Hansard Society

Britain Votes 2010 - 25% discount on latest publication, and listen again to lively launch event here

admin — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:46:00 GMT

Wednesday 15th September, 6.30pm-8pm, Portcullis House, Westminster

Introduction by co-editors: Prof Andrew Geddes (University of Sheffield) and Prof Jonathan Tonge (University of Liverpool)

Main Speaker: Prof John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde

Panel: Prof Steven Fielding (University of Nottingham) Dr Jane Green (University of Manchester) Dr Andrew Russell (University of Manchester)

Chair: Dr Ruth Fox (Hansard Society)

You can see the event on BBC Parliament on Saturday 16th October at 9pm, and available online on BBC iPlayer for a further seven days.

To obtain a copy of the book, you can send this order form directly to the Oxford University Press and you will receive a 25% discount (£11.99) until 31st December 2010.

You can also purchase the book at Amazon for £15.99.

Listen again:

Britain Votes 2010 Audio part 1

Britain Votes 2010 Audio part 2

Britain Votes 2010 Audio part 3

To coincide with the launch of Parliamentary Affairs' new publication Britain Votes 2010 analysing the most dramatic general election in recent years, the Hansard Society hosted a panel discussion with contributors to the book, with a keynote address from Prof John Curtice.

The issues include;

the ideas and fortunes of the three main parties
the results, and the UK's new electoral demography
the impact of new campaign features, especially the leaders' televised debates
how the coalition government was formed
will coalition government be less exceptional in the future?

Twitter: Communication tool or pointless vanity?

admin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:14:00 GMT

Wednesday October 21, 6.30pm

Portcullis House, Westminster.

Last night Iain Dale, Kerry McCarthy MP, Jo Swinson MP and Andrew Walker, joined the Hansard Society in a brilliantly entertaining debate on Twitter: Communication Tool or Pointless Vanity? The panel addressed a packed room in Portcullis House including both Twitterers and Non-Twitterers!

Kerry McCarthy MP was up first, and made it clear that although Twitter will not win the next election it is a valuable tool. Twitter allows people to engage in a conversation with their MP, one that would not normally be possible and that can be about both serious and ‘frivolous' issues. Although this tool will not win an election on its own Ms. McCarthy did note that Twitter can be good for mobilising campaigns and allowing ‘organic growth'.

There was indeed a consensus on this point, Twitter alone is not enough, but used as part of the wider campaign process can be incredibly useful. Jo Swinson MP noted the relevance of Twitter particularly in the current political climate, breaking down barriers between politicians and the public, giving MPs a ‘human face' and restoring trust. Andrew Walker of Tweetminster made a similar point that technology can reduce cynicism....MPs do eat lunch and occasionally watch the X Factor! He went on to note that when seen as part of the wider media landscape Twitter can extend the reach of the traditional press.

However it is important to understand the limitations of Twitter, such as authenticity and time. Iain Dale noted that it is crucial to ‘keep it real' as it is plain to see when someone else is doing your ‘tweeting' for you. Dale was keen to issue a reality check, particularly in relation to Twitter's use in the upcoming election campaign; there is the very real risk of it causing problems and embarrassment for individual candidates. Andrew Walker agreed on this point but did note that although Twitter would not replace traditional canvassing it could mobilise people to get out and canvass on candidates' behalf and keep the agenda ‘agile'.

Perhaps the most notable limitation of Twitter is that not everyone knows what it is. Jo Swinson made an important point highlighting the large number of people not yet on the internet, let alone on Twitter. Perhaps the best question of the night came from a gentleman not yet enlightened to the world of Twitter asking ‘Could someone please tell me what Twitter actually is?!'. This certainly made our panel stop and think.

There was much talk of Parliament 2010 and the new intake of ‘techno-savvy' MPs. Iain Dale predicted that this new technology will enable MPs to question parliamentary authorities and ‘force change'. Andrew Walker also foresaw a great shift in the way politicians will be perceived, by forcing such change they will be seen as ‘radical' and ‘cool'. Watch this space!

To read our Digital Paper on Twitter: Communication tool or Pointless vanity? click here

Listen to the Audio: Kerry McCarthy MP & Jo Swinson MP Andrew Walker & Iain Dale Q&A

Parliamentary Reform: The Route from Here to There.

admin — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:54:00 GMT

Parliamentary Reform: The Route from Here to There.

A Speech by the Speaker of the House of Commons

Thursday 24th September, 2009

The Rt. Hon John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, gave a speech yesterday to a sizeable and eager Hansard Society audience at Portcullis House in Westminster.

The focus of the Speaker's speech was the role of the MP, their rights and duties and, more importantly, their future in a newly reformed House of Commons. The present role of the backbencher is, according to Mr Bercow, far from satisfactory. 'Akin to the soldiers at the Somme, turfed out of the trenches on the orders of distant masters‘, subject to decades of marginalisation, their vote only valued when the outcome uncertain.

Mr Bercow laid out a 10-point plan encompassing his vision of reform in the lower house, ranging from the collective rights and duties of MPs when they act in committee to the institutional rights and duties of the House of Commons as a whole. The Speaker floated the possibility of backbench MPs directly questioning Ministers of the Crown who reside in the House of Lords. Equating Lord Mandelson's empire to that of Alexander the Great, his message was clear - these prominent ministers must concede that they are responsible to backbenchers if meaningful accountability is to be achieved.

The Speaker was adamant that the House of Commons must change and will change, predicting the outcome of Sir Christopher Kelley's committee to provide the necessary blueprint. When questioned on whether a let up in public and media pressure would allow such change to be placed on the backburner, the Speaker was adamant that it would not. He went on to state that all the main party leaders are publicly committed to reform as never before, 'This is hugely welcome and it presents a superb opportunity for serious and significant change‘.

The Speaker's speech will be aired on BBC Parliament on Saturday 26th September at 10pm.

Click here to view the full transcript of the speech.

Listen to the event: The Speech Q&A Part 1 Q&A Part 2

See the photos on Flickr

Has Devolution Delivered for Women?

admin — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:01:00 GMT

The Hansard Society and the British Council hosted this event at the Festival of Politics.

Chair: Joyce McMillan (The Scotsman & Chair, Hansard Society Scotland Working Group)
Panel: Professor Alice Brown (Former Scottish Public Services Ombudsman)
Rosemary Butler AM (Deputy Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly)
Johann Lamont MSP (Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party)
Professor Laura McAllister (Professor of Governance, University of Liverpool & Independent Adviser to the Parliamentary Services Board of the National Assembly for Wales)

"Since devolution, Scotland and Wales have been viewed as international beacons of progress in establishing fair and effective representation for women in politics.

