tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/uk-parliament-7099/articlesUK parliament – The Conversation2024-03-21T13:23:08Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2262612024-03-21T13:23:08Z2024-03-21T13:23:08ZHow seriously should we take a plot to replace Rishi Sunak with Penny Mordaunt? The answer lies in the Tories’ own recent history<p>During John Redwood’s 1995 challenge to John Major’s leadership of the Conservative party, his campaign team came up with the slogan, “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/leadership/lead95.shtml">No change, no chance</a>”. It was sure to appeal to Tory MPs rightly fearing for their seats. </p>
<p>But, since a recent opinion poll had given Labour a lead of almost 40 points – and the only available instrument of change was Redwood, rather than someone electable – a more honest pitch would have been: “No chance either way, but let’s at least lose with a right-wing leader.”</p>
<p>Slogans can be used more than once, and if speculation about an <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/penny-mordaunt-replace-sunak-tory-leadership-b2513677.html">initiative</a> to replace Rishi Sunak with Penny Mordaunt is well founded, “team Penny” could be confident that they would be reviving Redwood’s refrain on behalf of a more plausible contestant. Whatever her political abilities, Mordaunt (unlike Redwood) seems to be personable, presentable – and pretty nifty with an oversized ceremonial sword.</p>
<p>Why, as an apparently balanced individual, would Mordaunt want this job? First, having served as prime minister for a few weeks is still a positive embellishment to the average CV. </p>
<p>Even being Conservative leader in opposition is probably helpful in the eyes of prospective employers. That would be enough to justify a temporary sacrifice of sanity before Mordaunt takes the plunge back into <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/penny-mourdant-splash-appearance-resurfaces-diving_uk_62d02ebce4b0eef119c33a75">reality television</a>.</p>
<p>The no change, no chance argument also makes sense for Mordaunt personally, since she is scheduled to <a href="https://theconversation.com/annihilation-in-the-red-wall-an-exit-for-a-top-leadership-contender-and-a-parliamentary-party-stuffed-with-southerners-and-oxbridgers-how-losing-the-next-election-could-shape-the-conservatives-206652">lose her seat</a> at the next election. Having to leave her current cabinet position of leader of the House of Commons would not cause her excessive grief.</p>
<p>Given the havoc which can be expected after the next general election, and the roster of far-right aspirants who have been limbering up to succeed Sunak, for Mordaunt it is almost certainly now or never. </p>
<h2>Would a change give them a chance?</h2>
<p>But would yet another change of leader help the Conservatives? In one respect, it almost certainly would. Sunak’s tenure was doomed not least because right-wing MPs were always determined to deny him the chance to establish governing authority.</p>
<p>If Mordaunt became leader at the invitation of the party’s ultra-nationalists, she would have a much better chance of creating an illusion of party unity. They’d all have to just keep quiet about the fact that she is essentially the same person the parliamentary party rejected two years ago, when MPs decided she was <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/20/tory-leadership-vote-truss-mordaunt-sunak-boris-johnson-pmqs/">less enticing</a> than Liz Truss. </p>
<p>Mordaunt’s family background, meanwhile, is sufficiently interesting to attract sympathetic media intrusion, without featuring any multi-billionaires. An additional advantage is that few people know what she stands for, and probably never will. </p>
<p>A Google of the would-be saviour’s name readily yields “Penny Mordaunt coronation” to commemorate her best-known service to king and country. Unfortunately, Mordaunt’s own coronation is a highly improbable scenario. </p>
<p>The Tories would first have to prise out the incumbent, which is likely to be a messy business since there is little sign of Sunak doing a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/20/leo-varadkar-step-downs-as-irish-prime-minister-in-shock-move">Leo Varadkar</a> and resigning.</p>
<p>Equally, even if Mordaunt proves to be a passable poster-person, she will have to choose a ministerial team. With heavy debts to pay on her right flank, the ensuing line-up could be unedifying. </p>
<p>Lord Johnson to displace Cameron from his Foreign Office haunt? <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/boost-liz-truss-penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership/">Truss at the Treasury</a>? Such prospects might inspire a dramatic switch in the UK’s net migration figures, but at an unacceptable cost.</p>
<h2>The heart of the problem</h2>
<p>Although the current speculation is not entirely far-fetched, the bottom line is that if the Conservatives go for Penny, they are still in for a pounding. After the next election, almost anything is possible from a party which is an unwitting gift to public entertainment, and can’t stop itself giving. By the end of the next parliament, the Tory leader could equally be Nigel Farage or someone who is currently at prep school.</p>
<p>When historians look back on the farcical unravelling of a once-great party, they will alight on 1997 as the time when it all started going wrong. <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01366/">One person, one vote</a> in leadership elections is a worthy idea in theory, but should never have been extended to a frivolous body of people like Conservative party members.</p>
<p>Even more alarming than the number of leadership contests is the post-1997 tendency of all Conservative MPs, however unqualified, to consider standing for a job which became impossible in 2016, if not before. Michael Howard – rejected in 1997 and acclaimed six years later – tried in vain to get rid of a system which had allowed the party faithful to elevate Iain Duncan Smith.</p>
<p>For the Tories, there is now no navigable route back to common sense. Even if the final choice of leader is once again entrusted to MPs, they will (as in the fateful instance of Boris Johnson) feel constrained to select the person who is most appealing to the grassroots.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for Sunak, he cannot pass a vote of no confidence in his party and install a new one. Despite the speculation, as in the case of Major, they are probably stuck with each other until the electorate sends them on their (<a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-standing-down-next-election">very</a>) separate ways.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226261/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Garnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Mordaunt is predicted to lose her seat at the election so it’s now or never for her – but the path to victory is laden with obstacles.Mark Garnett, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2256202024-03-13T14:47:19Z2024-03-13T14:47:19ZThe abuse of Diane Abbott by a top Tory donor should have us all thinking about how we normalise racism against women MPs<p>Yet again a black woman in British public life has been subjected to racist and sexist abuse. This may be shocking, but it is not surprising. </p>
<p>When Tory donor Frank Hester said that looking at Diane Abbott “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/11/biggest-tory-donor-looking-diane-abbott-hate-all-black-women">makes you want to hate all black women</a>” his comments were extreme. Yet they were hardly out of the ordinary.</p>
<p>Likewise, the reluctance of some parliamentary colleagues to address the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68542621">racial and gendered nature of the comments</a> is sadly unsurprising, as was the slowness with which the prime minister responded, only belatedly and after pressure from ministers, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/12/conservative-donor-frank-hester-comments-diane-abbott-racist-wrong-no-10-rishi-sunak#:%7E:text=No%2010%20and%20Conservative%20ministers,MP%20%E2%80%9Cshould%20be%20shot%E2%80%9D.">admitting the remarks were racist</a>. </p>
<p>Whether you love or loathe Abbott (who has been suspended from the parliamentary Labour party for her <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65374104">own comments on race</a>) this is more than a story about a single individual.</p>
<p>All politicians in the UK are facing increasing levels of violence, harassment and abuse. Data from the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13070">representative audit of Britain</a> survey shows that in 2019, 49% of parliamentary candidates indicated that they had suffered some form of abuse, harassment and intimidation while campaigning. This is a rise of 11 percentage points compared with 2017. </p>
<p>However, evidence also shows ethnic minority women face exceptional dangers in public life. Variation in experiences of harassment and intimidation is enormous: 63% of ethnic minority women candidates reported experiencing abuse compared with 38% of ethnic minority men, 34% of white men and 45% of white women. </p>
<p>The intimidation experienced by ethnic minority women also sometimes originates <a href="https://renewal.org.uk/archive/vol-29-2021/inconvenient-voices-muslim-women-in-the-labour-party/">within their own political parties</a>. Muslim women in both Labour and the Conservatives have spoken up about this problem. </p>
<p>On top of this, black women experience specific forms of anti-black racism combined with misogyny. African American scholar Moya Bailey coined the term “<a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.18574/nyu/9781479803392.001.0001/html">mysogynoir</a>” to describe this phenomenon in the US, but the UK also abounds with examples. For example, in 2016, Dawn Butler, another black woman Labour MP, revealed that she had been <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35685169">mistaken for a cleaner by a fellow MP</a>. She said this was just a single example of “so many incidents” in parliament.</p>
<p>And although headlines often ostensibly celebrate “diversity” in politics, campaign press coverage also <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1940161216673195">subjects minority ethnic women to extreme scrutiny</a>. This renders figures such as Abbott hyper-visible, at the same time as being exceptionally negative in tone and narrowly focused on ethnicity and gender. </p>
<p>Untangling the relationship between these forces is extremely tricky. While black and minority ethnic women MPs are uncomfortably visible, the ethnic minority women that all MPs are supposed to represent actually face a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821X16739744241737">crisis of representation</a> in parliament. </p>
<p>They are very rarely spoken about in parliamentary debates, and when they are, it is usually by white men and in relation to an extremely narrow range of issues, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/fgm-5898">female genital mutilation</a> and trafficking. There is less debate about how race and gender permeate many other aspects of minority ethnic women’s lives.</p>
<h2>Taking black and ethnic minority women MPs seriously</h2>
<p>While Frank Hester’s comments are therefore deeply concerning, they should not be viewed as an exception. Racial and gendered inequalities are still rife in British politics, and they hit black and ethnic minority women the hardest. </p>
<p>We cannot treat examples like this as isolated incidents or as being the work of “bad apples”. Instead, we need to take heed of clear patterns in the data and ask uncomfortable questions about political institutions. What would it take to eliminate these dynamics from political parties, parliament and the press?</p>
<p>Perhaps one way to start is to listen to, and take seriously, the words of people like Abbott herself. In response to Hester’s remarks, she <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/mar/12/minister-calls-tory-donor-frank-hesters-diane-abbott-comments-completely-unacceptable-but-refuses-to-go-further-uk-politics-live">revealed</a> how vulnerable she feels when just travelling around her constituency. </p>
<p>“For all of my career as an MP I have thought it important not to live in a bubble, but to mix and mingle with ordinary people,” she said. “The fact that two MPs have been murdered in recent years makes talk like this all the more alarming.”</p>
<p>When his comments were exposed, Hester admitted that he had been “rude about Diane Abbot in a private meeting several years ago” but insisted that his comments “had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”. The character of Hester’s apology itself speaks to the normalisation of abuse and incivility, as well as racism and sexism. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1767248542651781271"}"></div></p>
<p>Abbott and others have told the public before that they are frightened and that they are unable to do their jobs because of the dangers involved. If we start to take them seriously, we resist both the normalisation of incivility in public life and the comfortable notion that politics is now a level playing field.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Orly Siow has previously received an ESRC scholarship for research on press coverage of Black and ethnic minority women as political candidates.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sofia Collignon received funding from the British Academy /Leverhulme and was part of the ESRC -funded research team behind the Representative Audit of Britain survey. </span></em></p>Frank Hester’s words are only the latest extreme example of the constant discrimination black and ethnic minority women face when they enter public life.Orly Siow, Associate Senior Lecturer in Gender Studies, Lund UniversitySofia Collignon, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2244632024-02-29T15:53:40Z2024-02-29T15:53:40ZLindsay Hoyle: how the speaker dug himself an even deeper hole by offering and then denying the SNP a fresh Gaza debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578056/original/file-20240226-18-euexk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C131%2C1680%2C1229&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/uk_parliament/53504229063/">UK Parliament/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Speakers of the UK House of Commons usually work hard to protect themselves from political controversy. To do the job well usually means to be (and be seen to be) a neutral umpire. </p>
<p>That is why Lindsay Hoyle, the current speaker, is still struggling to recover from the chaos caused by his handling of a debate about supporting a ceasefire in Gaza. An attempt to dampen things – by offering angry Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs the chance to hold a new debate – appears to have added fuel to the fire after he subsequently declined the party’s formal request.</p>
<p>The SNP remains furious about what happened on its <a href="https://theconversation.com/speaker-lindsay-hoyle-sparks-chaos-five-steps-to-understanding-why-mps-stormed-out-of-parliament-during-gaza-vote-224134">opposition day</a> on February 21, when it chose to debate a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The day descended into chaos when Hoyle allowed the Labour party to put forward its own amendment to the SNP motion. This was on top of the more standard amendment from the government.</p>
<p>The result of this action, as well as heated arguments, was that a vote on the SNP motion never went ahead. SNP MPs complained that their opposition day – one of very few granted to the party each year – had been effectively hijacked by Labour. There was a perception, whether fair or not, that the speaker had bent the Commons rules under pressure from Labour.</p>
<p>In response to the anger caused by his decision, the speaker publicly offered the SNP an “SO24” – that is, an emergency debate under <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/debates/application-for-emergency-debates/">Commons Standing Order No. 24</a>. These, as the name suggests, are Commons debates scheduled at short notice on an urgent matter. </p>
<p>Unlike most Commons business, which is effectively controlled by the government, emergency debates are entirely within the gift of the speaker, a point Hoyle made directly to the SNP’s Westminster leader. Soon after he issued the proposal, the SNP leadership announced that it would take up the offer. Crucially, though, the party demanded that there should be a meaningful vote at the end of the debate on supporting a ceasefire. </p>
<h2>Why the fresh debate never went ahead</h2>
<p>It was never clear quite how an emergency debate on a Gaza ceasefire would work. There are, broadly speaking, three categories of Commons motion. Some are “neutral”: these do not express an opinion but are essentially just a device to facilitate a debate. </p>
<p>Others are “substantive” and do express an opinion. Almost all opposition day motions fall into this category, including the original SNP motion that was not voted on because of the chaos on February 21. </p>
<p>A third category – which is really a subset of the second – is “binding” motions, which compel some sort of action. These are much rarer and – while not unheard of on opposition days – difficult to envisage on this topic.</p>
<p>Under the House of Commons procedures, emergency debates must be held on a motion that <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmstords/1154/body.htm">“the House has considered the specified matter”</a>. This has traditionally been interpreted to mean a neutral, non-substantive motion. </p>
<p>Such a debate was always unlikely to be acceptable to SNP MPs. After all, they already held a debate on the topic when they put forward their original substantive motion. What they were denied was the chance to vote on it.</p>
<p>It is presumably for this reason that the party let it be known that they wanted a “meaningful vote”. Much has been read into this term, drawing (probably unhelpful) parallels to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-what-does-the-latest-parliamentary-upset-mean-for-theresa-may-109591">fraught Brexit period</a>. </p>
<p>On Brexit, MPs secured the right to formally approve the UK’s EU withdrawal agreement – making the motion binding. In the case of the Gaza motion, it doesn’t appear that the SNP was seeking to make a vote binding but that it was asking for a “substantive” motion – as originally planned on its opposition day – rather than being neutral.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4710/proposals-to-hold-an-emergency-debate-under-standing-order-no-24/">Erskine May</a>, the authoritative guide to procedure, does identify some exceptions to the practice of neutral motions on emergency debates, these are rare and potentially controversial. </p>
<p>Erskine May cites only a handful of examples, all under the speakership of John Bercow. Most are from the Brexit period, when parliament found itself in deadlock again and again over Theresa May’s EU departure deal. </p>
<p>Bercow’s innovative reinterpretations of House of Commons procedures were controversial – and, notably, something Hoyle had positioned his speakership firmly against.</p>
<p>Having publicly offered the SNP an emergency debate, the speaker turned down the party’s application on February 26. The explanation given by Hoyle was that he was required to consider the <a href="https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4677/motions-under-standing-order-no-24">“probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means”</a> – words taken from the standing orders. </p>
<p>As Hoyle explained, MPs had already passed a resolution the previous week. The government also planned to make its own statement on the matter. These points, however, make it all the more baffling as to why the offer was first made.</p>
<h2>Now what?</h2>
<p>As a result of the furore, a growing number of MPs have signed an <a href="https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61908/no-confidence-in-the-speaker">early day motion</a> expressing no confidence in the Speaker – now at almost 100 MPs. They are mainly Conservative and SNP MPS but Plaid Cymru has also joined. The Welsh party’s Westminster leader Liz Saville-Roberts cited <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/28/plaid-cymru-joins-call-lindsay-hoyle-quit/">“the handling of business”</a> in supporting the motion.</p>
<p>While Hoyle’s opponents have no immediate mechanism to bring the motion to a vote, such widespread criticism will be deeply uncomfortable for the speaker. To perform his job, he has to maintain order and enforce sometimes difficult decisions. </p>
<p>This is only possible with the consent and goodwill of the house. For Hoyle to survive beyond the immediate term, he will need to regain these MPs’ trust.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224463/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Gover does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The SNP was offered a debate – but what they wanted was a vote.Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2203412024-02-23T16:56:53Z2024-02-23T16:56:53ZModern democracies are in crisis. Could 18th-century political theorist Edmund Burke help us find a way out?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577100/original/file-20240221-16-b1sook.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C3%2C647%2C440&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#/media/File:EdmundBurke1771.jpg">Studio of Joshua Reynolds/National Portrait Gallery/Wikipedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Even just 40 years ago, electoral participation on the scale we are witnessing in 2024 would have been unthinkable. More than half of the world’s population live in countries that will hold (or have already held) an election this year. </p>
<p>But this great year of elections will unfold against a backdrop of deep unease about the state of democracy. The <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/less-democratic">number of democracies</a> is declining, <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/archive/spring-2022/global-public-opinion-in-an-era-of-democratic-anxiety">trust in democracy</a> is weakening, and <a href="https://www.essex.ac.uk/news/2021/09/22/voter-turnout-is-declining-around-the-world">voter turnout</a> is trending downwards. </p>
<p>Appetite for <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/10/21/citizens-in-advanced-economies-want-significant-changes-to-their-political-systems/">political reform </a> is strong. Citizens have made their discontent known through abstention, protests, votes for anti-establishment candidates and even violence. </p>
<p>When thinking about how to address this crisis, we could do worse than looking to the 18th-century statesman and political theorist <a href="https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=edmund-burke--9781509538645">Edmund Burke</a> (1729-1797) who witnessed a similar crisis of representation not long after entering the British parliament. I</p>
<p>n 1768, radical MP John Wilkes was excluded from parliament having been earlier outlawed for <a href="https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-scandalous-case-of-the-north-briton-number-45/">libelling King George III</a> in a piece of journalism. Parliament then repeatedly refused to seat him when he won re-election several times, and eventually gave the seat to his defeated opponent instead. When troops fired on a crowd of Wilkes’s supporters, killing several, riots engulfed London for days. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A black and white engraving by William Hogarth depicting John Wilkes holding a bell that reads 'liberty' and smiling demonically" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577109/original/file-20240221-28-bc2n6h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577109/original/file-20240221-28-bc2n6h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577109/original/file-20240221-28-bc2n6h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577109/original/file-20240221-28-bc2n6h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=918&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577109/original/file-20240221-28-bc2n6h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577109/original/file-20240221-28-bc2n6h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577109/original/file-20240221-28-bc2n6h.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1153&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">William Hogarth’s satirical depiction of John Wilkes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes#/media/File:William_Hogarth_-_John_Wilkes,_Esq.png">Wikipedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The reason parliament refused to admit Wilkes, Burke sensed, had less to do with his boorishness, demagoguery or slandering (today he would be branded a populist) and more to do with the opposition to King George that Wilkes gave voice to. Given that many members of parliament owed their pensions to the king, they were keen to avoid offending him by seating one of his enemies, even if this stoked popular anger. </p>
