Monday, 13 May 2013
Saturday, 27 April 2013
How effective is the Lords at constraining the executive and what arethe implications of this for the reform debate?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-22266173
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
How good is parliament at constraining the government?
Good bit in this podcast on how MPs in different governing parties can work to together to block
government legislation – last week it was Cons and Lib backbenchers blocking the
government's relaxation of local planning laws. Also mentions George Parker at
the end who some are going to see next week. More to follow on arrangements.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
What factors affect PM appointments to cabinet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01736qr
Only available for another 5 days
Only available for another 5 days
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)