´óÏó´«Ã½

If we're going to cut the number of MPs, shouldn't we also cut the number of ministers? That's the question which will be posed next week by

The Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill includes plans to cut the size of the House of Commons from 650 seats to 600 - and he argues that if we don't cut the current number of ministers in proportion (or preferably by more) the tentacles of patronage will slither into a tighter grip on the windpipe of Parliament. The phalanx of ministers bound to vote for whatever the government does, or to resign, will form a greater proportion of the Commons, and government will become incrementally more powerful.

So he has proposed an amendment to the bill requiring a proportional cut in the number of ministers, if the cut in MPs goes through. His new clause 7 may or may not be called, and it's not clear at what point it would come up in the three full days of committee stage deliberation planned for next week. But there is an important argument about the burgeoning size of the executive in Parliament - the payroll vote has grown inexorably, and equally important in MPs' career calculations, so has the prospect of joining it.

It's a handy instrument for a prime minister to wield, when there's a tough economic situation and the political awkwardness of a coalition to sustain. Twice this week there have been instances of extreme whipping - on the AV Bill itself, and on the EU Budget debate.

And if those arguments don't impress MPs, those awaiting the cull that will follow when the cut in Commons numbers is agreed might be tempted by the prospect of inflicting a similar cull on their ministers. Revenge is a dish best served with some sauce on the side.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?