BBC News - Election 2011 - Scotland:
'via Blog this'
Sunday, 16 December 2012
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Interactive map: First Past the Post wastes our votes
First Past the Post wastes our votes:
The darker the constituency the higher proportion of votes.
'via Blog this'
The darker the constituency the higher proportion of votes.
'via Blog this'
Safe seats map: ERS
Click here - How safe seats fail voters:
Two maps via this link.
1. Map 1 showing when each seat last changed hands at an election. The darker the colour of the constituency the longer it has been a safe seat. When did Ashford last change parties? Which is the oldest safe seat in the UK?
2. Map 2 showing safe seats at the 2010 general election. If a seat is given a party colour (red = Lab, blue = Cons, Orange (!) = LDems, Yellow = nationalist parties e.g. SNP, Plaid Cymru) then it counts as a safe seat for that party. If it is one of the shades of green then it counts as a marginal at the 2010 election.
'via Blog this'
Two maps via this link.
1. Map 1 showing when each seat last changed hands at an election. The darker the colour of the constituency the longer it has been a safe seat. When did Ashford last change parties? Which is the oldest safe seat in the UK?
2. Map 2 showing safe seats at the 2010 general election. If a seat is given a party colour (red = Lab, blue = Cons, Orange (!) = LDems, Yellow = nationalist parties e.g. SNP, Plaid Cymru) then it counts as a safe seat for that party. If it is one of the shades of green then it counts as a marginal at the 2010 election.
'via Blog this'
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Why a visit to a school persuaded me that young people aged 16 to 18 should have the vote - Matthew Parris in the Spectator
Matthew Parris in the Spectator
Let me guess most readers’ reaction to news that Alex Salmond has arm-twisted Westminster into allowing 16- to 18-year-olds in Scotland to vote in the 2014 Scottish referendum on independence. I bet the reaction resembled mine. Annoyance. The very thought! As to the assurance that this concession will be temporary, and pressure will not build to make the change permanent, I’d reply (with many of you): ‘Nonsense!’ So, being on my way to speak at a well-regarded state secondary school in Wells, the Blue School, and hearing the news about Scotland, I decided to test the water. I was there to speak to 16- to 18-year-olds: some 200 of them. I could explore not just their opinions, but their reasoning.
I arrived in Wells not without prejudices of my own: first (as I say) a visceral bias against lowering the voting age. Second, an assumption that the boys and girls would be substantially in favour of the move. Third, a suspicion that such young and naive citizens might struggle to express many cogent arguments at all, one way or the other.
I was wrong on all three counts. They were against the idea. And they debated this among themselves with such cogency that I concluded that these young men and women ought to have the vote, whether or not they wanted it. Let me give you a short summary of our debate.
I began by explaining the Scottish proposal, then asking for a show of hands: who was in favour of 16- to 18-year-olds getting the vote? And who was against? The voting was substantially against: about 70/30, I reckon. At the end of our discussion (during which I never expressed an opinion of my own) I conducted a second vote, on a slightly different question: who among them — assuming they did get the vote before 18 — would actually want to use it?On the threshold of a world into which they were to plunge, they were asking what kind of a world they’d like it to be
The vote was substantially in favour! This time about 60/40.
One can only guess how these two results might be reconciled. Some may have felt that even if they didn’t want the right to vote, they’d use it if they had it. Fair enough: I use my totally undeserved Freedom Pass. But I did sense that many had simply changed their minds. Why? I think it was the experience of hearing each other venturing intelligent and fair-minded opinions on the subject, and realising that such views were as good as anyone else’s.
Among the opinions against, one young man felt that few teenagers in his position supported themselves and most depended on their parents. Wouldn’t such adolescents be unduly influenced by their parents’ opinions? I thought to myself (but did not say) that a comparable argument was once advanced against the idea of women voting.
Another wondered whether it might be possible to distinguish between adolescents who knew something of, and already had some stake in, society, and those who did not. I thought (but did not say) that restricting the franchise to property owners was once defended on a similar basis.
Others felt that if they could marry at 16 and be sent abroad to fight at 18, they should be entitled to vote. But many more subtle arguments than these were expressed. ‘Maybe politicians would listen to us more, and ask for our views, if they knew we had a vote,’ said one girl. ‘Lots of things that affect us, or will affect us, are decided by the MPs our parents elect,’ said someone else. ‘Tuition fees, for instance. Shouldn’t we be involved in voting for or against these policies?’
‘Me and my circle of friends,’ argued another young woman, ‘do know enough, and take enough interest, to have a say. But I suppose lots of teenagers don’t.’
‘Yes,’ I thought (but did not say). ‘I often feel the same about my own sixty-something age-cohort.’
More than one of my audience expressed the view that the political ignorance of many young people was not necessarily an argument for depriving them of political power: giving them the vote would cause many to take more interest in politics. ‘After all,’ said one, ‘we’re students. We have the time and the facilities to learn about current affairs — perhaps more than people who have to go out to work for a living all day.’
