Tag Archives: whips

MPs’ role in the constitution

Posted on by

MPs play a central role in all democratic systems, but this is particularly true in the UK given its tradition of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. With judges unable to strike down Acts of Parliament for unconstitutionality, MPs have a key role in constitutional protection. Like MPs elsewhere, they also have responsibilities for upholding the constitution and democracy in many other ways, most obviously through holding the government to account, and representing the public, but also, for example, through maintaining standards of political debate. Meg Russell and Lisa James summarise these various important roles. 

Members of parliament are central political actors in all democratic systems. Legislatures are highly visible institutions, and MPs have key roles representing citizens, debating key policy matters, scrutinising the executive and approving major changes to the law. The legislature is at the heart of any functioning national democracy. 

Hence MPs routinely have important roles within the constitution. But some of their wider roles and responsibilities in upholding and protecting the constitution are less often spoken about. In an age of populism and ‘democratic backsliding’ these deserve reflection. As sadly seen in various countries, MPs are important gatekeepers whose consent can facilitate the dismantling of democratic norms and institutions. But where they stand firm, they can be bulwarks against decline. 

Continue reading →

Priorities for new MPs’ induction in the next parliament 

Posted on by

Next month, a large number of new MPs will be elected. On 5 June, the Unit hosted an event with four experts to discuss what support these new MPs might need, and how this might best be delivered. Lisa James summarises the key contributions. 

Whatever the result of the 2024 general election, it is certain there will be a large turnover of MPs. Over 130 MPs have announced they are standing down, and current polling suggests that many more seats could change hands. MPs are key constitutional actors in the UK’s democratic system, with the ultimate responsibility to uphold constitutional principles; it is essential that they are properly supported to carry out this vital role. So with a large influx of new MPs heading for Westminster next month, the Constitution Unit hosted an event asking what the priorities should be for their induction. The panel consisted of Hansard Society Director Ruth Fox, Institute for Government Director Hannah White, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Daniel Greenberg, and former long-serving Conservative MP Alistair Burt. This post summarises the discussion at the event – which can also be found in video and podcast form on our website. 

The history of induction 

Ruth Fox kicked off the event by laying out the history of MPs’ induction. Prior to 2010, newly arriving MPs were largely left to their own devices – Alistair Burt, first elected in 1983, recalled an induction that consisted largely of being shown to his office by a more experienced MP, and instructed to stay there until told otherwise. The expenses scandal, and work by the House of Commons Administration Committee, prompted the creation of a comprehensive induction package for the 2010 intake, combining internal and external provision. But low take-up resulted in a more pared-back, but better attended, offering in 2015. In 2017 and 2019, the early elections provided little opportunity for thorough induction planning. In general, MPs are now offered orientation in their first few weeks, but longer-term professional development that supports them to build their skills as legislators, parliamentary campaigners, and scrutineers has been harder to establish. 

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 →

Should we be allowed to see MPs’ voting records?

Posted on by

Sites like TheyWorkForYou have led to a greater use of parliamentary voting records as a means of holding MPs to account, but it can also lead to misunderstandings about the position taken by the person voting, and to those absent due to maternity or illness being branded lazy. Ben Worthy and Cat Morgan discuss how their research has highlighted some of the problems and benefits of this additional data being made more readily available.

Watching Westminster has got a great deal easier. Since 2005, a whole array of new formal and informal disclosure tools mean we can watch, analyse and verify what MPs and peers are doing much more easily, often at the push of a button. Our Leverhulme project looks across this shifting landscape of searchable digital platforms of MPs’ expenses data, register of interests declarations, and Freedom of Information  requests.  

Most famously, at the centre of these transparency ecosystems stands TheyWorkForYou (TWFY), which monitors MPs’ voting and other activities. Created by volunteers in 2004 and run by mySociety since 2005, it allows us to see individual MPs’ (and peers’) voting records far more easily than in the past. For each MP it offers up, as the website describes, ‘a summary of their stances on important policy areas such as combating climate change or reforming the NHS’, described with phrases such as ‘generally voted for’, ‘always voted against’, and ‘never voted for’. Elsewhere it lists their full record, appearances, and declarations on the register of interests. It averages around 200,000 to 300,000 monthly visits, though this jumps amid elections or scandals.

And some MPs are not happy. A tweet by John Ashmore summarised, perhaps rather too pithily, the two reasons for their unhappiness or concern:

The first worry is that the voting data offers a distorted view. It doesn’t discriminate, for example, between certain types of votes and over-simplifies the rather complex realities. This means, as Stephen Bush recently explained, Green MP Caroline Lucas appears to have ‘voted a mixture of for and against greater regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract shale gas’ because she opposed, and voted against, legislation she considered too weak. Some of the most controversial votes, such as the Free School Meals vote, only make sense in the light of the fact it was an Opposition Day vote, something the site doesn’t explain either. Our research has shown how the data is biased and unevenly focused on, for example, high profile or controversial MPs or particular votes. Aggregated data easily becomes a metric to measure, compare and create yardsticks for what constitutes a ‘good’ or ‘bad‘ MP, giving the illusion of objectivity and measurability.

Continue reading →