Parliament & Government

Recess negative: it's not perfect, but the portrayal of parliament as a government puppet bears little resemblance to reality

admin — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:17:00 GMT

An article by Susanna Kalitowski, Research Fellow on the Hansard Society's Parliament & Government Programme, originally published on Comment is Free

The 11-week parliamentary recess is now under way, amid the familiar annual charges of laziness and waste. Some MPs argue that the break provides valuable time to catch up on important constituency work. Others, like John Redwood, disagree. Most political insiders seem to think it is too long.

But do we really care whether MPs are sitting at Westminster anyhow? Many believe the mother of parliaments no longer makes much of an impact and that it simply serves to rubber-stamp the government's proposals. Even Gordon Brown waded into the debate over parliament's effectiveness in a recent interview in which he derided the institution for spending the majority of its time debating "minor clauses of minor sections of minor bills" instead of "the big issues of our time" such as climate change and terrorism.

Parliament does spend a fair amount of time examining the PM's legislation - roughly a third of overall Commons' sitting time and more than half of time in the Lords - including bills this session on climate change and terrorism. This is hardly a surprise, as parliament's primary and best-known function is to make laws that affect all of us on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are "major" or "minor". And although the overwhelming majority of legislation is drawn up by the government, it is parliament alone that has the power to pass, amend and even repeal them.

Moreover, the portrayal of parliament as puppet bears little resemblance to reality. If nothing changed between the day that a bill left a government department and the day the Queen gave her assent, then that would indeed be an indictment of parliament and the legislative process. Thankfully, this is far from the case. Parliamentary scrutiny does make a significant difference to the content of legislation. In fact, thanks to the increase over the past decade in public consultation, the publication of draft bills and backbench rebellions - and a second chamber in which no single party enjoys a majority - more changes are made to bills now than in the past. Sometimes this change is dramatic - as in the case of the legislative and regulatory reform bill, which the government was forced to re-write in order to get it through the Commons. Usually, however, it is in small but significant ways. For example, during parliament's scrutiny of the immigration, asylum and nationality bill, the government was pressured to preserve appeal rights for visitors to the UK who seek to vary the terms of their visas.

Nonetheless, the law-making process remains far from perfect and lack of time remains a central part of the problem. This, coupled with the sheer volume of legislation - and its increasing complexity - makes it difficult for parliament to carry out one of its key tasks to its fullest potential.

Parliamentary time is precious. Therefore a shorter recess or a return to the ill-fated September sittings might be welcome. At the very least, parliament and government should explore further ways of using the existing parliamentary time more efficiently.

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process by Alex Brazier, Susanna Kalitowski and Gemma Rosenblatt, with Matt Korris, was recently published by the Hansard Society

This article was originally published on Comment is Free on 17 August 2008.

Your Parliament: make it work for you

admin — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:22:00 GMT

Your Parliament explains the basics of the British political system: the work of Parliament, the role of MPs and peers, and how laws are made. It also describes how to get involved: through voting, contacting your MP or visiting the Houses of Parliament.

The Your Parliament pamphlet provides clear, straightforward explanations on questions such as:

What is Parliament? How is the UK run?
Who are MPs and peers? What do they do?
What are political parties?
How do I vote?
How are new laws made?
What goes on in Parliament?
Why should I get involved?
How can I get involved or find out more?

Your Parliament is part of the Hansard Society's ongoing work to inform and educate the public on the workings of Parliament and the political system. It is revised and updated from the 2004 version, and is published jointly with the Houses of Parliament.

To download a free copy of Your Parliament, click here.

Inside the sausage factory

admin — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:07:00 GMT

Writing in The House Magazine, Susanna Kalitowski introduces a Hansard Society study of the role of parliamentary scrutiny - which found MPs of all parties agreeing on the need to deliberate before you legislate

Parliament's primary and best-known function is to make laws which affect all of us on a daily basis. However, there is a widely held view that Parliament does not have much impact on the content of legislation - that it simply puts a rubber stamp on the government's proposals.

It is clear that the government rarely loses a whole bill and that it is only occasionally defeated on individual clauses. If nothing changed between the day that a bill left a department and the day the Queen gave her assent, then that would indeed be an indictment of the legislative process.

But to what extent is this actually the case? While a great deal of public attention is given to individual laws, the process by which policy proposals evolve into acts of Parliament is not well understood.

In an effort to illuminate the law making process - and Parliament's role and influence in it - the Hansard Society undertook a detailed study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, of five recent pieces of government legislation. We chose to ignore Bismarck's advice that ‘laws are like sausages: it is better not to see them being made' and tracked what happened as they journeyed from the consultation stages, to pre-legislative scrutiny (if undertaken), and through both Houses of Parliament.

We conducted over 80 interviews with ministers, MPs, peers, government and parliamentary officials and pressure groups. At the heart of the study is a consideration of the influence that parliamentarians themselves have on legislation. The results of our research appear in a book published this week, Law in the making: influence and change in the legislative process.

One of our most important findings is that parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference to a piece of legislation. Looking at our five case studies, the government's main proposals became law, but they were altered measurably as they made their way through the legislative process. Sometimes this change was dramatic, but usually it was in small but significant ways.

There is a tendency to judge the relationship between Parliament and government in terms of clear-cut notions of victory and defeat, dominance and submission. However, we found that rebellious votes and government defeats reveal only a certain amount about the relationship between Parliament and government, and that there are many other approaches used to influence legislation that are not so easily measurable.

For example, it is commonplace to hear it that the Lords has more impact on legislation than the Commons. It is true that it defeats the government more often than the Commons. Most changes to bills are made in the Lords, usually at report stage, often in an effort to avoid a defeat.

However, our case studies reveal that the arguments raised and the assurances given in the Commons are frequently the determining factor in allowing the Lords to clinch the deal of extracting concessions. As a government minister explained to us, ‘the Commons does the passing and then gives the Lords the opportunity to score the goal and make the change.'

In addition, we found that on the whole, external actors such as campaigners and lobbyists, working closely with parliamentarians, can make a noticeable difference to the final shape of a piece of legislation - often more than they themselves realise. On the other hand, the impact of the media, which tends not to cover the process of scrutiny, is far more variable.

A number of people we spoke to asserted that Parliament's scrutiny of legislation is improving, and that far more changes are made to legislative proposals now than in the past. Nonetheless, interviewees identified a number of obstacles which hinder scrutiny, including lack of time and resources and the increasing volume and complexity of legislation.

We were also told that one of the highest barriers is cultural. Parliamentarians from all parties explained that there is a predominant belief within Whitehall that to change a bill is a sign of weakness. Many said a cultural change is needed in order for change to be viewed as possible- and even desirable.