I listened with increasing respect to these students. At first not many volunteered to speak, but by the end there were plenty, stimulated by each other’s points of view. By their debate they persuaded me — and maybe persuaded themselves — of their fitness to take part. Their contributions were as informed as those of an equivalent group of citizens ten or 20 years older.
And (curiously) more public-spirited. I thought of all the nursing homes I’ve canvassed as a Conservative candidate and the countless occasions on which I’d been confronted by a grumpy old face, and the question — always the same question — ‘What are you going to do for me, then?’
Even on tuition fees, not one of the young people at the Blue School framed their opinions around his or her own material advantage, and how it might be served by politics. Nobody is totally without self-interest but it was striking that few were starting from self-interest; they were discussing what would be best for all. So, to me, the very argument most often advanced against letting younger students vote — that they have no stake — was becoming an argument in favour: they were dispassionate, disinterested (in the old-fashioned sense); they took an altruistic view. On the threshold of a world into which they had yet to plunge, before becoming distracted by the struggle for personal survival, they were asking what kind of a world they’d like that to be.
I left the Blue School relaxed about the idea of lowering the voting age. It would be good to hear today’s politicians talking with and to such an audience. It might bring a little maturity into our politics.
Friday, 26 October 2012
Friday, 19 October 2012
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Bring back EMA?
Coalition's child poverty adviser: bring back EMA http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/oct/18/coalition-child-poverty-ema-1
Monday, 15 October 2012
Sunday, 14 October 2012
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Friday, 14 September 2012
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Monday, 2 July 2012
Lords reform case against
If passed, this Lords reform bill would be a catastrophe | Jesse Norman http://gu.com/p/38yhe
Friday, 29 June 2012
Detailed reports on Lords reform 1999-2010
Chronology:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/House%20of%20Lords%20Reform%201997-2010%20-%2028%20%20June%202010.pdf
Implications: Click HERE
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Conflict Between Two Elected Houses? ........................................................................ 3
3 An Elected Second House—Wither the Salisbury Convention? .................................... 7
4 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Expertise? ........................................ 12
5 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Independence? ................................ 16
6 A More Representative House of Lords? ..................................................................... 19
7 Religious Representation in the House of Lords .......................................................... 21
8 The Church of England and Lords Reform—Disestablishment? ................................. 25
9 Little House, Big House? .............................................................................................. 28
10 Relationship with Citizens and Voters ........................................................................ 30
11 The House of Lords and Wider Constitutional Reform ............................................... 34
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/House%20of%20Lords%20Reform%201997-2010%20-%2028%20%20June%202010.pdf
Implications: Click HERE
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Conflict Between Two Elected Houses? ........................................................................ 3
3 An Elected Second House—Wither the Salisbury Convention? .................................... 7
4 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Expertise? ........................................ 12
5 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Independence? ................................ 16
6 A More Representative House of Lords? ..................................................................... 19
7 Religious Representation in the House of Lords .......................................................... 21
8 The Church of England and Lords Reform—Disestablishment? ................................. 25
9 Little House, Big House? .............................................................................................. 28
10 Relationship with Citizens and Voters ........................................................................ 30
11 The House of Lords and Wider Constitutional Reform ............................................... 34
After the AV referendum: a view from the 'yes' and 'no' camp
Lord Tyler is a Liberal Democrat Peer who campaigned for a 'yes'
vote in the alternative vote referendum - he wanted the voting system in
UK general elections to change from first past the post to AV.
In this video, he has one minute to answer the question: 'What do you think the outcome of the alternative vote referendum means for the future of British politics?' Watch his response HERE.
In this video, he has one minute to answer the question: 'What do you think the outcome of the alternative vote referendum means for the future of British politics?' Watch his response HERE.
Lord Winston is a Conservative Peer who was against changing the
voting system in general elections from first past the post to the
alternative vote.
In this video he has one minute to answer the question: 'What do you think the outcome of the AV referendum means for the future of British politics?' Watch his response HERE.
In this video he has one minute to answer the question: 'What do you think the outcome of the AV referendum means for the future of British politics?' Watch his response HERE.
Do referendums help politicians make difficult decisions?
Should referendums be held more regularly? Lord Tyler explains why he
thinks politicians should avoid calling a referendum because there is a
difficult decision to make. VIDEO HERE.
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Lords Reform update June 2012
The Telegraph lays into Labour but also Tories and LDs over House of Lords, saying that the current proposals and debates is more about party political posturing than getting reform right. See here.
Miliband calls for referendum on Lords reform.
Miliband calls for referendum on Lords reform.
Monday, 25 June 2012
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Saturday, 9 June 2012
How effective is Parliament? Rebellions, backbenchers and the Coalition
Parliament has often been characterised as being slaves to government. One theory is that MPs can be cajoled into votingin line with whatever their party leadership wants though loyalty, ideology, desire for promotion and the whipsystem. However, the coalition has seen a rise in the numer of 'rebellions' (where MPs vote against their party leadership). Rebellions don't have to succeed but just the existence of MPs voting against their party line suggests an assertiveness often absent in the era of Thatcher and Blair.
