Suchergebnisse

Concern about political disengagement is prevalent in British politics, and this article seeks to examine what the Westminster Parliament has been doing to address it. Recent reforms and recommendations from various parliamentary committees are examined, including increased use of the Internet to disseminate information about Parliament, the use of online consultation mechanisms, and the tentative extension of parliament's petitioning processes. The discussion is couched in the representative origins of Parliament, its adaptation to democratic politics and the extent to which its response to political disengagement is contextualised by its representational, rather than its democratic, role. The article addresses whether Parliament can approach these issues in a 'holistic' fashion, and as a 'unified' institution within the political system.

Modernisation has been rhetorically important for the Labour government since 1997, and it found a dedicated outlet through the House of Commons Modernisation Committee. This committee has pursued a particular type of modernisation, which this article seeks to explore. It does this by focusing on three issues. First, it examines the role of the Leader of the House of Commons in the chair of the Modernisation Committee. Second, it looks at the work of the Modernisation Committee in comparison to that of the Procedure Committee. Finally, it contextualises the discussion of modernisation with reference to the distinction between efficiency reforms and effectiveness reforms, and explores what this reveals about the complexity of executive–legislative relations at Westminster, and about the course of the modernisation debate since 1997.

On 14 May 2002, the House of Commons voted on proposals put forward by the Modernization Select Committee for reform of the departmental select committee system. This article examines the origins of those proposals, & the outcome of the vote, focusing on one particular proposal to create a Committee of Nomination to place MPs onto select committees. This raises questions regarding two competing academic approaches to explaining parliamentary reform, the 'attitudinal' approach & the 'contextual' approach, & concludes that, of the two, the 'contextual' approach is better placed to explain the failure to create a Committee of Nomination. Adapted from the source document.

Examines the debates and developments about House of Lords reform since 1911, and notes that disagreements have occurred within, as well as between, the main political parties and governments throughout this time. It draws attention to how various proposals for reform have raised a wider range constitutional and political problems.

In 1911, the power of the House of Lords was curbed, as a prelude to establishing a more democratic Second Chamber. A century later, the House of Lords is still comprised mostly of appointed peers, with some hereditary peers remaining. This book explains why House of Lords reform has proceeded so erratically since 1911, and why an elected Second Chamber has still not been established 100 years later. Using a range of primary sources, including Cabinet papers, Ministerial correspondence, the archives of the main political parties and the private papers of various key political figures, this unique study traces the main proposals for reform of the Second Chamber during the last 100 years, and notes that even the apparently simplest measures have raised complex or constitutionally awkward problems when exposed to fuller discussion and examination. Furthermore, the issue of House of Lords reform has not only repeatedly revealed disagreements between the main parties, but also marked differences within them, which have exacerbated the problems of securing agreement on proposals for reform.

The parliamentary decline thesis formed the dominant theory and narrative of legislative behaviour and capacity during the 20th century. And yet in analytical terms the thesis provides a relatively blunt instrument for dissecting complex socio-political relationships. The bluntness of this tool has not been remedied by the lazy thinking and unconscious theorising that has too often dominated research in this field. The central argument of this article is that the dominant public, media and academic perception of an eviscerated and sidelined parliament provides a misleading caricature of a more complex institution. Moreover the constant promotion and reinforcement of this caricature by scholars arguably perpetuates and fuels public disengagement and disillusionment with politics.

Prime ministerial power is always contingent, based on the utilisation of personal and institutional resources, subject to various formal and informal constraints. Parliament is both a political resource to be utilised, but also a veto-player. In the absence of formal mechanisms setting out the requirements for the UK prime ministerial accountability to parliament, a fluid and essentially personalised relationship has developed. Regular prime ministerial appearances before the House of Commons Liaison Committee, begun in 2002, have added to parliament's scrutiny toolkit. This article considers the accountability of the prime minister to parliament by analysing the emergence and development of the Liaison Committee evidence sessions, and draws on interviews with participants and examination of the session transcripts, in order to assess the value of this scrutiny mechanism within the broader framework of prime ministerial-legislative relations.

Prime ministerial power is always contingent, based on the utilisation of personal and institutional resources, subject to various formal and informal constraints. Parliament is both a political resource to be utilised, but also a veto-player. In the absence of formal mechanisms setting out the requirements for the UK prime ministerial accountability to parliament, a fluid and essentially personalised relationship has developed. Regular prime ministerial appearances before the House of Commons Liaison Committee, begun in 2002, have added to parliament's scrutiny toolkit. This article considers the accountability of the prime minister to parliament by analysing the emergence and development of the Liaison Committee evidence sessions, and draws on interviews with participants and examination of the session transcripts, in order to assess the value of this scrutiny mechanism within the broader framework of prime ministerial-legislative relations.