<p>When Wilkes became the focal point of a large campaign demanding political reform, MPs condemned the protesters as unruly (much as MPs today have tried to <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/police-powers-ban-protest-laws-suella-braverman/">restrict protests </a> in the name of public order). Popular sympathy with Wilkes <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1918953?searchText=wilkes%20liberty%20america&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dwilkes%2Bliberty%2Bamerica&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A8459be369fc9bd62a855709527520e35">even spread to America</a>, where colonists’ complaints about their own lack of representation had already occasioned violence and would eventually erupt into a full-blown war of independence. </p>
<h2>The people can always annihilate you</h2>
<p>In some ways we might have expected Burke to have sided with the MPs against a demagogue and his followers. After all, Burke is often associated with the view that representatives should be <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/447933">trustees rather than delegates</a> – that is, they should be free to act according to their own judgement rather than bend to popular pressures. </p>
<p>Burke famously told his own constituents in Bristol that he would not always obey them, especially when what they wanted was either unjust or foolish. When some Bristolians objected to more toleration for Catholics, for example, Burke refused to heed them. On this basis, it would not have been surprising if Burke had explained to the protesters that their grievances were misplaced and their actions futile. </p>
<p>But this is not at all how Burke approached the Wilkes crisis. Burke disliked Wilkes but rather than lecturing his supporters for protesting or defending parliament’s privileges, he warned his parliamentary colleagues about the dangers of failing to respond sympathetically to popular discontent. </p>
<p>What worried Burke was that parliamentarians would use public disorder as an excuse to numb themselves against legitimate protest, and so risk losing the people’s trust. As a representative institution, Burke argued, parliament’s job was to study and remedy popular complaints rather than dismiss them as unreasoned, unenlightened, or excessive. Even violent protesters never forfeited their right to representation. </p>
<p>As he put it in one of his speeches:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you lay down a rule that because the people are absurd, their grievances are not to be addressed, then it is impossible that popular grievances should receive any address at all, because the people when they are injured will be violent; when they are violent, they will be absurd – and their absurdity will in general be proportioned to the greatness of their grievances, and then the worse their suffering, the further they will be from their remedy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not a Burke that will be familiar to many today. But it is the Burke that politicians the world over need to listen to. This is because politicians more than ever have a long list of excuses – from populist insurgencies to disinformation campaigns, from AI-deepfakes to media manipulation – for disregarding anti-establishment complaint as absurd, inauthentic or irrational. </p>
<p>The consequences of that disregarding, however, could be disastrous. The people can always do more than just vote or protest. As Burke cautioned his fellow MPs, even when it looks like the people can “do nothing else” they “will always be able to annihilate you”. Burke’s point was that all government rests <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/parliamentarism/57C359D3A3A5CE47DD91391EBB83711C">ultimately on popular opinion</a>, meaning that if people decide in large numbers to withhold their assent to obey, then something closer to a revolution could result.</p>
<p>Securing representative democracy may thus require politicians to show more openness to democratic reforms, more sympathy to protesters and less willingness to use populism as a pretext for democratic retrenchment.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578295/original/file-20240227-16-jdy3wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578295/original/file-20240227-16-jdy3wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578295/original/file-20240227-16-jdy3wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578295/original/file-20240227-16-jdy3wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578295/original/file-20240227-16-jdy3wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578295/original/file-20240227-16-jdy3wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578295/original/file-20240227-16-jdy3wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Far right parties and politicians are mounting election campaigns all over the world in 2024. Join us in London at 6pm on March 6 for a salon style discussion with experts on how seriously we should take the threat, what these parties mean for our democracies – and what action we can take. Register for your place at this <a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/social-science-perspectives-on-the-far-right-tickets-838612631957?aff=theconversation"><strong>free public session here</strong></a>. There will be food, drinks and, best of all, the opportunity to connect with interesting people.</em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220341/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ross Carroll is the author of the forthcoming book Edmund Burke.</span></em></p>When parliament blocked a radical MP from taking his seat in parliament, Burke warned that ignoring the people’s democratic will could have disastrous consequences.Ross Carroll, Assistant Professor of Political Science , Dublin City UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2210152024-01-23T18:59:42Z2024-01-23T18:59:42ZWhy we should celebrate Australia Day on March 3 – the day we became a fully independent country<p>Every year, there are debates over the appropriateness of January 26 for a national holiday. </p>
<p>Australia Day has been celebrated on <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-day-wasnt-always-january-26-but-it-was-always-an-issue-198389">different dates</a> since its inception as a fundraiser for the war effort in 1915. The choice of January 26, the day in 1788 when the British flag was raised in New South Wales, attracted significant protest from First Nations, especially at the sesquicentenary in 1938 and bicentenary in 1988.</p>
<p>In recent years, January 26 has become a date that divides Australians. More than <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/80-local-council-areas-cancel-australia-day-citizenship-ceremonies/news-story/6cd87d8ca47fb6914f489902d66a7fd3">80 local councils</a> have chosen not to have it as a day of celebration, and Triple J <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-27/hottest-100-wont-be-held-on-australia-day-triple-j-says/9197014">stopped</a> using the date to hold its Hottest 100 competition in 2018. This year, Woolworths’ commercial decision not to stock Australia Day merchandise was met with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/jan/11/woolworths-big-w-australia-day-merchandise-dropped-sale-peter-dutton-boycott-calls">calls to protest</a> the supermarket giant. </p>
<p>If the purpose of Australia Day is to unite Australians and celebrate our achievements as a nation, then would our Independence Day – March 3 1986 – be a better choice?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-day-wasnt-always-january-26-but-it-was-always-an-issue-198389">Australia Day wasn't always January 26, but it was always an issue</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Wasn’t Australia independent before the 1980s?</h2>
<p>You might be thinking, hang on, surely Australia was already independent in the 1980s? </p>
<p>To give a typical historian’s answer, yes, but it’s more complex than that. </p>
<p>In 1901, Australia federated and became a nation, but not an independent one. Its initial status was a Dominion of the British empire, self-governing but with its foreign affairs dictated from Westminster. </p>
<p>The Imperial Conference of 1923 gave majority-white Dominions such as Australia control over foreign affairs, while the 1926 <a href="https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-95.html">Balfour Declaration</a> asserted that Dominions were “autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status”. </p>
<p>The passage of the 1931 <a href="https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-96.html">Statute of Westminster</a> confirmed that the Dominions were not subordinate to Britain. While this might seem like the independence moment, Australia saw no need for the change and did not <a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sowaa1942379/schthe.html">ratify it until 1942</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C105%2C979%2C752&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Queen Elizabeth II signing paper at a desk while a man in a suit stands over and watches" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C105%2C979%2C752&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570274/original/file-20240119-25-bz3blx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Then-Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Queen Elizabeth II signed the Australia Acts in 1986.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/government-and-democracy/prime-ministers-and-politicians/queen-elizabeth-ii-signs-proclamation-australia-act-cth-1986">National Archives of Australia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second world war convinced the Australian government it needed its own diplomats and embassies in foreign nations. Then, in the 1960s, Britain’s attempts to join the European common market and its decision to remove its military from South-East Asia (known as <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10357719708445209">East of Suez</a>) prompted Australia to show greater independence in its trade and security policies. </p>
<p>Even if the Commonwealth government was independent from 1931 (or 1942, technically), colonial anomalies remained and would not be addressed until 1986.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/welcome-to-may-9-the-true-australia-day-204555">Welcome to May 9 – the true Australia Day</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Wait, so Australia wasn’t <em>fully</em> independent?</h2>
<p>When the Hawke government took office in 1983, the state governments retained their colonial constitutions and were still answerable to the British government.</p>
<p>Further, those unhappy with a ruling in their state supreme court could challenge it in Britain’s Privy Council. These colonial hangovers were not harmless relics, but had real consequences. </p>
<p>While protocol dictates that the monarch must accept the prime minister’s advice when appointing the governor general, at state level, British ministers felt free to reject the advice of premiers. </p>
<p>This was seen in 1975 when Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen had his attempts to extend the term of governor Sir Colin Hannah <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop48/battlesovereignty#_ftn23">blocked</a>. </p>
<p>Similarly, the Privy Council continued to hear cases from Australia. In 1984, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/760463">14 appeals</a> from Australia were received, with a further ten in 1985. One of these was instigated by West Indies cricket captain Clive Lloyd, who was awarded damages after an <a href="https://justinian.com.au/featurettes/inside-tom-hughes-defamation-machine.html">article in The Age</a> implied his team deliberately lost a match. The NSW Court of Appeal overturned the verdict but Lloyd successfully challenged the decision in the Privy Council, undermining the power of the state legal system.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-32.html">Australia Acts</a> are twin legislation passed in the UK and Australian parliaments (hence Acts not Act), matched by consenting legislation from each state parliament. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white gazette article from 1986 from Bob Hawke" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569756/original/file-20240117-21-glc0we.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A special edition of the Commonwealth Gazette was published when the Australia Acts had been finalised.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/240546297?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Fdate%2F1986%2F03%2F02%2Ftitle%2F1292%2Fissue%2F2436980%2Fpage%2F26059975%2Farticle%2F240546297">Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC)/National Library of Australia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They were the result of years of complex negotiations but were aided by political goodwill from both major parties and the UK government. The Australia Acts ended all remaining powers of the UK parliament over Australian states and confirmed that the High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal.</p>
<p>Australian independence did not come as a result of a dramatic struggle or revolutionary war. Instead, it was a gradual evolution. Queen Elizabeth II commented that “surely no two independent countries could bring to an end their constitutional relationship in a more civilised way” (though, we would continue to share the same head of state).</p>
<p>Despite the significance of the occasion, the passage of the Australia Acts had only limited public interest. The various developments were noted in newspapers in Australia and Britain but usually in the back pages.</p>
<p>For example, when the British legislation passed the House of Lords in December 1985, The Age informed its readers that “the sun sets today on the shreds of colonial bondage” on page 24, next to the daily crossword and a cartoon. </p>
<p>When the Acts came into effect on March 3 1986, the Australian media presented it as a mundane piece of constitutional upkeep, which perhaps explains why the date is not well known today.</p>
<h2>A better choice for Australia Day?</h2>
<p>Australia does not have a single independence moment. It has no equivalent to the War of Independence in the United States or the storming of the Bastille in France. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, as legal expert Anne Twomey <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/we-only-became-independent-of-britain-on-this-day-in-1986/news-story/524a277d666ca0614eedcb39a43a9e12">has concluded</a>, it is indisputable that full legal independence was achieved through the Australia Acts. </p>
<p>While historians have been more opaque, Deborah Gare <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10314619908596101#:%7E:text=be%20discussed%20below%2C%201%20January,a%20new%20and%20united%20country.&text=process%20of%20elimination%20to%20determine,of%20Westminster%20in%20December%201931.">argues convincingly</a> that despite the increased freedoms after 1931, a nation can hardly be called independent without sovereignty over its own judiciary. </p>
<p>January 26 is engulfed in a culture war. It does not satisfy those who want it to be a day of contemplation or those who want it to be a day of united celebration. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/change-the-date-debates-about-january-26-distract-from-the-truth-telling-australia-needs-to-do-197046">'Change the date' debates about January 26 distract from the truth telling Australia needs to do</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For all the commentary, however, few Australians <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/most-dont-care-when-australia-day-is-held-poll-finds-20180116-h0j0w9.html">really care</a> what day it is held. Most simply want an opportunity to take a day off work and celebrate the achievements of the country, individually and collectively. </p>
<p>January 26 will always be a significant historical date, but its meaning is contested. By contrast, few would dispute that Australia achieving its full legal independence was a positive development, worthy of celebration.</p>
<p>There is no requirement that Australia Day be celebrated on a historically significant date. The last Friday in January is sometimes suggested to ensure a long weekend. </p>
<p>But for those who do want history to guide the national celebrations, the Australia Acts provide an uncontroversial alternative.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221015/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin T. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many believe Australia became it’s own country at federation in 1901, but that’s not strictly true. Instead, it happened more than 80 years later. Why don’t we celebrate it?Benjamin T. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2215032024-01-23T15:13:06Z2024-01-23T15:13:06ZWhat does Wales’ future hold? New report maps options for more devolution, federal and independent futures<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570678/original/file-20240122-25-8l3je8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=20%2C20%2C6968%2C2305&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales was set up in 2021 and has been gathering evidence since then.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/united-kingdom-vs-wales-welsh-smoky-1354803587">vladm/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="https://www.gov.wales/independent-commission-constitutional-future-wales">commission</a> set up to consider the constitutional future of Wales has published its <a href="https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-01/independent-commission-on-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-final-report.pdf">final report</a>. The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, co-chaired by former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Cardiff University’s Professor Laura McAllister, maps three different “viable” options.</p>
<p>First, they suggest “enhancing” devolution. This would see Wales operating similarly to how it does now, only with more powers for justice and policing, financial management and rail services. This option also proposes greater cooperation between Cardiff and London on energy and broadcasting.</p>
<p>Second, it suggests Wales joins a federalised UK system. This <a href="https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/federal-future-uk">idea</a> often draws comparisons to the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federalism">US model</a>. But the key feature here is granting Wales guaranteed legal rights and defined areas of responsibility, while the UK government handles broader matters like national security and international treaties.</p>
<p>Finally, it suggests a Wales which is fully independent from the UK.</p>
<p>While the commission finds all of the options to be possible, with advantages and disadvantages, it does not recommend one as the “correct” outcome. Instead it finds that there needs to be a constructive and evidence-based debate which engages Welsh citizens, so that an informed choice can be made. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Rowan Williams stands next to Laura McCallister in the middle of a shopping street." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570683/original/file-20240122-29-v8agms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570683/original/file-20240122-29-v8agms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570683/original/file-20240122-29-v8agms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570683/original/file-20240122-29-v8agms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570683/original/file-20240122-29-v8agms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570683/original/file-20240122-29-v8agms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570683/original/file-20240122-29-v8agms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former Archbishop of Cantebury Dr Rowan Williams and Professor Laura McCallister co-chaired the commission.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Independent Constitutional Commission for Wales</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Welsh government <a href="https://www.gov.wales/node/42768/latest-external-org-content?page=4">established</a> the commission in 2021. It was set up to ensure Wales is ready for any radical changes in the union, such as Scottish independence, for example. The panel included people from the four main political parties, various organisations and also surveyed the Welsh public.</p>
<h2>Criticising the status quo</h2>
<p>The report maps the deficiencies in the current devolution settlement. It identifies how the fall-out from Brexit has exposed the fragility of devolution, through Westminster disregarding the <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02084/">Sewel convention</a>. This states the UK parliament will “not normally” pass a law which is within the remit of the devolved legislature without the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/legislative-consent/">agreement</a> of the devolved institution. However, the convention is not legally enforceable. </p>
<p>Since the <a href="https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gordon-Anthony-Devolution-Brexit-and-the-Sewel-Convention-1.pdf">2016 referendum</a>, the report points out that the Sewel convention has been overridden on 11 occasions with virtually no scrutiny in Westminster. It finds that devolution is at risk of gradual attrition if steps are not taken to add legal enforcement to the current convention system.</p>
<p>In their <a href="https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-12/independent-commission-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-interim-report-december-2022.pdf">interim report</a>, published in December 2022, the commission found that the status quo is neither viable for the stability nor prosperity of Wales. However, in the <a href="https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-01/independent-commission-on-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-final-report.pdf">final report</a> the language surrounding this was revised slightly to reflect citizens having a choice to choose “no change”. </p>
<p>The language used by Professor McAllister at the Senedd report launch, however, was more critical. She expressed disappointment with the quality of evidence from those who should have been in a position to defend the status quo. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WSOlBi1VY-g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Final report launch event at the Senedd.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Communication and engagement</h2>
<p>Part of the commission’s work included surveying Welsh citizens. The report finds people in Wales are often unsure about who makes the decisions on different issues. Some people mistakenly believe areas like policing and broadcasting are already devolved to the Welsh government, while others incorrectly identified the UK government as being responsible for health. </p>
