It is not in the manifesto

Politics.co.uk quotes Constitutional Affairs Minister, Mark Harper, as telling Conservative colleagues who do not support an elected second chamber to fall into line: “For those Conservative colleagues who are not in favour of Lords reform at all – it was in our manifesto.”  Except that it wasn’t.  The Conservative manifesto states that the party “will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber”.  That is not a commitment to bringing forward legislation for an elected second chamber.  It is a commitment to work to build a consensus on the issue.   

If anyone spots a consensus, do let me know.

A bit manic

Rushing around the Palace

As readers may have realised from earlier posts, Wednesdays tend to be rather busy days.  Yesterday was even more crowded than usual.  I started with a pre-arranged meeting with a fellow peer followed by a meeting of the executive of the History of Parliament Trust.  As soon as it finished, I dashed to the meeting of the Constitution Committee.  We were taking evidence from Lord Jay, Chair of the Independent Appointments Commission, on the work of the commission.   It was a case of a brief lunch, followed by a meeting of the executive (I seem to be on a number of executives) of the Association of Conservative Peers, followed by a meeting of the ACP.  I had to go straight from that to speak to a party of Open University students on the role of the Lords: a one-hour session became a one-and-a-half hour session.  It was straight from that to a meeting with another peer – we were then interrupted by a division – and little time to finalise notes for a talk I was giving at 6.00 p.m.  (It was now 5.30!)  At 6.00 I was on a panel (along with Baroness Jay and Professor Dawn Oliver) organised by the UK Constitutional Law Group to talk about the first ten years of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords.  I spoke on the origins of the committee and what it has done in the first decade of its existence. 

For my talk, I had analysed the number of reports published by the committee since its creation in 2001.  (I was the first Chairman, as well as a current member, hence the reason for being invited to talk.)  On my count, the committee has published a total of 126 reports.   These can be sub-divided into those that are responsive (reports on Bills) – 71, own initiative (substantial evidence-taking inquiries initiated by the committee) – 20,  and for the information of the House (annual reports, transcripts of meetings with the Lord Chief Justice etc) – 35.   I singled out some of the own initiative reports as having had a notable impact (notably those on Parliament and the Legislative Process and Fast-track Legislation).  I summarised the functions developed by the committee as informing debate, developing constitutional principles, calling Government to account, and shaping the legislative process – though not yet the constitutional process.

The House rose shortly after 10.00 p.m.  I got away just after 10.30.   Today is less hectic: it is a case of balancing what is going on in the chamber (Committee stage of the Scotland Bill) with marking – a rather large stack of scripts.

100,000 views…

Reaching a wider audience

I am pleased to report that the number of views of the site, since its inception following the last general election, has passed 100,000.   From observation of the daily statistics, the readers appear to be a combination of regulars and those who reach the site in their quest to find answers to particular questions – not least how the Conservative Party chooses it leader, what happens if the PM dies, and whether one should say referenda or referendums. 

Some of my colleagues tend to be sceptical of the value of blogs.  My view is that they are highly efficient ways of reaching audiences.  I may accept an invitation to speak to a group of, say, 20 people at a specified time and venue.   Contrast the resources one has to invest to complete that engagement with the ability to pen a message at a time convenient to me and for an audience of 100 to 200 people to read it at a time convenient to them.  My posts also tend to be a little shorter than my talks!

Almost didn’t make it…

I joined the Politics Department in Hull in 1977, but it almost didn’t happen.  There was a lecturing post in the Department advertised in the summer – it was actually in comparative politics, but as it was virtually the only politics post advertised that year I applied for it.  Shortly afterwards I was away, as were my parents.  They got back on a Sunday and ‘phoned me – I was visiting another relative – to say that a telegram had arrived asking if I was planning to attend the university for interview.  Fortunately, the telegram alerted them to the fact that a letter had already arrived from the University of Hull.  Without the telegram, they would probably have held on to letter until I got home some days later.  As it was, the letter invited me to interview.  The interview was scheduled for the Monday – the following day.  I had to get my things together and then drive to Hull – this was before the Humber Bridge was built, so driving from Lincolnshire to Hull took much longer than it does nowadays.  I got there in the evening: a room was booked for me in the hotel (then called the Newland Park Hotel) across the road from the main University entrance.

