140. Constitutional law is qualitatively different from other types of legislation. We agree with the House of Lords Constitution Committee that there is currently no acceptable watertight definition of what constitutes constitutional legislation. However, we consider that it can be identified through experience and commonsense, and that this is encapsulated in Lord Norton’s “2Ps” test (does it affect a principal partof the constitution, and does it raise an important issue of principle), and the list oftypical features of constitutional legislation suggested by Professor Sir John Baker.  We await the Constitution Society’s work to formulate a definition.

141. We have considered the Government’s response to the House of LordsConstitution Committee Report, and disagree that a watertight definition is needed before making any changes to processes for preparing and legislating in the area of constitutional law.

142. The current ad hoc process of identifying which bills to take on the Floor of the House of Commons in a Committee of the whole House lacks transparency: it is clear that differentiation is taking place in order to decide which bills are to be considered by a Committee of the whole House, but the decision-making process is unclear.  We recommend that the Government adopts our suggestion and applies Lord Norton’s“2Ps” test, together with the list of typical features of constitutional legislation as suggested by Professor Sir John Baker, or at the very least sets out why it does not agree with this approach. We also recommend that the Government follows our draft Code of Legislative Standards and explains whether the test has been met for each piece of legislation.

The day started with an early morning meeting with Lord Lexden to discuss progress with a working group we are creating on overseas voting.  It was then a case of getting to Portcullis House to chair a two-hour meeting of the Higher Education Commission.  As part of our inquiry into the new landscape of higher education, we took evidence from Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Anthony McClaran, Chief Executive of the Quality Assusrance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), and Fraser Woodburn, University Secretary of the Open University.  (By a remarkable coincide, the last two used to work at the University of Hull).  It was an excellent meeting, as all our evidence-taking sessions have been.

I then had a few minutes to get to the Attlee Room in the House of Lords for the 12.30 start for the reception to mark the publication of the 2nd edition of Parliament in British Politics.  There was a splendid turnout of parliamentarians, parliamentary officials and members of the Hull mafia.  Those attending included the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana, as well as the Leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley.  I explained the reasons for holding a reception for a new edition – the sheer scale of change in Parliament over the past eight years – and there were then splendid speeches on the current Parliament by Philip Cowley, from Nottingham University, and Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government: the former focused on voting behaviour in the current House of Commons and the latter on how civil servants were having difficulty keeping up with a more assertive House. 

It was then off to have lunch with the Ghanian Speaker – the Clerk of the Ghana Parliament accompanying him is one of my PhD students – and then to the meeting of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.   Unusually, we were taking evidence, on this occasion from junior minister in the Ministry of Justice (and Hull University law graduate) Helen Grant.  We were pursuing concerns, not exactly dispelled, over the order to abolish the Administrative Justivce and Tribunals Council. 

I then went straight to Portcullis House for my ‘open house’ session with students, though on this occasion it was MPs rather than students who stopped to have a word.  It was then a case of catching up on paperwork and beginning the evening’s task of marking.  The only common thread of each day this week – like last – is marking.  It will be the same next week….

To find out more about the 1922 Committee, you can read The Voice of the Backbenchers, which John Rentoul has described as an ‘excellent short book’.  (You see, it is a book.)   It is available for £7.99 (including postage and packing) from info@conservativehistory.org.uk

So much has happened since the first edition was published in 2005 that the book has been substantially revised, with four new chapters, two existing chapters merged, and all the rest revised, sometimes rather substantially.  The changes are reflected in the length.  The first edition was 289 pages and this one is 336.

The book is available from all good bookshops.  One student was proud of the fact that on Friday he was the first to get a copy from the consignment as it arrived at Waterstone’s on campus.   The paperback is available at under £25.  Yes, a snip at £24.99.

Now that it is published and I have copies, I have decided that it is indeed a book.  I had listed it under the category of a short monograph, but as that basically means a short book I thought I may as well list it with the rest of my books.