<p>The report offered insights as to why this may be the case. This includes an absence of a Welsh perspective on UK affairs in the media. For example, 73% of people agreed they don’t see or hear enough about how Wales is run. </p>
<p>Public confusion is another concern. When the UK government steps in on matters already devolved to Wales, citizens struggle to understand which government is calling the shots and on which issues.</p>
<p>It finds that 81% are very or fairly concerned about how Wales is run. But Welsh citizens also lack confidence in their knowledge of the governance of Wales when discussing the constitution in abstract terms. Despite the maturity of Wales’ democratic institutions, the commission finds that devolution does not yet enjoy citizens’ full confidence, and that Welsh democracy therefore needs strengthening. The findings stress the need for more democratic innovation and community engagement that is appropriately resourced. </p>
<p>The commission acknowledges the wider challenges surrounding the current UK environment, particularly in terms of declining trust in political institutions, and the polarisation of debates surrounding Brexit and COVID-19. It acknowledges that many conflate questions about constitutional structure with assessments of the government of the day, and so greater civic engagement is needed. </p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-01/independent-commission-on-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-final-report.pdf">The commission</a> stresses that all options are theoretically viable. Which step is pursued is dependent upon the values and risks people are willing to accept. </p>
<p>The report details the harm independence would cause to the Welsh economy in the short to medium term, making it a particularly unattractive option in the current climate. It also states that support for an independent Wales, or indeed the abolition of the Senedd, are in the minority. </p>
<p>Regarding the federal model or Welsh independence, wider UK input would be needed. This is because some of the issues are outside the current <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8544/">competence of the Senedd</a>. </p>
<p>The option of an enhanced and protected devolution is more achievable, it says. But inter-governmental relations would need to be improved to achieve this. Some 92% of people surveyed believed it was important for governments to work together. The Welsh citizens who were questioned had little time for governments blaming each other, which ultimately feeds disaffection with politics entirely. </p>
<p>The next step must be about moving away from political point scoring and slogans, and widening the national conversation about what could be the best constitutional future for Wales. Politicians in the Senedd and Westminster will set the initial tone but that debate needs to be mature and evidence-based.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221503/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Clear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales acknowledges each option requires UK government involvement.Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2205852024-01-05T15:01:41Z2024-01-05T15:01:41ZShould we believe Rishi Sunak’s hint that the election will be in October? What the evidence tells us<p>So now we know. After weeks of speculation, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67883242">“working on the assumption”</a> that a general election will take place in the second half of this year. That’s just a few months before the latest possible date of January 28 2025. </p>
<p>The choice of an autumn election does make sense for Sunak and the Conservatives. With the polls showing the Labour opposition on a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48017-voting-intention-con-22-lab-45-29-30-nov-2023">stable and substantial lead</a>, it makes sense for the Conservatives to buy some time. The idea would be to try to make inroads into Labour’s lead before setting an election date. </p>
<p>Much rests on the fate of the economy. A year ago, Sunak promised to halve inflation, grow the economy and get debt falling. Independent analysis shows that inflation has halved, but <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/rishi-sunaks-five-pledges-one-year">less success on economic growth and falling debt.</a> </p>
<p>Between now and the autumn, Sunak will hope that the economy shows signs of recovery. An autumn election will also give voters time to feel the economic benefits of the tax cuts that are anticipated in the spring, which could potentially provide the Conservatives with a boost in the polls. </p>
<h2>Why ‘autumn’ means ‘October’</h2>
<p>There are other reasons why an autumn 2024 election makes sense. During the post-war period, October has proven to be a popular month for elections – even though the last time an election was held in October was 1974. Although over recent decades, most general elections have taken place in the spring, between 1950 and 1974, four of the nine elections were held in October, with only one taking place in May. </p>
<p>No post-war general election has been held in August, September or November. If an election is held in the autumn, October would seem the most likely month if history is anything to go by. </p>
<p>There is also the British weather to consider. While there isn’t strong evidence to show that voters are less likely to turn out in bad weather, it is very much the received wisdom in the UK that this is the case, and given the decision comes down to Sunak, he may not think it worth risking winter weather. This would imply October over, say, November or December. </p>
<p>Historically, turnout in October elections has been similar to turnout in spring elections – and turnout is a major factor for the Conservatives. Age is now the most significant predictor of voting behaviour in UK general elections and <a href="https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/#:%7E:text=Overall%2C%20the%20relationship%20between%20age,for%20Labour%20and%20the%20Liberal">age is linked to turnout</a>. </p>
<p>The group most likely to vote for the Conservatives are those aged 65 and over – which is also the group most likely to vote at all. A higher overall turnout should therefore be a strategic goal for the Conservatives. </p>
<p>The 18-24 group is most likely to vote Labour but least likely to vote overall so an October vote is again a sound move. With hundreds of thousands of students returning to universities away from home in the autumn, and potentially not yet registered to vote at their term-time address, there is potential to minimise the younger vote.</p>
<h2>A clash with the US election</h2>
<p>An October election would mean the UK vote would take place just weeks ahead of the US election on November 5. The prospect of two of the world’s leading democracies going to the polls within weeks of each other is an exciting one for election enthusiasts. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there is the prospect of two new administrations coming into power around the same time, needing to find their feet quickly in an unstable geopolitical environment, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/176d4b78-1e9a-45c9-8c3c-a74e758ec22f">following two elections that may be heavily influenced by polarisation and misinformation.</a>.</p>
<p>With the eyes of the world focused on a potentially divisive US election, Sunak may feel that a low-key campaign plays in to his hands, focusing on re-electing the incumbent to ensure stability. </p>
<h2>Don’t rule out a spring election yet</h2>
<p>The date for the election is not yet set in stone, however. Following the repeal of the <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/">Fixed-term Parliaments Act</a>, the choice of election date lies in the hands of the prime minister. </p>
<p>The rollercoaster of British politics in recent years has shown us that much can change in six months. It would therefore be unwise to rule out a spring election, even after Sunak’s heavy hint.</p>
<p>The Labour opposition has accused Sunak of <a href="https://news.sky.com/video/general-election-sir-keir-starmer-says-rishi-sunak-is-squatting-in-downing-street-13042181#:%7E:text=Sky%20News-,General%20Election%3A%20Sir%20Keir%20Starmer%20says%20Rishi%20Sunak%20is%20'squatting,and%20months%20in%20Downing%20Street.'">“squatting” in Downing Street</a> and claims he is running scared, knowing that the polls show him on course for a loss. Sunak may therefore instead opt to call Labour’s bluff, signalling an autumn election in public but preparing for a May election in private. Sunak’s words do leave the door open for a spring election, as “working assumptions” can easily be changed.</p>
<p>Those who still think <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/uk-heading-for-a-may-general-election-is-the-worst-kept-secret-in-parliament-labour-13038533">May is a possible election month</a> will point to the announcement of an <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67826928">earlier than expected spring budget date</a>. Headline-grabbing tax cuts, along with some positive economic forecasts may embolden the prime minister to take a gamble and move sooner rather than later.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gemma Loomes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are reasons to hold off until the autumn – but there are other clues that still point towards May.Gemma Loomes, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2202022024-01-04T19:35:55Z2024-01-04T19:35:55Z2 colonists had similar identities – but one felt compelled to remain loyal, the other to rebel<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567761/original/file-20240103-29-h271tj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C4%2C3246%2C2038&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Martin Howard, left, and Stephen Hopkins came to opposing conclusions about their colonial British identities.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47da-2b3d-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99">Howard: John Singleton Copley via Wikimedia Commons; Hopkins: New York Public Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Through the early 1750s, two men in the British colony of Rhode Island – Martin Howard and Stephen Hopkins – had similar backgrounds and led strikingly similar lives. They knew each other, were both supporters of libraries with successful legal careers, and were politically active.</p>
<p>Their writings in the 1760s demonstrate that they were both assessing the political relationship between the North American colonies and Britain.</p>
<p>Both men claimed that they felt truly British – but from their shared identity they arrived at violently opposing conclusions. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=00sDajMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">My historical research</a> into Rhode Island’s politics and economics during the colonial period has found these two men’s approaches to the issues of the day are a microcosm of the decisions faced by thousands of British colonists on the eve of the American Revolution. </p>
<p>And they are a lesson about how what might appear to be common values about shared political and cultural identities can at times serve not as a bridge joining people together but a wedge driving them apart.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The facade of a building, with four columns supporting a portico." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567771/original/file-20240103-23-y8y8bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the 1750s, Martin Howard served as librarian at Newport’s Redwood Library.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redwood_Library_and_Athenaeum_-_Newport,_RI_(51487895396).jpg">ajay_suresh via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Parallel paths</h2>
<p>The stories of Martin Howard and Stephen Hopkins begin as mirror images of each other, including growing up in Rhode Island. </p>
<p>Howard worked as an attorney in his hometown of Newport. <a href="https://collections.newporthistory.org/Collections/index">The Newport Mercury</a> newspaper chronicles his many civic and political activities. He served as Overseer of the Poor, Smallpox Inspector, and in the Rhode Island General Assembly. In the early 1750s, he served as the librarian at Newport’s <a href="https://ageofrevolutions.com/2021/01/13/loyalists-and-the-birth-of-libraries-in-new-england-the-marriage-of-martin-and-abigail-howard/">Redwood Library</a>. And he was one of two men elected to represent Rhode Island at the 1754 gathering of representatives from the northern colonies known as the <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/albany-plan">Albany Congress</a>.</p>
<p>Hopkins, for his part, became a <a href="https://archive.org/details/afj7768.0001.001.umich.edu">justice of the peace</a> in Scituate, Rhode Island, in 1730, and served multiple terms as Rhode Island’s governor in the mid-18th century. In 1753, he was a founding member of the <a href="https://archive.org/details/providence-athenaeum-inquire-within">Providence Library Company</a>. And he was the other Rhode Island representative at the Albany Congress in 1754.</p>
<p>In the early 1760s, their paths might have seemed closely aligned. But then, in 1763, everything changed.</p>
<p>That year, the Treaty of Paris ended the Seven Years’ War – known in the American colonies as the French and Indian War, and called “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/summary/Key-Facts-of-the-Seven-Years-War">the first world war</a>” by historian and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. At the end of a multinational conflict spanning continents and oceans, Britain took over almost all of France’s territory and trade in North America and India. But the triumphant empire had <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/treaty-of-paris">incurred enormous debts</a> to fund its war effort. </p>
<p>Seeking to repay its debts and expand its North American influence, the British Parliament passed the <a href="https://ahp.gatech.edu/sugar_act_bp_1764.html">Sugar Act</a> in 1764 and the <a href="https://ahp.gatech.edu/stamp_act_bp_1765.html">Stamp Act</a> in 1765.</p>
<p>These laws <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/sugar-and-stamp-acts.htm">imposed significant tax burdens on colonists</a>, though they had no representatives in Parliament to voice their concerns. Howard’s and Hopkins’ reactions to these laws marked a key phase of division between them, and across colonial North America.</p>
<h2>Dueling pamphlets</h2>
<p>Most political activity in the late 18th-century Anglo-American world was fueled by private groups who advocated for a wide range of causes. </p>
<p>Howard was a founding member of the Newport Junto, which supported both the Sugar and Stamp acts and advocated for Rhode Island to come under greater Parliamentary control. Hopkins supported the loose coalition of organizations collectively known as the Sons of Liberty who campaigned against imperial taxation. </p>
<p>Many members of these groups turned to the printing press to reach audiences across the Atlantic world. Rhode Island had two printing presses: Howard published his ideas via the <a href="https://newporthistory.org/history-bytes-the-franklin-press/">Franklin-Hall press in Newport</a>, while Hopkins used the <a href="https://americanantiquarian.org/content/first-press-providence">Goddard press</a> in Providence. </p>
<p>A close read of the pamphlets published by Howard and Hopkins in the mid-1760s shows they both invoke their common Anglo-American heritage – but only one would eventually come to the conclusion that it was necessary to sever that link.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A printed cover of an 18th century pamphlet." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=970&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=970&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=970&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1219&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1219&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/567767/original/file-20240103-25-ym5ncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1219&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stephen Hopkins made his case in this 1764 pamphlet about the American colonies’ relationship with Britain.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:303438/">Brown University Library</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, in November 1764, Hopkins published a pamphlet entitled “<a href="https://repository.library.brown.edu/studio/item/bdr:303432/">The Rights of the Colonies, Examined</a>.” It began with the premise that because he was a British subject, he was entitled to all the relevant rights and privileges those subjects held. To him, that included the right to have a voice in Parliamentary deliberations about colonial taxation, because he lived in Britain’s North American colonies.</p>
<p>Less than two months later, in January 1765, Howard published a reply: “<a href="https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N07847.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext">A Letter from a Gentleman at Halifax to his Friend in Rhode Island</a>, Containing Remarks Upon a Pamphlet Entitled ‘The Rights of the Colonies, Examined.’” Like Hopkins, he began with the premise that because he was a British subject, he was entitled to all the relevant rights and privileges. But in Howard’s view, this did not include a right to vote in Parliamentary elections: Not all British people could vote, even if they lived in Britain.</p>
<h2>A split based on shared identity and values</h2>
<p>The distinctions between the rhetoric of Hopkins and Howard are representative of those between most British North American colonists in the 1760s. Howard and others who wanted to remain subject to the crown continued, through the end of the American Revolution, to believe that their rights were untrammeled. By contrast, Hopkins and the other proponents of revolution with Britain would come to believe in the mid-1770s that the only way to preserve their rights and privileges was to break away completely from the United Kingdom. </p>
<p>It was a revolution, but those who sought to break from Britain did so as a way of preserving their British identity. This seeming contradiction helps illustrate why groups of people who shared Anglo-American identity and heritage fought on both sides of a violent war to preserve their divergent views of that identity and heritage.</p>
<p>The story of Hopkins and Howard ends on either side of a divide as geographic as it was political, with Howard in permanent exile in London, and Hopkins, having <a href="https://library.brown.edu/cds/portraits/display.php?idno=258">signed the Declaration of Independence</a>, living in the Rhode Island town where he was born – in the smallest of the British North American colonies, which had become the smallest state in the United States of America. Nevertheless, the commonalities between them remain as important as the differences, and truly understanding their story requires keeping both elements in mind.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220202/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Abby Chandler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What might appear to be common values about shared political and cultural identities can at times serve not as a bridge joining people together but a wedge driving them apart.Abby Chandler, Associate Professor of History, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2201022023-12-19T22:15:04Z2023-12-19T22:15:04ZPeter Bone kicked out of parliament for violence and sexual misconduct: how recall petitions work<p>In the 2019 general election, Conservative Peter Bone held his seat in the Northamptonshire constituency of Wellingborough with more than <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14001025">60% of the vote</a>. Four years later, although there hasn’t been another election, he is no longer an MP. Bone, who was found to have <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-1904---the-conduct-of-mr-peter-bone-mp.pdf">bullied and exposed himself to a member of his staff</a>, is one of the few examples of a member of parliament being thrown out in a recall. </p>
<p>The recall is a mechanism introduced in 2015 to deal with elected representatives who misbehave in office. While recalls have a longer pedigree in <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Gray_Davis_recall,_Governor_of_California_(2003)">some parts of the world</a>, they are a relatively new phenomenon in the UK. Bone is only the fourth MP to lose their seat via recall and only the fifth MP to face a recall petition (the very first was survived by <a href="https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/first-use-of-the-recall-of-mps-act-tough-test-in-north-antrim">Ian Paisley Jnr</a> in 2018).</p>
<p>Bone could still return as a local MP since his recall will be followed by a byelection in which he has the right to stand as an independent. He may believe he has a chance given the strength of his 2019 result. But the reality is that recalls generally end careers. </p>
<p>The most recent recall involved Scottish National Party MP Margaret Ferrier, who <a href="https://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/info/200236/politicians/2157/statutory_notices">lost her seat in July 2023</a>. This followed a lengthy suspension for breaking pandemic lockdown rules by travelling on a train while knowingly infected with COVID. She chose not to stand in the byelection that followed her recall. </p>
<p>Bone’s recall was also triggered by a lengthy suspension, in his case imposed after a <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2023/october-2023/independent-expert-panel-recommends-suspending-peter-bone-mp-for-bullying-and-sexual-misconduct/">parliamentary investigation</a> found that he had hit a member of his staff on multiple occasions and exposed himself to him on another. Bone has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67137918">denied the allegations</a>.</p>
<h2>How a recall happens</h2>
<p>A recall petition is automatically launched when an MP is suspended from the House of Commons for longer than ten days. Any shorter period of suspension carries no further sanction. </p>
<p>The decision to suspend an MP must go through the House of Commons but this is usually a rubber-stamping exercise that comes at the very end of an investigation or even a police probe (as in the case of several other MPs who have been recalled). </p>
<p>Bone’s six-week suspension was agreed without debate in <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-10-25/debates/7C920BD7-673D-4BB3-9F57-9FB91BE03C62/BusinessWithoutDebate">late October</a> after the publication of the investigation into his conduct.</p>
<p>Once a recall has been triggered, local voters have the chance to sign a petition to have their MP removed. They can sign in person at multiple locations around the constituency or remotely by post or by <a href="https://www.northnorthants.gov.uk/elections-and-voting/recall-petition-wellingborough-constituency/signing-petition">appointing a proxy</a>. T</p>
<p>he process is effectively very similar to a general election except that rather than having just one polling day, recall petitions stay open for weeks. Bone’s constituents had between November 8 and December 19 to sign.</p>
<p>When a recall petition is triggered, organisations, such as political parties, can register as official campaigners either for or against a recall. As in election contests, there are spending limits and a need to provide an account of what was spent. In this case <a href="https://www.northnorthants.gov.uk/elections-and-voting/recall-petition-wellingborough-constituency/petition-campaigners">only the Labour Party appears to have registered</a>.</p>
<p>If more than 10% of registered voters sign the recall petition, the MP loses their seat. Bone has been removed because that threshold has been reached among Wellingborough’s 78,000 registered voters. </p>
<h2>Another byelection headache for the Tories</h2>
<p>It is easy to see why some opposition parties might campaign for a recall. The seat could be winnable. It could be a chance to harry the incumbent party. It is all part of a build up to a future general election contest.</p>
