political renewal. We have different views on the future of our voting system. But we both recognise that there are genuine concerns about the current system. And we emphatically agree that the decision is not, in any case, for government alone...

CoffeeHousers may like to see the full leaked letter (pasted below) to which I referred in The Spectator's cover story this week. It shows how the NUT is using Freedom of Information to try and force school heads to hand over a list of names of anyone who might support a campaign to opt out of local authority control and become quasi-independent Academies. We have blacked out any information that may reveal the source. This letter helps explain why Michael Gove will have so few names next week, when he lists the list of schools who have succeeded in their fast-track application. Out of the 3,000 eligible, a few dozen will have made it.

MPs have never really got along with the new expenses body, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. But now their mood towards it seems to have become even frostier. I imagine that IPSA's three-month anniversary, and the rather complacent-sounding celebrations that accompanied it, are something to do with that. Tom Harris's wonderfully acerbic Birthday message, from a couple of days ago, captures how many MPs feel about the whole affair. In letters to the Telegraph today, Michael Fabricant and Denis MacShane ratchet up the attacks on IPSA. And while many will not see them as the ideal poster boys for a rebellion against an expenses watchdog, it's worth remembering that they are far from alone.

Much ado about the Office for Budget Responsibility's growth predictions in the Treasury Select Committee earlier, especially as an OBR official admitted that the cuts and tax hikes in the Budget could conceivably tip us into a double-dip recession. So are the OBR's official forecasts too optimistic, as some are now claiming? Only time will tell, but we can get a decent sense of things by comparing them with the independent forecasts that the Treasury collect here. And this is the result: In other words, the OBR growth forecasts stick pretty closely to the average independent forecast, although they are a touch more optimistic. Admittedly, these independent forecasts were collected before the Budget (but after the election), so they may be tweaked in a month or two.

Tucked away in Nick Clegg’s statement confirming that the referendum on AV was going to be on the 5th of May next year, was the abandonment of the controversial 55 percent rule for a dissolution of parliament. This has been replaced by a far more sensible arrangement. If the government cannot win a confidence vote, there’ll then be 14 days for one that can command the confidence of the House to be formed. If that does not happen, then there’ll be an election. However, if a government wants to dissolve parliament then it’ll require a two thirds majority. But it is still unclear how this rule could be made to bind any parliament as no parliament can bind its successor.

From opposing sides of the coalition's strait, two warning shots have been fired across the government's bows. David Davis has challenged Theresa May’s decision to renew the 28-day detention limit for six months pending a review. And Simon Hughes has declared that he and a like-minded posse will seek to amend ‘unfair’ aspects of the Finance Bill. Neither is an outright revolt. Neither move amounts to what Ed Miliband termed ‘cracks appearing in the coalition’. Both Davis and Hughes remain in support of the coalition agreement – Hughes will ‘support the Budget’, and Davis, to his enormous credit, has made excessive and illiberal detention periods his raison d’être.