But at the 2007 election the number of female MSPs dropped for the first time since devolution - women now occupy just 33% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. In contrast, women secured 46% of the seats in the National Assembly for Wales. So was the 2007 result in Scotland just a temporary setback?"

Audio:

Part 1 Paul Docherty intro; Joyce McMillan & Johann Lamont MSP

Part 2 Rosemary Butler AM & Professor Alice Brown

Part 3 Professor Laura McAllister; Q&A

Photos:

30 Years of Scrutiny - Select Committee Conference

admin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:22:00 GMT

The Hansard Society, House of Commons and Study of Parliament Group held a very succesful conference celebrating 30 years of select committees, in the Attlee Suite, Portcullis House, with over 130 attendees. It was very interesting with a wide variety of views: people who were instrumental in setting up the current committee system; parliamentary specialists; academics; Clerks of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and members of the Hansard Society. The event consisted of three panels:

The origins and evolution of select committees
Chair: David Natzler (Clerk of Committees) Speakers: Gavin Drewry (Royal Holloway, University of London), Chris Price (former Chair of the Education Select Committee), Bill Proctor (former clerk to the Procedure Committee)
This looked at how the departmental select committees were established and provided some inetersting thoughts for those tasked with taking forward further reforms such as regional committees.

The challenges for scrutiny Listen to the audio
Chair: Dr Meg Russell (Constitution Unit, UCL) Speakers: Peter Luff MP (Chair of the Business and Enterprise Committee), Sir Nicholas Monck (former Permanent Secretary and member of the Better Government initiative) , Helen Irwin (former Clerk of Committees)
This session looked at some of the key challenges faced by select committees over the last thirty years, for example what impact have select committees had on government.

The future of select committees Listen to the audio
This final session from the Hansard Society looked at how the departmental select committee system has perhaps been part of a growth in the culture of scrutiny by committees. It considered what possibilities select committees offer for further reform and development of the House of Commons.
Chair: Dr Ruth Fox (Hansard Society) Speakers:Professor the Lord Norton of Louth (University of Hull) Peter Riddell (The Times and the chair of the Hansard Society) Tony Wright MP (Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee)

Read the papers from this event.

Young people raise interesting views on politics

admin — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:34:00 GMT

At our democracy forum Young People: Who cares what they think? the speakers and audience discussed what, exactly, should be the contribution of under-18s to politics?

Are young people properly represented in our democratic system?
Are young people's views best expressed by those with more life experience?
Which is more important - representation or experience?

The discussion was really interesting and the young people in the audience raised some excellent points about issues such as 'votes at 16' and some interesting views on the citizenship education that they receive in school.

Listen to the event:

Part 1 Jo Swinson MP & Emily Beardsmore (Chair, British Youth Council)

Part 2: Meryl Roberts & Geral Owusu (Member of the UK Youth Parliament for Haringey)

Q&A

More photos:

What lessons should Westminster learn from Holyrood?

admin — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:12:00 GMT

The Hansard Society Democracy Forum, What lessons should Westminster learn from Holyrood? marked the London launch of the Hansard Society Scotland publication The Scottish Parliament 1999-2009: The first Decade .The event took place in Westminster on the May 19 with a packed room and lively debate.

The Democracy Forum brought together key political and legal experts on the Scottish Parliament to discuss what the UK Parliament could learn from the last 10 years of the Scottish Parliament. The speakers were Joyce McMillan (Chair, Hansard Society Scotland Working Group), Lord Wallace of Tankerness (former Leader, Scottish Liberal Democrats); Peter Wishart (SNP Constitutional Affairs Spokesperson) and Michael Clancy OBE (Director, Law Reform The Law Society of Scotland). The event will be covered on Today in Parliament on Radio Four this Friday (May 21).

The speakers talked of the achievements of the young Parliament such as the renovation and modernisation of many areas of Scots law and the ability of the Parliament to pass through large amounts of effective legislation.

It was suggested that Westminster could learn from a number of innovative ideas such as: the novel combined committee structure of the Scottish Parliament, their robust freedom of information system, the transparency of the Scottish expenses system with quarterly publication of MSPs' expenses, the e-petition system, and the high proportion of female MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.

Although many challenges lie ahead the Scottish Parliament has seen through a very successful first decade.

Why Vote? - Hansard Society Scotland Hustings Series

admin — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:23:00 GMT

The Hansard Society organised a series of Why Vote? debates and hustings in Scotland in the lead up to the European elections in June, in partnership with the European Movement and the CSPP

The events in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and two in Glasgow were well attended and there was excellent debate. See below for a list of who spoke at each event.

Edinburgh,

George Square Theatre

Chair: Iain Macwhirter
Speakers: Belinda Don (Scottish Conservative Party); Peter McColl (Scottish Green Party); Kirsty Connell (Scottish Labour Party); George Lyon (Scottish Liberal Democrats); Alyn Smith (Scottish National Party); Peter Adams (UK Independence Party).

Glasgow

Chair: Joyce McMillan (The Scotsman and Chair of the Hansard Society Scotland Working Group)
Speakers: John Edward (Head, European Parliament Office in Scotland); Neil Mitchison (Head, European Commission Office in Scotland).

Glasgow

Glasgow Caledonian University
Chair: Professor John Curtice (University of Strathclyde)
Speakers: Struan Stevenson (Scottish Conservative Party); Elaine Morrison (Scottish Green Party); David Martin (Scottish Labour Party); George Lyon (Scottish Liberal Democrats); Alyn Smith (Scottish National Party); Peter Adams (UK Independence Party).

Aberdeen

Kings College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen
European Election Hustings in association with Department of Politics and International Affairs, University of Aberdeen.
Chair: Professor Trevor Salmon, University of Aberdeen.
Speakers: Struan Stevenson (Scottish Conservative Party); Elaine Morrison (Scottish Green Party); David Martin (Scottish Labour Party); George Lyon (Scottish Liberal Democrats); Ian Hudghton (Scottish National Party); Peter Adams (UK Independence Party).

Hansard Society Scotland Publication Launched

admin — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:46:00 GMT

The Ten Years of The Scottish Parliament: Achievements and Futures conference took place to a full audience at Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh. The conference brought together key academic figures, politicians, political journalists and policy makers to asses the achievements of the Parliament; to stimulate dialogue on the opportunists and challenges of the next decade; and discuss the future shape of Scottish self-government.