Our study reveals that improved scrutiny mechanisms such as pre-legislative scrutiny and a range of parliamentary and external factors improve legislation without in any way affecting the government's ability to deliver its programme.

However, it remains to be seen whether there is any appetite for further moves towards a more deliberative model of legislative consideration.

Law in the Making: influence and change in the legislative process will be launched on Wednesday 16 July 2008 at 2pm in the House of Commons. The event will feature a keynote speech from the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. For more information, email hans_admin@hansard.lse.ac.uk or call 0207 438 1222.

This article was originallly published in The House Magazine on 14 July 2008

Law in the Making: a new publication by the Hansard Society

admin — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:40:00 GMT

Parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference to legislation: new Hansard Society research challenges conventional view of Parliament’s effectiveness.

"Law in the Making is a fine piece of scholarship, which is forensic, balanced and informative. It is a thorough exploration of how policy ideas gradually evolve into binding law" – Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

A new publication from the Hansard Society, Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process, analyses the influences and elements that come together to make an act of Parliament and concludes that the widely-held view of Parliament as a ‘rubber stamp’ for government legislation bears little resemblance to reality.

The research draws upon the findings from five detailed case studies and over 80 exclusive interviews with ministers, MPs, peers, government and parliamentary officials and pressure groups. Key conclusions include:

Although there is a predominant belief within government that to change a bill is a sign of weakness, parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference to the final shape of an Act;
MPs and peers, whether individually or collectively, have a larger impact than is commonly recognised;
External actors have a marked influence on legislation, often by working closely with parliamentarians;
Parliamentary scrutiny has been enhanced in recent years, with more changes made to government bills;
Nonetheless, the volume and complexity of legislation continue to inhibit Parliament’s effectiveness.

The study also suggests some recommendations for reform, including:

More structured and straightforward government consultations;
An increase in pre-legislative scrutiny;
Improvements to the committee stage.

Fiona Booth, Hansard Society Chief Executive, commented: ‘Our research challenges the myth that government always gets its way. Parliamentary scrutiny, both in the Commons and the Lords, does make a significant difference to legislation.’

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process was written by Alex Brazier, Susanna Kalitowski and Gemma Rosenblatt with Matt Korris. It looks at five case studies, the Export Control Act 2002, the Equality Act 2006, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the Legislative and Regulatory Act 2006 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007, tracking them through various stages of the legislative process. It also considers a number of private members' bills.

ISBN: 978 0900432 39 2

Law in the Making was published on Wednesday July 16 at an event in Parliament with Rt Hon Jack Straw MP giving the keynote address. For more information about the launch event, click here.

The publication costs £10 (+ p&p). To order please click here.

*** Special offer on Law in the Making - click here ***

The Hansard Society is grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for generously supporting this publication.

Hansard Society's Audit of Political Engagement discussed on Radio 4

admin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:49:00 GMT

Alex Brazier, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme, was interviewed on his thoughts about political engagement (or the lack of it) as highlighted in the most recent Audit of Political Engagement. Tony Benn, Iain Dale, Anne McElvoy and Liam Fogarty also gave their thoughts on this issue.

To listen to the programme click here.

Parliament must do more to scrutinise government spending

admin — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:18:00 GMT

Liaison Committee’s recommendations on financial scrutiny a real step forward

The Hansard Society welcomes the House of Commons’ Liaison Committee report on financial scrutiny and urges Parliament to do more to scrutinise and seek accountability for government spending.

The Hansard Society’s report The Fiscal Maze; Parliament, Government and Public Money (2006), made several proposals to improve Parliament’s financial scrutiny functions (detailed below). The Hansard Society welcomes the Liaison Committee’s recommendations which, if implemented, represent a real move in the right direction.

In particular, we endorse the Committee’s recommendations that there should be better and more comprehensible financial information from government and more time for debate and inquiry on government spending plans. Proposals to give Parliament opportunities to debate or vote on individual programmes or items of expenditure would strengthen Parliament’s scrutiny role. In total, the Committee’s proposals signal a change in how Parliament prioritises this crucial work.

Alex Brazier, Director of the Hansard Society Parliament and Government Programme, and joint author of The Fiscal Maze, commented:

'Effective scrutiny of government spending is essential for the operation of good government. Everyone - Parliament, Government and the public - has a strong interest in making sure that there is full transparency, debate and accountability of public money. The Liaison Committee's proposals should make a difference in achieving that.’

The Fiscal Maze report’s recommendations included:

Parliamentary committees should make greater use of the time between the pre-Budget report and the main Budget to take evidence on the government’s plans and feed its recommendations back to government;
Parliament should become fully involved in the process leading up to the Comprehensive Spending Review;
A parliamentary committee should consider the entire Finance Bill in draft;
Parliament should improve its scrutiny of tax legislation and administration; options include establishing a separate Tax Administration or Taxation Committee in the Commons;
To give a higher priority to financial scrutiny, Parliament should consider piloting a Finance and Audit Sub-Committee for selected select committees.
There should be more systematic follow-up of the reports of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee.

Click here to download a PDF of The Fiscal Maze; Parliament, Government and Public Money (A. Brazier & V. Ram, July 2006)

Playing to its strengths: Parliament and select committees

admin — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:07:00 GMT

Playing to its strengths: Parliament and select committees

Alex Brazier, Director, Parliament and Government Programme

In the past few years, the Hansard Society has produced a number of reports and studies which have looked at the role and operation of select committees. A consistent theme of this work has been that they represent one of the most successful aspects of the parliamentary process. The report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny (2001), chaired by Lord Newton on Braintree, argued that select committees had a number of different strengths; their activity is not primarily determined by party political considerations; their structure provides a way to monitor the work of government departments and agencies; and they provide an important arena for scrutiny and accountability work which is not prescribed by the government’s business agenda. Also, further development of committees could provide MPs with an alternative career path which does not rely solely on the patronage of the political parties or involve making a career in government.

For these reasons, the Scrutiny Commission proposed reforms which sought to build upon the best aspects of select committees and many of these have been subsequently implemented. These included the guidelines for core tasks for select committee work and the provision of improved support, which has been achieved through the formation of the Scrutiny Unit. We also proposed that select committee chairs should be paid to encourage as an alternative career path, although the extra payment awarded falls short of the Commission’s proposals that select committee chairman should be paid a salary equivalent to a junior minister. Other developments, as varied as the appearance of the Prime Minister before the Liaison Committee and the appointment of media officers, which have significantly improved the coverage that select committee reports received, have in total improved the way that select committees hold government to account. A 2005 Hansard Society report, New Politics, New Parliament? concluded, ‘Several important reforms to the system have been agreed and implemented during 2001-2005 which have increased Parliament’s capacity to scrutinise the executive.’

