Recent Events

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. Photographs will follow shortly.

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.

Politicians: a Class Apart or Servants of the People?

admin — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:36:00 GMT

Peter Oborne opened the debate by declaring that while he believes in Parliament, he also believes that there was something ‘horribly systemically wrong' with the way it operates. He described a ‘structural corruption' at the heart of Parliament and gave some examples. He felt that politicians operated as a ‘corrupt cadre' and brought politics into disrepute.

Austin Mitchell commented that a few examples of wrong-doing do not mean that politicians are fundamentally corrupt. He said that politicians are not a class or an elite, rather a mixed body of people motivated by duty not by a desire for expenses. He agreed that some things have gone wrong and gave the example of Housing Allowances. He did agree that politicians are viewed with distrust and hostility and felt that the reason why was because the many and varied wants of the public can't all be fulfilled. He spoke of a sense of duty and the feeling that MPs were struggling to keep their heads above water with a rising tide of work.

Norman Baker declared that his opinion was somewhere between Peter and Austin's. He agreed that Parliament isn't working as it should be and that ‘we haven't changed as the world around us changes'. He felt that while the system doesn't allow for sensible operation, MPs were ordinary people with the same attributes and faults as other people. He said that safeguards must apply - a clear set of rules, openness and accountability were needed when public money was at stake. He gave the example of his two-year battle to get a Freedom of Information request answered on MPs' travel expenses and said that ‘we need to reform our allowances'.

Andrew Tyrie urged the meeting to move beyond discussing MPs' allowances. He said that he didn't recognise Peter's description of ‘structural corruption' and declared that there never was a ‘golden age' of independence. There has been a ‘professionalisation' of MPs and that the quality of Parliament today is higher and politics is cleaner. We now have a higher percentage of dedicated politicians compared to the ‘dilettantes' who existed in the 19^th century and in the 1930s. He agreed that reforms need to be made and defined the problem as ‘the legacy of a 19^th century club trying to hold a democracy to account in the 21^st century'. Modernisation is the key, combined with effective scrutiny, cleaning up the issues of pay, allowances, pensions etc plus one further reform - to create a form of democratic debate here which the public are prepared to listen to and engage with'.

Questions from the floor covered issues such as state funding of political parties, centralisation of MPs' staff, the power of the Whips system and membership of select committees.

Is the West Lothian Question unanswerable?

admin — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:17:00 GMT

Wednesday 6 February 2008
House of Commons

6.30pm - 7.45 pm

Speakers:
Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP
Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Chair: Sheena McDonald

The Scottish voters have elected a nationalist administration to govern them but where does this leave the rest of the UK?

Is the West Lothian Question unanswerable? will consider questions such as; Is the Union under threat? Is an English Grand Committee the answer? Could a federal UK work?

Questions will be taken from the floor after the discussion by our speakers.

Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP addresses inaugural annual lecture

admin — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:18:00 GMT

Mr Clarke opened the meeting by describing his role as Chair of the Conservative Party Democracy Task Force which was trying to tackle the widespread public lack of interest in (almost contempt for) politics. He stressed that he believed that politicians shouldn't want to be loved - healthy scepticism is valuable, but the low turnout in elections is worrying, in particular in regard to young people. There isn't any evidence of genuine detachment from political issues, on the contrary, people are very passionate about the issues but they no longer associate them with politics and Parliament.

He said that politics has not come to terms with the age of the mass media. Political debate is now constant - 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ‘Frenzy' is the right word to describe the current situation. Every problem is a ‘crisis'; every error is a ‘scandal' so that practitioners and public see this media frenzy as what it's all about.

In addition, the celebrity culture predominates so that some individual politicians are seen as celebrities while political parties have become extremely weak.

While party allegiance is weak, single issue pressure groups are strong and have an unchallenged status. As politics has become more complex, the lure of single issue pressure groups with one straightforward answer to problems has become more attractive. These days the public take little part in politics; what makes the running in politics is headlines and focus groups.

Mr Clarke stressed that he believed that politics should not just be about reacting to events. Members of political parties should think that they can make a difference. He believed that the public do want a better process for politics and if we make politics work better, that is in the interest of the public.

Parliament needs to institutionalise rules so that we don't drift further into presidential politics (part of the celebrity politics he referred to earlier). He stressed his belief in cabinet government, collective decision-making and a non-political civil service. He noted that every person in opposition is a very strong supporter of parliamentary reform; but once they were in government, reform didn't seem so urgent.

His solution was to have in writing a powerful code of practice with a select committee to enforce it. Proper parliamentary accountability is vital. He stressed that Parliament is not powerless - in fact there is more rebellion now than there used to be. But you have to know how to rebel, how to pick your issues, to be effective.