Why?
Coalition ideological differences - the more extreme wings of the coalition parties (right of the Tories, left of the LDs) were always likely to be unhappy with particular bits of coalition policy which cannot keep everyone happy.
That said, it should be remembered that the coalition does have a substantial majority. If the coalition government is weak then it is not because of lack of seats, just internal arguments.
The Bumper Book of Coalition Rebellions | Ballots & Bullets:
Full book here, but 20 key points here:
Why?
Coalition ideological differences - the more extreme wings of the coalition parties (right of the Tories, left of the LDs) were always likely to be unhappy with particular bits of coalition policy which cannot keep everyone happy.
That said, it should be remembered that the coalition does have a substantial majority. If the coalition government is weak then it is not because of lack of seats, just internal arguments.
The Bumper Book of Coalition Rebellions | Ballots & Bullets:
Full book here, but 20 key points here:
We’ve been producing end-of-session reports detailing the rebellions of government backbenchers for several years now – but we’ve never had to produce one quite so large before. The Bumper Book of Coalition Rebellions is available free of charge in pdf format (at the end of this post). It details every rebellion and every rebel. How much more fun could you want on a miserable Tuesday morning? But in case you don’t have the time, or the inclination, to look at more than 100 pages of info, here’s 20 key points about the behaviour of Coalition MPs in the last session.
1. The last session saw 239 rebellions by Coalition MPs. This is higher than the number of rebellions by government MPs in any other session in the post-war era. Indeed, a figure of 239 is higher than in all but three entire post-war parliaments. And there were more rebellions in the 2010-12 session than in the period from 1945-1966 combined, taking in 21 years, six parliaments and six Prime Ministers.
2. In relative terms, measured as a percentage of the divisions in the session, there were rebellions by coalition MPs in 44% of divisions – also without precedent in the post-war era. By party, Conservative MPs broke ranks in 28% of votes, Lib Dems MPs have done so in 24%.
3. Even these separate figures are very high by comparison with historic behaviour of government backbenchers. The Conservative figure is higher than the rate of rebellion by government MPs in all but eight post-war sessions. The Lib Dem rate of 24% is higher than that seen by government MPs in all but eleven post-war sessions.
4. And compared with behaviour in other first sessions, the differences with this session are even more obvious, especially when compared to the first sessions of parliaments following a change in government. Between 1945 and 1997, the six sessions immediately after a change in government saw rates of rebellion between zero (1964) and 6% (1979). The current rate of rebellion is therefore more than seven times what had until now been the post-war peak for a first session after a change of government.
5. A total of 153 Coalition MPs have voted against their whip thus far. Most (119) of these are Conservatives, but this is not surprising, given that there have been more Conservative rebellions and there are anyway more Conservative MPs.
6. Eight out of the top ten Coalition rebels are Conservatives. The most rebellious Liberal Democrat MP is Mike Hancock, whose 44 rebellious votes place him sixth. Andrew George is the only other Lib Dem MP in the top ten.
7. As a percentage of the total number of votes, the rates of rebellion of the most rebellious MPs are very high in relative terms: Philip Hollobone has been rebelling at a rate of roughly one rebellion in every five votes. This is a much higher rate than, say, Jeremy Corbyn or Dennis Skinner, during the Blair or Brown premierships, and represents a serious fracture from the party leadership.
8. What will especially concern the government whips is the behaviour of their newer MPs. Of the 119 Conservative rebels, 71 (or six in ten) are from the new intake, and between them the newbie Tory rebels have cast a whopping 401 rebellious votes.
9. Whilst numerically smaller, rebellion is much more widespread amongst the Lib Dems. Whereas nearly one in four (39%) of Conservative MPs have rebelled, a total of 34 Lib Dems, or 60% of the parliamentary party, have now done so.
10. The largest rebellion came in October 2011, over a motion calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. A total of 82 Coalition MPs (81 of them Conservatives) defied a three-line whip to vote for the motion, another 14-19 abstaining. It was not the largest backbench revolt since 1945, but it was one of the largest, topped on the Conservative side only a handful of revolts over gun control at the fag-end of the Major government. It was also the largest rebellion on the issue of Europe of the post-war era.
11. The largest Lib Dem rebellion came in December 2010 over the issue of university tuition fees. Twenty-one Liberal Democrat MPs voted against their whips, a further five Lib Dem MPs abstaining. It was the largest Liberal Democrat rebellion since the formation of the merged party in 1988-89 and as a proportion of the parliamentary party constituted a larger rebellion than did the Conservative rebellion over the European referendum.
12. Yet although the frequency of rebellions is alarmingly high, the average rebellion is small, comprising just seven MPs. (The average Conservative rebellion is eight MPs, the average Liberal Democrat revolt is even lower at just three MPs). This is one of the reasons why the government’s majority has not yet been seriously threatened as a result of a rebellion.
