Tag Archives: Australia

What is constitutional monarchy, and what is its role in the UK? 

Posted on by

Constitutional monarchies are governed by elected parliaments and governments; but a monarch remains head of state and plays various important roles. Lisa James and Robert Hazell explain the UK monarchy’s constitutional role, its impact, and the questions that would need to be addressed should the UK ever decide to replace it. 

Background 

A constitutional monarchy is a system in which the head of state is a monarch, but that person does not rule the country. Governing is undertaken instead by an elected parliament and government. In the UK, the monarch’s involvement in politics has gradually diminished over the centuries, to the point where they effectively no longer exercise political power.  

The UK is not alone in having a constitutional monarchy. There are seven other monarchies in Europe, which are very similar to the UK system. The main difference is one of size: the UK has a much larger population than most European monarchies, and a larger royal family to service it.  

The UK’s monarchy is also uniquely international: the British monarch is head of state for 14 other ‘realms’ such as Canada, Australia, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea. 

Continue reading →

Data-driven campaigning: the shape and perils of the modern election campaign

Posted on by

Political parties have access to an array of data that can potentially inform how they campaign. Kate Dommett, co-author of a new book on the subject, explains what data-driving campaigning is, the different ways in which parties use it, the problems it can cause, and how it might impact the next UK general election.

Imagine yourself running a party’s election campaign. Your mission in the run up to polling day is to develop a strategy for securing electoral victory or an increased vote share. You know that according to the latest social science research that campaigns can have important, if small effects on electoral outcomes. You know you will need to work to locate existing supporters and encourage them to turn out and cast their vote. You will also likely need to persuade undecided voters of the virtues of your party. And you will need to contact activists and motivate them to get involved in the campaign by donating money, attending campaign events or sharing party messages.

The key to all these activities is being able to communicate with the right audience. You do not want to be sending a reminder to vote to supporters of your opponents, and you do not want to waste money sending advertisements intended to persuade people who already plan to vote for you. You therefore need to gather and sort information about people’s voting behaviour to develop tailored messages. You also need to work out what messaging and mediums are most effective for achieving your desired goals. What slogans have the desired effect, what appeals prompt donations, and what campaign action most effectively reminds people to vote?

This form of campaigning is nothing new, but in recent years the availability of new forms of data, the emergence of new and more sophisticated techniques for profiling voters, and new mediums for contact are seen to have heralded a form of ‘data-driven campaigning’. Rather than relying on their gut instinct, party campaigners now use data and analytics insights to construct their campaign as never before. And yet, whilst increasingly common, our understanding of what exactly is captured by the term data-driven campaigning is often opaque.

Continue reading →

How much control should there be over how MPs do their job?

Posted on by

In the second of a two-part series, former senior House of Commons official David Natzler discusses whether MPs should be subject to a minimum attendance requirement, and their role as constituency caseworkers. He concludes that an objective measure of individual MPs’ constituency activity and work, and some agreed minimum standards, would be useful, but that the right of MPs to determine for themselves how to do their job should be preserved.

In the first blog in this series, I set out the background to the recent resignation of Nadine Dorries and suggested that it raised some general issues of importance. In that post, I discussed the process of appointing MPs to the House of Lords, and on the process of resignation, suggesting that sitting members of the Commons should not be eligible for peerages, and that the process of resignation should be brought in line with prevailing norms, involving a simple letter of resignation to the Speaker or Clerk of the Commons. In this post I look at the issue of MPs’ attendance and at the performance of their constituency role.

Attendance

There was criticism of Nadine Dorries for not having spoken in the Commons chamber for around a year, since 7 July 2022 when she answered questions in the Commons as Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. She was also criticised for not tabling a written question since 20 December 2017 (although between July 2019 and September 2022, she was a minister, and therefore not able to table questions) and for not having voted since 26 April 2023.

MPs are not formally obliged to attend the House of Commons. Those such as Sinn Féin MPs who decline to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance after their election may indeed never do so during their time as MPs. As Erskine May puts it: ‘On ordinary occasions, the attendance of Members in Parliament is not enforced by either House’.