More recently, proposals in the Government’s Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, may enhance the role of select committees, including greater scrutiny of public appointments and the formation of regional committees (although this latter proposal raises numerous issues about their structure and operation which the Modernisation Committee is currently considering). There are still many others reform outstanding. For example, government replies should be standardised and conform to set minimum standards. These should include an undertaking that a reply should address each of the committee’s recommendations in detail and engage more fully with the report’s evidence and conclusions. There should be greater support for chairmen, including additional staff and a substantially enhanced budget to undertake external research. Committees themselves should more systematically follow-up their work by publishing a review (three to five years after the original report) assessing how far their recommendations have been implemented. There is also scope for further consideration of draft legislation and of financial matters.

That is quite a list of potential tasks and clearly there is a limit to what committees can do with their current structure, especially bearing in mind the demands on their members. For that reason, the Hansard Society has put forward a range of options that would provide greater capacity, utilising the resource of the large number of backbench MPs who do not currently sit on a select committee. These include having more select committees (possibly based around some cross-cutting themes e.g. the family, the elderly, or through splitting the responsibilities of some of the committees looking at the work of the bigger departments). Another possibility would include committees having more members, perhaps working through sub-committees. More fundamentally, Westminster should consider whether it wants to become a more committee-based institution and consider whether the chamber should not meet for one day a week to allow much more time for committee work (including also Public Bill Committees).

But in addition to improved output and effectiveness, there is another important reason why select committees should strive for a greater role and impact. In the course of the Hansard Society’s work, it has become very clear that the public like the style of work that select committee undertake – at least once explanation was given about how they operate and their functions explained. The majority of people responded positively to their non-partisan nature, which was perceived as a more constructive way of working and allowed for real questioning of ministers and officials. Many supported the idea of select committees taking evidence across the country, and this has taken place successfully on a number of occasions already.

It makes good sense for any organisation to play to its strengths, particularly one which has to deal with issues of disconnection from those it serves. For that reason, giving a more central role to select committees, particularly within the Commons, should be a priority for future parliamentary reform.

-- This article was originally published in the House Magazine

Constitutional conundrums

admin — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:55:00 GMT

An article discussing the Hansard Society's recent publication, Audit of Political Engagement 5.

Constitutional conundrums

Susanna Kalitowski, Research Fellow, Parliament and Government Programme

Gordon Brown has made constitutional reform a centrepiece of his premiership. Less than a week after taking office, he unveiled a green paper which set out a dizzyingly wide range of options for enhancing the accountability of the executive, the power of Parliament and the rights and responsibilities of citizens. It promised to consult and involve ‘all the people of this country' in the formation of a ‘new constitutional settlement'.

The Hansard Society has welcomed the proposals, many of which have been central to our work for decades. However, our latest Audit of Political Engagement - an annual survey measuring public attitudes to politics - reveals that the government's task will be far from easy for two reasons: 1) most people know very little about constitutional issues and 2) there is a complete lack of public consensus on what should be changed.

Since the first Audit was published in 2004, we have consistently found that well over half the population professes little or no knowledge of politics; we were unsurprised to discover a correspondingly high level of public ignorance about the country's constitutional arrangements in this year's Audit. Only a quarter - or fewer - of the public say they understand key components of the government's constitutional reform programme, such as the prerogative powers exercised without Parliament's approval or changes in the composition of the House of Lords. The Ministry of Justice is about to launch a major public consultation on whether Britain should adopt a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, but a massive 68% of people have never heard of or know hardly anything about this issue.

This is entirely understandable. Britain's constitutional arrangements are hardly straightforward. The unwritten constitution, with its mysterious mix of statute and common law, parliamentary conventions and works of authority, has long been the sole reserve of a small elite group of constitutional lawyers and academics, as has the royal prerogative, which is even more nebulous. These issues are rarely explained to politics undergraduates, let alone anyone else.

To complicate matters further, there is a complete lack of public consensus on priorities for reform, with even the most popular choices identified by only a quarter or less of the population. Many of the public's top preferences are not covered in the government's proposals. The Audit has found that the constitutional issue that the greatest numbers of people are dissatisfied with by far is Scottish MPs being able to vote on English issues in the House of Commons - the so-called West Lothian Question; however the green paper has nothing to say about this subject. Other key areas of public concern which go unmentioned in the government's proposals include political party funding and Britain's membership of the European Union.

On the plus side, the public's top priority for change - how the Human Rights Act works in practice - is discussed, albeit in reference to a new Bill of Rights. Reform of the prerogative powers - a cornerstone of the proposals - is also cited as a top priority, although it is also one of the least understood areas.

Several of the other matters on which the government proposes to consult are areas where the public are largely content with the status quo, notably lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, reforming the electoral system and introducing fixed-term parliaments. These issues are comparatively well understood and do not even concern most people who are unhappy with the present system of governing. The Audit has established little or no correlation between attitudes to these issues and political engagement.

What is more, the Audit reveals that people's views of constitutional arrangements are greatly affected by their views of the government of the day. Supporters of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are far more likely to express dissatisfaction with current constitutional arrangements than Labour supporters.

In the past, constitutional reform was almost entirely an elite project, and therefore potentially much easier for a government to undertake. However, in a modern democracy, it is essential that the views of the public are genuinely taken on board, particularly at a time of marked public disenchantment with politics, when nearly three quarters of people agree that government does not spend enough time listening to the views of individual members of the public (another Audit finding).

Nonetheless, the lack of public understanding and consensus will make it difficult - if not impossible - for the government to meaningfully consult people on its reform plans in the short term, let alone establish support for them. The consultation risks being dominated by a small minority - or dismissed as a sham - unless serious efforts are made first to educate the broader public about the political system and proposed reforms.

It is vital that the government has a clear strategy for responding to the views of the public and managing their expectations. The constitutional reform proposals will require a far more detailed form of consultation, response and consensus building than is usually the case. The effective dissemination of information will also be crucial. Government and Parliament - and indeed all those with a commitment to a healthy democratic system - should use this opportunity to inform the public on the principles and operation of parliamentary democracy and build consensus for reform. Just don't expect it to be easy.

Hung-up over nothing? The impact of a hung parliament on British politics

admin — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:43:00 GMT

The following article was written for the Parliamentary Affairs journal and can be accessed online here. More information on the Hansard Society's publication No Overall Control can be found here.