<p>Of course, an MP can avoid a recall petition by simply resigning. Former prime minister Boris Johnson did precisely that in 2022 when <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197897/default/">facing a lengthy suspension</a> for misleading the house. His former colleague <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/07/chris-pincher-to-resign-as-mp-after-losing-appeal-against-suspension">Chris Pincher’s resignation</a> meant the same. In cases such as these, constituents get a byelection whether they wanted one or not.</p>
<p>Bone’s constituents have decided that they want to be the next to hold a byelection. The only thing that can stop them now is if the general election is imminent – and it only becomes imminent with a firm date. </p>
<p>Given the timing of the recall petition, it is almost certain that Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives will have to endure another pre-general election vote triggered by the misconduct of one of his team. Even in a safe seat, that’s a fate they will have hoped to avoid.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220102/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats</span></em></p>Bone has become only the fourth MP to ever lose their seat via a recall petition.Paula Keaveney, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2199742023-12-15T17:46:50Z2023-12-15T17:46:50ZAs another lobbying scandal erupts in the Conservative party, are tougher rules finally on the horizon?<p>Conservative MP Scott Benton has become the latest British politician to face suspension for breaking lobbying rules in what is becoming a regular cycle of scandals. Parliament’s committee on standards has recommended a <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/42581/documents/211708/default/">35-day suspension</a> for Benton after he was alleged to have lobbied for the gambling industry and given company access to confidential government documents. </p>
<p>Benton is accused of leaking the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-stakes-gambling-reform-for-the-digital-age">gambling white paper</a> ahead of publication, thereby handing over information about plans to bring in tighter regulations for the industry. Benton has said the parliamentary committee’s report into his behaviour contains “factually inaccurate” statements. He has said he <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-scott-benton-to-appeal-proposed-suspension-over-lobbying-scandal-13031094">will appeal</a> his proposed suspension and will make a formal complaint, accusing the committee of leaking the report to a journalist.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, newly appointed foreign secretary and former prime minister David Cameron carried out an array of activities during his stint out of office that are <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/12k-for-dinner-and-a-photo-david-camerons-lucrative-china-links-88mvkf785">potentially now contentious</a>.</p>
<p>The UK lobbying industry is the third largest in the world, with more than <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526117250/#:%7E:text=By%20Raj%20Chari%2C%20John%20Hogan%2C%20Gary%20Murphy%20and%20Michele%20Crepaz&text=Unlike%20any%20book%2C%20it%20offers,situating%20each%20political%20system%20therein.">4,000 lobbyists</a> in and around Westminster and Whitehall. But it has some of the weakest <a href="https://theconversation.com/david-cameron-and-greensill-this-toothless-regulator-is-absurdly-easy-to-sidestep-158914">regulation</a>. Major scandals have regularly punctuated British politics since the 1990s and lobbying has turned into a continual, rolling controversy. </p>
<p>Despite the many democratic benefits it brings, the word “lobbying” has come to represent, as political scientist Wyn Grant put it, the <a href="https://www.abebooks.co.uk/9781526126689/Lobbying-Dark-Side-Politics-Pocket-1526126680/plp">“dark side of politics”</a> in Britain.</p>
<h2>Attempts at reform</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://academic.oup.com/pa/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pa/gsad024/7424527">latest research</a>, we document calls for more stringent rules in the past two decades, both from within and outside parliament. And while there have been gradual moves towards tighter regulation and more openness about lobbying activity, many complain these <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubadm/888/report.html">haven’t gone far enough</a>. </p>
<p>The problem is that the principle of self-regulation – the idea that politicians can “look after themselves” – has continually won out. Promises of radical change are almost always watered down and diluted.</p>
<p>Cameron symbolises the problem that politicians who try to change the system are also the ones who stand to benefit from not changing it at all. He came into power in 2010 promising to clean up the “too cosy” and “secret” links between money and politics, and then passed a series of reforms that <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41309-019-00074-9">were criticised</a> for being insufficient. </p>
<p>These reforms provided a rather weak <a href="https://orcl.my.site.com/CLR_Search">register of consultant lobbyists</a>, which only captures, by some estimates, <a href="https://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/liftthelid">around 1% of those involved</a>. This sits alongside a gradually strengthening <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/">register of financial interests</a>, which has existed <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/register-members-financial-interests">since the 1970s</a>.</p>
<p>Once out of office, Cameron then turned lobbyist, chasing ministers on behalf of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/11/greensill-the-scale-of-david-camerons-lobbying-texts-revealed">supply chain finance company Greensill</a> amid the most intense period of the pandemic emergency. The Treasury select committee <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-cameron-showed-significant-lack-of-judgment-on-greensill-inquiry-finds">argued</a> that Cameron’s texts to ministers for Greensill displayed a “significant lack of judgement”. The committee found he did not break lobbying rules, but that this reflected on the “insufficient strength of the rules”.</p>
<p>Cameron then spent several years <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/12k-for-dinner-and-a-photo-david-camerons-lucrative-china-links-88mvkf785">working the speaking</a> circuit in China before returning to be foreign secretary. </p>
<h2>A new approach</h2>
<p>In the wake of the lobbying perma-crisis that was Boris Johnson’s government, lobbying rules for MPs <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/news/186452/new-code-of-conduct-for-mps-launched-today/">have been tightened</a>. In the summer of 2023, after much delay, the government promised a new “single platform” for data, new monthly publications and more detail on “hidden” or “anonymous” lobbying. While these were welcomed, many concerns remained, as with past reforms, over the <a href="https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/do-the-governments-proposals-on-standards-and-integrity-go-far-enough">scope and strength of the changes</a>. </p>
<p>Ideally, lobbying regulation works in two ways: through anticipation, by making politicians feel watched, thereby deterring poor behaviour, or by accountability, by catching them out if they do cross a line. A good lobbying system should be part of an ever-expanding ecosystem, working alongside other tools to “clean up politics”, such as freedom of information laws, open data initiatives or whistleblowing regulations.</p>
<p>Despite continual pressure for reform, the UK is far from this ideal. Waves of half-finished change mean the present system is too narrow in scope, lacks transparency and has weak accountability and sanctioning powers.</p>
<p>If elected, Labour has promised a <a href="https://www.spotlightcorruption.org/report/what-could-a-uk-integrity-and-ethics-commission-look-like/">new ethics and integrity commission</a>, which would draw together the diverse instruments and bodies that already exist, with stronger powers. Not all the details are clear but this would involve creating an independent body on a statutory footing, a five-year ban on former ministers lobbying, and stronger sanctions when rules are broken. </p>
<p>Many bodies involved will be put on a statutory basis, giving them stronger sanctioning and investigative powers. Taken together, Labour argues the new system would “clean up politics” and “create robust protections”. </p>
<p>We’ll be able to see that this reform is finally working if we start to see proper sanctions of sufficient strength being meted out – and with enough publicity to send a clear signal to anyone involved in lobbying and pushing the limits of acceptability.</p>
<p>Lobbying also needs better, joined up, easier-to-access data. Both the Conservatives and Labour have committed to this – but promises aren’t data. At present, lobbying data is scattered across more than 20 websites, and is used only by a few specialist journalists and NGOs. It could be useful to many more people if it were better organised, making monitoring easier, and potentially empowering more groups to become involved, with greater continuous effect. It could look something like the <a href="https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/sky-news-and-tortoise-team-up-for-data-project-on-funding-of-british-politics/s2/a998844/">mapping tool</a> created by Sky News and Tortoise Media to help people understand how politics is funded. </p>
<p>The public supports <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/35473-61-think-it-unacceptable-ex-ministers-work-compani">stronger regulation</a>, as do the <a href="https://www.cipr.co.uk/Good-Lobbying">lobbyists themselves</a>. But – crucially – politicians need to support, champion and enthuse about lobbying laws rather than be dragged towards compliance or complain when they are caught out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michele Crepaz received funding from the Irish Research Council to conduct research on transparency and lobbying. He is an affiliated scholar at The Good Lobby. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Worthy previously received funding from the Leverhulme Trust to study data and the monitoring of MPs. He is
a member of the UK Open Government Network Steering committee.
</span></em></p>Scott Benton was able to lobby for the gambling industry despite reforms introduced by David Cameron when in office.Michele Crepaz, Vice Chancellor Illuminate Fellow, School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics, Queen's University BelfastBen Worthy, Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2196892023-12-12T10:17:14Z2023-12-12T10:17:14ZRishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill: how much trouble is the prime minister really in as MPs threaten a parliamentary rebellion?<p>The legislative process in Britain consists of a series of discrete stages, each with its own purpose and function. A bill’s second reading is the discussion of, and vote on, the principle of the legislation. As <a href="https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/">Erskine May</a>, the so-called bible of parliamentary procedure, puts it: “Its whole principle is at issue, and is affirmed or denied by the House.” </p>
<p>The last time a government lost a vote on the second reading of one of its own bills was 1986. The significance of that particular vote is not just that it took place almost 40 years ago, but that it was the only occasion a government with a working majority lost a bill at second reading in the entire 20th century. So, while we can say that it would not be unprecedented if the government went down to defeat over the <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3540">Rwanda bill</a>, it would be extremely unusual.</p>
<p>And while the defeat in 1986 was embarrassing, the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35762227">shops bill</a>, which attempted to liberalise Sunday trading laws, was not a central plank of the Thatcher government’s programme. The Rwanda vote is on something much more significant. Its defeat would leave a void where the government’s immigration policy was meant to be.</p>
<h2>Is this a confidence vote?</h2>
<p>Government figures have said they don’t see this vote as a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-new-rwanda-bill-wont-work-former-interior-minister-2023-12-07/">matter of confidence</a>, and there is nothing about losing a vote, or even a whole bill, that requires them to. Constitutionally, the government can lose this vote, keep calm and carry on, just as Margaret Thatcher did in 1986. Still, it’s fair to say that losing a measure of this significance would have been enough to bring down a government in the 19th century – and would still cause considerable political discomfort in the 21st.</p>
<p>The flip side of all of this, however, is that winning the vote – as still looks more likely – is not in itself something to be proud of. It is not a particularly remarkable achievement for a government with a majority of over 50 to win a second reading vote. </p>
<p>And even if it does win, celebrations should be muted as there are plenty of parliamentary hurdles ahead. After second reading, there will be a programme motion which sets out the timetable for the bill’s passage. These can be tricky. It was the programme motion that derailed House of Lords reform under the coalition government of 2010-15, for example. Then we have the committee and report stages – both opportunities for MPs to vote for amendments – before there is a third reading vote in the House of Commons on the bill as finally constituted. </p>
<p>Then it goes to the Lords, where the government does not have a majority and where multiple amendments are all but certain. In turn, the government can try to overturn Lords amendments with votes in the Commons, but each such vote is another hurdle and the chance for another rebellion, with no guarantee of success.</p>
<p>This is, at least in part, why MPs rarely vote down bills at their second reading – because they can always try to amend them later as they progress through parliament, to take out the worst bits or beef up the good bits. Better to focus on a rebellion where it might achieve something, they argue, rather than trying to kill a bill in its entirety.</p>
<h2>Rebellion on both sides</h2>
<p>Perhaps the key problem faced by the government whips is not the scale of the discontent per se, but that it comes from two opposing wings of the party.</p>
<p>Those on the right (crudely put) see the bill – in the words of the European Research Group – as “partial and incomplete”. They therefore want to see it strengthened. Other Conservative MPs (variously described as “moderate”, “mainstream” or “centrists” – you can pick your own nomenclature) think it already goes far enough, maybe even too far, and will resist any expansion of its powers. The problem for the whips is that any concessions granted to one group will make it more likely that the others will kick off. </p>
<p>In voting terms, these two groups have unequal opportunities. Because Labour has said it will oppose the bill – and will almost certainly resist any of the amendments the right would desire – amendments from the right of the party will go down to defeat if they are opposed by the government, almost regardless of their size. On the other hand, it is plausible to imagine scenarios under which those on the left of the party might make common cause with the opposition and bring about government defeats.</p>
<p>Yet this isn’t quite the same as saying that the right are powerless. They have an important veto power. If, by the bill’s third reading, they are still unhappy, they can form an unholy alliance with the opposition and bring the whole measure down. Their plan, therefore, is to try to persuade the government to strengthen the bill by moving its own amendments, which they will support. </p>
<p>Yet this isn’t straightforward either. For one thing, the government has already said it cannot go much further. Plus, each one of these amendments is, in turn, a chance for the other wing of the party to rebel; and they too have a veto power at third reading. The last time a government lost a bill at third reading is 1977.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the phrase “partial and incomplete” comes from Corinthians in the Bible, from the verse that contains the famous line: “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.”</p>
<p>Maybe you think that apt, or maybe you don’t. But it also contains this sentence, which definitely sums up where we are: “Even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219689/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Cowley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There was only one case of a government losing a vote on a second reading in all of the 20th century.Philip Cowley, Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2176242023-11-13T17:33:35Z2023-11-13T17:33:35ZSuella Braverman: how much of a threat is sacked home secretary from the backbenches? What the polling tells us<p>We’ve had many indications over the past few years, but recent events are perhaps the most significant yet of the difficult electoral coalition the Conservatives are trying to bridge as they fight to hold onto power. </p>
<p>The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has opted to end the tenure of Suella Braverman as home secretary, a politician who has made a career out of seeking to appeal to the cultural right wing of the electorate and the party. </p>
<p>At the same time, Sunak has appointed former prime minister David Cameron as foreign secretary. This is likely in an attempt to appeal to the traditional, more culturally liberal centre right of the party.</p>
<p>Removing Braverman is, by itself, unlikely to move the needle on Conservative support among the public in either direction. <a href="https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1724071651829043487">Snap polling</a> shows that most people (57% to 20%) think sacking her was the right thing to do. This is true even among Conservative voters, though to a lesser extent (44% to 39%). </p>
<p>Polling from <a href="https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1722995360547717503">before she was sacked</a> suggests that this is a consistent pattern – although people who voted Conservative in 2019 thought she should stay. The intervening days of protests in London do not seem to have bolstered her support.</p>
<p>Some of the positions Braverman seemed to think spoke to the nation are also actually very unpopular. Neither Conservative nor Leave voters agree that homeless people living in tents are making a <a href="https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1721946989556863301">“lifestyle choice”</a>, for example.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1721946989556863301"}"></div></p>
<p>And, even if they are aligned with her on such views, we <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-labours-plan-to-rewrite-brexit-might-not-be-as-politically-risky-as-it-sounds-214920">already know</a>, that ordinary voters have <a href="https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1723676105612161252">more important things</a> on their minds, such as the cost of living, the NHS and climate change. In terms of electoral salience, these drown out the cultural issues which Braverman has made the focus of her tenure at the Home Office.</p>
<p>That is not to say, however, that her position on the pro-Palestine protests wasn’t popular. Indeed, <a href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Sky_Israel-Palestine_231108_W.pdf">polling suggests</a> most (by 50% to 34%) felt the protests over remembrance weekend should be banned. That’s especially true for people who voted Conservative in 2019 (80% to 12%).</p>
<h2>Outside the tent</h2>
<p>The danger for Sunak in releasing Braverman of her duties is less among the public and more within his own party. The public might agree with Braverman’s position on protests specifically, but are less likely to support her attacks on the police.</p>
<p>Braverman is, however, <a href="https://conservativehome.com/2023/11/06/our-cabinet-league-table-cleverly-goes-top-for-the-first-time/">far more popular than Sunak</a> among the latter group. And while it’s unlikely Braverman has enough backbenchers to seriously endanger Sunak, they are loud. We can expect them to make their positions heard and the one thing the public does not warm to is a divided party.</p>
<p>And what about David Cameron? In 2018, <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/da17e415-de87-11e8-b1b9-719078e1b17c/question/0bff76f0-de88-11e8-8fe3-b72cd9fa6afe/politics">when YouGov polled</a> whether people would support Cameron returning, more than 50% were opposed, including 39% who strongly opposed (and 32% who were strongly opposed among Conservative voters).</p>
<p><a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/13/8bdf8/1">Snap polling</a> now suggests little has changed: 38% of the public think the decision was a bad one (with 24% on board and 38% saying “don’t know”). That includes 35% of Conservative voters (though 36% say the decision to bring Cameron back was a good one).</p>
<p>So, when the dust settles, all this may shift the electoral geography slightly, increasing support in the traditional Conservative heartlands (the <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/red-wall-blue-wall-tory-coalition-hold">“blue wall”</a>). But the Conservatives’ travails are long in the making and are structural. </p>
<p>Without a clear plan – and upturn in fortunes – on the cost of living and healthcare, it is possible that this is another chapter in the Conservatives’ Westminster drama that fails to resonate with the public. Instead, Sunak’s concern will be less with the public and more with his own party – those on the backbenches and in Conservative meeting rooms across the country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217624/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Devine receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p>Rishi Sunak’s former home secretary thinks she is speaking for the silent majority but most people disagree with her on key points – or have other things to worry about.Daniel Devine, Lecturer in Politics, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2176012023-11-13T16:08:56Z2023-11-13T16:08:56ZDavid Cameron returns: how can a prime minister make someone who isn’t an MP foreign secretary? And what happens now?<p>In a surprise move, Rishi Sunak, the UK’s prime minister, has appointed <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/former-uk-pm-cameron-returns-government-foreign-secretary-2023-11-13/">former prime minister David Cameron as foreign secretary</a>. Cameron, who resigned immediately after losing the 2016 Brexit referendum, has been almost entirely absent from the political scene ever since. </p>
<p>It’s rare these days for a prime minister to appoint someone who is not a sitting member of the House of Commons as a cabinet level minister in their government but Sunak certainly can do it. The prime minister has what we call the power of patronage. </p>
<p>What we mean by this is that there are a number of public roles for which the prime minister gets to decide who gets the job. Those powers of patronage include appointing members of the cabinet as well as other junior ministers to serve in government.</p>
<p>It is only a constitutional convention, rather than a rule, that government ministers be a member of either house of parliament. However, it is a convention that has been strongly abided by. </p>
<p>This convention revolves around the constitutional principle of responsible government where the executive is accountable to parliament. That’s why Cameron has been granted a life peerage to sit in the House of Lords, the upper house of parliament. </p>
<p>Making Lord Cameron the new foreign secretary is, from a historical and constitutional position, not unusual or forbidden. Under the government of Gordon Brown, both Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis served in the cabinet, for example. </p>
