For Starmer, the point was ‘what are the human consequences when power is held by someone so unfit?’

The initial shock of a packed House of Commons, recalled in recess for an emergency debate on Afghanistan, was how unfamiliar the packed green benches now look. Even before the pandemic, arguably since the prorogation of parliament, there’s been a question mark over the point of it all; does a debate have to end in a vote, in order to have meaning? Is it otherwise just theatre, and if so, what democratic purpose does it serve?

The answer used to be very simple: it was to test and challenge the policy of the executive. It may have been ritualistic, but the ritual was dense with significance, indicating that no prime minister had the power simply to announce, every one must persuade.

Continue reading…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Banning Channel ‘TikTok traffickers’ risks censorship, UK campaigners say

Refugee charity and free speech group say government’s move could lead to…

Boris Johnson calls for Tory MP on privileges committee to resign

Former PM targets Bernard Jenkin over allegations that he attended birthday drinks…

Daphne Caruana Galizia: killer lays out murder plot in court

Vincent Muscat describes spying on the journalist and discussions about how she…