Why is it so difficult to reform Parliaments? In this episode, we talk to Greg Power, author of Inside the Political Mind: The Human Side of Politics and How it Shapes Development. Drawing on his experience as a special advisor to Commons Leaders Robin Cook and Peter Hain, as well as his work with parliaments worldwide, Greg explains how institutional culture, political incentives, and the personal interests of MPs often derail reform efforts.
With fascinating examples - from MPs in Ghana dealing with snakes in toilets to Bangladeshi politicians setting up credit unions - Greg reveals how parliamentarians navigate their roles and why constituency work, though vital, is often disconnected from policy-making. He argues that MPs’ casework could be an invaluable early-warning system for governments - if only there were a way to systematically harness it.
Greg also discusses how new MPs are like learner drivers - thrown into Westminster without a clear guide on how things really work. With over 50% of MPs in the current Parliament being newly elected, many are still figuring out the informal norms and unwritten rules that govern the institution. While this level of turnover presents challenges, it also offers a rare opportunity to reshape how Parliament functions - if only those in power are willing to seize it.
The conversation also touches on populism and how public expectations are often at their highest when institutions are at their weakest. History shows that populist movements thrive when traditional systems fail to deliver, but once in power, they often struggle to govern effectively. Whether in Bangladesh, the USA or the UK, the lesson is clear: ignoring democratic structures in favour of quick fixes is a recipe for long-term instability.
Greg Power OBE
Greg is the founding director of Global Partners Governance (GPG), a social purpose company devoted to strengthening political institutions and the quality of political representation in countries around the world. GPG provides direct assistance to parliaments, parties, politicians and ministries to reform the political process, as well as strategic analysis and advice. Previously, he served as a Special Adviser to Robin Cook and Peter Hain in Tony Blair’s Labour Government, shaping strategies for parliamentary reform, constitutional change, and the broader democratic agenda. Before that, he led the Parliament and Government research program at the Hansard Society. He was author of the first Global Parliamentary Report, published by the UNDP and IPU in 2012. His recent book, Inside the Political Mind, explores how human behaviour influences effective governance across the globe. In recognition of his contributions to parliamentary democracy and political reform, he was awarded an OBE in 2023.
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.
[00:00:00] Intro: You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.
[00:00:18] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.
[00:00:25] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark Darcy, coming up in this special edition.
[00:00:28] Ruth Fox: Why does Parliament find it so difficult to reform itself, even on relatively basic issues like sitting hours, on which MPs often find themselves deadlocked.
[00:00:37] Mark D'Arcy: Well, some intriguing answers to that question can be found in a new book, Inside the Political Mind, by Greg Power, who was a special advisor to two reforming leaders of the House of Commons in Robin Cook and Peter Hain. He's also, incidentally, a former director of research here at the Hansard Society.
[00:00:53] Ruth Fox: When we sat down with Greg we asked him what do people with a grand design for parliamentary reform most often get wrong?
[00:01:01] Greg Power: This is the central argument in the book which is that institutional designers, people who are interested in parliamentary reform, tend to focus often much more on the structures, on the processes, on the design of the buildings, rather than on the people who work inside those buildings.
[00:01:18] And my own experience of working at Westminster and as a special advisor for the Leader of Commons, and then internationally over the last 20 years, is that political institutions only change when politicians want to change them. And you have to ask, well, why would they want to change them? And if they're not changing, why aren't they changing them? And that's the centre of the book.
[00:01:38] Mark D'Arcy: So it's about, if you like, the incentives that they have to want to support change in Parliament. And what sort of incentives might those be? Is it more money? Is it more power? Is it the ability to get things done that they can't get done?
[00:01:52] Greg Power: It's all of those things, and other stuff as well.
[00:01:55] Um, if I, if I take a slight step back, I mean, part of the challenge of trying to reform a parliamentary institution is that you do tend to think about the processes, you do tend to think about the structures. But, around the world, if you look at parliamentary institutions around the world, they all look broadly similar.
[00:02:11] If you read the Standing Orders or the rules of procedure in any parliament, they would look broadly similar. The way they work in practice is entirely different from country to country. And the best way to understand that is to think about traffic and how traffic works in other countries and other cities.
Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