The session that launched the Hansard Society Scotland publication The Scottish Parliament 1999-2009: The First Decade had an attendance of over 150 people. The speakers were: Joyce McMillan (Chair, Hansard Society Scotland Working Group); Bruce Crawford (Minister for Parliamentary Business); Iain Gray MSP (Leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament) and Tam Dalyell (former MP). The discussion was very interesting and analysed the positives and negatives of the first ten years of the Scottish Parliament. It was broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland on Friday 15 May.

Other sessions looked at topics such as Has Devolution Delivered? and Where now for Scottish self-government? which included speakers Stephen Tierney (University of Edinburgh) discussing constitutional issues; John Curtice (University of Strathclyde) on what the public thinks of devolution; Richard Wyn Jones (Cardiff University) on a perspective from Wales and Alain Gagnon (University of Quebec in Montreal) on a view from Quebec.

The publication is available to order from Luath Press priced at £9.99.

Launch of the Audit of Political Engagement 6

admin — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:23:00 GMT

The sixth Audit of Political Engagement was launched today in Parliament to a full house. The MPs who spoke at the evnt had varying views on how best to engage the public with politics and the 'Obama effect' in the UK: Shahid Malik MP said that democratic governments must govern in the interests of all society, not just those with the loudest voices; Shailesh Vara MP said that he disagreed with positive discrimination and that people should be elected, like Barack Obama, on their own merit; Jo Swinson MP pointed out that when politics and politicians have a bad reputation it creates a spiral of disengagement.

PowerPoint presentation of Audit 6 findings

Dr Ruth Fox presentation of Audit 6 findings

Shahid Malik MP; Shailesh Vara MP

Jo Swinson MP; Q&A

Photos:

The Online Campaign – solution or smokescreen?

admin — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:50:00 GMT

This event discussed the use of online strategies and their increasing importance, encouragement of grass-roots activism and ability to enable mass mobilisation. But there is no guarantee that the cooption of online strategies will guarantee electoral success or promote healthy dialogue between politicians and citizens. Derek Draper (LabourList.org), Mark Pack (libdemvoice.org) and Jonathan Isaby (ConservativeHome.blogs.com) discussed the future and worth of online campaign strategy, Chaired by Dr Laura Miller (Hansard Society eDemocracy programme).

Click here for a video of the event on hustings.com

Europe or America: where is our special relationship now?

admin — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:33:00 GMT

Wednesday 18 March, 6.30pm, House of Commons, Westminster.

This Hansard Society Democracy Forum examined the ‘special relationship' between the UK and the US in the context of the recent presidential elections and the forthcoming Euro elections.

Chair: Fiona Booth

Speakers: Charles Kennedy MP; Bronwen Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator, The Times; Mark Tokola, Minister-Counselor for Economic Affairs, American Embassy; Caroline Flint MP, Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

You can listen to the event:

Part 1 Charles Kennedy MP; Mark Tokola, American Embassy

Part 2 Bronwen Maddox, The Times; Caroline Flint MP

Part 3 Q&A

Citizens or Consumers - which does a democracy need more?

admin — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:34:00 GMT

A Democracy Forum that discussed the implications of globalised forces upon democratic engagement.

Wednesday 28 January 2009, 6pm, Portcullis House, Westminster.

Chaired by: Virginia Gibbons (Hansard Society)

Speakers: Dr Vincent Cable MP (Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader & Shadow Chancellor); Ken Livingstone; Angela Knight (Chief Executive, British Bankers' Association); Tony Travers (Director, Greater London Group, LSE)

This Democracy Forum, with reference to the current financial crisis, discussed whether we are passive consumers of globalised forces, or whether we have an active role to play as citizens in a democracy. The speakers were all excellent. Tony Travers made the distinction between citizens and consumers, saying that citizens acted as a collective as opposed to the individualism of a consumer. Ken Livingstone, as well as recounting amusing anecdotes about his time as Mayor, discussed the need for the return of power to local government who can then be held accountable for their actions by local citizens, citing the 'choice' in schools and hospitals as an example of failed centralisation of power and treating citizens as consumers.

Dr Vince Cable gave some interesting examples of the tensions between an individual's role as a citizen and a consumer in the current financial crisis, for example as a self-interested consumer in hard times the instinct is to save money, however we are told that as citizens our duty is to spend and keep the economy going. Angela Knight agreed with some of Ken Livingstone's points, however she suggested that the removal of power from people to institutions such as the European Union, whilst not necessarily wrong, had left people feeling less like citizens and politicians must be honest in these tough times to combat that.

Listen to the panel:

Tony Travers (LSE) & Ken Livingstone

Dr Vince Cable MP & Angela Knight (British Banker's Association)

When Gordon Took The Helm

admin — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:02:00 GMT

A Democracy Forum that examined Gordon Brown's first year as Prime Minister

Speakers: Professor Michael Rush (joint editor of Palgrave Review of British Politics); Dr Philip Giddings (joint editor of Palgrave Review of British Politics); Peter Riddell (Chair, Hansard Society); Professor Philip Cowley (University of Nottingham). Chair: Kate Jenkins (Vice Chair, Hansard Society)

It was an excellent meeting with very interesting comment and debate on the different aspects of Gordon Brown's first year as Prime Minster. The speakers at this event were all contributors to the latest edition of The Palgrave Review of British Politics. Michael Rush introduced the Palgrave Review, Philip Giddings spoke on 'mapping the voyage', Peter Riddell examined Gordon Brown's first year at the helm and Philip Cowley spoke on Parliament under Gordon Brown.

To order your copy of When Gordon Took the Helm: The Palgrave Review of British Politics 2007-08 at the special price of £29.99 (usually £59.99), go to www.palgrave.com and enter this unique discount code: WHELM2008a.

Hansard Society conference in the Guardian - 17 November 2008

admin — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:53:00 GMT

John Harris, when discussing class politics in the Guardian, referred to the speech made by Hazel Blears at Hansrad Society's Revitalising Politics conference on 5/6 November. Held jointly with the Universities of Sheffield and Southampton, the conference discussed what Parliament, Government, citizens and civil society can do to engage the public with politics.

He said 'Of course, there are politicians from all sides who are discomfited by this. A couple of weeks ago, for instance, the secretary of state for communities, Hazel Blears made a speech to the Hansard Society full of tough talk. "It is deeply unhealthy for our political class to be drawn from a narrowing social base and range of experience," she said. Parliament was in need of "people who know what it is to worry about the rent collector's knock or the fear of layoff ... in short, we need more Dennis Skinners, more David Davises, more David Blunketts".'