Hung-up over nothing? The impact of a hung parliament on British politics

Susanna Kalitowski¹

In the past few years, there has been increasing speculation that the next UK general election will produce a Parliament in which no single party holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons. In common parlance, this is referred to as a ‘hung parliament’, although some prefer the expressions ‘balanced parliament’, ‘minority parliament’ or ‘No Overall Control’ (NOC).² In the UK, it is relatively rare for the Westminster Parliament to be ‘hung’ following an election; however, the probability is increasing due to the growth of third parties and the way that the electoral system translates popular votes into Commons seats. At regular intervals throughout the past two years, opinion polls have regularly predicted that the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament.

Although they are common in other democracies, hung parliaments have traditionally been viewed in the UK as unwelcome aberrations that produce short-lived and ineffectual governments. In light of the increasing likelihood of a hung parliament, the Hansard Society believes the time is right to explore what impact it might have on British politics. As a non-partisan organisation, we are neither ‘for’ nor ‘against’ a hung parliament. We recognise that all parties seek to win any election they contest outright. However, as part of our promotion of effective parliamentary democracy, we believe it would be prudent to shed light on the issues that might arise in the event of a hung parliament. Our new book, No Overall Control?, contains chapters by distinguished academics, politicians and commentators on the key issues surrounding a House of Commons with no overall majority.³ It examines the history of hung parliaments in the UK, constitutional and procedural issues, lessons from other Westminster-style systems where majority governments are less common, and how a hung parliament affects the functioning of Parliament, the prospects for electoral reform and public opinion. This article provides an overview of some of the book's key findings.

Hung parliaments: a rarity?

THE UK's First Past the Post electoral system has traditionally acted as a barrier to a hung parliament, as it usually rewards the party with the most votes with a disproportionately high number of seats. Westminster has not experienced a hung parliament since 1974, and there were only four others in the twentieth century after the following general elections: January 1910, December 1910, December 1923 and May 1929.⁴ However, both Vernon Bogdanor and David Butler note that majority governments may not be as predominant as we may think; for 34 of the last 100 years, Britain has experienced coalition or minority rule, with the latter being far more common (see Table 1).

Table 1: Government Composition: 1906-2007⁵
1906-1910	Liberal
1910-1915	Minority Liberal
1915-1922	Coalition Lib Con
1922-1923	Conservative
1924	Minority Labour
1924-1929	Conservative
1929-1931	Minority Labour
1931-1940	Coalition Con dominant
1940-1945	Coalition all-party
1945-1951	Labour
1951-1964	Conservative
1964-1970	Labour
1970-1974	Conservative
1974	Minority Labour
1974-1976	Labour
1976-1979	Minority Labour
1979-1997	Conservative
1997	Minority Conservative
1997-2008	Labour

This fact has perhaps been eclipsed by a decade of Labour majority government and large Conservative majorities in the 1980s. However, outside Westminster, other British political institutions are rapidly learning to adapt to a situation in which no political party achieves a majority of seats, as it is increasingly common in the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales as well as in local councils.⁶

Moreover, the likelihood of a hung parliament has significantly increased in recent years due to the decline in two-party dominance and changes in the relation between seats and votes. During the past 50 years, the number of MPs from outside the two major parties has increased from one per cent of Members to 14 per cent. As David Butler explains, ‘the no-man's land between a clear majority for one side and a clear majority for the other has expanded more than tenfold and so has the chance of a hung parliament ... landslides are smaller than they used to be and narrow majorities have become narrower.’ He cites the calculations of Rallings and Thresher which demonstrate that there is a six per cent no-man's land between a clear Conservative majority and clear Labour majority which would result in a hung parliament (see Table 2).

Table 2: Outcomes at the next election⁷
Con %	Lab%	Con MPs	Lab MPs	Other MPs	Majority
35%	35%	234	330	86	Lab +4
36%	34%	252	305	93	Lab -21
37%	33%	269	292	89	Lab -34
38%	32%	287	274	89	Con -39
39%	31%	302	261	87	Con -24
40%	30%	319	245	86	Con -7
41%	29%	336	231	83	Con +10

While the electoral system currently favours Labour, boundary changes in 2007 have reduced its majority by around a half, giving the party only between 30 and 40 seats more than the other parties rather than the 64 seats they enjoy at the moment. Thus, even a small swing against the incumbent party to the opposition would see Labour's overall majority disappear. Yet, while it may be relatively easy for the Conservatives to deprive Labour of their majority, it will be more difficult for them to secure an overall majority, as they would need to win over 42 per cent of the popular vote. This is no easy feat, considering that Labour clearly won the last election with only 35.3% of the vote.

Constitutional dilemmas?

A hung parliament makes it more challenging to form a government following a general election, as it may not be obvious who should be appointed the prime minister. Each hung parliament in the past has produced a slightly different outcome. However, one of four things will generally occur:

1. Formation of a single-party minority government with outside support and operating on an agreed programme (as in 1910);

2. Formation of a single-party minority government living day-to-day (as in 1923, 1929 and 1974);

3. Formation of a majority coalition;

4. Dissolution of Parliament.

In Westminster, single-party minority government rather than coalition has been the rule, generally by the party which has won the highest number of seats (even if by a very small margin). At no time during the twentieth century did the leader of the second largest party become the prime minister. During this period, coalitions have only emerged from war or economic crisis; Disraeli's oft-repeated remark that ‘England does not love coalitions’ has been born out thus far. However, the same cannot be said for Scotland and Wales.

The role of the prime minister

In contrast to some other political systems, British constitutional arrangements do not require the prime minister to resign immediately after an election that produces a hung parliament. The convention is that he or she is free to remain in office until losing the confidence of the Commons. As Vernon Bogdanor remarks, support in the Commons can mean that the government commands the support of a majority; however, it can also mean that there is no majority in the Commons against it. This convention has served to facilitate minority governments and discourage coalitions.

The incumbent prime minister has three options in the event of a hung parliament: resign immediately (as Baldwin did in 1929); only resign if defeated after a vote in the Commons (as Baldwin did earlier in 1923); or solicit support from other parties and only resign if it is not forthcoming (as Asquith did twice successfully in 1910 and Heath unsuccessfully in 1974). Some authorities also maintain that the prime minister can legitimately ask the monarch for a second dissolution of Parliament following a hung parliament, though this is controversial and has never happened—and would involve a considerable political gamble.⁸

The role of the sovereign

IN Britain's constitutional monarchy, the sovereign has retained a variety of ancient personal prerogative powers. In the event of a hung parliament, three potentially come into play: inviting someone to form a government, dismissing ministers from office and dissolving Parliament. Although convention dictates that the sovereign must act impartially and, whenever possible, upon the advice of a responsible minister, the circumstances of a hung parliament may force her to exercise a certain degree of discretion which has the potential to lead to accusations of political bias. For example, she will have to choose who to appoint if the incumbent prime minister resigns immediately or is defeated in the Commons. Should she consider dissolving Parliament again?

