http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8334302.stm

I wondered what you guys think because I think it's brilliant!

Interesting reading, but it's all a little irrelevant isn't it? Nice bit of common sense about the tuition fees though.

What a waste of Parliamentary time.

How's it a waste?

Parliament isn't in session on Fridays and it may help to engage young people with politics. Sounds worthwhile to me

As opposed to all the useful uses of parliamentary time:


...er

I was going for Parliamentary staff, but moving on.

I neither see the point of this gimmick nor do I like the constitutional implications.

Like it matters. Our system is broken. Let them feel good/important/relevant for 5 minutes. It won't change anything of consequence.

What constitution?

Uh oh. The United Kingdom has a constitution - it has four sources:

Statute Law, Common Law, Convention and Works of Authority. In this instance, letting kiddies mess about in Parliament is in breach of Parliamentary Convention.

The United Kingdom constitution is uncodified, but it's there.

Then why do we live in a police state, where taking photos is practically a crime, executive power is handed to a group of foreign nations and the consent of the people is not sought for virtually anything any more?

It's great being versed in theory, but the practical application of such things is what matters.

In short Parliament is Sovereign - it can do what the [LIFTED] it wants.

No. Europe can do what the [LIFTED] it wants and we just bend over with gags on.

But EU law overides our own laws - as members of the EU, Parliament isnt sovereign (notice I did put we had to be IN the EU )

Plus the UK law is Partially codified, not uncodified (I suppose thats more nitpicking )

In all fairness, Acts passed by Referendum are entrenched supposedly, because it would cause a form of constitutional crisis should they be scrapped by Parliament. Although parliament can do what it wants, it is answerable to the people at the end of the day.



However changes to Parliamentary Convention are merely progressions of the constitution to adapt to recent times, for instances the introduction of a Cabinet & Prime Minister (back in the times of Robert Walpole, like the 1730's), happened through evolution. Unfortunately (I believe) that your point is rather invalid because it isnt 'breaching it' any more, its changing it.



Thats part of Parliaments Sovereignty, and devolution

There is when you are an MP and claim it on expenses

As for tuition fees, pretty sure the Scots have a similar system for Scottish students going to a Scottish university (but IIRC they pay a lump sum on graduation) which to me seems like a better option

This is unbelievable pedantry, but it was on QI (and therefore must be right ). Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the first actualy Prime Minister in 1905. Up to that point, the post was First Lord of the Treasury and even now that is the role that holds the power... The term Prime Minister was used to far more mocking effect up to that point.