Read the full article here

Read the full list of press coverage about the conference.

If you would like to read the papers from the conference and join the debate visit the Revitalising Politics website.

Engaging online: Getting citizens back to the centre of democracy

admin — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:10:00 GMT

On October 29 2008, the Hansard Society held a seminar in the Scottish Parliament to explore the different characteristics of online engagement. Organised in collaboration with Microsoft, the session focused not simply on the technology but also on the impact of organisational culture and the broader context of citizen disenfranchisement.

The panel comprised: Navraj Singh Ghaleigh (Lecturer in Public Law, University of Edinburgh), Aileen Campbell MSP (Scottish National Party MSP for South of Scotland) and Fergus Cochrane (Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, Scottish Parliament) . Joyce McMillan columnist of The Scotsman and Chair of the Hansard Society Scotland Working Group chaired the session.

For more information about this event, please email Emma Megaughin at hansard.scotland@hansard.lse.ac.uk or phone 0131 243 2750.

Revitalising Politics Conference

admin — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:57:00 GMT

The Revitalising Politics: have we lost the plot? conference took place on November 5/6 2008 in Parliament. It was organised by the Hansard Society and Professors Gerry Stoker (University of Southampton) and Colin Hay (University of Sheffield).

Visit the Revitalising Politics website to read and comment on all the conference papers and the keynote speeches by Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP and Chris Huhne MP.

Read press coverage

The Revitalising Politics website is a space for attendees and others who are interested to review, comment and expand on the position papers presented at the conference.

Conference papers at Revitalising Politics

Revitalising politics: Have we lost the plot: Colin Hay, University of Sheffield; Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton and Andy Williamson, Hansard Society.
New methods of engagement: Graham Smith, University of Southampton
Challenges of multi-level governance: Tony Travers, London School of Economics
Teaching Democracy: James Sloam, Royal Holloway College & Ben Kisby, University of Sheffield
Failing of political parties: Paul Webb, University of Sussex
Failings of interest groups: William Maloney, University of Newcastle
The role of new media: Rachel Gibson, University of Manchester
Levels of participation and citizen attitudes: Paul Whiteley, University of Essex
Bridging the gap: Revitalising politics and the politics of public expectations: Matt Flinders, University of Sheffield
Involving Young People: Jon Tonge, University of Liverpool.

Making Politics Fit For Purpose

admin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:20:00 GMT

The Political Studies Association/Hansard Society 2008 Annual Lecture was given by Rt Hon Clare Short MP to a packed meeting at Westminster.

The Political Studies Association/Hansard Society Annual Lecture was introduced by Fiona Booth (Chief Executive, Hansard Society) and Prof Vicky Randall (Chair, PSA).

Click to listen to the Clare Short MP's speech and the Q&A session. View the photos.

Clare Short's speech:

‘It is widely agreed that the confidence of the people of the UK in their political system has been deeply undermined in recent years. Many agree that this cynicism is bad for democracy and believe that we must do more to educate the public in the workings of the political system. My own conclusion, after 25 years in electoral politics, is that our system is deeply flawed and visibly deteriorating in both the quality and democratic accountability of its decision-making. I suggest therefore that public education is likely to increase rather than decrease public cynicism and what is needed is a more determined demand for reform of the system.

It is of course not new to point to the massive concentration of power in the executive in the UK system. It was in 1976 that Quentin Hogg described our system as an "elective dictatorship". The old argument in defence of the system is that it produces clear majorities and strong governments capable of implementing their policy programme. The people are given a clear choice between different party programmes and are able to elect a government of their choice. Advocates of the British system argue that this is much better than a deal made between the parties, after an election.

I began my life in the House of Commons accepting this argument, but then as I saw the Thatcher government adopt highly contentious policies with the support of 42-43% of those who voted, I became convinced that awarding overwhelming power to a government supported by fewer than half the people was wrong and the government imposed on the people values and policies that the majority did not support.

Under New Labour, the distortion between votes and representation in the House of Commons has got worse. The Conservatives' 42-43% of the vote in 1979, 83, 87 and 92 brought in 53, 57, 58 and 52% of seats in the House of Commons. New Labour's 43, 41 and 32% of the vote in 1997, 2001 and 2005 brought them 63, 63 and 55% of the vote in the House of Commons. This was particularly galling to many people after the Iraq war. Blair's vote was cut by 5 million from 1997 to 2005 and only 1 in 5 of registered voters voted for the government, yet our electoral system gave it an unassailable majority in the House of Commons.

My conclusion is that our electoral system is indefensible and in itself breeds cynicism. In the UK in 2005, 19 million votes were cast ineffectively. That means that 70% of those who voted did not elect a candidate of their choice. The distortions in our system meant that - in rounded figures - in 2005, 27,000 votes elect a New Labour MP, 44,000 elect a Tory MP and it takes 97,000 votes to elect a Liberal democrat MP. This is simply wrong.

In addition to the growing distortion in the electoral system, there has been a growth in the power concentrated around the Prime Minister in No 10 Downing Street. This is a result of big majorities in the House of Commons, massive patronage powers in the hands of the Prime Minister and the effect of 24 hour news coverage and the growing power of the politics of spin.

It is no secret that the cabinet government ceased to operate in the Blair years. This was one of the findings of the Butler Report which reviewed the use of intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq. In that case we know that the full legal opinion on the legality of the war and papers prepared in the Cabinet Office were deliberately not circulated to the Cabinet. The major Cabinet Committee intended to consider crises in foreign policy is Defence and Overseas Policy. It is chaired by the Prime Minister, attended by all Secretaries of State and Permanent Secretaries with foreign policy responsibilities, together with the heads of the security services and the armed forces. In the case of the Iraq crisis, it never met. And thus the full diplomatic, political and military options were not considered and the policy was run by the Prime Minister and a small group of officials in Downing Street, constantly in touch with the White House, but with the expertise in our own Foreign Office completely marginalised.

I can honestly testify that there was never a full discussion of any policy issue with all options considered and a consensus reached in my six years as a member of the Cabinet. The most spectacular and troubling example of this was the way in which the decision to go to war in Iraq was made, but it was true of all decisions. The discussion on whether to go ahead with the Millennium Dome had a majority of voices against it, but this made no difference whatsoever. The way in which reforms in the Health and Education services were to be taken forward were not considered or discussed.