13. The other reason is that these two groups of rebels rarely coalesce. Almost half of rebellions (46%) have seen Conservative MPs rebel alone; just over a third (36%) have seen Lib Dem MPs rebel alone, and less than one in five (18%) have seen a rebellion by both Lib Dem and Conservative MPs.
14. This is because the two groups generally rebel on very different issues. Just over seven in ten (71%) of Lib Dem rebellions have been on social policy (broadly defined). But nearly half (49%) of Conservative rebellions are on constitutional policy (broadly defined). Of this last category, a big chunk (nearly one in five of all Conservative rebellions) has been on Europe (18%), rebellions which are more than double the average size of all Conservative rebellions.
15. The size of the Government’s majority is often not appreciated. Even its formal majority of 76 is substantial.
16. In reality, because of divisions in which Labour vote with the government or abstain, the average majority in practice has been an even larger 123. In the majority of votes (411), Labour oppose the government, and when they do the government’s average majority has been 86. But when Labour abstain (50 votes), the majority averages 268; and when Labour support the government (30 votes), the average majority rises to 392.
17. There are plenty of issues on which 39 Conservative MPs might rebel, but there are fewer on which the Labour party would be willing to join them. Overall, 21% of coalition rebellions occurred when Labour was not voting against the government – and when there was therefore no chance of a defeat. But that figures rises to 31% of Conservative rebellions.
18. The hurdles in overturning a large in-built Coalition majority are even more acute for the Liberal Democrats. Lib Dem rebellions were more likely to take place when Labour was opposing the government, but because their backbench MPs number only 35, even if all of them vote against the Government with all the Opposition MPs, that would still not be enough to defeat the Government.
19. Parliamentary ambushes (like the one that caused the Coalition’s only defeat in December 2011) aside, for the Government’s majority to fall much below 50, both Conservative and Liberal Democrats need to rebel in decent numbers, with the support of the Labour frontbench and the minor parties. This has happened rarely since May 2010, and the Government’s majority has only fallen below 50 on only 22 occasions in its first 24 months in power.
20. But the Coalition’s two wobbly wings will require careful handling – with plenty of issues in the immediate future that will ensure continued high levels of Coalition dissent.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
How good are backbench MPs at fulfilling their function? Is this 'the most revolting parliament in history'?
Two excellent articles (May 2012) on rebel MPs and factors that have led to the coaltion suffering rebellions in around 40% of its proposed legislation (not necessarily successful rebellions, mind you). If we have a more assertive House of Commons, does that mean there is less reason for reforming the system?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/28/most-revolting-parliament-history http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/28/top-six-rebel-mps
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/28/most-revolting-parliament-history http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/28/top-six-rebel-mps
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Who's in the Coalition Cabinet?
This is a great resource for seeing who's who in the coalition cabinet.
Saturday, 19 May 2012
Does the Lords need to be made stronger?
One argument in favour of an elected Lords is that it would have greater legitimacy to stand up to an increasingly powerful executive. Some argue that the Lords already does stand up to governments and cite the rejection of Brown's plan to bring in 42 day detention as evidence of the lack of need for reform on the grounds of weakness of the Lords.
However, in truth, the Lords remains weak. Brown could have pushed 42 day detention through using the Parliament Act but decided not to, probably on the grounds that it would bring him too much criticism. So the Lords had influence over a PM who was not interested in attracting criticism.
The Lords has faired less well in blocking many of the Coalition's reforms. The Lords had voted against many of the coalition's welfare reforms (such as the £26,000 benefits cap). However, the Coalition are a lot more willing to take criticism than Brown was over 42 day detention. The Commons just simply voted to overturn the Lord's amendments, using a technicality known as "financial privelage". They didn't even have to use the Parliament Act. So the Lords can do very little when faced with an assertive government with enough seats in the Commons to push through a law. The Welfare Reform bill became law in March 2012.
Whether or not you think this means the Lords should be reformed to make it stronger depends on one's point of view.
However, in truth, the Lords remains weak. Brown could have pushed 42 day detention through using the Parliament Act but decided not to, probably on the grounds that it would bring him too much criticism. So the Lords had influence over a PM who was not interested in attracting criticism.
The Lords has faired less well in blocking many of the Coalition's reforms. The Lords had voted against many of the coalition's welfare reforms (such as the £26,000 benefits cap). However, the Coalition are a lot more willing to take criticism than Brown was over 42 day detention. The Commons just simply voted to overturn the Lord's amendments, using a technicality known as "financial privelage". They didn't even have to use the Parliament Act. So the Lords can do very little when faced with an assertive government with enough seats in the Commons to push through a law. The Welfare Reform bill became law in March 2012.
Whether or not you think this means the Lords should be reformed to make it stronger depends on one's point of view.