I presented myself at the university the following morning for a meeting with members of staff and then for the interview, which took place in the administration building (pictured).  I think there were four or five candidates who were interviewed.  We were asked to stay until the end of the afternoon, when the panel planned to make a decision.  We sat in the main Council Chamber while the panel deliberated.  I was then invited back to the interview room to be offered the post. 

So within a little over 24 hours of knowing I was being invited for interview, I was offered the job.  But it could have been so very different.

Are you still at Hull?

At lunch in the Bishop’s Bar last week, one colleague in the Lords asked how long I have been at Hull.   It is not something I had thought about recently (or indeed for some time), so it was in answer to his query that I realised that this autumn will mark the 35th anniversary of my appointment to the Politics Department at Hull. 

I did mention that throughout the time I have been at Hull, I have had people ask me ‘Are you still at Hull?’ sometimes with a slightly surprised tone.  My response is ‘why shouldn’t I be?’  I presume they ask because they assume I should have moved or on retired.  Neither makes much sense to me.  Once I find something I really like, I tend to stick with it.  I have never seen the point of moving for the sake of it.  Hull very kindly kept promoting me and very few other universities could offer more than it does in terms of an attractive working environment.  I like new challenges, but these tend to be in addition to what I am doing and not in place of it.  And, as for retirement, do I look the retiring sort?

I might just mention that my appointment at Hull 35 years ago almost didn’t happen. I think I may make that the topic of my next post….

No two days are the same…

Although the House only came back on Tuesday, it already feels like it has been a demanding week.  I was in the chamber on Tuesday for the statement on Scotland’s constitutional future.  There is clearly going to be a major clash between the SNP-dominated Scottish Government and the unionist Government – and Parliament – at Westminster.  The constitutional position and how it was going to be handled, not surprisingly, dominated discussions. 

Wednesday morning was taken up with a meeting of the Constitution Committee.  The chair, Baroness Jay, was abroad, so I chaired the meeting.   Just like old times.  We had a very productive meeting.  I had a string of meetings during the rest of the day, but these were variously interrupted by divisions – a total of four – on the Welfare Reform Bill.  The first took place when I was attending a meeting of the 1922 Committee addressed by the Foreign Secretary.  The last occurred shortly before 9.30 p.m.   The first three votes were on important provisions of the Bill and the Government lost all three, in each case by clear majorities – a product of Opposition and cross-bench votes and some Liberal Democrat abstentions. 

This morning was taken up with a meeting of the Joint Committee on the House of Lords Reform Bill.  We resume our regular evidence-taking sessions on Monday.  The afternoon was spent in other meetings, including seeing students.  Time between meeting followed the usual routine of catching up on paperwork – and trying to ensure that my Parliament and Hull e-mail in-boxes did not exceed their limits.  Some attachments seem to be the length of short books.  How long before I join the developing movement to cease using e-mail?

The next two days for me are going to be taken up interviewing candidates for Thouron Scholarships.  It is an intense two days, but more like teaching than Westminster – in other words, structured and following a clear routine.

E-mailing MPs

Last week, I circulated details to MPs of the next meeting of the all-party group on the constitution.  As soon as I had e-mailed the notice, I waited for my in-box to be inundated with automatic responses.  Rather than deleting them immediately, I did a quick study of them.   They are quite revealing.

MPs typically invite the senders, if constituents, to ensure they have provided mailing addresses and remind them that an MP cannot pursue a matter on behalf of another MP’s constituent.   Many will also say that correspondence is dealt with in the order that it is received.  Some also say that they try to turn correspondence round within x days and, if a reply is not received within that time, to write again.  At least one says that he tries to respond within 24 hours, which is impressive.  Another mentions the amount of correspondence he receives – “sometimes approaching 1,000 letters, emails and telephone calls a week”.

Most of the automated responses are relatively short.  A few are more detailed, explaining if the matter is for the local authority, or a devolved matter, how to contact the local authority or the devolved assembly.   Though most are simple e-mail text, some are more like letters with accompanying pictures.   Some also say that they will add the writer to the list of recipients for their e-newsletters, unless they ask not to be added. 