My conclusion is that the way in which power and decision making is concentrated in Number 10 has led to unaccountable policy making and very poor consideration of policy options. When the question is asked, why the very big increases in public expenditure which the boom years afforded have not been more effective, my conclusion is that the failure to fully thrash out the new policy, and the subsequent chopping and changing and constant reorganisation is a consequence of these decision making structures and has undermined the effectiveness of reform. In effect, we have a Prime Minister with Presidential powers who is not properly held to account by the House of Commons because his power is based on the Commons majority and party patronage and loyalty keeps the troops in line.

These developments have been enhanced by the growth in the patronage powers of the Prime Minister. The abolition of hereditary peers in the Lords led to Tony Blair being able to appoint more peers than any previous Prime Minister. The number was 268 between 1997 and 2005, with 125 of them taking the Labour whip. I will come on later to the reasons why the unelected House of Lords is a better check on the executive than the Commons, but the power to appoint ageing MPs to the House of Lords and to insert a young adviser into a safe Labour seat at the last minute before a general election, has the effect of ensuring that older MPs stay loyal and new MPs frequently arise from the patronage powers of the Prime Minister rather than from local selection.

The other great power of patronage is the power to appoint and re-appoint Ministers. All Cabinet Ministers hope for greater office, junior Ministers hope to be promoted and almost all backbenchers want to be a Minister. In the UK system, we have very large numbers of Ministers and whips who are paid members of the government. Our total is 125 (including 28 in the Lords). On top of this, there are 54 Parliamentary Private Secretaries who are expected to vote with the government and the role is seen as a stepping stone to Ministerial office. This means that 1 in 3 New Labour MPs are part of the government. With constant reshuffles, this helps to keep the parliamentary party docile because it is only by being loyal that the call to Ministerial office will come. Most other countries have far fewer Ministers and are astonished by the numbers in the UK system. Most of these junior Ministers have very little decision making power, but they defend the government's programme in the House of Commons, have a departmental office, Private Secretary and government car and obviously have to support the government at all times in order to remain in office. Under New labour, the quality of patronage has grown even further than under previous governments. There is legislation limiting the size of the number of paid members of HMG but now we have the phenomenon of 12 unpaid Ministers and the number has quietly grown. They get their status, office, Private Secretary and car, but no extra salary.

In addition to this, the 16 House of Commons Select Committees appointed to scrutinise government activity are appointed in proportion to the balance of seats in the Commons. This means that the majority of members are government MPs and the majority of Chairs, an influential and paid post, are from the government party. The whips appoint members and propose Chairs. Rebellious MPs have difficulty being appointed to Select Committees and would never become Chairs (with the exception of Gwyneth Dunwoody). The Select Committee system, established in 1979, does enhance the Commons scrutiny of the government, but the care with which appointments are controlled ensures that the Committees rarely embarrass the government.

Added to all of this, ensuring massive concentration of power in Number 10, is the politics of spin. In the Blair regime, Alastair Campbell was widely regarded as the Deputy Prime Minister. The political machine needs a constant stream of announcements that can be fed to the press. Clever young people are appointed to advise the Prime Minister. Policy is increasingly made in Number 10 and the expertise that lies in departments has less and less influence on the decisions that are made. It is very clear that the skills of the Blair machine in its use of focus groups and spin has been deeply studied and imitated by the Cameron machine and that here is little difference between the two major parties in this regard.

Another new development which has been little commented upon but has broken the authority of the House of Commons is the timetabling and guillotining of all business. When I became an MP in 1983, Mrs Thatcher was at the height of her powers and had a big majority. But the Opposition had the power of time. We could keep debates going in Committee indefinitely, if we felt sufficiently strongly, and using this power we could squeeze concessions from the government. That power is now gone and any amendments that are not dealt with in Committee or at report stage go to the House of Lords to be dealt with. This means a massive abnegation of responsibility by the House of Commons.

It is also notable how few MPs sit in the Chamber during debates. This is because in any big debate, speeches are limited to 7 or 8 minutes because the time is guillotined. I well remember in my earlier days in the Commons how the Chamber would fill up, later in the day if Michael Foot, Enoch Powell, Denis Healey or other big figures got up to speak. No major speech, sharing big ideas or challenging the direction of government policy can be confined to 7 minutes. In addition, when we were deeply stirred by a government policy, backbenchers could plan to keep the debate going all night and thus break the government plans for the next day's business. This could be done without the approval of one's front bench, if there were enough MPs willing to speak at length. We attempted it several times and achieved it sometimes and thus used the power of time to inconvenience the government and assert the power of backbenchers. All this power is lost to the Opposition and to backbenchers and thus attendance in the House has declined and what is said in the House, as opposed to through the media, has less and less significance.

It is for these reasons and because of its composition that the House of Lords is now a more thorough and effective check on the executive than the House of Commons. They are not elected, but appointment by party is in proportion to the votes of the electorate and therefore the government does not have an automatic majority. And because the Lords' business is not subject to timetabling and guillotining debates are more serious and all amendments properly considered. Despite the Lords' hesitation in overturning policy passed by the Commons because they are not an elected House, they play a very important and honourable role in checking ill considered government policy, much of which is not scrutinised in any way by the Commons because time ran out and many parts of the bill and tabled amendments are never reached.

My conclusion then is that our political institutions are functioning very badly both in failing to take account of public opinion and in the poor quality of decision making. There are many examples but one that is worthy of note is the frequency of government introduction of new criminal justice bills and the creation of new offences. Thus for most of the 20^th century there was one Criminal Justice Bill every 10 years. From 1997 to 2006, the Home Office brought forward 60 Bills and the government created 3,000 new criminal offences. The Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys accused John Reid and Charles Clarke, in their times as Home Secretary, of making policy on the hoof in response to media pressure.

The question is what is to be done? The key change we need is to our electoral system. Mrs Thatcher with 43% of MPs in the House of Commons and Tony Blair with 35% after the Iraq war would have been very different leaders. They would have had to listen and reach agreement with a majority. If all citizens knew their vote could make a significant difference to reward or punish their local representative, more people would vote and more MPs would attend to the opinions of their voters than their party whips. If there was no automatic majority in parliament, then coalitions would have to be made, policy proposals thrashed out and the Cabinet would become once again a place where decisions would be fully considered. And if our system was more proportional, it would be more open to new forces, such as Green parties willing to challenge the current consensus and put forward new policy proposals. And last but not least, if the electorate, in their diversity of opinion, had more influence, the spin doctors and focus groups would have less. They surely explain why all the parties are converging on the centre and all our leaders pay endless court to Rupert Murdoch. It would be so much better to have a parliament representative of the diversity of public opinion, where arguments and voting really mattered. The guillotines and timetables would fall without the authority of an overwhelming majority and politics would come alive again.