Does this classification matter?  Only for where I list it in my CV, but that has little relevance for anyone else as there is little reason why anyone else would see it.   It has more relevance in terms of providing the answer when people ask me how many books I have published.  Instead of saying ‘thirty, plus a short monograph’, I can now say ‘thirty-one’.   Each response excludes new editions.  And talking of new editions, more shortly on the 2nd edition of Parliament in British Politics…

UPDATE: See John Rentoul’s report on the book at http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/24/lloyd-george-my-part-in-his-downfall/

The second edition of Parliament in British Politics is much changed from the first edition and substantially longer.  So much has happened since the first edition was published in 2005 – both within Parliament and in terms of the constitutional framework within which it operates – that I had to pen four new chapters as well as make major revisions to others: one chapter was dropped and two others merged into one. 

I am now at work on the proofs of the 8th edition of Politics UK.  I also have in press chapters for different books on Parliament and human rights, the oratory of Enoch Powell, and the Parliament Act 1911 in its historical context.  I managed to get these out of the way before the spring marking season.  That season is just beginning.  Expect light blogging as a result!

Margaret Thatcher became Leader of the Conservative Party because Conservative MPs wanted to get rid of Ted Heath and she became PM because voters wanted to vote out the Callaghan Government after the Winter of Discontent.  (In many respects, she was put into No. 10 by the actions of trade unions.)  As Leader of the Opposition, she had not shone (in that respect, she was not unusual) and her actions in Government could not necessarily have been predicted from her period in Opposition.  Thatcherism was a consequence of electoral success in 1979 and not the other way round.  Thatcherism was initially given intellectual coherence by her opponents and some of the elements of it were not the product of a clearly-devised programme for government.  She led her party to victory in three general elections, the success in 1983 and 1987 being more attributable to Thatcher than to Thatcherism.

As I argued in The British Polity, her unprecedented tenure (in modern British politics) as PM had three phases: bitter conflict, domination by the leader, and conflict and fall.  She achieved the implementation of radical policies, despite never managing to create a fully Thatcherite parliamentary party or Cabinet.  She got her way by force of will and by conveying that she knew where she was going.  Some commentators have said she was more pragmatic than is generally realised.  It is more accurate, I think, to say that she knew the difference between what was desirable and what was achievable.

As I argued in my Speaker’s Lecture on Enoch Powell, Powell was a great parliamentarian but not a great politician.  He recognised, and admired the fact, that Thatcher was a great politician.  She could bide her time or tack as appropriate in order to get what she wanted.  She was tough as well as courageous, not least in dealing with the Falklands crisis and the assassination attempt on her in 1984.  It took courage to take on Heath for the party leadership in 1975.

She had her blind spots, though was remarkably kind to those around her, including political opponents (a point I see that Lord Foulkes has made).  She assumed that because she had made it in life, so could others; she may well have succeeded even if she had not married Denis, but we will never know.  Though she became an Anglican, she was clearly influenced by her Methodist roots.  That instilled a work ethic.

She had a remarkable impact upon British politics, the state, and how the UK was seen in the rest of the world.  We cannot know what would have happened in British politics had she not decided to contest the party leadership in 1975.  Some of the things she did may well have been undertaken, though not necessarily when they were.  She has been described as a Marmite politician.  With here you knew where you stood – mainly because you knew where she stood.

Her remarkable political judgment failed her after a decade in office.  She became too rigid and pursued policies, such as the poll tax, that Tory MPs realised may lead to electoral disaster.  She falied to read the signals when Sir Anthony Meyer stood against her for the leadership in 1989.  She lost the leadership in 1990 not because, as she believed (and the BBC seem to believe), by a Cabinet coup, but because of the result of the first ballot in the leadership contest.  That holed her below the waterline.  Cabinet members may have helped her see she could not continue or survive for very long, but her fate was already sealed.  Her loss of office had a similar impact to Powell’s loss of his parliamentary seat in 1987: it took the purpose out of life.  Politics had been her life and she had no real hinterland.

She was arguably the most remarkable politician of modern times.  Her policies will continue to be the subject of debate.  Her policies were divisive, but by their nature they were bound to be.  Pursuing them required a single-minded determination.  Many of her opponents condemn her policies, yet respect the fact that she was a conviction politician.  It was that which made her what she was and delivered electoral success.