E-mailing peers results in fewer automated responses.  Those that use an automated response during a recess tend to keep the message short – usually just a one-line announcement of being out of the office until a particular date.  However, two responses from peers were particularly notable.  One announced she would shortly be on maternity leave – not the sort of message one normally gets in the Lords (the average age of peers is 69) – and the other, from Baroness Berridge, had a nicely designed message saying: ‘Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, With love, Elizabeth’.  MPs may wish to take note.

The independence of MPs

There were some very productive sessions at the annual Study of Parliament Conference in Oxford at the weekend.  One was on the socialisation of parliamentarians.  I have already done a post on Lords of the Blog  on the socialisation of peers.  However, one member of the panel also touched upon the extent to which MPs were notably independent in the current Parliament.  This gave me an opportunity to reflect on the explanations for this.

The present session of Parliament is unprecedented, as a first session, for the level of intra-party dissent.  In particular, Government MPs, including new MPs, are willing to vote against the whips on a scale that was previously unthinkable at the start of new Parliaments under newly-elected Governments.  The Blair Government had no such problem in 1997.

The expenses scandal obviously provides an important backdrop and may have had an effect on the type of candidate selected.  However, of significance in my view is the fact that no party won an overall majority.  Lots of new MPs did not come in thinking it was all the result of the party leader.  They were probably more prone to think that it was due to their own efforts.    The fact of coalition is also important.   Conservative MPs have realised that there is not the same scope for promotion as in the past: there are fewer government posts available for Conservative MPs than would normally be the case and ministerial turnover is less frequent than in earlier Parliaments.  Tension between parties to the coalition – or indeed agreement between the party leaders – can lead to backbenchers wishing to preserve the integrity of the party line.  Once dissent has built up, there also becomes safety in numbers.  There is some evidence of Members hunting in packs, not least the new cohort of Conservative MPs. 

One other factor which is now coming to the fore is the review of constituency boundaries.   Not only are there to be fewer seats but also few seats with unchanged boundaries.  MPs are jostling to get noticed by local parties in order to secure their re-drawn seat or find a new one.  One explanation being offered for the large number of Conservative MPs being willing to defy the whip and vote last year for a referendum on the EU is that it plays well with local parties. 

A ministerial reshuffle is expected in the spring – and there is still a long way to go to the next election….

New Year viewing as well…

A friend ‘phoned to say that he had got up rather late on New Year’s Day and switched on the television only to see me on the screen.  It was the History of Parliament lecture.  He seemed to think it was a good start to the year.  Then again, he is very polite.   The lecture continues to be screened as part of BBC Parliament’s winter loop.  There are two or three more screenings, the last being next Sunday at 11.10 p.m.   I presume the loop then comes to an end with Parliament resuming next Tuesday.

Once Parliament resumes, life will become much more hectic.  I am in Oxford this weekend for the annual Study of Parliament Group conference and will then be in Westminster from Tuesday onwards for what is likely to prove a rather busy and demanding three months up to the end of the session.  I suspect there will be a fair amount to blog about….

Happy New Year

Looking forward to 2012

Happy New Year to readers. 

I have been very impressed by the fact that there were visitors to the site every day throughout Christmas.   As I have said before, clearly a quality readership.  The site has had almost 100,000 hits since it began during the 2010 election campaign.  During 2011, the posts that attracted the most visitors were Still sitting, Conservative leaders are not elected by a form of AV, Referendums, referenda, the English Question and the Royal succession.   The post on election of the Conservative leader attracted a lot of hits during the AV referendum.  The post on whether to refer to referendums or referenda continues to attract readers.  So too do the posts I have done on what happens if a PM dies in office.

I hope to maintain the pace of blogging in 2012.  Posts have been infrequent over Christmas, primarily because the past two weeks have been spent marking scripts.  Christmas in my household is traditionally the season for marking.   It doesn’t lend itself to much by way of blogging.  Indeed, it’s not exactly a conversation piece when the House of Lords resumes.  ‘What did you do at Christmas?  Go anywhere interesting?’  ‘I spent it at home marking scripts’.  ‘Oh, how, er, yes, well…’. 

The good news (for me) is that I managed to complete the bulk of the marking just before 2011 ended (I mean that literally – there were just minutes to spare), meaning I can begin 2012 with some serious research and writing.  Life in the fast lane, or what?