Friday, 18 May 2012
Select Committees Source from Jan 2012 Paper
Select Committees
There is a House of Commons select committee for each government department, examining
three aspects: spending, policies and administration. These departmental select committees
have a minimum of 11 members, who decide upon a line of inquiry and then gather written
and oral evidence. Findings are reported to the Commons, printed, and published on the
Parliament website. The government then usually has 60 days to reply to the committee’s
recommendations.
Following the adoption by the House of Commons of recommendations from the Reform of
the House of Commons Committee:
- Departmental select committee chairs are elected by their fellow MPs
- A backbench business committee has been established with the ability to schedule business in the Commons chamber and in Westminster Hall on days, or parts of days, set aside for non-government business.
Legislative committees
Both Houses of Parliament refer legislation to committees for detailed discussion and
approval. These committees are part of the process of making laws. They scrutinise proposed
laws and may consider amendments to improve the legislation. Amendments approved in
legislative committees must be approved by the whole House.
Both Houses of Parliament refer legislation to committees for detailed discussion and
approval. These committees are part of the process of making laws. They scrutinise proposed
laws and may consider amendments to improve the legislation. Amendments approved in
legislative committees must be approved by the whole House.
Source: adapted from www.parliament.gov.uk, October, 2010.
Thursday, 17 May 2012
The Coalition and Parliamentary Reform (Commons AND Lords)
The Coalition: our programme for government’.
We will establish five-year fixed term Parliaments. We will put a binding motion before the House
of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May, 2015.
Following this motion, we will legislate to make provision for fixed term Parliaments of five years.
We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the
introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for
the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies.
We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a
by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing.
We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper
chamber on the basis of proportional representation.
We will bring forward proposals… for reform to the House of Commons… starting with the proposed
committee for management of backbench business. A House Business Committee, to consider
government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.
We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for public debate in
Parliament.
Source: ‘
The Coalition: our programme for government’, Cabinet Office, May 2010
Parliamentary reform
Study the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
Extracts from the document: ‘
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
"Lords Baffoonery has to end!" Lords reform - arguments for
Lords buffoonery has to end. So why not abolish them? | Polly Toynbee http://gu.com/p/374bt
Sunday, 22 April 2012
Unit 1 and Unit 2 revision: House of Lords and Referendums
The issue over the last couple of weeks boils down to three new developments:
- The threat of Tory resignations if Cameron pushes ahead with Clegg's proposals (80% elected etc.). Cameron is at odds with most of his own Tory MPs, as he says he's in favour of Lords reform, whilst they are largely against. Even some cabinet ministers are hinting that Lords reform could be a resignation issue. The other issue is whether or not Cameron should whip his Tory MPs into voting for Lords reform or whether it should be up to the individual MPs. Some say that around 80 Tory MPs will vote against the proposed reforms when the time comes to vote on legislation.
- The question of whether or not a referendum should be held over whether or not Clegg's proposals should be put into action. A parliamentary committee will report on Monday (23/4/12) that a referendum should be held on the issue. Many Tory MPs agree, hoping that most people can be persuaded that reform is necessary and expensive (like AV campaign). However, Miliband is also in favour of a referendum. Clegg says that the coalition already has a democratic mandate for Lords reform as it was in both coalition parties' manifestos before the last election, and therefore a referendum is not needed. Unit 1 retakers should take note of this referendum possibility.
- The issue of whether or not the coalition can survive it's disagreements over Lords reform. See this blog for a brief analysis...and here.
The three issues are interwoven.
What the coalition agreement says about Lords reform HERE.
This weekend has seen some excellent coverage in The Guardian and the Telegraph (as usual).
Guardian:
- Article on coalition splits over Lords reform
- Article on cabinet tensions
- Against reform article
- In favour of reform editorial
Telegraph:
- Article on Conservative party tensions over Lords reform.
- Article about junior ministers threatening to resign over Lords reform.
- Miliband gives his reasons for supporting a Lords reform referendum.
- Lib Dem Lord Oakeshott hits out at Tory MPs against Lords reform saying they should "grow up" and remember the coalition agreement.
Anyone hoping to get a decent Unit 2 (or Unit 1 retake) grade will be reading these articles and taking notes on arguments and controversies, party positions and splits within parties.
Monday, 26 March 2012
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Should the coalition's Commons reforms be passed? Boundary changes
Audio panel interview on arguments for/against the proposed Commons boundary changes. HERE
Polly Toynbee in critical mode (as per...) HERE
MPs prepare for Boundary-geddon HERE
Polly Toynbee in critical mode (as per...) HERE
MPs prepare for Boundary-geddon HERE
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Scottish referendum: easy?
Why the Scottish referendum date matters | Martin Kettle http://gu.com/p/362nf
Monday, 5 March 2012
Strathclyde Andrew Marr show - Lords reform
The leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, has told the BBC's Andrew Marr that the government is committed to reforming the second chamber and will "try and deliver" its plan, in time for elections in 2015.
But Lord Strathclyde acknowledged it was a difficult issue saying: "There are divisions within the parties rather than between the parties."