<h2>How quickly does this all happen?</h2>
<p>While there are often set times when prime ministers appoint peers to the House of Lords, such as resignation honours, they can appoint anyone at any time. That means Cameron is now already a peer. </p>
<p>He will sit on the Conservative benches in the House of Lords for life – regardless of how long he spends in the role as foreign secretary. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1724004188403737058"}"></div></p>
<p>This conferring of a peerage does mean he will need to be formally introduced into the House of Lords but this doesn’t take long to arrange. There is nothing to prevent Cameron from taking up the role of foreign secretary immediately, which explains why he has already been photographed at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. </p>
<h2>Is it OK to appoint a minister in this way?</h2>
<p>There isn’t a problem with Cameron’s appointment from the perspective of the constitution. It is all above board. </p>
<p>However some people will (legitimately) question whether the British government should be continuing to appoint peers to cabinet level jobs in the 21st century, given that debates around its democratic legitimacy, as an appointed rather than elected chamber, have been <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2019-0151/">going on for decades already</a>. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that Cameron had a preference for appointing his cabinet ministers from the House of Commons when he was in charge.</p>
<p>And while the government is accountable to parliament as a whole, generally speaking we are talking about being accountable to the House of Commons, which is the elected house. MPs are likely to be annoyed that a senior member of the cabinet is not a member of their house. </p>
<p>Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons, has already expressed concern about how the foreign secretary will be held to account by the House of Commons. While there are <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/scrutiny/">mechanisms available</a> to hold the new foreign secretary to account, MPs are likely to need pacifying. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nzFI5mWJwus?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Cameron’s arrival shocks Sky News.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a member of the House of Lords, Cameron will not be able to take part in the monthly Foreign Office questions in the House of Commons. He will not be able to answer urgent questions in the House of Commons or take part in their debates either. </p>
<p>Nor will he be able to deliver major foreign policy statements in the House of Commons. Junior ministers in the department will have to face MPs instead. </p>
<p>He can answer questions and take part in debates in the House of Lords and will be held to account by his fellow peers but it is a different political arena to the House of Commons. </p>
<p>There is precedence for cabinet level ministers in the House of Lords to appear there regularly. In 2009, House of Lords procedures were changed to allow cabinet ministers to answer questions on their departmental brief once a month for 20 minutes, and I am sure Lord Cameron will deliver statements on foreign affairs. </p>
<p>But, again, MPs cannot take part in this scrutiny. This is likely to annoy many, given the major foreign policy issues the country is facing at the moment.</p>
<h2>When was the last time a great office of state was held by a peer?</h2>
<p>While the appointment of cabinet ministers from the House of Lords is not unusual in post-war history, it has been some time since such a senior member of the government (a holder of one of the great offices of state) has come from the House of Lords. </p>
<p>The last member of the House of Lords to serve in one of the great offices of state was Lord Carrington, who was Margaret Thatcher’s foreign secretary between 1979 and 1982. </p>
<p>It also isn’t unheard of for former prime ministers to return to cabinet. Alex Douglas Home, who was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/20/liz-truss-joins-ranks-of-shortest-serving-world-leaders">until recently</a> the shortest serving prime minister in post-war history, was appointed as foreign secretary by prime minister Ted Heath, serving from 1970 to 1974.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217601/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Caygill received funding in the past from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p>Cameron heads straight into the House of Lords so that he can join Rishi Sunak’s top team following the reshuffle triggered by the downfall of Suella Braverman.Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2171592023-11-07T09:19:14Z2023-11-07T09:19:14ZKing’s speech: what is it and why does it matter?<p>Today, King Charles will give his first speech from the throne as monarch. He delivered the queen’s speech once as Prince of Wales, deputising in May 2022 for his mother, who could not attend. This is the first speech by a king since 1951, though on that occasion King George VI was too ill to attend and the speech <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1951/nov/06/kings-speech">was read out by the Lord Chancellor</a>.</p>
<h2>Who writes the king’s speech and why does it matter?</h2>
<p>The king’s speech is the central part of the ceremony marking the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/state-opening/">state opening of parliament</a>. </p>
<p>At the start of each parliamentary session, the monarch goes – in a state coach and escorted by the household cavalry – to the House of Lords, accompanied by the crown as a symbol of his royal authority. There, he reads out a speech outlining the government’s plans and priorities for the year ahead. </p>
<p>Although it is known as the king’s speech, it is actually written by the government, for the monarch. In 1964, an irreverent Private Eye <a href="https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/queen-covers.pdf">cover</a> had Queen Elizabeth II reading the speech while saying: “I hope you realise I didn’t write this crap.”</p>
<p>The speech and the ceremony are a reminder of the constitutional relationship of crown and government. Although political power rests with the prime minister and cabinet, there is nevertheless a layer of authority above them.</p>
<h2>What happens at the speech?</h2>
<p>The tradition of a king’s speech has its origins in the medieval parliament, but the speech from the throne as we know it today <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9501/">first evolved in the late 17th century</a>, when parliament finally established its power over the monarch. </p>
<p>Much of the modern ritual is a Victorian concoction. The monarch sits on the royal throne in the House of Lords – the upper house. Members of parliament are imperiously summoned by a royal official known as the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/black-rod/">gentleman usher of the black rod</a> (though the office is currently held by a woman, and so: the lady Usher of the black rod). No seats are provided for MPs, so they have to crowd into an inadequate space at the back. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the door of the Commons is slammed in black rod’s face as a reminder of the independence of the Commons. And that, ever since 1642, when Charles I <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/the-breakdown/">entered the chamber</a> with armed men in a foiled attempt to arrest five MPs, the House of Commons is the one place in the realm where the monarch is not allowed to step. </p>
<p>MPs amble informally down to the upper house to show they are going because they choose to, not because they are summoned, and the speech they are to hear is the work of the government, not the king. It’s political theatre.</p>
<h2>What if the monarch disagrees with the speech?</h2>
<p>Whatever his private feelings, the monarch must not show any overt preference for any political party, so the speech is always read in as neutral a tone as possible. Sometimes the speech might include current acronyms or technical terms which sit strangely with the glittering jewellery and gold on display, but the monarch must read it all, giving nothing away either by tone of voice or facial expression. </p>
<p>The monarch has the right to advise, warn and encourage the prime minister on policy. In return he must always follow the prime minister’s advice and he must read the prime minister’s speech. </p>
<p>This means that a monarch might solemnly read out a speech written by one party, and, a year later, if there has been a change of government, equally solemnly read out a speech outlining a completely different programme and written by their opponents.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QZlbVvTC6Jw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>What can we expect from this year’s king’s speech?</h2>
<p>The grand ceremonial of the state opening has sometimes been scaled down, in wartime or if the economic situation suggests tactful restraint. This is something the king himself has to gauge, with advice from the government. </p>
<p>The speech is the first indication of the government’s legislative priorities for the year ahead. We can certainly expect reference to housing and the cost of living crisis, and possibly to the ongoing crises in Gaza and Ukraine. Reports <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67300230">have indicated</a> that the speech will also include bills related to the prime minister’s pro-motorist plans, a gradual smoking ban and leasehold reform.</p>
<p>After the speech, the monarch makes an equally ceremonial departure and MPs shuffle off back to the Commons where they begin a debate, which normally lasts a week. This is called a humble address to the monarch, thanking him for his gracious speech, but in reality offering MPs a chance to support or attack the government for its now-public list of intentions. And so normal politics resumes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217159/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sean Lang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The monarch has to read the speech whether he agrees with it or not.Sean Lang, Senior Lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2139282023-09-28T19:53:34Z2023-09-28T19:53:34ZShutdowns are a uniquely American drama − in the UK, it’s just not Parliament’s cup of tea<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550968/original/file-20230928-15-ii5oha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C134%2C5605%2C3596&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The obligatory showing of the red briefcase containing budget details is as exciting as it gets in the U.K.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rishi-sunak-british-politician-delivers-the-budget-march-news-photo/1371415688?adppopup=true">Rob Welham/Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it comes to shutdowns, the U.S. is very much an exception rather than the rule.</p>
<p>Save for a last-minute spending deal in Congress on Oct. 1, 2023, hundreds of thousands of <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-shutdowns-hurt-federal-worker-morale-long-after-paychecks-resume-especially-for-those-considered-nonessential-214431">federal employees will be furloughed</a> and the business of government will grind to a halt. <a href="https://www.crfb.org/papers/government-shutdowns-qa-everything-you-should-know#whatisashutdown">By some accounts</a>, it would be the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/09/24/federal-government-shutdown-history-list">22nd time since 1976</a> that the U.S. has had to deal with this political paralysis. </p>
<p>But it doesn’t have to be like this – and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/22/why-other-countries-dont-have-government-shutdowns-2/">in most countries it isn’t</a>. Other Western democracies experience polarization and political turmoil, too, yet do not experience this problem. Take for example the U.K., traditionally one of Washington’s closest allies and home to the “<a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/big-ben/much-more-than-a-clock/a-beacon-of-democracy/">mother of parliaments</a>.”</p>
<p>In the British system, government shutdowns just don’t happen – in fact, there has never been one and likely never will be.</p>
<p>So why do they occur in Washington but not London? Essentially, it comes down to four factors: the relative power of the legislature; how easy it is to pass a budget; the political stakes at play; and distinctive appropriation rules.</p>
<h2>1. Legislative power</h2>
<p>There are significant differences in how the legislatures of the U.K. and U.S. shape the budgetary process. </p>
<p>In the U.K., only the executive branch – the party or coalition in power – has the <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/government-spending-how-does-parliament-approve-it">authority to propose spending plans</a>. Parliament, which consists of members from all political parties, maintains an oversight and approval role, but it has very limited power over the budgetary timeline or <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/government-spending-how-does-parliament-approve-it">to amend spending plans</a>. This is a stark contrast with the U.S., where Congress – which may be split or controlled by a party different to the executive – plays a far more consequential role. </p>
<p>The U.S. president starts the budget process by laying out the administration’s funding priorities. Yet, the Constitution grants Congress the <a href="https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Power-of-the-Purse/">power of the purse</a> – that is, the power to tax and spend. </p>
<p>Moreover, past legislation has bolstered congressional control. The 1974 Congressional Budget Act helped <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/reflections-congressional-budget-act/">curtail presidential involvement in the budgeting process</a>, giving Congress more authority over the timeline. That gave Congress more power but also offered it more opportunities to <a href="https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/richard-nixon-congressional-budget-control-act-history-000282/">bicker and derail the budgetary process</a>.</p>
<h2>2. Thresholds to pass a budget</h2>
<p>Congress and the U.K. Parliament also differ when it comes to their voting rules. Passing the U.S. budget is inherently more complicated, as it requires the support of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>In Parliament, however, the two houses – the elected House of Commons and unelected House of Lords – are not equally involved. The two Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/parliament-acts">limited the power of the House of Lords</a>, preventing it from amending or blocking laws relating to budgeting.</p>
<p>Additionally, approving the budget in Westminster requires only an absolute majority of votes in the House of Commons. That tends to be quite a straightforward hurdle to overcome in the U.K. The party in power will typically also command a majority of votes in the chamber or be able to muster one up with the support of smaller parties. It is not, however, so easy in Congress. While a simple majority suffices in the House of Representatives, the Senate still has a 60-vote requirement to close debates before proceeding with a majority vote to pass a bill. </p>
<h2>3. Political stakes</h2>
<p>U.S. and U.K. politicians do not face the same high stakes over budget approval. Members of Congress may eventually pay a political price for how they vote on the budget, but there is no immediate threat to their jobs. That is not so in the U.K. </p>
<p>Indeed, the party or coalition in power in the U.K. must <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/confidence-motions-and-parliament">maintain the “confidence” of the House of Commons</a> to stay in office. In other words, they need to command the support of the majority for key votes. U.K. governments can actually fall – be forced to resign or call for new elections – if they lose formal votes of confidence. Since confidence is also <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/confidence-motions-and-parliament">implied in other major votes</a>, such as over the annual budget proposals, this raises the stakes for members of Parliament. They have tended to think twice before voting against a budget, for fear of triggering a dissolution of Parliament and new elections.</p>
<h2>4. Distinctive appropriation rules</h2>
<p>Finally, rules about appropriation also set the U.S. apart. For many decades, federal agencies could still operate <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/politics/longest-government-shutdown.html">despite funding bills not being passed</a>. That, however, changed with a ruling by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti in 1980. He determined that it would be illegal for governments to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/politics/longest-government-shutdown.html">spend money without congressional approval</a>. </p>
<p>That decision has had the effect of making shutdowns more severe. But it is not a problem that the U.K. experiences because of its distinct rules on appropriation. So-called “<a href="https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/Tnyf75h2/votes-on-account">votes on account</a>” allow the U.K. government “to obtain an advance on the money they need for the next financial year.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213928/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Garret Martin receives funding from the European Union for the institute he co-directs, namely the Transatlantic Policy Center.</span></em></p>With the US government seemingly heading toward a potentially painful federal shutdown, a scholar explains why such events never occur in the UK.Garret Martin, Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center, American University School of International ServiceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2124932023-08-30T15:07:30Z2023-08-30T15:07:30ZIs Rishi Sunak a lame duck? With MPs divided and rebelling, a sense of decline hangs heavy in the air<p>The notion of a lame duck leader is most commonly associated with the United States. The term refers to a president who will soon be succeeded in office – a situation that most commonly applies at the end of a second (<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/">and final</a>) term, before the president has left office but after their successor as been chosen by the electorate. </p>
<p>Since US presidential elections are held in November but the new leader doesn’t assume office until the following January, there is a period in which the president can struggle to pass legislation. This might be due to resistance from a congress running down the clock or because salience is shifting from their programme to that of their successor.</p>
<p>The UK system is different, but Rishi Sunak also appears to be struggling to get much done. The parliamentary timetable finished unusually early on a number of days in late <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-06-29">June</a> and early <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-07-05/debates/22070575000002/NorthernIrelandAct1998NorthernIrelandAssemblyAndExecutive">July</a>. The government, in the words of one opposition MP, <a href="https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1676265788007653377">“doesn’t really have a programme</a>”.</p>
<p>And with an election guaranteed to take place by the end of January 2025, the sense that the clock is running down on a government that has reached the end of its term is hard to avoid. So might Sunak also be called a lame duck? </p>
<h2>Lame duck in Westminster</h2>
<p>There are a number of factors that make it difficult for Sunak to enact a wide-ranging legislative agenda. The Conservative parliamentary party is highly pluralistic, which makes it difficult to design and pass legislation at the best of times. </p>
<p>The differences in perspective and philosophies within the party have been laid bare by recent turmoil, including the lack of consensus over who should lead after the downfall of Boris Johnson and the chaos of Liz Truss’s brief tenure at the helm. </p>
<p>The last election in 2019 was fought and won almost exclusively on the issue of Brexit, but that issue <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country">no longer dominates the political agenda</a>. The party is now bogged down in its differences over <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/sunak-tories-climate-change-net-zero-b2392717.html">climate change</a> and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rishi-sunak-facing-major-tory-rebellion-over-online-safety-bill_uk_63c1075ce4b0fe267cb8b548">online regulations</a>. </p>
<p>The public can see that there is an urgent need for houses to be built, yet MPs appear to be against that happening <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/05/sunak-backs-down-on-housebuilding-targets-after-pressure-from-tory-mps">in their own constituencies</a>, causing even more disagreement about the path forward. </p>
<p>A strong leader might be able to paper over the cracks and push ahead but Sunak has made <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-times-conceded-tory-rebels-small-boats-2285657#:%7E:text=Within%2520weeks%2520of%2520becoming%2520prime,to%2520stop%2520small%2520boat%2520crossings.">concession after concession</a> to his rebelling backbench MPs, particularly on the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-oil-gas-licenses-north-sea/">right of the party</a>.</p>
<p>While the reasons for the divisions are debatable, the government’s lack of progress, even by its own standards, is somewhat clearer cut. Sunak outlined five priorities at the start of the year – including “stopping the boats” and reducing NHS waiting times – and there is <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-five-pledges-nhs-inflation-immigration-b1050833.html">little room for optimism that these will be met</a>. </p>
<p>Voices both <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/16/michael-gove-highlights-civility-over-culture-wars-in-speech-to-natcon">within</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/us-pollster-frank-luntz-urges-tories-to-ditch-culture-wars">outside</a> the party have lamented the shift towards fighting “culture wars” rather than producing policy. The idea seems to be to ride an “us” against “them” narrative into the next election campaign. </p>
<p>But there is little to suggest such tactics are <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-05/culture-wars-in-the-UK-how-the-public-understand-the-debate.pdf">cutting through with the public</a>. The use of such a distraction tactic adds to the evidence that the Conservative party currently lacks a holistic programme for government.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Sunak’s personal polling reached <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-approval-ratings-fall-to-lowest-level-since-becoming-prime-minister-12922962#:%7E:text=A%2520survey%2520from%2520YouGov%2520showed,25%2525%2520with%2520a%2520favourable%2520one.">-40%</a> this summer while the Conservatives trail Labour by some <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/985764/voting-intention-in-the-uk/">20 percentage points</a> in the latest voting intention polls. As the election approaches, polling of this kind could drive attention towards Labour and its proposals for government.</p>
<h2>There’s still time</h2>
<p>All this said, a legislative block does not have to be quite so terminal for a struggling leader in the UK as it might be in the US. </p>
<p>Sunak still has a working majority <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/parties/commons">of 62 seats</a> in parliament so better party management would go a long way to helping his overall position. And unlike a US president who has served two full terms, Sunak can (and clearly intends to) fight the next election. He very much still has skin in the game and an incentive to perform better than he has so far. </p>