It is for this reason that some have called for reform of the sovereign's personal prerogatives. The Fabian Society's Commission on the Future of the Monarchy called for dissolution of Parliament to be strictly regulated by statute and for the appointment of the prime minister to be a matter for Parliament.⁹ It has been suggested elsewhere that the Speaker of the House could appoint the prime minister.¹⁰

However, after years of reflection on the role of the sovereign in the event of a hung parliament, Vernon Bogdanor has come to believe that it would not pose any constitutional problems for the Queen. This is because he thinks the fundamental convention of parliamentary government—that government must retain the confidence of the House of Commons—would remain unaltered by hung parliament. There is no reason why negotiations between the political leaders should involve the sovereign. Even if the sovereign was involved, she would remain a facilitator, not a negotiator. Bogdanor asserts that hung parliaments serve to expose the fundamental, yet rarely discussed, principle of parliamentary government: that a government depends upon the confidence of Parliament.

Lessons from outside of Westminster

HUNG parliaments have not been uncommon in parliamentary democracies overseas, including in other Westminster-style systems. The experiences of the devolved institutions of Wales and Scotland, as well as Canada are instructive. In these contexts, hung parliaments have produced surprisingly stable governments with few of the dire consequences usually suggested.

WALES

Since the Welsh Assembly's establishment in 1999, both minority administrations and coalitions—some very unlikely—have been more common than single-party majority administrations. The proportional electoral system in Cardiff—the Additional Member System (AMS)—is much more likely to deliver coalition or minority governments than Westminster's First Past the Post system. Coalition governments have proved to be more workable and stable than minority administrations (or majority administrations founded on a tiny majority). However, political parties in Wales have been reluctant to form a coalition; negotiations to form one, following the 2007 election, took over two months. To everyone's surprise, they resulted in the least likely of combinations: Labour–Plaid Cymru.

Roseanne Palmer, Stephen Thornton and Mark Crowley conclude that the clear message from Wales is that political parties in the UK can adapt to a system where single-party majority government is the exception rather than the rule; if push comes to shove, all parties have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate in forming coalition government. However, while party elites are gradually adapting to multi-party government, everyone else—including party members, the public and the media—is ‘still trying to play the game according to the old Westminster rules’.

SCOTLAND

Like the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament has predominantly had coalition or minority government since its establishment in 1999, again due to its use of the AMS form of voting. Indeed, it was designed to do just this in order to forge a more consensual ‘new politics’. For the Parliament's first eight years, Labour and the Liberal Democrats governed as a coalition. James Mitchell suggests that the experience was not all that different from majority government. Parties remained cohesive and mostly obeyed the whips.

From May 2007 onwards, however, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has governed as a minority government with support from the Green Party that does not quite amount to a traditional confidence and supply agreement. Mitchell feels that the new minority government has the potential to significantly alter Scottish politics. The old distinction between being in and out of power is blurred with minority government, and all parties, if they play their cards well, can influence the public policy agenda. Mitchell concludes that the experience of the Scottish Parliament demonstrates that ‘new institutions alone do not result in new cultures.’ However, as in Wales, the parties themselves do not seem to have quite grasped this.

CANADA

The Canadian Parliament is modelled on Westminster and uses the First Past the Post system of voting. However, hung parliaments—known as minority parliaments—are more common than in the UK and are becoming more frequent. As in the UK, coalitions are not a regular feature of minority governments in Canada, and the governing party usually works with the smaller opposition parties on an ad hoc basis. Although minority parliaments tend to be shorter-lived than their majority counterparts, David Docherty insists that they are far from the ‘legislative eunuchs’, as some portray them. For example, Lester Pearson, a prime minister responsible for some of the most important policy innovations in the twentieth century, never governed with a majority. Docherty goes so far as to claim that minority governments are often a ‘more sensitive and responsive form of government’.

He argues that the Canadian experience has shown that minority governments can be very successful, but this is more likely when they govern as a minority, not as a majority. They must be willing to negotiate with other parties, and Docherty notes that moderate parties are usually more willing to do this. He also observes that minority governments which replace long sitting governments are more likely to have a shorter life span than minority governments which were formerly majority governments. Finally, he recommends that traditional notions of confidence be relaxed in the event of a hung parliament to facilitate a more consensual style of politics.

The impact of a hung parliament at Westminster

IT might be expected that an unclear election result would cause immediate difficulties in Parliament. How might it affect parliamentary procedures and business, as well as the role of MPs and peers?

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES

Alex Brazier maintains that a hung parliament would not disrupt the functioning of Parliament as its established procedure, he writes, is ‘well-equipped to deal with such a contingency’ and indeed has done so in the past. How the House of Commons worked on those occasions provides some indication of what might happen in a hung parliament of the future.

Experience has shown that a hung parliament need not necessarily delay the start of the parliamentary session. The parliamentary machinery is set up to run automatically for the first few weeks. The House will meet on the day set by the previous government in the election proclamation, and its first task it to elect a Speaker. The choice of Speaker would proceed separately from any discussions about forming a government. Brazier notes that recent procedural change has formalised the convention that if the previous Speaker has not retired but is returned—standing in the constituency as a Speaker without partisan opposition—he or she should be re-elected. However, he concedes that a hung parliament may place some pressure on the role of the Speaker, making it more likely that his or her casting vote will have to be exercised.

Furthermore, unlike in Scotland and Wales, there is no fixed date by which the executive must be appointed, nor is a vote required to secure the appointment. The first vote that a new government would need to win would occur at the end of the debate on the Queen's Speech, which may take place as long as a month after the election. The loss of any of the votes at the end of the debate would have the same effect as a no confidence motion and would force the government to resign. Assuming the government wins this crucial and potentially perilous vote, it would not be expected to face a major challenge in the House for a month or two. Alex Brazier asserts that its survival would be largely dependant on the attitude of the opposition and whether it wants to defeat the government and thus cause another general election.

IMPACT ON THE COMMONS

A hung parliament would certainly shake up the operation of the House of Commons, where the Labour Party has had a strong majority for over a decade. A number of contributors to No Overall Control? highlight the inexperience of most MPs with minority governments; nearly two-thirds of current MPs were elected in 1997 or later and have no experience of a government without a strong majority or even of another party in power.

Alex Brazier maintains that a hung parliament would greatly affect MPs, for they would be required to be present at many more votes. It would also give them more opportunities to extract concessions from the government. However, he predicts that they would continue to spend a great deal of their time on constituency matters, which would be largely unaffected by a hung parliament.