CLICK HERE.
But Lord Strathclyde acknowledged it was a difficult issue saying: "There are divisions within the parties rather than between the parties."
CLICK HERE.
Lady Boothroyd - Why I don't like Lords Reform!
Betty Boothroyd (ex Labour MP, ex Speaker of the Commons) gives her reason for not supporting the Coalitions Lords reforms. CLICK HERE.
Vernon Bogdanor
Constitutional expert gives his reasons against Lords reform - legislative confusion and gridlock. CLICK HERE.
Radio 4 on House of Lords Reform report
Radio 4 interview on the recent Select Committe report on Draft House of Lords Reform Bill. CLICK HERE
House of Lords Reform Debate
Lord Oakshott (LD) threatened not to back the proposed constituency changes (that will help the Tories) if the Tories don't back Lords reform. The Bill for the reform has gone through but the Electoral Commission report has to be confirmed by parliament, raising the possibility of a LD rebellion if Lords reform doesn't go through.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
What does the left fear will happen with the Nhs reform bill?
NHS bill: goodbye comprehensive healthcare, hello private insurance | Colin Leys CLICK HERE
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Lords reform
Lords reform: Nick Clegg likens UK system to Belize and Burkina Faso http://gu.com/p/35ngd
Monday, 27 February 2012
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Health groups: for or against the NHS Bill?
NB - the 'summit' was a Downing Street meeting between the PM, Lansley and certain health related organisations (see below).
From the Guardian Feb 21 2012
Against the bill(None of these organisations were invited to the Downing Street summit)
British Medical Association
Cautiously welcomed the July 2010 white paper which set out the coalition's NHS plans. As concern grew, it adopted a policy of "critical engagement": lobbying ministers to amend or drop proposals it deemed too risky, damaging or ill thought-through. But rising anger among grassroots doctors, and deep frustration that Lansley did not really heed their concerns, prompted BMA last November to adopt policy of all-out opposition.
Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of GPs
Recently made the same switch as BMA, and, after initially seeking major amendments to it, now want the bill scrapped, which is also Labour's position.
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
Concerned that letting non-NHS providers start treating NHS patients, paid for out of NHS funds, will see patients denied physiotherapy sessions they need through the opening up of more NHS services to outside bodies through the "any qualified provider" policy.
Royal College of Pathologists
Concerned aboutcurrent and future impact of the combination of the changes this bill brings, the current "manner and pace of reconfiguration of services, including managerial, and the arbitrary removal of 20% from NHS spending on pathology services".
Royal College of Radiologists
Has "grave concerns" about "many serious and as yet unresolved issues", including the risk that the shake-up will widen health inequalities between richer and poorer patients. It is also "alarmed that the dangers of unfettered competition as outlined in the bill will adversely affect integrated care in both clinical oncology and clinical radiology".
Royal College of Psychiatrists
"Believes the bill is fundamentally flawed and "will not improve the health and care of people with mental illness", said Professor Sue Bailey, its president.
Unite and Unison
Fear the extension of competition in the NHS, and anticipated greater use of private healthcare firms to provide NHS services, will lead to the break-up and privatisation of the NHS.
Undecided(All were invited to the summit)
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Obtained some concessions but still has "grave reservations that the bill carries risks for England's 11 million children and young people". "Opposition to the bill among some paediatricians is increasingly hardening", according to president Professor Terence Stephenson. The results of a survey of its members are due later this week.
Royal College of Physicians
Its emergency general meeting next Monday could see it switch from being critical of the bill on some issues – such as competition and raising the amount hospitals can earn from private patients – to a more hardline stance.
Royal College of Surgeons
The one medical royal college to refuse to sign a strongly-worded joint statement, organised by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges last month, saying the bill was unfit for purpose in its current form. It denies it actively supports the bill.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Agreed to support last month's joint statement but later withdrew its support, after being lobbied by Lansley. "We have never said we fully support the bill. Instead we have always stated that we have concerns with elements of the bill which we have tried to address through the NHS listening exercise and meetings with the Department of Health and politicians," said president Dr Tony Falconer.
For the bill
(All were invited to the summit.)
National Association of Primary Care
Group of entrepreneurial GPs that has supported Lansley's plan from the start. It welcomes family doctors gaining control of £60bn worth of contracts to GP-led clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to spend as they see fit on treatment.
NHS Alliance
Has embraced the NHS shake-up, though recently voiced fears that CCGs' independence could be threatened by the new NHS national commissioning board.
Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations
Chief executive Stephen Bubb is a keen advocate of extending competition in the NHS in order to drive up standards and reduce costs.
For the bill(All were invited to the summit.)
National Association of Primary Care
Group of entrepreneurial GPs that has supported Lansley's plan from the start. It welcomes family doctors gaining control of £60bn worth of contracts to GP-led clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to spend as they see fit on treatment.