<p>Nor is the opposition currently offering anything radically different. Attention has not (yet) shifted from Sunak to Keir Starmer and the latter is giving Sunak plenty of room to shape policy through his willingness to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jul/06/keir-starmer-free-school-meals-labour-leader-teachers-pay-rise">“wait and see”</a> on key policies, while coming under fire for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/04/u-turns-labour-keir-starmer-tuition-fees-income-tax">diluting or abandoning previous pledges</a> he made to secure the Labour leadership.</p>
<p>And while the merits of the culture war tactic are questionable, it is evidence that the government has no intention of going down without a fight. Sunak has gambled on promoting controversial figures such as the Conservative party’s deputy chairman <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/who-is-lee-anderson-profile-mp-b2390068.html">Lee Anderson</a> to help orchestrate that election campaign, demonstrating a collective desire to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-minister-the-world-has-moved-on-boris-johnson-2023-06-11/">“move on</a>” from his predecessors and put distance between his and previous Conservative governments. </p>
<p>Even so, without a clear programme, and measurable success, Sunak may be engulfed by wider circumstances which further limit his policy options. For example, a deteriorating economic situation might suggest that there exists no prospect of large-scale tax cuts or spending giveaways prior to the election. </p>
<p>Even if the public were to forgive him for failing to meet his five pledges, a lack of progress on them in the very near future could leave him without any room for manoeuvre when the official election campaign kicks into gear.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212493/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Kirkland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With his own MPs blocking his every policy, Sunak doesn’t appear able to get much done.Christopher Kirkland, Lecturer in Politics, York St John UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2085262023-07-04T15:11:43Z2023-07-04T15:11:43ZHow do people get appointed to the House of Lords and can it ever change? The process explained<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534878/original/file-20230629-17-4unfex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=45%2C45%2C6088%2C4037&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lord Pickles eyes up the opposition in the House of Lords. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/uk_parliament/48704409323/in/album-72157710766556337/">UK Parliament/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK’s <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/work-of-the-house-of-lords/what-the-lords-does/">House of Lords</a> has existed in one form or another since the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/House-of-Lords">11th century</a>, making it one of the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/">oldest</a> political institutions in the world.</p>
<p>However the Lords is an <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/lords-reform/">unelected house</a>, which raises questions about what place it can have in a modern democracy. These have flared up with new vigour in the wake of former prime minister Boris Johnson’s <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-honours-list-full-b2355141.html">resignation honours list</a>, which contained <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1165570/Resignation_Peerages_2023.pdf">multiple surprises</a>. Among them a peerage for his former special adviser, <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/who-is-charlotte-owen-youngest-life-peer-boris-johnson-honours-list-b1087197.html">aged just 29</a>; and for two <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/20/shaun-bailey-under-pressure-to-decline-peerage-after-partygate-video">politicians</a> currently <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-66008403">facing allegations of wrongdoing</a>. </p>
<p>And beyond the content of the list, there is the question of whether Johnson, who was ousted from office following a string of scandals, should have been allowed to appoint anyone at all. The same could be said of his successor <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1784714/liz-truss-resignation-honours-list-poll-result-spt">Liz Truss</a>. </p>
<p>With close to <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/parties/lords">800 members</a>, the House of Lords is <a href="https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-largest-legislatures-in-the-world.html#:%7E:text=China%E2%80%99s%20legislature%20is%20both%20the%20world%E2%80%99s%20largest%20parliament,house%20of%20any%20bicameral%20legislature%20in%20the%20world.">the second largest legislature in the world</a> (behind only the Chinese National People’s Congress). It’s actually smaller than it used to be before the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/contents">government of Tony Blair</a> reduced the number of hereditary peers, who inherit seats as a supposed birth right. Labour’s reform was aimed at refocusing on <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/life-peers/">life peers</a> – members of the House of Lords who are appointed based on merit so that they can contribute their specialist knowledge to debates, for the betterment of the laws passed. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xgMRiA9dZQs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Currently, peers can claim a <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/house-of-lords-expenses/#:%7E:text=Members%20of%20the%20Lords%20who,day%20they%20attend%20the%20House">£342 tax-free</a> allowance for each day they attend, plus eligible travel costs. While more recent data is skewed by the pandemic, in 2019/2020, <a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/elected-house-of-lords/#:%7E:text=Peers%20are%20able%20to%20claim%20%C2%A3323%20a%20day,elected%20second%20chamber%20would%20be%20better%20for%20tax-payers.">£17.7 million was spent on Lords allowances and expenses</a>, with peers claiming an average £30,687 in that roughly 12-month period.</p>
<p>The absence of elections to the Lords, combined with its size and cost, makes the public perception of how people are appointed even more important. </p>
<h2>Routes to the Lords</h2>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-appointment/">several ways</a> to become a member of the House of Lords.</p>
<p>Prime ministers leaving office can recommend peerages in their resignation honours list for people who have supported them. Peerages can be awarded to MPs who are leaving the House of Commons at the end of a parliament, in what is called the dissolution honours. Speakers of the House of Commons are traditionally given a peerage, too – although <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination">John Bercow was the exception</a>.</p>
<p>Between these regular events, peers can be appointed via “political lists” or as “working peers” to boost the strength of the three main parties – all of which are constantly seeking to ensure that none has an overwhelming majority in the Lords. Governments can also make ad-hoc appointments to give someone a peerage so that they can become a government minister. </p>
<p>Historically, the most controversial of these routes have been the political and resignation honours lists – primarily because of perceptions of cronyism. This has not been helped by successive prime ministers adding more and more names to their resignation lists. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534700/original/file-20230628-26-ffhvfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Chart of the number of life peerages in resignation honours lists (since 1895)</em></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">by Stephen Clear</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The appointments commission</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1917-10-31/debates/704f0dbb-de61-4c53-bab7-9014b4a47711/HonoursAndPartyFunds">1917</a>, a resolution was passed in parliament stating that prime ministers should give their reasons for recommending someone for a peerage and be sure to have “sufficiently satisfied himself” that it is not connected to the promise of party funding. </p>
<p>The practice of rewarding those who contribute party funding dates back to at least the 15th century. Unfortunately, it <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/vetting-appointments-to-the-house-of-lords/">still happens today</a>. </p>
<p>What has changed are attempts to make the process appear transparent. Since 2000, the independent <a href="https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/">House of Lords Appointment Commission</a> has advised on the process, insofar as it recommends people for appointment as non-party-political (cross-bench) life peers. These positions are for people with life or professional experience that can add expertise to the House or who are chosen to help ensure the chamber reflects the diversity of the wider public. </p>
<p>The commission also has a role to play in vetting other nominations for propriety, including political appointments with a view to minimising potential reputational risks for the house. The commission is not involved in the <a href="https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-12-HOLAC-Statement.pdf">appointment process after providing that advice</a> to the prime minster.</p>
<p>Johnson took the unprecedented step of ignoring the commission’s advice in 2022 when he appointed <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/22/pm-rejects-official-advice-in-awarding-peter-cruddas-peerage">Peter Cruddas</a>, a businessman, philanthropist and Tory donor to the Lords. Other controversial nominations by Johnson have included the Evening Standard owner and son of a former KGB agent, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/21/evygeny-lebedev-goes-full-year-without-contributing-to-house-of-lords">Evegeny Lebedev</a>.</p>
<p>However, while the commission must vet the nomination, the final decisions are taken by the prime minister of the day. It appears that Rishi Sunak <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/09/nadine-dorries-no-peerage-boris-johnson-resignation-honours/"><em>may</em></a> have decided that Johnson could not go ahead with several of his resignation honours, including <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2023-06-11/who-blocked-dorries-sharma-and-adams-peerages">Nadine Dorries</a>, who was still sitting as an MP when Johnson is said to have proposed her peerage. </p>
<p>Although the commission does not publicly comment on individual cases, or the advice it gives, it has written to all party leaders to say that recent nominations have put its members in an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/17/lords-vetting-body-urged-to-reject-peerage-for-matthew-elliott-brexit-campaign">“increasingly uncomfortable position”</a>.</p>
<h2>Change in the air</h2>
<p>Given recent events, the time is right to ask whether the appointments process is fit for purpose. Currently, the commission is acting on an advisory, non-statutory basis. This means that its role can be altered without seeking permission from parliament. As recent events have shown, its advice can also be ignored, which has created a troublesome new precedent. </p>
<p>There are some potential solutions. Lord Norton, for example, has tabled a <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3028/stages">peerage nominations bill</a>, which would establish a statutory commission. It is proposed this could have regard for the size of the chamber when making recommendations to the prime minister. The bill also establishes new criteria that someone should meet before receiving a nomination. </p>
<p>This would include “conspicuous merit” and a willingness and capacity to contribute to the chamber’s work. This could be one way of addressing the reputational damage caused by recent events, as well as achieve greater certainty surrounding appointment processes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208526/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Clear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Boris Johnson’s controversial resignation honours list has prompted fresh debates around reforming the UK’s unelected upper house.Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2077512023-06-16T13:02:38Z2023-06-16T13:02:38ZBoris Johnson Q&A: why report into misleading parliament still matters, even after he resigned as an MP<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/531980/original/file-20230614-12059-hrszgy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C18%2C1771%2C1180&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A photo of Johnson and staff submitted as evidence to the committee. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34521/documents/190032/default/">House of Commons Committee of Privileges</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The House of Commons Committee of Privileges has released a damning report on former prime minister Boris Johnson, ruling that he deliberately misled parliament over the partygate affair and recommending that he be denied a pass giving him access to parliament as a former member. The committee concluded that were he still an MP, he should be suspended for 90 days. But since Johnson resigned upon seeing a draft of the report, he will not serve the suspension. The report is nevertheless still highly significant. Here’s why.</em></p>
<h2>What is the privileges committee?</h2>
<p><a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges">The House of Commons Committee of Privileges</a> is composed of MPs from the three largest parties in parliament. Its role is to uphold ethical conduct in the House of Commons alongside the Committee on Standards.</p>
<h2>What was Johnson accused of and why does it matter now he is no longer prime minister?</h2>
<p>The principle accusation against Johnson is that he misled the House of Commons in relation to gatherings held in Downing Street while pandemic lockdowns were in place. Over the course of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/partygate-115248">partygate scandal</a>, Johnson made numerous statements to the House of Commons about what he did or didn’t know and what he did and didn’t do. The narrative of his account shifted over time as new evidence came to light, creating a complex situation in which the house was certainly given incorrect information at various times.</p>
<p>The question of whether the house was misled, however, rested on whether any of this incorrect information was given either “knowingly”, “recklessly” or “without proper and timely correction when the facts became known”. Importantly, from the outset of its investigations the committee adopted an <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/news/172818/privileges-committee-inquiry-into-rt-hon-boris-johnson-mp-frequently-asked-questions/">expansive definition</a> which did not require direct proof of Johnson having lied.</p>
<p>It has concluded in no uncertain terms that he wilfully misled the house and indeed the committee itself during the course of its investigations, accusing him of being “deliberately disingenuous” in order to mislead the committee. Johnson, the committee said, cannot credibly claim that he did not know lockdown rules were being broken in Downing Street during the pandemic and that he “had personal knowledge about gatherings”. </p>
<p>It also dismisses his defences before the committee that he reasonably believed no rules were being broken as “no more than an artifice” designed to justify his actions in retrospect.</p>
<h2>Why is misleading parliament such a serious matter?</h2>
<p>Misleading the house is treated exceptionally seriously because of the centrality of ministerial accountability to parliament within the <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-uk-constitution">uncodified British constitution</a>. </p>
<p>The House of Commons standards process for ministerial accountability operates under a form of law called parliamentary privilege (from which the committee takes its name). Privilege is the mechanism which shields debate in parliament from the restrictions on free speech that apply to ordinary citizens so that MPs can speak freely. It also guarantees parliament the right to determine its own processes and procedures free from interference from the judicial and executive branches of government. Privilege is therefore widely viewed as a cornerstone of the UK’s democratic system.</p>
<p>As such, however, parliament is not required to observe any particular legal norms which derive from common law or statute law in dealing with cases through the standards system. However parliamentary committees commonly strive to create such fair processes, for example when dealing with witnesses at select committees, and the maximum extent of parliament’s powers under privilege have not been used for more than a century.</p>
<p>Johnson and his legal team contended that this process breached his right to due process. This is a right enshrined in UK law under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents">Human Rights Act of 1998</a> – a law which, incidentally, <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-takeaways-from-the-uk-governments-proposal-to-replace-the-human-rights-act-173788">Johnson’s government attempted to abolish</a>. However, even the lawyer representing Johnson has conceded that this right is not applicable to parliament’s procedures. </p>
<p>The privileges committee also pointed to the strenuous efforts made to ensure a process which is in line with the principles of right to due process and a fair hearing. Ultimately, both sides concede that parliament is fully within its rights to sanction its own members.</p>
<h2>Would the report have forced Johnson out of the House of Commons?</h2>
<p>Johnson resigned before the committee even published its report, claiming he was being forced out. But the report could not have done this on its own. The committee proposed suspending Johnson from parliament for 90 days, which would have triggered the provisions of the 2015 <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/contents/enacted">Recall of MPs Act</a>. This would have given people in his parliamentary constituency the right to sign a petition to oust him.</p>
<h2>Is a 90-day suspension longer than average?</h2>
<p>The 90-day suspension Johnson was to serve is much longer than the most often commonly imposed sanction over the years, which has been a five-day suspension – not long enough to trigger a recall. As the committee notes, the length is also unprecedented for a contempt of parliament charge. However it is still lower than the six-month suspension handed to Labour MP <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/31/keith-vaz-suspended-from-commons-for-six-months#:%7E:text=The%20Labour%20MP%20Keith%20Vaz,the%20findings%20of%20an%20inquiry.">Keith Vaz in 2019</a> after he admitted to buying drugs from sex workers. </p>
<p>The length of the sentence also reflects not only Johnson’s actions in relation to speaking about partygate in parliament but to his behaviour regarding the committee too. A lengthy sentence is due because of his “impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the house” and
his “being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee”.</p>
<p>As Johnson is no longer an MP, the committee has instead proposed that he be denied a parliamentary pass available to former members. This pass has been withdrawn from other disgraced former MPs, most recently former <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/chris-williamsons-parliamentary-pass-taken-away-by-mps-4YuFyMOSfG1Ele8onUxqLP">Labour MP Chris Williamson</a> over his links with Iranian state television.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Dickinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The privileges process is a vital part of the British constitution so what the committee investigating Johnson decides matters for future precedent, even if he is gone.Nicholas Dickinson, Bingham Fellow in Constitutional Studies, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2078392023-06-15T13:04:16Z2023-06-15T13:04:16ZBoris Johnson: freed from the constraints of office, the former prime minister could be even more dangerous<p>The House of Commons committee of privileges has published its <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/">long awaited report on the conduct of Boris Johnson</a> and the conclusions are damming. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If Mr Johnson were still a Member he should be suspended from the
service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:</p>
<p>a) Deliberately misleading the House</p>
<p>b) Deliberately misleading the Committee</p>
<p>c) Breaching confidence</p>
<p>d) Impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House</p>
<p>e) Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a thunderous report. It is written with the legal precision of a barrister’s pen and yet conveys the committee’s deep disgust at the behaviour of the former prime minister. </p>
<p>The committee’s total ire is revealed in a final recommendation that Johnson should not be entitled to a former member’s pass to enter the parliamentary estate. In the world of Whitehall and Westminster this really is expulsion from the club.</p>
<p>At the core of the committee’s conclusions is a psychological claim about Johnson’s worldview:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>His repeated and continuing denials of the facts, for example his refusal
to accept that there were insufficient efforts to enforce social distancing at gatherings … The frequency with which he closed his mind to those facts and to what was obvious so that eventually the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he was deliberately closing his mind.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Multiple biographies corroborate this account of his character. Tom Bowers’ <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Boris-Johnson-The-Gambler/dp/B08K9C99ZB/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2CWP0MAWISVH7&keywords=boris+johnson+book&qid=1686819103&sprefix=Boris+Johnsdon%2Caps%2C78&sr=8-3">The Gambler</a>, Andrew Gimson’s <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Boris-Johnson-Portrait-Troublemaker-Number-ebook/dp/B09PFFK68R/ref=sr_1_7?crid=2CWP0MAWISVH7&keywords=boris+johnson+book&qid=1686818875&sprefix=Boris+Johnsdon%2Caps%2C78&sr=8-7">The Rise and Fall of a Troublemaker</a>, and Sonia Purnell’s <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Boris-Ambition-Biography-Johnson/dp/1845137167/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3W515WLSDWT1A&keywords=boris+johnson+sonia+purnell&qid=1686819153&s=audible&sprefix=boris+johnson+sonia+purnell%2Caudible%2C74&sr=1-1-catcorr">A Tale of Blond Ambition</a> all tell the tale of a young man who was encouraged and allowed to think that the normal rules of life did not apply to him. </p>
<p>His name is not even Boris, it’s Alex. “Boris” – and all the banter and buffooonery that goes along with it – emerged as an alter-ego character as he progressed through Eton and Oxford and wanted to stand out from the crowd. </p>
<h2>Not shy, not retiring</h2>
<p>As everyone jumps on the grave of Johnson’s political career and rejoices in what many appear to think is his final downfall it’s worth noting that Johnson has left parliament before and come back later as a rejuvenated figure. His first spell as an MP between 2001-2008 was not a success. </p>
<p>He was viewed by his party as too flippant, a chancer, an upstart celebrity politician who was not to be trusted. As his contemporaries like David Cameron and George Osborne were promoted Johnson’s parliamentary career flatlined to the extent that becoming the mayor of London offered a promising platform. </p>