How, then, might we bring about this change? The answer, I believe, is a hung parliament with no party having an overall majority. The chances are that this would lead to a referendum on electoral reform as the under-represented Liberal Democrats made it a condition of their co-operation. My conclusion is that people are entitled to be cynical about the poor quality of our existing political institutions. But if we are determined to change our system, we can do so. The answer lies in the hands of the electorate and if current trends continue, the most likely outcome of the next election would be a hung parliament. This would put an end to arrogant centralised government. The House of Commons would be enlivened, the Cabinet would be restored and the electorate would know that their votes and opinions carried significant power and influence.'

The PSA/Hansard Society Annual Lecture given by Rt Hon Clare Short MP will be shown on BBC Parliament on Saturday evening, November 1, 2008.

Hansard Society at 2008 SNP Conference

admin — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:53:00 GMT

People Like Us: Is Scottish Society fairly reflected in Holyrood?

Saturday 18 October, 12.30-1.30pm, at the Royal George Hotel in Perth.

Speakers: Angela O'Hagen (Equalities and Human Rights Commission), Michael Russell MSP (SNP Minister for Environment), Emily Wilson (Channel 4 News) Humza Yousaf (Convenor of Young Asian Scots for Independence).

Chair: Joyce McMillan (The Scotsman)

Food and refreshments provided.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE FOR THIS MEETING

No Politics, Please ….We’re Women!

admin — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:27:00 GMT

Over 90 people attended a Hansard Society meeting in Westminster to discuss a new briefing based on original Hansard Society research about women's attitudes to politics. The panel was: Helen Goodman MP (Government Whip), Ros Taylor (The Guardian), Dr Jonathan Dean (Gender Institute, London School of Economics), and Lee Chalmers (the Downing Street Project). The event was chaired by Dr Sarah Childs (Bristol University).

Gender Research Paper

Click here to listen to the research paper being discussed on Radio 4's Women's Hour

Audio: Part 1 Dr Sarah Childs, Helen Goodman MP
Part 2 Dr Jonathan Dean, Ros Taylor, Lee Chalmers
Part 3 Questions & Answers

Dr Sarah Childs outlined the key points of the research which shows that women are disproportionately less likely to say they are both interested and knowledgeable about politics than men. In addition, the research shows that while men tend to overestimate their actual political knowledge, women tend to underestimate how much they know about politics.

Helen Goodman MP rejected the notion that women are less interested and knowledgeable about politics. The problem is that politics has been formed in a male image. Two key differences between the genders in the way they approach politics are that women's agenda is often different from men's (for example, women are more interested in health and men are more interested in the economy) and style (women are not so interested in institutional arrangements).

Ms Goodman said that in 1997 Labour won because 44% of women voted for them - the first time that such a large percentage of women voted for Labour. She listed Labour's achievements which had benefited women, such as the minimum wage, but acknowledged that the political ‘brand' is still portrayed as a ‘boxing match' - Brown v Cameron. She emphasised that All Women Shortlists had made a real difference to women's representation in Parliament - 28% of Labour MPs are women compared to 16% of Liberal Democrats and 9% of Conservatives.

She stressed that women's representation does matter - women can shift the political agenda and make a difference to the way in which Parliament works. Furthermore, in constituencies where there is a woman MP, turnout rises for both women (by 9%) and men (by 5%).

Dr Jonathan Dean welcomed the report but also disagreed that women are less interested and knowledgeable about politics than men. He said that he is concerned that women are seen as a problem group as this distracts attention from the creation and maintenance of gender hierarchies in our political institutions. He outlined three institutional obstacles: firstly, institutionalised sexism in political parties, especially at local level, secondly, the media treatment of women politicians and thirdly, the myths about women's attitudes to political participation (for example, that women are fickle, that they are more interested in personalities than polices and that they need gimmicks to involve them).

He pointed out that while there is a gender gap in participation in ‘high' politics, this gap is much smaller or non-existent, in local or grass roots activity - but this is too often regarded as not ‘proper politics'. He acknowledged that these problems are deeply entrenched and hard to legislate against and called on the media to examine perceptions of politics. The key to change is to have an open and concerted debate about gender assumptions in public life.

Ros Taylor was dismayed by the title of the discussion and thought it was too Westminster-focused. We need to move beyond Westminster.

She felt that the key point was not that women actually know less than men about politics but that they think that they know less. She puts this down to women being more modest and underestimating their own knowledge. When it comes to issues such as how education and the health service works, women often know a very great deal. The problem is that women confine themselves and this humility means that they are excluded from many areas of national debate. We need to instigate a culture where women are more willing to put themselves forward.

In her job she finds that women have less time for media self-promotion and don't submit opinion pieces nearly as often as men. In addition, political coverage in the media centres on an obsession with factional debate and attempts to identity rebels so that many important elements (for example Select Committee reports) are overlooked. She also pointed out that many women journalists are pushed away from the front line of politics into features.

Her key conclusion was that we need to be more positive about women's political involvement.

Lee Chalmers said that the whole style of Parliament is set up to accommodate the way that men debate and although it's true that women don't talk about politics in the same way that men do, what they can do is make a difference.

She asked why, when women often take action at local and national level, more women don't go into politics? She felt that the answer was one of attitude - women often have to be asked to stand for office and need to be encouraged to see themselves as leaders. They need mentors at the earliest stage of political involvement. She stressed that the concept of leadership is gendered and both women and men see leaders as being naturally male.

She said that women have other hurdles to cross - for example they know that they will be judged by their looks and appearance in ways that men are not.

Ms Chalmers also asked why any of this matters. She stressed that making representation equal was important; it's not the whole story. She feels that men and women reason in a different manner - men in a linear manner and women in a more ‘holistic' way. The world has complex problems and linear thinking has not solved these problems. Women must take a step into leadership roles because it's essential to utilise your entire nation, not just one half of it. Progress is slow and we must look at how to speed up the process.

The panel then responded to questions from the audience.