Philip Cowley considers what effect a hung parliament might have on backbench MPs. He argues that behaviour would be largely dependant on their political party. If Labour was the largest party in a minority administration or coalition, MPs would behave very differently than if the Conservatives were. Labour MPs are no more likely to rebel against the whip than their Conservative counterparts, but first-term governments tend to be more disciplined for a variety of reasons. The Labour Party has been the governing party for over a decade, and the rate of backbench rebellion has increased over time. Moreover, in the past, Labour MPs have tended to rebel more frequently when the party has been in minority status.

Cowley suggests that the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung parliament would be much harder to predict. However, they would play a crucial role as the swing voters in any hung parliament, much as they do now in the House of Lords. While the Liberal Democrats have traditionally been assumed to be closer to Labour, they are currently three times more likely to vote with the Conservatives than Labour.

IMPACT ON THE LORDS

Since the removal of most hereditary peers in 1999, no single party has been able to command a majority in the House of Lords, making it difficult for the government to predict whether and when it will get its business through. Government defeats in the Lords since then have been more frequent, with 64 defeats in the 2003–2004 session compared with 31 in the 1998–1999 session.¹¹ Russell and Sciara have argued that the Commons and the Lords are also increasingly acting in partnership to achieve legislative change.¹² For example, in 2006, MPs backed a Lords amendment to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and defeated the government in the House of Commons, and the two Houses similarly collaborated to defeat the government on the Identity Cards and Police and Justice Bills.¹³

Both Brazier and Cowley suggest that a hung parliament might serve to weaken the Lords' ability to defeat the government if it resulted in a coalition government. This could have the effect of delivering safer and larger majorities in the Lords, paradoxically delivering more control over government business than has been the case since 1999. Indeed, it is possible that legislation might make its way through Parliament more smoothly under a coalition government than a majority government.

Would the public notice?

IT has been declared by some that a hung parliament would revitalise public interest in politics. But what, if anything, do we know about the public's view? Mark Gill finds that there has been little research into public understanding of, or attitudes towards, a hung parliament. The data that does exist reveals a lack of public consensus about what type of government is most preferable: majority, minority or coalition. In surveys conducted in 1991 and 1995, twice as many people strongly favoured one party in government rather than two or more forming a coalition, but very few people exhibited a strong preference either way.

Moreover, the public often expresses seemingly contradictory views on the subject. On the one hand, polls have revealed that a single-party government is viewed as the most stable form of government; however, the public is also attracted to a coalition style government on the grounds that it would be more likely to serve a wider range of interests. Gill suggests these apparently opposing views actually reflect the usual competing demands of the public on government. People want stable and effective government—which they may feel may be more likely to be achieved by single-party rule—but they might also consider that a coalition government would be more likely to serve the broader national interest.

In any case, most people will have thought very little about the next general election, which is not expected to take place until 2009 or 2010, so it is difficult to speculate whether they would welcome or be wary of a hung parliament. However, their views will be largely shaped by media debates and commentaries. The Labour and Conservative Parties are likely to portray it as a recipe for weak government, though Gill suggests that the experience of Scotland and Wales may render this argument unconvincing. The Liberal Democrats may welcome the possibility of a hung parliament, but as both Simon Hughes and Austin Mitchell acknowledge, it is virtually impossible to campaign for a hung parliament. There is evidence that many voters, particularly Liberal Democrat supporters, would be prepared to vote for a party they don't normally support in order to help shape a particular national outcome.

Any election that produces a hung parliament would probably have a very high-voter turnout, since it is likely to be extremely competitive.¹⁴ However, voting alone does not necessarily engage people in politics. Moreover, levels of public interest in politics have remained extraordinarily stable over the past four decades, and distrust of politicians is ‘deeply entrenched in the British psyche’. Gill argues that the most plausible way in which a hung parliament could be a catalyst for improving the relationship between politics and the public is if it leads to a stable coalition government, presumably where the Liberal Democrats were the junior coalition partner to either Labour or the Conservatives.¹⁵ The coalition government could claim that it represented more than half the voting public, and possibly more than 60 per cent. However, it would inevitably raise expectations about a new era in politics which it may not be capable of delivering. The coalition would have to demonstrate that it was unified and addressed issues of national concern. As Gill notes, history suggests the most damaging indictment the public can make of a government—aside from patent fraud or incompetence—is that it is ‘divided and inward-looking’.

A catalyst for electoral reform?

It has often been asserted that a hung parliament would lead to the adoption of a more proportional system of voting, probably at the insistence of the Liberal Democrats. David Butler claims that two hung parliaments in a row would most certainly enhance the prospect of proportional representation (PR), and Austin Mitchell believes that a hung parliament may be the only catalyst for electoral change. However, is this really the case? None of the hung parliaments in the past led to such an outcome. Why is it more likely now?

Helen Margetts suggests that it is because the UK is already in a process of prolonged transition to PR due to the significant growth in the number of political parties operating in the UK political system. This increase has been fuelled by the adoption of more proportional electoral systems for the devolved institutions and the European Parliament.¹⁶ Citing the work of Colomer¹⁷, she notes that the higher the number of effective parties in operation, the greater the likelihood of the adoption of PR. Furthermore, there has been a significant rise in the measure of disproportionality at Westminster—'a mismatch between votes cast and seats awarded'—which is rendering it increasingly unstable.

Nonetheless, there has hardly been any public clamour for electoral reform; Mark Gill notes that public concern about constitutional issues is minimal.¹⁸ The two main parties have been extremely reluctant to call for change. Margetts contends that it would take a hung parliament—or at least the real prospect of one—for the two main parties to take serious steps towards change. She argues that the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Democrats—the ‘most viable coalition partner’ for either Labour or the Conservatives—would be ‘critical’. Moreover, decisions made by the Liberal Democrats in the event of a hung parliament could have a major impact on the future of electoral reform. Simon Hughes affirms that a ‘commitment to introduce and vote for legislation which would lead to a politically proportional Parliament’ would almost certainly be a prerequisite for Liberal Democrat support of either of the major parties.

Conclusion: unstable ‘nightmare’ or ‘great opportunity’?

The prospect of a hung parliament has a tendency to provoke diametrically opposing responses from political commentators. On the one hand, there are those who believe that a hung parliament would be disastrous, bringing uncertainty to a system which has been traditionally stable. On the other hand, a number of people have claimed that a hung parliament might revitalise interest in the political system in a time of marked public disenchantment in politics.

Minority governments in the UK have had a tendency to be short-lived. Vernon Bogdanor maintains that none over the past century have offered either stability or a clear policy direction. Citing the ‘chaotic’ Callaghan administration of 1976–1979, Simon Jenkins argues that a hung parliament would render government ‘indecisive and unstable’, as well as less democratic. It makes it more difficult for the electorate to vote a government out of office, and the effect is to give minority groups scope to influence policies over which they have no majority mandate. As Jenkins puts it, ‘the under-representation of winner-takes-all is replaced by the over-representation of loser-takes-some.’ Philip Norton agrees, highlighting in particular the ‘hand-to-mouth existence’ of previous minority governments and the disproportionate amount of power given to smaller parties. ‘When it comes to a hung parliament’, he writes, ‘the name says it all’.