He would propose two immediate changes. Firstly, the House of Commons must have more control of its own timetable and what it debates. We need a new business committee - not dominated by officers of the government - and suitable amounts of time in the House of Commons should be at the command of Parliament, not Government.

Secondly, select committees are the basis of Parliament and the key to making Parliament more powerful. Select committee chairs should be elected by secret ballot by all MPs and given more powers.

On the House of Lords, Mr Clarke said that its great weakness is that it is not regarded as having legitimacy. If its members were elected - he suggested 12 year terms with a third retiring every four years and a different electoral system - the Lords would have more legitimacy. But it was vital to put in statute the supremacy of the Commons as Government must get through the manifesto it was voted in on. The Salisbury rules would have to be updated.

Is any of this going to happen? Mr Clarke thought the atmosphere was good and the mood to get serious parliamentary reform going is strong across all the political parties. The key is to keep the heat on and strike while that heat is still on.

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

Ken Clarke lecture 1

Ken Clarke lecture 2

Developments in Scottish Politics: The English View

admin — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:33:00 GMT

Tuesday 27 November 2007 from 4.00pm to 5.30pm, Faculty Room North, David Hume Tower, George Square, Edinburgh.

The fourth seminar in the Institute of Governance's series on Identity and Governance in England.

Speaker: Peter Riddell - Chief Political Commentator and Assistant Editor, The Times, and Chair, Hansard Society.

Respondent: Joyce McMillan - Columnist and Chief Theatre Critic of The Scotsman, Visiting Professor of Creative Industries at Queen Margaret University and Council Member, Hansard Society.

Chair: Charlie Jeffery - Co-Director of Institute of Governance, Professor of Politics at the University of Edinburgh, and Vice-Chair, Hansard Society Scotland Working Group.

Constitutional Reform: The central role of Parliament

admin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:30:00 GMT

At a well-attended public meeting held in Westminster on Monday November 26, 2007, four experts on the role of Parliament debated what needs to be done to enhance the role of Parliament. The speakers briefly set out some main points for discussion before taking questions and comments from the floor. The meeting was chaired by Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society.

Alex Brazier, Director of the Hansard Society Parliament and Government programme, opened the meeting by outlining the Hansard Society's response to the Government's Green Paper The Governance of Britain. He stressed that the Hansard Society has consistently advocated that Parliament's powers should be strengthened and that it should achieve a more equitable and influential relationship with the Executive. As the central, sovereign body at the heart of our representative democracy, Parliament's independence and effectiveness is the benchmark by which the health of our political system should be judged. While welcoming the Green Paper, he had some caveats - firstly, that the Government should do more to promote the role of Parliament in the reform process and, secondly, that it is crucial that the proposed changes are fully and regularly explained to the public and that their views are sought. An informed and interested population is essential to the health of democracy.

He stressed that what was needed was cultural as well as procedural change and that MPs must play their part. He said that reforms since 1997 have not shifted power at all because there was no end point set out. If there was one reform above others which the Hansard Society would like to see implemented, it would be the formation of a petitions committee. Mr Brazier stressed that while direct democracy techniques have a part to play, they are not a solution in themselves. What is needed is a strong, independent Parliament which has a more equal relationship with government and a more open relationship with citizens.

Michael Wills MP, Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, paid tribute to the work of the Hansard Society and stressed that there was a lot of consensus across the political parties that constitutional reform is important. He said that there has been an increase in the power of the Executive and that Parliament has been downgraded for too long. A ‘great chunk' of the proposed constitutional reform bill is to address the powers of Parliament. He stressed the need to reform the second chamber and the need for greater participation by citizens. He gave examples of direct democracy such as participatory budget making at local level and the proposed Citizens' Summit to deliberate on a statement of Britishness, but underlined that the result of this Summit would go to Parliament. He said that we must respond to changes, but keep Parliament at its heart. Parliamentary democracy and the role of Parliament is precious and although technology makes different forms of democracy possible, we must resist the lure of an electronic, plebiscitary form of democracy.

Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Shadow Leader of the House, agreed that we must cherish and maintain our representative democracy. Direct democracy has a role to play, but we must retain and enhance our representative democracy. She said that there must be a shift in the balance between Parliament and the Executive. She concentrated on two issues - engaging people and strengthening representative democracy. On engaging people, she stressed that we must show people that politicians and what they do are worth engaging with. She highlighted three areas for change: secondary legislation, post-legislative scrutiny and scrutiny of European legislation. Secondary legislation often gets no debate and primary legislation is now often drafted vaguely so that secondary legislation is required. We must look at the amount of secondary legislation and how we handle it. Post-legislative scrutiny is vital as Parliament rarely goes back to see if Acts have achieved the aims they set out to achieve. There is very little scrutiny of European legislation and this needs to be changed. If we enhance representative democracy, we will get better legislation.

