This week marks a year since the House of Commons established a new Modernisation Committee. In this post, Tom Fleming reviews the committee’s first year.
Continue readingReviewing the Modernisation Committee’s first year
Tag Archives: Thomas Fleming
How has Keir Starmer changed Prime Minister’s Questions?
Since taking office, Keir Starmer has used his opening answer at Prime Minister’s Questions very differently from his predecessors. In this post, Ruxandra Serban and Tom Fleming explore how Starmer’s approach to opening PMQs compares to that of other post-1997 Prime Ministers.
Continue readingThe controversial origins of centralised agenda control at Westminster
The 1902 ‘Balfour reforms’ established a core feature of the UK House of Commons: ministers’ control of its agenda. In a new article, summarised in this blogpost, Tom Fleming, Simon Hix, and Radoslaw Zubek explore how this important change came about, and question the idea that it was adopted with cross-party consensus.
Continue readingHave select committee chair elections got more competitive?
Since 2010, the chairs of most House of Commons select committees have been elected by MPs. In this post, Tom Fleming explores recent suggestions that these elections have become more competitive. Results from five rounds of elections suggest a more complicated picture.
MPs elected the chairs of most House of Commons select committees in September. One excellent summary of those elections has raised the interesting prospect that they may have become more competitive over time. This matters, because select committee chairs are influential and prominent figures, with a leading role in parliamentary scrutiny of ministers. That makes it important to understand the process by which MPs win these positions. This blogpost therefore takes a closer look at the results of chair elections since they were introduced in 2010.
Continue readingSelect committee elections: how should a ‘proportional’ allocation between parties be calculated?
Chairs and members of House of Commons select committees are allocated between political parties in proportion to their strength in the House. But in practice, a proportional allocation can be calculated in a number of different ways, which produce different outcomes. As the House starts electing its committees, Alan Renwick and Tom Fleming discuss the options and their consequences.
House of Commons select committees are a key vehicle for parliamentary scrutiny. It thus matters how their chairs and members are shared out between the political parties. In theory, these posts are allocated in proportion to parties’ strength in the House: for example, a party with 20% of MPs can broadly expect to chair 20% of select committees and contribute 20% of their members.
However, this principle may be deceptively simple. There are multiple potential ways of calculating a proportional share of committee chairs and members, and different methods can produce different results. Yet the House does not publicly acknowledge or explain its chosen approach.
This blogpost therefore outlines different possible methods and explores their implications. We argue that the House’s approach to this important question should be made public, in the interests of fairness and transparency. Doing so would provide an opportunity for MPs to evaluate the current approach, and to consider the possible alternatives.
Continue reading