Both Norton and Philip Cowley are sceptical of claims that a hung parliament would strengthen Parliament, with the latter stating that ‘there is nothing about a hung parliament that automatically enhances the power and vitality of the legislature against the executive’. Cowley speculates that it could actually do the reverse, particularly if there is a coalition rather than minority government.

However, Simon Hughes prefers to view hung parliaments as ‘balanced parliaments’. Pointing to the experience of other countries, he declares that neither strong nor good government is dependent on a single-party administration. Austin Mitchell agrees. Considering the Lib-Lab pact of the late 1970s, which resuscitated the minority Callaghan administration, he argues that it ‘sustained confidence in a difficult economic situation’.

Moreover, Hughes states that a ‘balanced parliament’ would better reflect the wishes of the electorate: ‘At last, the breadth of public opinion, which had shown no party majority support among the electorate, would have to be reflected in each and every decision of the House of Commons.’ Parliament would be strengthened because parliamentary votes would be less predictable and therefore crucial. Hughes views a hung parliament as a ‘great opportunity’ not as a threat, claiming that the uncertainty of the political situation may be an impetus for exciting change: ‘Some of the greatest periods of radical politics and political momentum’, he enthuses, ‘have occurred in a context like this.’

Regardless of whether hung parliaments are ‘good ’or ‘bad’ for democracy, their existence over a sustained period would certainly lead to a fundamental change in British politics: ‘the rules of the game’, writes David Butler, ‘would inevitably be transformed’. There is no doubt that, in Butler's words, ‘political voyeurs would have a wonderful time’. But would anyone else? It all depends on who you ask.

Notes

The No Overall Control project was funded by a grant from the Nuffield Foundation.

¹ Research Fellow, Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society.

² The term ‘hung parliament’ derives from the American term ‘hung jury’ and was imported into British political discourse in the 1970s by The Economist newspaper.

³ A. Brazier and S. Kalitowski (eds), No Overall Control?, Hansard Society, 2008. The contributors to the book are are: Alex Brazier, Vernon Bogdanor, David Butler, Philip Cowley, Mark Crowley, David Docherty, Mark Gill, Simon Hughes, Simon Jenkins, Susanna Kalitowski, Helen Margetts, Austin Mitchell, James Mitchell, Philip Norton, Roseanne Palmer and Stephen Thornton.

⁴ There were also two instances where a government lost its majority in the House of Commons between general elections, in April 1977 and February 1997. In both cases, the resulting minority government remained in power until the next general election.

⁵ Source: David Butler.

⁶ Just over a quarter of the councils who participated in the 2007 local elections (85 out of 312) resulted in a No Overall Control administration. Source: BBC News.

⁷ Source: David Butler, who derived the information from C. Rallings and M. Thrasher (2007), Media Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies, 5th ed., pp. 350–51.

⁸ J. Rasmussen, ‘Constitutional Aspects of Government Formation in a Hung Parliament’, Parliamentary Affairs 40(2), 1987, pp. 139–53.

⁹ Fabian Commission, The Future of the Monarchy, Fabian Society, 2003.

¹⁰ See T. Hames and M. Leonard, Modernising the monarchy, Demos, 1998. The Institute for Public Policy Research made a similar recommendation in its 1991 report, The Constitution of the United Kingdom, Institute for Public Policy Research.

¹¹ Joint Committee on Conventions, Conventions of the UK Parliament, HL Paper 265-I/HC 1212-I, 2005–2006, para 35.

¹² M. Russell and M. Sciara, The House of Lords in 2006: Negotiating a Stronger Second Chamber, Constitution Unit, 2007.

¹³ M. Russell and M. Sciara,'The Policy Impact of Defeats in the House of Lords', Paper presented to 2007 Political Association Conference, University of Bath, 2007.

¹⁴ Gill notes that perceptions of competitiveness are one of the most important influences on turnout. There was a relatively high turnout in the close election of 1992 (77 per cent) and a historic low turnout in the Labour landslide in 2001 (59 per cent).

¹⁵ However, the experience in Wales shows that a Conservative-Labour coalition is not out of the question.

¹⁶ See P. Dunleavy and H. Margetts, ‘From Majoritarian to Pluralist Democracy? Electoral Reform in Britain since 1997’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 13(3), 2001, pp. 295–319.

¹⁷ J.M. Colomer, ‘It's the Parties that Choose Electoral Systems (or Duverger's Laws Upside Down)’, Political Studies 53(1), 2005, pp. 1–21.

¹⁸ Since 1997, MORU has never found more than two per cent of the British public (and in most cases no more than one per cent) citing constitutional issues as one of the most important issues facing the country, even though the past decade has witnessed significant constitutional reform.

Hansard Society welcomes government moves on post-legislative scrutiny

admin — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:22:00 GMT

On 20 March, Leader of the House of Commons Harriet Harman MP announced that the government is to introduce a system of post-legislative scrutiny to look at the effect and impact of laws, three years after they are passed. The Government’s Paper Post-Legislative Scrutiny - The Government's Approach [Command Paper 7320] outlines proposals for implementing post-legislative scrutiny.

The Hansard Society has long called for improved scrutiny of legislation after it has been enacted by Parliament to learn how individual laws are working in practice and we welcome the government’s commitment to introduce post-legislative scrutiny.

In 2005, the Hansard Society produced a Briefing Paper, Post-legislative Scrutiny, which discusses this subject and is available for download.

Audit of Political Engagement 5 published

admin — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:15:00 GMT

The annual Audit of Political Engagement has become an important contribution to debate about the public's view of the political process since it was first published in 2004. Each Audit measures the nature and extent of political engagement and reveals where views have changed - and where they remain constant. It offers a yearly snapshot of political knowledge and engagement in Britain.

Audit 5 includes a special section on constitutional issues to discover how much the public know about how our constitutional arrangements operate, which areas they are satisfied with and which they think are ripe for reform. This report is a valuable source of information and debate for all those who are concerned with the health of our democratic system.

Download Audit of Political Engagement 5

Audit 5 was launched at the House of Commons on 27 March 2008. Speakers included the Minister for Constitutional Reform, Michael Wills MP and Hansard Society Chairman Peter Riddell.

The raw survey data from the opinion polling carried out by Ipsos MORI for Audit 5 is available here. This project is supported by the House of Commons and the Ministry of Justice.

