One can conceive of Ministers seeking an all-party public front, and Labour objecting to responsibility with no power.
At the heart of the Rutnam row is its reservations not only about how the post-Brexit journey is being negotiated, but about taking it in the first place.
For many lawyers and commentators, its ruling was an assertion of judicial power that cannot be justified by constitutional law or principle.
The former may have won a battle, but the latter will win the war. Diverse, inclusive, victimhood culture is the future.
New Labour’s project of divesting power from the Commons cannot be reversed unless MPs are prepared to take up those responsibilities again.
He will remember Lady Hale and her swipe over “girly swots”. More pertinently, he will have in mind the court’s constitutionally illterate decision over prorogation.
This is the first of a three-part ConHome mini-series from Policy Exchange on the judges, public policy and the election.
The first piece of a series this week about what the Conservative Manifesto should look like.
A feminist account declares that judges “decide our laws”. There is no mention of parliament.
The place to put these proposals to the test is at a general election, not in a Parliament apparently determined to do little other than delay Brexit.
Our arrangements have served us well for centuries. But the current situation reveals that it is in need of a tidy-up to restore its effectiveness and standing.
Rees-Mogg suggests Conservatives will prefer restoring the Law Lords to judicial hearings. And says Watson faces “very serious questions”.
MPs should be ever-ready to assert the rights of Parliament over the Executive. But they should not be outsourcing the voters’ job to judges.
Plus: The far left really has captured Labour’s conference; too many Conservatives misunderstand the Supreme Court; and my conference agenda.
Worse, its judgement has knock-on implications for the effectiveness of government. Urgent corrective legislation is needed.