How many rebellions has the coalition had to face?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/coalition-mps-rebellions-votes

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 | 

Video on Scrutiny

Video here

'via Blog this'

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.