NHS Alliance
Has embraced the NHS shake-up, though recently voiced fears that CCGs' independence could be threatened by the new NHS national commissioning board.
Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations
Chief executive Stephen Bubb is a keen advocate of extending competition in the NHS in order to drive up standards and reduce costs.
From the Guardian Feb 21 2012
Against the bill(None of these organisations were invited to the Downing Street summit)
British Medical Association
Cautiously welcomed the July 2010 white paper which set out the coalition's NHS plans. As concern grew, it adopted a policy of "critical engagement": lobbying ministers to amend or drop proposals it deemed too risky, damaging or ill thought-through. But rising anger among grassroots doctors, and deep frustration that Lansley did not really heed their concerns, prompted BMA last November to adopt policy of all-out opposition.
Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of GPs
Recently made the same switch as BMA, and, after initially seeking major amendments to it, now want the bill scrapped, which is also Labour's position.
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
Concerned that letting non-NHS providers start treating NHS patients, paid for out of NHS funds, will see patients denied physiotherapy sessions they need through the opening up of more NHS services to outside bodies through the "any qualified provider" policy.
Royal College of Pathologists
Concerned aboutcurrent and future impact of the combination of the changes this bill brings, the current "manner and pace of reconfiguration of services, including managerial, and the arbitrary removal of 20% from NHS spending on pathology services".
Royal College of Radiologists
Has "grave concerns" about "many serious and as yet unresolved issues", including the risk that the shake-up will widen health inequalities between richer and poorer patients. It is also "alarmed that the dangers of unfettered competition as outlined in the bill will adversely affect integrated care in both clinical oncology and clinical radiology".
Royal College of Psychiatrists
"Believes the bill is fundamentally flawed and "will not improve the health and care of people with mental illness", said Professor Sue Bailey, its president.
Unite and Unison
Fear the extension of competition in the NHS, and anticipated greater use of private healthcare firms to provide NHS services, will lead to the break-up and privatisation of the NHS.
Undecided(All were invited to the summit)
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Obtained some concessions but still has "grave reservations that the bill carries risks for England's 11 million children and young people". "Opposition to the bill among some paediatricians is increasingly hardening", according to president Professor Terence Stephenson. The results of a survey of its members are due later this week.
Royal College of Physicians
Its emergency general meeting next Monday could see it switch from being critical of the bill on some issues – such as competition and raising the amount hospitals can earn from private patients – to a more hardline stance.
Royal College of Surgeons
The one medical royal college to refuse to sign a strongly-worded joint statement, organised by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges last month, saying the bill was unfit for purpose in its current form. It denies it actively supports the bill.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Agreed to support last month's joint statement but later withdrew its support, after being lobbied by Lansley. "We have never said we fully support the bill. Instead we have always stated that we have concerns with elements of the bill which we have tried to address through the NHS listening exercise and meetings with the Department of Health and politicians," said president Dr Tony Falconer.
For the bill
(All were invited to the summit.)
National Association of Primary Care
Group of entrepreneurial GPs that has supported Lansley's plan from the start. It welcomes family doctors gaining control of £60bn worth of contracts to GP-led clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to spend as they see fit on treatment.
NHS Alliance
Has embraced the NHS shake-up, though recently voiced fears that CCGs' independence could be threatened by the new NHS national commissioning board.
Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations
Chief executive Stephen Bubb is a keen advocate of extending competition in the NHS in order to drive up standards and reduce costs.
For the bill(All were invited to the summit.)
National Association of Primary Care
Group of entrepreneurial GPs that has supported Lansley's plan from the start. It welcomes family doctors gaining control of £60bn worth of contracts to GP-led clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to spend as they see fit on treatment.
NHS Alliance
Has embraced the NHS shake-up, though recently voiced fears that CCGs' independence could be threatened by the new NHS national commissioning board.
Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations
Chief executive Stephen Bubb is a keen advocate of extending competition in the NHS in order to drive up standards and reduce costs.
Monday, 20 February 2012
Resurgence of the importance of Parliament?
.....from the Spectator
In historical terms, though, the most important recent
parliamentary vote was on the EU referendum motion. At first glance, this seems
odd. It was a non-binding backbench measure, and it did not pass — indeed, it
never had a chance of doing so, given that both Labour and the government were
opposed. But when 81 Tory MPs defied a three-line whip and voted for it, their
actions changed the calculus in No. 10 about how to handle the European issue.
It was this new approach that led to Cameron vetoing a proposed EU treaty back
in December.
Several factors have combined to breathe new life into
parliament. First, no party has a majority in either house. When Ed Miliband
was wandering the streets of Davos debating whether to force a Commons vote on
Hester’s bonus, he knew that the motion would have a good chance of gaining the
support of the Liberal Democrats, splitting the coalition and giving Labour a
chance of victory.