<p>Johnson’s political career is not over. Rarely have four little words meant so much: “It is very sad to be leaving parliament – <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65863336">at least for now</a>”. The destructive denials, rejections and deep sense of martydom with which the former prime minister has attempted to frame the privileges committee’s inquiry speaks to the existence of a powerful and highly populist post-parliamentary strategy. </p>
<p>That is a strategy which continues to promote “repeated and continuing denials” with regard to any facts that simply don’t fit into a populist narrative about the existence of an elite – “the establishment”, <a href="https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1668544373410209792">“the blob”</a>, <a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/boris-johnsons-speech-in-full-pm-quits-and-blames-herd-instinct/">“the herd”</a> or “them”, who are out to get “us” (the good, honest but downtrodden folk of the world). </p>
<p>The mind is closed to arguments that seek to moderate such a simple black-and-white world view, and Johnson presents himself as the victim of oppression. He is the ousted leader of a pro-Brexit sentiment. Before you know it Johnson is back in the game as the self-selected leader of “us” against “them”.</p>
<h2>Tried and tested strategy</h2>
<p>What the committee’s report may well set in train is a new and potentially dangerous post-parliamentary phase in Johnson’s career where a man who declared as a young child that he wanted to be <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49088773">“world king”</a> is now released from the constraints of conventional political office. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://consoc.org.uk/publications/good-chaps-no-more-safeguarding-the-constitution-in-stressful-times-by-andrew-blick-and-peter-hennessy/">“good chaps theory of government”</a> was never very good at controlling a politician who simply rejected the rules and denied the facts. </p>
<p>The risk, however, is that the furore surrounding the committee’s findings simply pours oil on the populist fire that Johnson wants to inflame. With a bruised ego and a need for attention, combined with undoubted charisma and growing celebrity status, Johnson is almost perfectly positioned to flame and funnel anti-political sentiment in order to boost and bolster his own political position and at some point create an opportunity to return to frontline politics. </p>
<p>Compared to the US, populism has arguably never really taken off in the UK. Johnson won the 2019 election for the Tories on a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/pa/article/73/Supplement_1/225/5910271">“populism-lite” strategy</a> and a form of wedge politics that framed a “pro-Remain” elite as thwarting the wishes of a “pro-Leave” public. </p>
<p>It was the populist predilection to play fast and free with the facts that worried so many of Johnson’s parliamentary colleagues and eventually led to his ousting from No. 10. The same predilection underlines the privileges committee’s scathing report. </p>
<p>The success of this strategy points to a more populism-heavy approach in the future, not a quiet retirement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207839/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Flinders does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The House of Commons committee of privileges has called for the former prime minister to be barred from having a former member’s pass, and with good reason.Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2075322023-06-13T11:58:50Z2023-06-13T11:58:50ZBoris Johnson has triggered a bumper byelection bonanza – I studied 148 past contests to find out what we can expect<p>The UK is facing three byelections in constituencies all vacated within 24 hours of one another. Former prime minister <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnsons-claims-about-being-forced-out-of-parliament-are-simply-false-heres-why-207490">Boris Johnson announced</a> he was leaving parliament with immediate effect on June 9, leaving his Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituents in need of a new MP. His vocal supporter Nadine Dorries had resigned as an MP just hours before in what appears to be a linked case, triggering a byelection in Mid Bedfordshire. And the day after Johnson’s departure, another MP quit. This time, it was former Cabinet Office minister Nigel Adams. A byelection will go ahead in his Selby and Ainsty constituency in North Yorkshire.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1667512301698596864"}"></div></p>
<p>So what can we expect in these three byelections to be held in the weeks ahead (and perhaps even in a fourth if the people of <a href="https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/in-your-area/lanarkshire/details-rutherglen-hamilton-west-recall-30194598">Rutherglen and Hamilton West</a> decide to recall Scottish National Party MP Margaret Ferrier over her lockdown rule-breaking)?</p>
<p>First, pay attention to who is popping up in these constituencies. If any one of prime minister Rishi Sunak, Labour leader Keir Starmer or Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey fail to make an appearance doorstepping, handing out leaflets or speaking to activists, that indicates their party has little hope.</p>
<p>Alternatively, if a seat is deluged by one particular party leader, accompanied by their senior party figures and the occasional celebrity supporter, they might have scented victory. </p>
<p>The parties have been quick off the mark – Davey has already been out leafleting in Mid Bedfordshire, Labour has already selected its <a href="https://www.londonworld.com/news/politics/labours-uxbridge-and-south-ruislip-candidate-to-replace-boris-johnson-danny-beales-4177641">candidate in Uxbridge and South Ruislip</a> and the Conservatives likewise in <a href="https://conservativehome.com/2023/06/10/naughton-selected-in-selby-in-a-very-unusual-contest/">Selby and Ainsty</a>. Emails asking for support for the byelection campaigns are already landing in member inboxes.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1667182498042740742"}"></div></p>
<p>Despite all of the attention byelections cause, we don’t know as much about them as we would like. I’ve <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2023.2169446">taken a look at 148 byelections since 1979</a> – here are some important things to watch out for:</p>
<p>On average, there have been eight byelections per parliament between 2010 and 2019 – however, excluding these latest events, the 2019 parliament has already seen 13. The figures are pretty comparable though to earlier parliaments – there were 18 between 1992 and 1997. </p>
<p>But there has been a big shift in another way. While byelections most often used to happen because the sitting MP had died, in contemporary British politics MPs are triggering byelections by resigning (the cause of nine of the 13 so far in this parliament). </p>
<p>Roughly two-thirds of seats where byelections were held between 1979 and 2022 were occupied by the same party before and after. It is also worth pointing out that if a seat changes hands at a byelection, it doesn’t mean it will stay with the new incumbent at the subsequent general election.</p>
<h2>Johnson’s return: an unlikely scenario</h2>
<p>It was once the case that byelections represented useful routes back into parliament for former MPs who may have voluntarily or involuntarily <a href="https://academic.oup.com/pa/article-abstract/27/1973dec/197/2272512?redirectedFrom=fulltext">stepped back from politics</a>. After Johnson’s resignation last week, in which he said he was stepping back from politics “for now”, it was mooted that he may seek to re-enter parliament in this way, even via Dorries’s seat.</p>
<p>However, patterns from contemporary byelections don’t appear to be particularly favourable if this is indeed the plan. Former Conservative minister Michael Portillo was the last former MP to successfully re-enter parliament via a byelection in 1999. Since then, only two former MPs have been selected to fight byelections, and neither of them have been successful. </p>
<p>In terms of former prime ministers using byelections to re-enter parliament, we have to go ever further back to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/arthur-james-balfour">Arthur James Balfour in 1906</a> and he didn’t appear to have <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-boris-johnson-quits-saying-privileges-committee-wants-to-drive-me-out-of-parliament-12593360">burned quite as many bridges</a> with the leadership as Johnson has. </p>
<p>Even were the latter obstacle to be overcome, parachuting Johnson into a seat with which he has little connection could be controversial in itself, since most Conservative byelection candidates have ties to the local area.</p>
<p>Instead of admitting former MPs into parliament, byelections instead appear to act more usefully as an arena in which inexperienced candidates can gain campaigning experience. Of recent prime ministers, Liz Truss, Tony Blair and Theresa May all fought and lost byelections before being successfully elected to parliament.</p>
<h2>Bad news for the incumbents</h2>
<p>Whatever else happens in Mid Bedfordshire, Uxbridge and South Ruislip and Selby and Ainsty, turnouts in the byelections will be below what the seats saw in 2019. The last time turnout increased at a byelection was way back in 1987. </p>
<p>In the upcoming byelections, the Conservatives are most likely to see their vote fall. Recent byelections have shown us that the Conservative byelection vote share is significantly affected by two dimensions: the level of the party’s previous support in the seat, and their position in national polls. With all three upcoming byelections happening in Conservative seats, although the party’s incumbency may insulate them a little, the <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/06/07/voting-intention-con-25-lab-44-30-31-may-2023">national opinion polling</a> makes it a potentially uncomfortable night for the Conservatives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207532/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alia Middleton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s very rare to see a former PM stand in a byelection – but less so to see a future PM give it a go.Alia Middleton, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074902023-06-12T11:06:27Z2023-06-12T11:06:27ZBoris Johnson’s claims about being ‘forced out’ of parliament are simply false – here’s why<p>In characteristically dramatic fashion, Boris Johnson let the world know he would be standing down as an MP by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65863336">publishing a letter</a> claiming he was the victim of a witch hunt and establishment stitch up. Ahead of the publication of a report looking at whether the former prime minister misled parliament over partygate, he went on the offensive against the committee that produced the document:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Their purpose from the beginning has been to find me guilty, regardless of the facts. This is the very definition of a kangaroo court. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Johnson’s anger is directed at the members of the House of Commons <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/">Committee of Privileges</a>. Its role is to <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9554/">“consider matters relating to privilege”</a>. When Johnson was accused of lying in parliament (either deliberately or inadvertently) over whether he participated in lockdown breaking events in Downing Street during the pandemic, and whether he knew about others breaking the rules, the House of Commons referred the accusation to this committee. Johnson repeatedly insisted that he did not know rules were being broken despite mounting evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Johnson could have decided to see off a plot against him as long ago as <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-04-21/debates/46C7B4B9-C7A1-403D-97A6-1C07BFFB9FD9/ReferralOfPrimeMinisterToCommitteeOfPrivileges">April 2022</a>, when the process began. But he didn’t mount a challenge. Perhaps he realised it would not work. The motion was agreed. The government did not whip its MPs to vote against it and the then paymaster <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/4116/career">general Michael Ellis</a>,told the house: “the Prime Minister has always been clear that he is happy to face whatever inquiries parliament sees fit to hold. He is happy for the House to decide how it wishes to proceed…”</p>
<h2>The committee’s process</h2>
<p>The privileges committee has <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/membership/">seven members, all MPs</a>. The government side has the majority. Labour MP Chris Bryant, who would normally have been the chairman of the privileges committee, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/chris-bryant-recuses-himself-from-pm-partygate-probe-2022-4?r=US&IR=T">recused himself</a> over perceptions of bias and his Labour colleague Harriet Harman was appointed to take over. Conservative Laura Farris, who had previously been critical of Johnson, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11093225/Tory-MP-Laura-Farris-quits-Partygate-inquiry-keeps-reason-secret-avoid-risk-prejudice.html">resigned from the committee</a> (although her reasons were not clear at the time). She was replaced by Charles Walker.</p>
<p>The committee started its work collecting evidence and held a high-profile hearing <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/event/17729/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/">with Boris Johnson himself</a> agreeing to three hours of questioning.</p>
<p>And yet when the committee sent its almost final report to Johnson, he immediately claimed the whole process had been a “political hit-job” motivated by a desire for “revenge” for Brexit. He said that the committee, or more particularly Harman, has shown “egregious bias”.</p>
<p>It is hard to see a committee with an in-built Tory majority being part of a hit-job. Johnson was able to take and use legal advice through the process and we know that there were <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6812/matter-referred-on-21-april-2022-conduct-of-rt-hon-boris-johnson-mp/news/173268/privileges-committee-comments-on-legal-opinion/">letters and challenges as part of that</a>. It is even harder to see committee member Bernard Jenkin, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group">an official campaigner for Vote Leave</a>, participating in an anti-Brexit plot, regardless of his personal differences with <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11093211/How-Bernard-Jenkin-fair-Boris-Johnson-labelling-Prime-Minister-dishonest.html">Johnson</a>.</p>
<h2>‘Will of the people’</h2>
<p>Johnson’s claim that he is being “forced out of parliament by a tiny handful of people” (which thereby implies they are acting against the will of the electorate) is particularly misleading. Under the 2015 <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05089/">Recall of MPs Act</a>, it would have been Johnson’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituents who would have had the final say, had he not resigned. They would have been given the opportunity to sign a recall petition to have him removed and then, had that succeeded, they would have been given the chance to vote in a by-election in which he could have stood. He has removed himself from this democratic process. </p>
<p>In short, had he respected the processes of the parliament he once <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-in-the-house-of-commons-19-october-2019">declared sovereign</a>, he would have faced the will of the people. It is not for a committee of MPs to force him out and the committee of MPs did not itself presume to. Perhaps it was his fear of how the people would vote that prompted Johnson’s move. </p>
<p>The Institute for Government <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/privileges-committee-verdict-boris-johnson">has commented</a> that the partygate saga has served to underline the importance of ministers being truthful in parliament. But Johnson’s reaction, and that of some of his supporters, makes it look as if some politicians feel the rules do not matter. In the longer term that is a problem for democracy and for the way our institutions work.</p>
<p>In the wake of Johnson’s resignation, cabinet member Grant Shapps told the BBC that people <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-65861772">don’t miss all the drama.</a> associated with him. Conservatives are dreaming of a period of calm. </p>
<p>And while it is easy to see Johnson’s letter as a tantrum, it raises worrying issues. It highlights a belief in some quarters that the Brexit referendum vote “of the people” is being undermined by those “higher up”. This could exacerbate political polarisation and increase a distrust in politicians more generally. Johnson may be using the argument for effect. But we don’t yet know how that argument will be received.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207490/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats</span></em></p>The former prime minister has claimed a small group of MPs has forced him out but that’s not an accurate description of events.Paula Keaveney, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2073382023-06-08T14:15:02Z2023-06-08T14:15:02ZCaroline Lucas and the heavy burden of being a party’s only member of parliament<p>Green MP Caroline Lucas’s <a href="https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1666675402775883778/photo/1">announcement</a> that she will be leaving parliament at the next general election will have come as a surprise to many. Elected in 2010 as the party’s first ever MP, overturning a pretty thumping Labour majority, she has become something of a force to be reckoned with in Westminster.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1666675402775883778"}"></div></p>
<p>From the minute she stepped foot in the House of Commons, Lucas was aware that her position as the sole member of a political party made parliamentary life more difficult to navigate. Party is everything in the House of Commons. It determines how often you get to speak and, most importantly, how much information you get about what will be happening and when. The government controls most of the parliamentary timetable, deciding what business is to be debated each day and ultimately, when votes will happen. Lucas even <a href="https://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/honourable-friends-parliament-and-the-fight-for-change">wrote a book</a> on her experiences as the Green’s only MP, highlighting the absence of any “honourable friends” in Westminster to guide her.</p>
<p>It would be wrong to say that these pressures have made her an unsuccessful MP. In fact, quite the opposite. Lucas is probably the best example of how a sole MP should operate in the Commons. She punches well above her weight as Green MP, asking <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/3930/writtenquestions">nearly 4,000 written questions</a> to government ministers since 2010, with an impressive number of <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/3930/contributions">spoken contributions</a> to boot, including a significant number of questions to the prime minister.</p>
<p>In recent years, House of Commons speakers have been much more explicit in recognising the position of smaller party MPs in the House of Commons chamber, ensuring that Lucas (along with Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and others) are all called to speak in important debates. This has helped to ensure a guaranteed platform for her and her party during the big debates on Brexit and its fallout, as well as the COVID pandemic.</p>
<p>In her resignation letter, Lucas talked about the “particular responsibilities” of being the Greens’ only MP and the impact this has had on her ability to do the job she wants to do as an MP. </p>
<p>Every MP wears two hats – as constituency MP and as parliamentarian. And there is a tension in the parliamentary role of a sole party MP that is absent for the average Labour or Conservative Party backbencher. For they essentially wear a third hat – they are the only voice of their entire political party in the House of Commons. </p>
<p>There is another added weight in the knowledge that they are not just a constituency MP but the only available representative in parliament for everyone who voted for their party. Lucas recognised this in her <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/archive/articles-and-speeches/27-05-2010-caroline-lucas-maiden-parliamentary-speech.html">first speech in the House of Commons</a>. She is not just the voice of her constituents in Brighton Pavilion, she is the voice of the 835,000 people who voted Green in the 2019 general election.</p>
<p>In this way, sole party MPs occupy a unique space. They must serve as both backbench and frontbench members of their party, essentially shadowing every single government department. </p>
<p>In practice this means a great deal more pressure on their time. If a minister attends the House of Commons for questions or to give a statement, if there is a debate on an important piece of legislation or a topic of much importance, they will need to be present in order to be their party’s voice. </p>
<p>Other small parties have the same dilemma. Plaid Cymru’s Ben Lake, for instance, is shadowing <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/4630/contact">no fewer than seven government departments</a> at the moment. It’s hard work and it requires a good support team in Parliament. For this, parties are dependent on <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/short-money/">Short money</a> – public funding for the opposition that depends on party performance in elections. Where this has been insufficient, Lucas has been <a href="https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-fund-caroline-lucas-in-parliament">assiduous in crowdfunding</a> in order to maintain a support team and “skewer ministers” with parliamentary questions.</p>
<h2>Stretched too thin</h2>
<p>The need to be the entire parliamentary face of the party makes it difficult to specialise and to carve out the time needed to focus on policy priorities. It is this that seems to have been the rub for Lucas. Those looking on might find this hard to believe as her work on climate and environmental issues is very prominent. She’s been a member of the Environmental Audit Committee for almost her entire time in the House of Commons and is chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change. This is on top of her regular interventions. But she clearly wants to do more.</p>
<p>More often than not, opposition parties are on the back foot, responding to the parliamentary agenda set by the government rather than being able to shape it. It can be frustrating to be in this position. </p>
<p>Lucas has always been keen to get out of the Westminster bubble and be on the frontline of the campaigns she is passionate about. Her <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/19/caroline-lucas-arrest-balcombe-anti-fracking">arrest</a> while joining anti-fracking campaigners at the Balcombe oil drilling site in 2013 is often raised as an example. </p>
<p>We could also point to a time shortly after her election back in 2010 when she interrupted a parliamentary debate on the <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/">fixed-term parliaments bill</a> to voice her disgust at what she had seen while joining tuition fee protesters down the road from parliament. Having seen first-hand the unnecessary kettling of students and schoolchildren she demanded that the home secretary <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2010-11-24/debates/10112451000002/details#contribution-10112468000661">come to the House of Commons</a> to make a statement.</p>