A measure of displeasure

admin — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:33:00 GMT

This year's Audit of Political Engagement exposes a worrying and widespread ignorance of our constitutional arrangements, report Alex Brazier and Susanna Kalitowski in The House Magazine

For the past five years, the Hansard Society has published an annual Audit of Political Engagement which measures public attitudes to politics using extensive original opinion poll research. The advantage of an annual survey of this kind is that not only does it provide an independent analysis of public attitudes on these key questions of public engagement, but also, by asking the same core questions each year, it shows where views have changed, or, as revealing, remained broadly the same.

The fifth Audit, which will be launched in the Commons this Thursday, 27 March, includes a special section on public attitudes to constitutional issues. This article provides a preview of some of the Audit's key themes.

Since the first Audit was published in 2004, we have consistently found that well over half the population professes little or no knowledge of politics. Another sobering, and regular, finding is how few people are actually politically active - only around one in eight - and how high a proportion of their activities are either one-off, like signing a petition, or do not require much time or effort. Only a tiny handful takes part in political campaigns, or donates money or pays fees to a political party. Optimists have been able to point to the fact that the situation has not noticeably declined and that perhaps we are at the floor of engagement.

However, in this year's Audit, there is a change from that situation. The behavioural measures which record reported levels of participation have, with one exception, remained steady. On the other hand, the attitudinal measures - both of the perceived efficacy of political action and of satisfaction with the way that the political system works - show a small but real decline, though it has come from a relatively low base of satisfaction.

There has been a deterioration in some key categories, including the proportion who agree that with the statement that ‘when people like me get involved in politics, they really can change the way that the country is run', the number of people think that the system of governing needs a great deal of improvement and those who describe themselves as politically active.

However, one central indicator - absolute certainty to vote - has happily remained stable in this Audit.

In addition to revisiting the core indicators of political engagement, this Audit breaks new ground by adding questions the public's knowledge of, and views on, a range of key constitutional issues. These findings are particularly pertinent at a time when the government is bringing forward a programme of parliamentary and constitutional renewal to revive public involvement in the democratic process.

The detailed findings of the public's views make interesting reading. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Audit reveals a high level of political ignorance about the constitutional arrangements in Britain. Almost half say they have never heard of, or know hardly anything at all about, the constitutional arrangements governing Britain.

This serious lack of understanding presents a massive challenge for the government. If constitutional reforms are to be successful and lasting, they will have to be based on a settled and informed view. What the Audit demonstrates is how far all of those engaged in democratic renewal have to go to increase public understanding of the fundamental features of how we are governed.

The survey also reveals mixed levels of satisfaction with constitutional arrangements, with the lowest level of satisfaction being with Scottish MPs being able to vote on English issues in the House of Commons, an issue that has not been addressed in the government's reform proposals.

It is also worth noting that the detailed results show that the public's views of Britain's constitutional arrangements are always likely to be affected by their views of the performance of the government of the day, and these views in turn are likely to depend partly on party political considerations. It is therefore Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who tend to express dissatisfaction with the way that things operate in Britain at the moment.

In terms of the priorities for change, there are few which command anything approaching mass support. The survey suggests there is little public pressure behind votes at 16, electoral reform or fixed term parliaments. The detailed findings in the coming Audit will help inform the debate on how constitutional and parliamentary reform should proceed.

The Audit of Political Engagement 5 will be launched on Thursday 27 March 2008 at 10am in the House of Commons. For more information, email hans_admin@hansard.lse.ac.uk or ring the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1222. The Audit is based on a survey carried out by Ipsos MORI.

This article was originally published in The House Magazine on 24 March 2008.

New publication on the impact of a hung parliament on British politics

admin — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:00:00 GMT

No Overall Control? The impact of a 'hung parliament' on British politics
Edited by Alex Brazier and Susanna Kalitowski

There has been increasing speculation that the next UK general election might produce a parliament in which no single party holds a majority of seats – a ‘hung parliament’. It is over 30 years since the last hung parliament so what would be the modern day consequences for Parliament, the political parties, individual MPs, and the public? Would a hung parliament strengthen Parliament and better reflect the wishes of the electorate or would it render government indecisive and unstable?

No Overall Control?, a new edited collection of essays from distinguished commentators, academics and parliamentarians, discusses the implications of a hung parliament and presents a range of different views on the subject.

The book contains chapters by Alex Brazier, Vernon Bogdanor, David Butler, Philip Cowley, Mark Crowley, David Docherty, Mark Gill, Simon Hughes, Simon Jenkins, Susanna Kalitowski, Helen Margetts, Austin Mitchell, James Mitchell, Roseanne Palmer, Philip Norton and Stephen Thornton.

If you would like to order this publication, please click here

This project is supported by the Nuffield Foundation.

Should democracy be promoted abroad?

admin — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:27:00 GMT

The Foreign Secretary says Britain has a moral 'mission' to spread democracy throughout the world

In a recent speech, Foreign Secretary David Miliband argued that, in spite of mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain should promote democracy around the globe.

Last July, the Hansard Society published a pamphlet which brought together leading experts to consider whether democracy is a universal good and whether it should be actively promoted. Democracy and Intervention, the fifth publication in the Democracy Series, asks whether democratic values can or should be exported from one country to another, how democracy can best be promoted and sustained and if the tensions between religious based democracy and liberal democracy are able to be resolved. A main essay by Professor Lord Bhikhu Parekh is complemented by three commentaries providing a range of alternative views, from Kate Jenkins, Vice Chair of the Hansard Society, Dr John Chipman, Director-General of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and Lindsey Hilsum, International Editor, Channel 4 News.

Lord Parekh notes that this issue has gained prominence in recent years, most notably as a feature within western, and particularly United States, foreign policy. His essay examines what constitutes a democracy and the inherent contradiction in attempting to spread democracy to countries which may not wish to adopt it.

Kate Jenkins looks at the challenges to democracy that can occur when politics and religion meet. Dr John Chipman argues for good governance without full electoral democracy as a safer strategy than democracy without transparent and effective good governance. Lindsey Hilsum discusses the dangers and possible delusions that can arise with the desire to spread western liberal democracy. She focuses on the example of China where rapid economic development is not accompanied by democratic principles.

Democracy and Intervention is available free via download

The Governance of Britain consultation: Hansard Society response

admin — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:46:00 GMT

The Hansard Society welcomes the Government's Green Paper on constitutional reform, The Governance of Britain, which aims ‘to forge a new relationship between the government and citizen, and begin the journey towards a new constitutional settlement - a settlement that entrusts Parliament and the people with more power.' In our response to the Green Paper, we put forward our views on how these ambitious and important aims can be realised, referring to findings and recommendations from Hansard Society research, reports and commissions.