People Like Us: Is British Society fairly reflected in Parliament? Party Conferences Autumn 2008

admin — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:54:00 GMT

Channel 4/the Hansard Society have had an extremely succesful series of events at the Autumn 2008 party political conferences. We had lots of high profile speakers, the debates were of a very high quality and there was some controversial moments! We recorded all 3 meetings, click on the links to listen.

Click here to see photographs of the events.

Liberal Democrats: Chair Katie Razzall (Channel 4 News), Speakers Lord Dhlokia, Chris Huhne MP, Simon Hughes MP, Lembit Opik MP, Jo Swinson MP.

Liberal Democrat Fringe Event Part 1

Liberal Democrats Fringe Event Part 2

Liberal Democrat Fringe Event Part 3

Labour: Chair Krishnan Guru-Murthy (Channel 4 News), Speakers Dawn Butler MP, Harriet Harman MP, Shahid Malik MP, Peter Oborne (Channel 4 Dispatches), Lord Soley.

Labour Fringe Event Part 1

Labour Fringe Event Part 2

Labour Fringe Event Part 3

Conservative: Chair Katie Razzall (Channel 4 News), Speakers Iain Dale (Total Politics), Julie Kirkbride MP, Eleanor Laing MP, Theresa Map MP, Baroness Warsi.

Conservatives Fringe Event Part 1

Conservatives Fringe Event Part 2

Conservatives Fringe Event Part 3

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP addresses Hansard Society meeting on legislative process

admin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:57:00 GMT

A new Hansard Society book Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process was launched at a conference in Parliament where Rt Hon Jack Straw MP gave the keynote speech.

The conference was opened by Hansard Society Chief Executive Fiona Booth. Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, explained that scrutinising the work of Parliament was one of the Hansard Society's core activities. Since the publication of the Rippon Commission report 15 years ago, Parliament had seen many changes. It was easy to be pessimistic about the role of Parliament, but the new research in Law in the Making pointed out where MPs and peers can and do make a difference to legislation as it passes though Parliament. The Hansard Society will be following up this report with further examination and research.

Alex Brazier, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme and joint author of the report, outlined the main themes of the publication:

The impact of Parliament and parliamentarians on the legislative process
The effectiveness of the parliamentary process
The relationship between the two Houses of Parliament
The role of external bodies and the difference they can make
The role of the media which can have some impact but covers very little of the work of Parliament.

Alex made two further points about how the legislative process works:

There are a number of factors which inhibit scrutiny - limitations on parliamentarians' time and resources, lack of time in the legislative process, the increasing volume and complexity of legislation and the massive amount of detail contained in delegated legislation.

The legislative process contains two different cultures - the features of a political battle combined with the techniques of dispassionate scrutiny. The adversarial system and ethos at Westminster still dominate with a predominant belief within government that to change a bill is a sign of weakness. At the same time, mechanisms for less partisan scrutiny have been introduced (e.g. an increase in pre-legislative scrutiny and the introduction of public bill committees).

Alex concluded by suggesting some recommendations for reform, including: more structured and straightforward government consultations, an increase in pre-legislative scrutiny and improvements to the committee stage.

Keynote Speech
The keynote speech was given by Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. He opened by expressing his appreciation of the contribution made by the Hansard Society to the work of Parliament and described the Law in the Making research publication as ‘forensic, balanced and informative'. He reflected on the many bills the Government had taken through Parliament and judged that the most successful pieces of legislation were the ones ‘where we thought about things and took our time'. He outlined two kinds of law which are not always successful - those which are done too swiftly and those which go though on consensus with all-party agreement - he gave the example of the Children's Act.

Turning to the publication, he commented that it contradicts the prevailing theory that Parliament is now dead. It is a myth that in the 1950s, Parliament was much more assertive and demanding of ministers and government. In fact, Parliament has become more rebellious and assertive over the years and, in his judgement, ‘long may that continue'. He concluded by saying that he believed that not a single bill that he'd taken through the House hadn't been improved by scrutiny and the parliamentary process.

Panel 1 - External Influences on the Legislative Process
This panel featured four speakers discussing the effect of external lobbyists and pressure groups on legislature, and the challenges, techniques, and frustrations involved in the process.

Baroness Warwick, speaking on behalf of Universities UK, remarked on the relationship of "trust" that has been established between the House of Lords and charitable organisations, and that the time provided for debate in the Lords, coupled with the collective knowledge of the peers made it the preferred chamber to work with.

Alison Harvey, representing the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA), made an impassioned and insightful speech into the difficulties of lobbying on behalf of an often ‘unpopular' subject. She expressed doubt about the consultative process, and described the main task of the ILPA as being "simply to explain" the actual impact of bills, warning that the explanatory notes provided by the government serve only to "lead you off with the fairies."

John Wright, National Chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, emphasised the need for political impartiality on behalf of lobbyists if they wished to achieve their goals. He noted that the work of many pro-business organisations is compromised by perceived Conservative leanings.

Finally Julia Hobsbawm, founder of Editorial Intelligence, spoke of the impact and power of the "Commentariat", the grouping of media columnists, opinion and leader writers on influencing the legislature, both explicitly and through moderating the political climate. She argued that the changing nature of media coverage had seen "news turn into views" and that personality and style were still very much at the forefront of contemporary politics.

Common themes of the debate were the difficulty of making an impact on legislature, and the importance of research. All the speakers agreed on the need for lobbyists to work across party lines in building support, and the necessity of identifying sympathetic individuals to support an organisations' case.

Panel 2 - The Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in Influencing Legislation
This panel featured four Parliamentarians with diverse experiences of the legislative process. The speakers emphasised the ways in which their personal and professional backgrounds came into play in Parliamentary contexts. As one would expect, expertise in particular issues, i.e. health, could be drawn upon when proposing or amending legislation and building cross-party alliances across both Houses.

Far from it being easy for parliamentarians to challenge poorly conceived and badly drafted legislation, there are many obstacles to overcome. In the words of Baroness D'Souza, Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, ministers often do not want to be seen to be accepting challenges lest they seem weak and open to pressure. The result - described by Oliver Heald MP and David Heath MP - is that amendments can be proposed and evidence heard in committee, but it takes a surge in media commentary or a resounding challenge in the House of Lords for poor legislation to be amended or defeated.

A sense emerged of the huge pressure faced by government to produce new legislation. The sheer volume of bills, particularly on populist issues such as crime, or asylum and immigration, often meant that new legislation was being proposed before the preceding version had been implemented. The case was made for a more dedicated form of legislative scrutiny that tracked bills from inception to their implementation, and beyond into post-legislative scrutiny. As in earlier sessions, the problems of procedure and the need for reform where highlighted; certain conventions - it was argued - prevented parliamentarians from holding government to account.