<p>Any green MP elected in place of Lucas will also need to navigate these tensions. If, however, we see a few more Green MPs elected then the job could become slightly easier. And with <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2023/05/05/greens-make-record-gains-in-historic-local-election-results/#:%7E:text=5%2520May%25202023&text=The%2520Greens%2520are%2520celebrating%2520a,in%2520the%2520UK%2520%252D%2520and%2520Europe.">record results</a> in this year’s local elections, that looks like a greater possibility than it has been before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council </span></em></p>As the only Green parliamentarian, Lucas has served as a constituency MP but also as a representative of the hundreds of thousands of other people who vote for her party.Louise Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2036502023-04-17T10:57:52Z2023-04-17T10:57:52ZCan Jeremy Corbyn go it alone in Islington North? What the evidence tells us<p>Labour leader <a href="https://www.annblack.co.uk/nec-meeting-28-march-2023/">Keir Starmer’s decision</a> to block his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a candidate for his party in the next election creates a dilemma. Corbyn, who has been the member of parliament for London’s Islington North <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Members_of_Parliament">since 1983</a> needs to decide whether to stand aside or run as an independent.</p>
<p>We are currently in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/28/starmer-accused-of-behaving-like-putin-as-corbyn-blocked-from-standing-for-labour">period of hints and speculation</a>. In some respects, Corbyn doesn’t need to make a firm decision yet, but waiting too long risks leaving him short of campaign funds and infrastructure. </p>
<p>He is used to working a safe constituency seat and has spent the past couple of elections travelling elsewhere, as a party leader must. Corbyn will therefore need to think seriously about the nuts and bolts of campaigning alone. But there are <a href="https://novaramedia.com/2023/02/17/corbyn-blocked-what-do-his-constituents-think/">voices urging him on</a> and a belief by some that <a href="https://novaramedia.com/2022/11/22/does-jeremy-corbyn-need-the-labour-party/">he could succeed</a>.</p>
<p>To some, independent candidates are innovative and unconventional. They have also been seen as “dreamers, half-baked and hopeless” according to Dawn Brancati, whose <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1017/S0022381608080675.pdf">2008 research</a> looked at the fate of independent candidates around the world. </p>
<p>She found a huge variation between those countries in which independent candidates were plentiful and doing well, such as Pakistan, and those in which there were few or no candidates and where they generally did badly, such as the UK and the US. Key to success or failure was the electoral system, both in terms of getting on the ballot in the first place and in winning the race.</p>
<h2>The case against standing</h2>
<p>The relative lack of UK MPs elected as independents could tell Corbyn that an Islington North bid would be a poor move. There has been <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-sleaze-showdown-at-knutsford-corral-1265997.html">Martin Bell</a>, who took the seat of Tatton in 1997, and <a href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/1472/career">Richard Taylor</a> who won by a landslide in Wyre Forest in 2001. </p>
<p>But when three former Conservatives stood as independents in their own seats in 2019 after losing the party whip for rebelling over Brexit, none prospered. And Labour’s Frank Field came a <a href="https://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=75">poor second in Birkenhead</a> when he left the party and stood as an independent. </p>
<p>The contrast at play in these cases is stark. The newcomers Bell and Taylor succeeded while the experienced politicians failed. The existing MPs knew their constituencies and had name recognition. Surely they would have received an incumbency bounce for just that reason? </p>
<p>Sadly for them, however, the incumbency benefit or personal vote is often greatly overstated. <a href="http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/56179/">Research has shown</a> that it accounts for up to 8% of the vote but can be considerably lower. This is not enough in a seat used to voting heavily for one party.</p>
<p>Why did Bell and Taylor succeed? They were high-profile “cause candidates”. Taylor, a doctor, was highlighting the health service. Bell was the anti-corruption candidate after the cash-for-questions scandal. Some other parties helped the independents on their way, with the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/constituencies/654.stm">Liberal Democrats standing aside</a> in Wyre Forest and Labour also leaving the field <a href="http://electionhub.co.uk/uk/1997/const/tatton">in Tatton</a>.</p>
<p>So even if Corbyn doesn’t have enough incumbency bonus, could he be a cause candidate? The potential may be there but not if the decision is framed as Corbyn hitting back over internal Labour decisions. That central cause with mass appeal still needs to be found.</p>
<h2>The case for standing</h2>
<p>There is evidence of independents doing well in parts of the UK political system beyond general elections. <a href="https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/6987#tocto1n3">Ken Livingstone’s</a> high profile and successful run for mayor of London, after being blocked by Labour, is a clear example of breaking the mould. </p>
<p>Early contests for elected mayors elsewhere saw independents, such as Bristol’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ferguson_(politician)#Mayor_of_Bristol">George Ferguson</a>, do well. And in the first police and crime commissioner elections in 2012, there were 12 independents elected – more than <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-923X.12181">a quarter of those elected</a>.</p>
<p>There seem to be two factors at play here. First, mayoral elections, in particular, lend themselves to candidate-centred contests. Voters are, after all, meant to be electing a strong, accountable individual. </p>
<p>Second, the election system for these contests has, up to now, been the <a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/supplementary-vote/">supplementary vote</a>. Voters have had a first and a second choice. That makes a difference. </p>
<p>It is easy to see how an independent might attract the second choice of a party supporter and end up breaking through as a result when everything is counted up. As Brancati says, the electoral system is a key factor.</p>
<p>The supplementary vote is no longer used in mayoral races, however. And even before that change, independents were finding it increasingly difficult to win. Ferguson was roundly beaten by Labour in 2016, for example.</p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<p>All this shows that the prospects for Corbyn are not great. In an election campaign, he would struggle for media time. He would need to build a campaign machine. He would need to find a core, compelling message to persuade voters to depart from their usual Labour support. </p>
<p>Labour of course will not stand aside and watch. We already know the party has decided that <a href="https://www.annblack.co.uk/nec-meeting-28-march-2023/">there will be no pacts or standing asides</a>. And even were these hurdles to be overcome, he’d still be running in a first-past-the-post system. </p>
<p>Corbyn’s supporters will feel Labour in general, and Starmer in particular, have treated the former leader very unfairly. And many may agree. This is not, however, enough to deliver ballot box success.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203650/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Keaveney is a member of the Liberal Democrats</span></em></p>Newcomers have in fact proven much more successful at running as independents than big name politicians.Paula Keaveney, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2020812023-03-27T09:34:57Z2023-03-27T09:34:57ZDominic Raab’s defence against bullying claims is that he is always ‘professional’ – but that doesn’t stack up<p>Is Dominic Raab, the deputy prime minister, a bully? This is what Adam Tolley KC, the barrister leading the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1119738/2022.11.23_Terms_of_Reference_-_Investigation.pdf">investigation into Raab’s behaviour towards civil servants</a>, is attempting to find out. Is Raab simply a tough boss who sets high, “professional” standards for his team? Or does he make unreasonable demands of colleagues and humiliate those who fail to fulfil them?</p>
<p>Raab has said he can’t comment in detail while Tolley’s review is ongoing but has responded to the accusations by repeatedly asserting that he has acted <a href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2022-11-16b.649.0">“professionally”</a> at all times. Speaking in more detail about his behaviour towards staff, Raab has <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/dominic-raab-government-deputy-prime-minister-justice-secretary-nadhim-zahawi-b2266556.html">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think what people want to know is that their government ministers are striving every sinew to deliver for them and I make no apologies for having high standards, for trying to drive things forward.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So not a bully but just a professional with high standards.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dominic-raab-claims-are-more-akin-to-abusive-supervision-than-bullying-199334">Dominic Raab claims are more akin to 'abusive supervision' than bullying</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In citing professionalism as an excuse, Raab has placed the concept at the heart of this story. What does it mean to be professional? The sociology of the professions has a <a href="https://bit.ly/3JyNzXL">long and distinguished history</a>, and in recent years management scholars have revived and updated this field of <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-professional-service-firms-9780199682393?cc=gb&lang=en&">research</a>. Professions scholarship is primarily concerned with understanding how occupations gain and defend their professional status, analysing the justification (or lack of justification) for the exceptional <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-97883-000">rewards accruing from that status</a>.</p>
<h2>Defining professionalism</h2>
<p>As the research literature has evolved, theories of the professions have shifted from questions of structure and function to focus on power and privilege, culminating in the contemporary <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cars.12364">preoccupation with process and practice</a>.</p>
<p>Through these shifting sands of scholarship, two consistent elements emerge. First, that extended training is required to develop specialist expertise and reach advanced qualification. From this “occupational closure” comes the ability to exclude others from the profession and <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Professions-and-Power-Routledge-Revivals/Johnson/p/book/9781138203563">charge a premium for services</a>.</p>
<p>And second, ethical standards, which are an integral component of a professional’s extended apprenticeship and formal qualifications. From this training comes the traditional right to self-regulate within the professions. At least in the past, professionals were able to <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5958556.html">maintain their monopolistic position</a> free from external regulation.</p>
<p>Underpinning both these elements comes trust. Clients entrust professionals with their most complex problems in the expectation that they will deliver exceptional quality work to the highest possible standards. To call someone “professional” may simply mean that you think they can be trusted to do high-quality work.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that there is nothing in the definition of the term “professional” about working exceptionally long hours or pushing yourself and your staff to the limit.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-bullying-in-politics-is-a-matter-of-democracy-194686">Why bullying in politics is a matter of democracy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But in equating high standards and long hours with professionalism, Raab is perhaps taking his cue from his early experiences in the City legal environment. In recent decades, the concepts of professionalism and commercialism have become blended in elite professional service firms. In this context, the goal of delighting the client by delivering the highest quality service to exceptionally demanding deadlines can translate into some fairly ferocious working practices. Indeed, the damaging consequences of overwork have become an important theme of professional service firm scholarship in recent years.</p>
<h2>Are politicians professionals?</h2>
<p>But Raab is now a politician – and they are not really “professionals” according to the criteria set out above. They do not have extended training in a specialised area of expertise. They are, in fact, expected to be generalists. And there are no barriers to entry because anyone can run for election – though of course there can be high barriers to getting elected to become an MP.</p>
<p>Nor are politicians socialised into a commonly understood set of ethical standards. On the contrary, there is enormous variation in how they behave and what they consider appropriate. In recent years, there have been many highly publicised, gross ethical breaches which have led to attempts to create and enforce ethical standards. While professionals these days can expect to be asked to comply with externally set standards, politicians remain essentially self-regulating.</p>
<p>Of course, Raab may not really be using the word “professional” in this precise way. Rather, he is associating it with a level of hard work and high standards. But surely Raab does not believe that professionals are unique in their commitment to these.</p>
<p>Raab appears to be seeking to justify tough and perhaps at times abrasive behaviour as simply being a sign that he takes his work seriously and that he expects others to do so the same. But with the exception of the former home secretary <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/937010/Findings_of_the_Independent_Adviser.pdf">Priti Patel</a>, no other minister in recent times – no matter how demanding they are – has been formally accused of bullying. Michael Gove, for example, is famously demanding of his staff but has not been accused of bullying.</p>
<p>When you call someone “professional” you are saying that you trust them to do an excellent job and to behave with the utmost integrity. It never has been, and never should be, used as an excuse for bad or questionable behaviour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202081/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Empson has received a series of research grants from the Economic and Social Research Council of Great Britain for her research into professionals and professional work. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefan Stern does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The deputy prime minister insists he just has high expectations of his staff but that is not what ‘professionalism’ really means.Laura Empson, Professor in the Management of Professional Service Firms, Bayes Business School, City, University of LondonStefan Stern, Visiting Professor of Management Practice, Bayes Business School, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2021902023-03-22T20:10:04Z2023-03-22T20:10:04ZBoris Johnson’s evidence to MPs’ partygate investigation: the key points of disagreement explained<p>Last year, noted philosopher Rebekah Vardy <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/13/first-week-highlights-of-coleen-rooney-v-rebekah-vardy-wagatha-christie">remarked</a> of fellow scholar Coleen Rooney:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Arguing with Coleen is like arguing with a pigeon. You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong but it’s still going to shit in your hair.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This could just as easily be said of former prime minister Boris Johnson. And, if not thinking specifically about the Wagatha Christie trial, I suspect members of the House of Commons committee of privileges are having similar feelings as they investigate whether Johnson misled parliament over whether he knew COVID lockdown rules were being <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/partygate-115248">broken in Downing Street</a> during the pandemic. </p>
<p>The fear for those sitting on the committee is that if he can’t convince them that he is right, and they are wrong, he might cast doubt on the whole investigation process. And certainly, he will argue, the public should not trust the findings of all those people with shit in their hair. This is why in advance of his appearance in front of the committee, some of his most ardent supporters were calling it a kangaroo court.</p>
<p>Despite the punchy nature of prior communications between Johnson and the committee, and during much of the hearing itself, there was in fact much that all involved agreed on. They are on the same page about whether there were gatherings during COVID lockdowns. That is, at this point, an unassailable fact. The second point of agreement is that there were multiple breaches of the rules and guidance. The third is that <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-to-face-mps-over-partygate-but-what-is-misleading-parliament-and-why-is-it-so-serious-201215">parliament was misled</a>.</p>
<p>However, there was plenty of discord. First, the extent to which parliament was misled. And it will be on this that the committee will ultimately decide whether Johnson should face a sanction and what form that sanction should take.</p>
<p>The two sides also disagree on how obvious it should have been to Johnson that the rules and guidance were being breached, both at gatherings he attended and those that he didn’t.</p>
<p>Third, on whether the committee itself is fair and impartial.</p>
<h2>Was parliament misled?</h2>
<p>In a word, yes. However, Johnson claims that he misled parliament only inadvertently. That he (now, say it with me) believed that all guidance was followed completely at all times (until he didn’t). The committee (broadly) was either trying to get Johnson to convince them of this, or disprove that he either recklessly or deliberately misled parliament. </p>
<p>The distinction is important. Deliberately misleading parliament is simply lying – which is hard to prove as you effectively need solid evidence to back up the accusation.</p>
<p>Recklessly misleading parliament is a slightly more qualitative assessment of whether the parliamentary record was corrected in good time after a false statement has been made (in short, going into parliament, holding your hands up and saying you were wrong). </p>
<h2>Was it obvious that rules and guidance were breached?</h2>
<p>For Johnson, no. The crux of his argument was that it’s incredibly hard to maintain social distancing guidelines in the cramped conditions of Number 10. He repeatedly referred to the idea that it was impossible to maintain an invisible electric fence around people (even if he was asking the rest of the public to attempt to do precisely that at the time in daily press conferences). </p>
<p>He also suggested that it was a unique workplace in which his attendance at leaving events was needed to boost morale and that they were therefore essential work meetings. So, in short, to Johnson, it was not obvious that the events in question were contravention of the guidelines. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Boris Johnson raising a glass next to colleagues in front of a table covered in wine bottles." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514182/original/file-20230308-20-gijfjd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2188%2C1434&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514182/original/file-20230308-20-gijfjd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514182/original/file-20230308-20-gijfjd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514182/original/file-20230308-20-gijfjd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514182/original/file-20230308-20-gijfjd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514182/original/file-20230308-20-gijfjd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514182/original/file-20230308-20-gijfjd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Johnson raises a glass at an essential work meeting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The House of Commons committee of privileges</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The committee members were less convinced. Their position can be summarised by a pithy question from Conservative MP Sir Bernard Jenkin when he asked what he would have said if asked at the press conference podium during the daily COVID briefings: “Is it in the guidelines to have unsocially distanced farewell drinks?”</p>
<p>The more surprising element of Johnson’s defence, <a href="https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1638570702927216640">as highlighted by the BBCs Ione Wells</a>, was that Johnson was not merely arguing that it was not obvious that these gatherings with wine breached the guidance, but that they were essential. </p>
<p>This is likely to be given short shrift by many of the people who made genuine sacrifices during the pandemic and indeed those who were fined for less. </p>
<h2>Was the committee fair?</h2>
<p>Yes. And it is worth remembering that the makeup of the committee reflects parliament. So of the seven MPs sitting in the evidence session, four are Johnson’s Conservative colleagues. The spiciest exchanges, in fact, were between Johnson and Jenkin, and Johnson and Alberto Costa, also a Conservative.</p>
<p>However, Johnson seemed intent on implicitly casting doubt on the committee’s fairness. In his opening remarks, for example, he suggested that “everyone knows that there are features of this proceeding that are peculiar” and described <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/tory-mp-questions-harriet-harmans-impartiality-ahead-of-boris-johnsons-partygate-hearing/">tweets by chair Harriet Harman</a> prior to her appointment as “prejudicial”. </p>
<p>When challenged about this and asked whether he agreed with some of his supporters that the privileges committee was a “kangaroo court”, Johnson demurred. But, most worryingly, seemed to only confirm that he would have confidence in the propriety of the proceedings if he was exonerated. What is that saying about pigeons and hair again?</p>
<h2>What will happen now?</h2>
<p>Given that the committee primarily focused on whether it was obvious that the guidance was not followed and how much assurance Johnson sought over the matter, it seems likely that it will find that Johnson recklessly – but not deliberately – misled parliament.</p>
<p>This will probably be enough to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/908d7434-40c3-4535-a93b-7564f6e5f5bb">avoid the “nuclear option”</a> of a ten-plus day suspension from parliament, which could result in a by-election that would see Johnson fighting for his parliamentary seat. </p>
<p>The bigger issue for Johnson is how damaging the hearing will be in the court of public opinion. This is important since he pretty clearly still harbours leadership ambitions.</p>
<p>The problem that he will face is that the hearing has provided hours of ready-made political attack material. His hope of being the <a href="https://cullodenbattlefield.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/the-secret-symbols-of-the-jacobites/">“king over the water”</a> seems as distant as it has been since his resignation last year. </p>
<p>It was notable that Johnson’s opening statement was interrupted so that he could go and vote against Rishi Sunak’s Northern Ireland deal (alongside 22 Tory rebels and 48 abstainers). I suspect for an increasing number of MPs, and party supporters, the Boris Johnson sideshow is becoming just that: a peripheral and diminishing concern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202190/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Power has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p>The former prime minister insists gatherings with wine were essential work meetings.Sam Power, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.