Then there is the creative destruction wreaked by the
expenses scandal. At the last election, the scandal contributed to a huge
turnover of MPs. Those who arrived in 2010 are acutely sensitive to the charge
that they are just as bad as the last lot. In general, therefore, they are more
independent-minded than their predecessors. Forty-seven per cent of the Tory
MPs elected in 2010 have already rebelled. Nor did the members who survived the
expenses scandal remain unchanged. When the public think the letters MP after
your name are a mark of dishonour, there is no longer any point in staying in
Parliament for the prestige; even for veteran parliamentarians, status now
means you have to achieve something. The breakneck pace of the new government’s
first months in office owed much to this new mood.
But perhaps the most important reason for the revival of
Parliament is that the politicians themselves have begun to appreciate it
again. For years, the trendy notion that Britain was a ‘young country’ led to
ambitious types turning their noses up at Parliament and its traditions. One senses
now a greater understanding of its place in the constitution.
The next session will see an intense debate about
Parliament’s role and the balance between its two chambers. The coalition
intends to make the House of Lords 20 per cent elected, with more elected
members in the coming years if Parliament wishes it. Already, other items in
the government’s legislative plans are being scrapped or delayed to clear the
necessary parliamentary time for this bill.
On this issue the executive can confidently expect an
extremely hard time from the legislature. We might not find a 21st-century
version of the Enoch Powell–Michael Foot double act that defeated Dick
Crossman’s plans for Lords reform. But we will see MPs defending the rights and
prerogatives of the Commons with far more vigour and conviction than they would
have had just a few short years ago.
James Forsyth |
Saturday, 11 February 2012
Recent example of Select Committee Oral Evidence, scrutiny and e-democracy in one.
On 31 January the Education Committee held an oral evidence session with Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove. MPs on the Committee wanted to ensure that their questions reflected the most pressing concerns in the world of education so asked the public via twitter ‘What one education policy question do you think the Committee should ask Michael Gove?’ Twitter users were asked to submit their question by tagging it with the hashtag #AskGove.
Here is being asked to justify the possibility of expanding grammar schools in Kent.
In the interests of political balance here is a video of Michael Gove falling over.
Q: What recent developments have given MPs greater power to control what they debate? A: The Backbench Business Committee
The Backbench Business Committee has been running since 2010. It gives MPs a chance to suggest debates outside the usual ways. These debates are sometimes held in the Commons chamber or in the rooms around Westminster Hall. It is also the way body that decides which e-petitions (over 100,000 signatures) go to debate.
Remember:
- The Backbench Business Committee is just one way that British governments have responded to recent political scandals that have undermined the credibility of British democracy over the last 15 years, such as the cash for questions (vid), cash for honours and the expenses scandal.
- The Backbench Business Committee is given slots of time by the government. No time given = no MP say on debates. The government still has ultimate control here, but the coalition who created the committee is clearly trying to appear to be giving more say to backbench MPs and to respond more to public demands for debate.
- E-petitions with 100,000 or 50 million signature DO NOT have to be debated. There is no law that says they have to be. It is still up to the committee, and they have limited time given over to them by the government.
- These debates do not lead to a change in law.
- It is not a Select Committee, as it doesn't follow the work of a particular government department.
What's wrong with adjournment debates?
The usual way of MPs getting a debate is through adjournment debates - but these are at the end of the Parliamentary day, poorly attended and with a low reputation. The Backbench Business Committee was created to give MP and public choices for debate a higher profile.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Eletoral reform with lego
Dazzlingly charismatic professor uses plastic to explain electoral reform. It doesn't get better than that!
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Constitutional reform or the break up of the UK?
From the Tutor 2 U Politics Blog:
The big constiutional issue of the year looks firmly set to be that of Scottish devoltion/independence and the ultimate issue of the fate of the Union. Quite what was David Cameron doing in lighting the toucpaper for a debate on Scotland’s future which could end with the United Kingdom splitting apart? Initially it seemed a masterstroke catching Salmond on the hop, but it seems to have backfired. Salmond in some eyes is a ‘political genius’ but does that make him right on the issue? Very briefly here is a snapshot of a few relevent articles:
1. A question not just for the Scots, but for everyone in Britain - Charles Moore, The Daily Telegraph
What Alex Salmond calls independence is really the break-up of the United Kingdom.
As Alex Salmond makes hay haggling over process points for a referendum on Scottish independence, we risk losing sight of the big picture. Mr Salmond may see crude political capital in casting the debate as Scots versus English, but the referendum will define the constitutional architecture for the United Kingdom as a whole.
3. Of course Scotland can stand on its own two feet - and here’s how ~ Hamish McRae, The Independent
Scotland’s voters will be asked to make a political decision in its referendum on independence, but it will be a decision coloured inevitably by economics – or at least economic perceptions, for the long-term economic impact of independence is far from clear. But such is the nature of politics that economic arguments will be used by both sides to support their case.
Alex Salmond, the ebullient leader of the Scottish National party, was in his element this week, doing what even his foes concede he does best: hogging the centre of the political stage, draping himself in history and arguing the case for independence that would break up the United Kingdom.
Only a start…...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)