Despite this, the message was not bleak. In particular Baroness D'Souza highlighted how the expertise contained in the House of Lords, combined with well targeted and informed approaches from the public, can result in effective challenges to problematic bills - at a minimum signalling that they would be defeated if they were not revised, as was the case with the government's latest counter-terrorism proposals. Moreover, there was a consensus across the panel that Private Members' Bills could be used to good effect and that government could be encouraged to propose its own legislation in support of them - even if not been debated.

Perspectives from the audience, however, indicated that Parliament has a way to go before it can claim to be properly representative. The populist media was felt to have more influence than minority groups, the latter being insufficiently represented in both houses. There was also a sense that even if the public were consulted, they often have little impact. The Parliamentarians showed a willingness to listen and respond to the audience, resulting in an interesting discussion about the pathways to engagement and the effects of power imbalances in both houses. Although a hung Parliament was not described as a panacea (an outcome could be a pot-pourri of amendments to legislation), and while increased hours would not necessarily lead to better scrutiny, there was a sense from Parliamentarians that they welcomed the opportunity to reform the way both houses worked to make better laws.

To listen to the event in full please click on one of the links below:

Alex Brazier and Peter Riddell introducing the Law in the Making research

Keynote speech by Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

Panel 1 - External Influences on the Legislative Process (Part 1, Part 2)

Panel 2 - The Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in Influencing Legislation (Part 1, Part 2)

Radio 4's Today in Parliament (11.30pm, Friday 17 July 2008) will be discussing the themes highlighted at this meeting. It will also include additional interviews with some of the speakers at this event including; Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, David Heath MP, Oliver Heald MP and Alex Brazier.

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP's keynote speech will be broadcast on BBC Parliament channel (9pm, Saturday 18 July 2008).

Referendums split panel at Hansard Society debate

admin — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:58:00 GMT

The Hansard Society was fortunate enough to be joined by a panel of high profile speakers; Dr David Butler, Chris Huhne MP, Rt Hon David Curry MP, Rt Hon Clare Short MP and Steve Richards at it's recent debate entitled Referendums: What are they good for? This meeting covered the issue of referendums and whether (or how) they could be appropriately used in the British political system.

Conservative MP David Curry opened the proceedings by stating that he believed referendums were the ‘landfill site of democracy’ - in his opinion a referendum does not answer the question proposed, but only panders to wider fears that the public hold. For him, a public vote on a single issue represents a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament and could not be seen as legitimate because of the often low voter turn out. However he did conceed that referendums could have a role to play at local level.

Next, academic Dr David Butler gave a more measured account of the debate surrounding referendums. He pointed out that most countries have used referendums at one time or another but at least five hundred of these have been undertaken by Switzerland. For Dr Butler referendums had a part to play on issues of ethical importance and boarder disputes, but could not deal with the often complicated nature of political debate. His conclusion on the matter was that he felt it is better to be governed by informed politicians than an ‘impatient low turn out public’.

Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne appreciated the part that referendums can play in politics as part of a varied political tool kit. He cautioned against the contradictions that can be thrown up when the public vote on single issues, citing the case of proposition thirteen in the state of California. Mr Huhne did suggest that referendums could be effectively used as a safe guard on constitutional matters for example, to hold the House of Commons to account by way of a public vote on legislation that has been passed after a cooling off period.

Next to speak was Independent MP Clare Short who appeared to be the most pro-referendum voice amongst the panel. She pointed out that we talk about referendums like they are not already part of our political setup - a mistake as public votes have helped to shape the British politics on a range of important issues like the European Union and the future of Northern Ireland. For Ms Short, referendums are an essential tool to be used to help reinvigorate an alienated public dissatisfied with current political arrangements that they often feel are damaging British democracy. She highlighted examples like the Iraq War protests to illustrate that people believe that they no longer have a voice that political elites listen to. A referendum could possibly be a way of reconnecting the public with important political debates.

Last to address the audience was The Independent’s Steve Richards. For Mr Richard, referendums do not resolve political problems but instead undermine the opportunity for important debates to take place. He highlighted the fact that the 1975 vote on Europe had solved nothing, as Britain's relationship with Europe was still very much on the political agenda. He highlighted that Government's are able to use referendums as a way of sidestepping debates on important and contraversial issues for example, Tony Blair promised a number of referendums on issues such as electoral reform so that discussion could be held off until a more convenient time.

Issues raised by the audience included; whether referendums should be initiated by the public rather than the legislature, and whether unequal access to money or media influence could skew the outcome. The panel was also asked what issue it would choose to have a referendum on, with all but David Butler wanting one on electoral reform.

For Lord Norton's take on this debate please visit the Lords of the Blog

The Audit of Political Engagement 5

admin — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:01:00 GMT

Thursday 27 March, 10 – 11am, House of Commons
Speakers:
Alex Brazier, Director, Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society
Peter Riddell, Chair, Hansard Society
Michael Wills MP, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Ministry of Justice

Chair: Fiona Booth, Chief Executive, Hansard Society

The Audit of Political Engagement is in its fifth year and measures the nature and extent of political engagement through a national survey conducted by IpsosMORI. This allows us to compare data year on year and give the nation its annual political health check. This year's research also includes data on public attitudes to constitutional reform including issues such as; the House of Lords, a Bill of Rights and the European Union.

Refreshments available from 9.30am

Launch of No Overall Control? publication

admin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:11:00 GMT

Tuesday 11 March, 11am – 12.15pm, House of Commons

Speakers:
Professor Vernon Bogdanor, University of Oxford, Alex Brazier, Hansard Society, Professor Phil Cowley, University of Nottingham, Dr Rosanne Palmer, Cardiff University

Chair: Fiona Booth, Hansard Society

This event launched an edited collection of essays from commentators, academics and parliamentarians, including; Simon Jenkins of The Guardian and The Sunday Times, Professor David Butler from the University of Oxford and Simon Hughes MP.

A hung parliament is a phenomena that few within Westminster will have had personal experience of, or even remember, the last instance being in 1974. This collection of essays is a handbook to guide those currently working in Westminster on the issue of shared government, its implications and the possible consequences of a hung parliament for the House of Commons. This book provides a wide range of views on coalition governments and hung parliaments from individuals with first hand experience of power sharing. It includes examples, both international and from the devolved UK institutions, of what happens when no single party has an overall majority.