OK then.....MPs expensives....

[KukriKhan]

Brenda should step in and dissolve parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkvEeKnTb2Q

That particular mechanic of UK politics has always fascinated me. A single individual, with the snap of a finger, could implement a "do-over" of an entire government.

How does it work, in practice? PM requests and she assents? Can she just do it of her own volition? Must she formally announce the dissolution?

[InsaneApache]

That particular mechanic of UK politics has always fascinated me. A single individual, with the snap of a finger, could implement a "do-over" of an entire government.

How does it work, in practice? PM requests and she assents? Can she just do it of her own volition? Must she formally announce the dissolution?

Lesson one on the British Constitution.

Right, pay attention at the back. The government is Her Majestys government. As is the treasury, the navy, the police, in fact anything that helps defend/protect/run the country. Except of course in a constitutional monarchy, it's really the voters who decide. Brenda's just a figurehead. She does have some powers though.

She can declare war. She can dissolve parliament. She can give small silver coins out to pensiones as alms. As it's nominally Her government, she can, in theory, dissolve parliament and trigger a general election. However if she were to do so, it would bring about a genuine constitutional crises. How this may pan out is anybodys guess. As the police/army/navy/airforce make an oath of allegience to her, you might think she had all the top cards. She might well have given the buffoons in control at the moment.

However, one of her great-grandads thought the same and got on a bit of a sticky wicket on that one.

It could be interesting if madge did exercise her constitutional right. In the current climate the majority of voters would probably give a sigh of relief. One could argue that it's not democratic but it's often claimed that we live under a elective dictatorship anyway.

Certainly interesting times we live in.

[rory_20_uk]

I would like to see slightly more power in the hands of the Monarchy for times such as these when the elected ministers almost to a person are basically on the same side. Oh, platitudes and apologies are pouring out - but not the hundreds of thousands of pounds they've taken.

Better the monarch can say "oi, you lot - out" and get another lot in.
Would the next lot be any different? Possibly if they thought they too could be removed; if oversight was not via parliment but by the monarchy this again would help reduce the poachers acting as the gamekeepers.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Lesson one on the British Constitution.

Right, pay attention at the back. The government is Her Majestys government. As is the treasury, the navy, the police, in fact anything that helps defend/protect/run the country. Except of course in a constitutional monarchy, it's really the voters who decide. Brenda's just a figurehead. She does have some powers though.

She can declare war. She can dissolve parliament. She can give small silver coins out to pensiones as alms. As it's nominally Her government, she can, in theory, dissolve parliament and trigger a general election. However if she were to do so, it would bring about a genuine constitutional crises. How this may pan out is anybodys guess. As the police/army/navy/airforce make an oath of allegience to her, you might think she had all the top cards. She might well have given the buffoons in control at the moment.

However, one of her great-grandads thought the same and got on a bit of a sticky wicket on that one.

It could be interesting if madge did exercise her constitutional right. In the current climate the majority of voters would probably give a sigh of relief. One could argue that it's not democratic but it's often claimed that we live under a elective dictatorship anyway.

Certainly interesting times we live in.

The joy of an unwritten constitution is that one gets even more leeway to interpret than the wording of an 18th century document.

In fact, you are incorrect in the above analysis. The monarch has (to quote Bagehot) only three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn. In theory, she has the right under the Royal Prerogative to dismiss ministers including the Prime Minister, but dissolution of Parliament can only be done at the request of the Prime Minister (it used to be the whole Cabinet until around 1916).

Unhappily, the Royal Prerogative (which encompasses the powers you ascribe above such as declaring war) is entirely wielded by the Prime Minister.

George V is the ancestor you referred to, and it is commonly believed that he was the last monarch to dissolve Parliament and suffered for it. In fact, he refused to dissolve Parliament in 1923 at Stanley Baldwin's request, instead inviting Ramsay McDonald to form a government after dismissing Baldwin. It is still debated whether this was at all constitutional.

British Prime Ministers effectively have all the monarchial powers deprived from the Crown in 1689.

[Banquo's Ghost]

A scathing but accurate view of the Speaker and his conduct.

His solution – "an Operational Assurance Unit" – is the worst sort of bureaucratic complication. A privatised Fees Office that will end up stooging for the political class.

Cameron's solution is the best. Just put every expense claim online and the problem will solve itself.

We don't need people with an honours degree in accountancy, just people with a degree of honour. Failing that, a degree of shame would do perfectly well.

Hear, hear.

[Tsavong]

As abused as the current form of MPs expenses are its still probably batter that they are there than if there were not. As we may have a parliament filled of the privately wealthy or people sponsored by trade unions etc. And I think having MPs in the pocket of some privet interest group like a trade union would be worse than the current fiddling of expenses.

Also how ever much it seems unfair, to be an MP they should be working in two places London and where ever there constituency is and as parliament can keep MPs in London antill late at night or early in the morning some times. They need somewhere to live in London be it a hotel, house or something else it will still cost money. So the system needs to be reformed but there still needs to be something there else we may end up with a government of the wealthy or people in the pocket of trade unions.

[InsaneApache]

I thought that the Blair government decided they should knock off about tea time.

[Pannonian]

I thought that the Blair government decided they should knock off about tea time.

It was partly the result of the relatively massive influx of women MPs, that parliamentary sessions were rescheduled to end earlier. The previous state of affairs made it practically impossible for anyone with families to attend to to engage in parliamentary politics, which ended late, and had after-session discussions that went on even later. From accounts I've read, the timings of parliamentary matters also encouraged alcoholism, as the MPs would hang around in the bar afterward to "socialise" into ungodly hours. The earlier parliamentary sessions were meant to break up this old boys culture, and make it at conform at least a little with the wider world.