Lord Tyler, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Constitutional Affairs, agreed with a lot of what the previous speakers had said. He stressed that constitutional reform is not very high profile, but that Parliament itself is often in the news - usually the hot topics are whether there is corruption and why people don't bother to vote. He said that the perception of Parliament was crucial. Party funding must be sorted out because it is critical to restoring the reputation of Parliament. There is a connection between the reputation of Parliament and whether people perceive their votes to be important. There is a disconnection between the voting system and the voters. We can tinker with little improvements, but we need to do more to reinvigorate our democracy. He stressed that a Business Committee would be an important change - the House of Commons should be controlling that part of House business which is not Government business. If the House of Commons is to regain authority, the Green Paper proposals are not enough - we need a more critical analysis to the problems and solutions to address these problems.

SNP Party Conference – Aviemore

admin — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:52:00 GMT

Saturday 27 October 2007, 12.30 – 1.30pm, Restaurant, Highlands Hotel

Speakers:
Alasdair Allan MSP;
Laura Miller, Hansard Society e-Democracy Programme;
Doug Tonner, Regional Market Manager BT;
Jean Urquhart, Deputy Leader, Highland Council

Chair: Joyce McMillan, Columnist, The Scotsman

For more information on this event please contact Angela Wrapson on 0131 550 3797 or at hansard.scotland@hansard.lse.ac.uk

What can MPs do to Engage with Young People?

admin — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:46:00 GMT

Natascha Engel MP responds to young people at Breakfast Briefing in Westminster
Thursday October 25, 2007
9am – 10am

The Respect? Advisory Group will discuss the campaign’s successful work in conjunction with the British Youth Council and YouthNet in challenging stereotypes of young people. They will also talk about their research into how MPs could better engage with young people. Natascha Engel MP will respond to the young people’s findings and discuss what MPs can do to engage with young people in their constituencies.

Who should attend: Voluntary and statutory organisations with an interest in promoting youth democracy

Where: Committee Room 16, House of Commons via St Stephens Entrance

Organised by: The Democracy Coalition for Children and Young People

If you would like to attend please RSVP: M.Raftery@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Values in Politics Lecture

admin — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:42:00 GMT

Given by Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty

The Third Hansard Lecture at St Giles
October 24th Wednesday 6.15pm
St Giles in the Fields
(Denmark St, off Charing Cross Rd and nr Tott Ct tube)

The Hansard Society Lecture series was set up by St Giles Church, with the support of the Hansard Society to explore the values which undergird the political landscape and contemporary society.

Lecture is free (further information if required 0207 2401579)

Are Political Parties a Waste of Time?

admin — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:25:00 GMT

Conservative Party Conference - Blackpool

Tuesday 2 October 2007, 5.45pm - 7pm, Windsor Bar, Winter Gardens, Blackpool

Speakers:
Iain Dale, 18 Doughty Street
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Peter Oborne, The Daily Mail
Priti Patel, Conservative PPC for Witham
Ed Vaizey MP

Chair: Kylie Morris, More4 News

Labour Party Conference - Bournemouth

Monday 24 September 2007, 6pm - 7.30pm, Bourne Suite, Bourne Hall Hotel, Bournemouth

Speakers:
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, The Independent
Jackie Ashley, The Guardian
John Healey MP
Kevin Maguire, The Daily Mirror

Chair: Kylie Morris, More4 News

Liberal Democrat Party Conference – Brighton

Tuesday 18 September 2007, 6.15 – 7.30pm, Albert Room, The Grand, Brighton

Speakers:
Ros Taylor, The Guardian
Lembit Opik MP
Sarah Teather MP
Ed Davey MP
Steve Webb MP

Chair: Faisal Islam, Channel 4 News

Democracy and Intervention

admin — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:22:00 GMT

Tuesday, 17 July 2007
6pm – 7.30pm
House of Commons

A debate to launch the fifth publication in the Hansard Society Democracy Series. Democracy and Intervention by Lord Bhikhu Parekh looks at the complex question of whether and how democracy can and should be exported from one country to another. How can democracy best be promoted and sustained? How can we resolve the tensions between religious based democracy and liberal democracy?

Speakers:
Lord Bhikhu Parekh;
Mike Gapes MP, Chair, Foreign Affairs Select Committee;
Chair: Virginia Gibbons, Hansard Society.

To receive further information or to register for this event, please email hans_admin@hansard.lse.ac.uk