Continue reading →

Is confrontational questioning bad for parliaments and democratic politics?

Posted on by

Parliamentary procedures such as Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK or Question Time in Australia are often criticised for their contentious style of debate. Ruxandra Serban compares questioning procedures in the UK, Australia, Canada and Ireland, and discusses whether a confrontational style has negative consequences for parliaments and for democratic politics.

Parliamentary questions are a well-known feature of politics, and procedures such as Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK, Question Period in Canada, and Question Time in Australia are at the centre of public perceptions of parliament. These procedures receive more attention than their European equivalents, which are considered less ‘interesting’ than the theatrical antics of PMQs. But they are also criticised for being too combative, with the implication that the confrontational dialogue seen during PMQs or Question Time is detrimental to parliament and for politics more broadly. Recently, the new Leader of the House in Canada also promised to change the adversarial character of Question Period. But how confrontational are these procedures, and why? Does confrontational questioning have negative implications for parliament and for democratic politics? And, importantly, what can be done about it?

How confrontational are different questioning procedures?

PMQs in the UK is notoriously conflictual, with numerous studies documenting face-threatening strategies, incivility, and personal attacks in questions and answers. But how does confrontational language at PMQs compare with similar procedures in other parliaments? To investigate this, I looked at four similar parliaments, during four comparable premierships: Enda Kenny in Ireland (2011-16), David Cameron in the UK (2010-15), Julia Gillard in Australia (2010-13), and Stephen Harper in Canada (2006-8). Taken in pairs, the four premierships are of a similar duration, with both Cameron and Kenny having a term of about five years, and Gillard and Harper of about two. All four led similar types of government: coalition governments in the UK and Ireland, and minority governments in Australia and Canada.

I sampled a set of 30 questioning sessions for each case-study, amounting to 3,212 parliamentary questions. Each question was labelled based on whether or not it included a conflictual remark, understood as explicit instances of an MP criticising the government, a political party, policy, or the Prime Minister.

During the periods analysed, the Canadian Question Period was the most confrontational, with 75% of questions including a conflictual remark. The Australian Question Time came second, with 44%, and the UK’s PMQs third, with 40%. Oral Questions to the Taoiseach was much less conflictual, with only 13% of questions including a critical comment. Although some of these patterns may be related to the context of each premiership, my new research shows similar findings apply to the Trudeau premiership, during which around 80% of questions to the Prime Minister included a conflictual remark. Ongoing conversations about excessively contentious questioning in Canada, Australia and the UK suggest that things have definitely not improved over time.

Continue reading →

Scrutinising delegated legislation: what can Westminster learn from other parliaments?

Posted on by

Recent years have seen increasing expressions of concern about whether the UK Parliament has adequate procedures for scrutinising delegated legislation. In a recent article in Political Quarterly, Tom Fleming and Tasneem Ghazi explore the lessons which might be learned from how other parliaments approach that challenge. This blog summarises those lessons.

There is wide concern about the increasing use of delegated legislation in the UK. Delegated legislation is normally made by ministers, rather than parliament. Historically, it has been used to fill in the details of broader policy frameworks set out in primary legislation. But recent years have seen a growing trend of ministers using delegated legislation to implement major policy decisions. This was highlighted as an issue during the Brexit process and Covid-19 pandemic. It has continued under the Sunak government, as shown by the recent bills on industrial action and retained EU law both containing significant delegated powers.

This trend has led to renewed attention being paid to the UK parliament’s system for scrutinising delegated legislation (which mostly takes the form of ‘statutory instruments’). By its nature, this legislation receives less extensive scrutiny than primary legislation. But especially when these statutory instruments (SIs) contain significant policy content, it is important that MPs and peers have sufficient opportunities and means to scrutinise them. That scrutiny may confer greater legitimacy and further government accountability to parliament. It may also highlight technical and policy flaws and ensure that a range of voices are heard in the policy-making process.

Continue reading →