The value of higher education

On 7 March, the House of Lords debated a motion, moved by Lord Blunkett, to take note ‘of the contribution of higher education to national growth, productivity and levelling-up’.   Given the number of peers who had signed up to speak, each backbench speaker only had five minutes.

In my speech, I decided to make two principal points, each designed to draw attention to the value of higher education beyond that of the economic, encompassing personal development – society is stronger by having a well-educated (and, a point touched upon by Lord Willetts, more resilient) population as well as benefiting politically, and not just economically, by the export of higher education.  Having overseas students attend UK universities not only benefits local economies and university research, but also trade and soft power, increasingly important as our capacity to exercise hard power declines.

I also touched upon a point I have developed before, namely that there is more long-term benefit in using our overseas aid budget to bring students from developing countries to study in the UK, who then return home to the benefit of their nation, than there is in giving money to the governing regime.  We also need to recognise that in recruiting overseas students, we are in a highly competitive market.

A motion of no confidence in the Speaker…

As a result of the decision by the Speaker, Sir Lindsey Hoyle, last Wednesday to select a Labour amendment to an SNP motion, going against convention and the advice of the Clerk of the House, a number of MPs tabled a motion of no confidence, utilising the only means permissible to criticise him.

When some MPs tabled a motion of no confidence in Speaker Michael Martin during the expenses scandal of 2009, there was some confusion as to the the last time a Speaker had been removed by a vote of the House.  Here it becomes important to distinguish between a Speaker being removed by a vote of no confidence and one losing a vote to be re-elected at the start of a Parliament.  I reproduce here what I wrote at the time for the website ‘Lords of the Blog’.

The Speakership has its origins in the 14th Century.  Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1377 is generally regarded as being the first person to hold the recognisable role of Speaker.  Initially, the Speaker was elected on an annual basis; on occasion, there were two Speakers in a year.  It was not a particularly prestigious post.  Some occupants of the office lost their heads (literally).  Nine Speakers died violent deaths, though not necessarily as a consequence of being Speaker; four died, for example, in the War of the Roses.

The last Speaker to be removed by a vote of no confidence was Sir John Trevor in 1695.  He had been taking bribes from the City of London and a motion to remove him was put from the chair – by Trevor! – and carried.

However, he was not the last Speaker to be removed by a vote of the House.  Speakers are subject to re-election at the start of a new Parliament and on two occasions since 1695 the incumbent has lost.  In 1780, Sir Fletcher Norton (no relation) was voted out – he had annoyed the House by his criticism of the king and of leading members of the House, such as Lord North – and in 1835 Sir Charles Manners Sutton also lost, largely because the Whigs thought he displayed undue partiality.   Although some Speakers since have given up the post following periods of controversy, Manners Sutton remains the last Speaker to be removed by a vote of the House.

The Speakership itself was not a particularly prestigious or neutral post in the early centuries.  It became a much more dignified post in the 18th Century, not least thanks to the longest-serving Speaker, Arthur Onslow, and became a more detached, neutral post in the 19th Century.

The most famous quote from a Speaker is Speaker Lenthall in standing up to the King, Charles I, in 1642: “May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”  Ironically, it was a brave stand totally out of character: he was otherwise a useless and supine Speaker.   A less known but useful quote is that of Speaker Lowther (1905-21):  “There are three golden rules for Parliamentary speakers: Stand up. Speak up. Shut up.”  Sound man.

And the winner..

There were some splendid entries – as is usual – for the caption competition, with a good and inventive range of proposals.  Some had a historical tinge – I suspect not all readers will know who ‘J. R. Hartley’ was (and I rather hope that I don’t end up having to ‘phone round booksellers to find a copy of the book!) – and others seemed to ascribe me a more sinister status based on Nadine Dorries’, er, reflections.  Some were also even more topical in referring to revelations in a Dutch translation.  If only there was a Dutch translation…   Mind you, a year or so ago I did find a copy of Politics UK in an Amsterdam bookshop, so there is hope that the book, even untranslated, will find its way to the Netherlands.  As followers on X/Twitter will know, it has found its way to Switzerland.

Given its topical nature, John’s entry was also a serious contender: ‘So it’s soup for you, turkey leg and trifle not Christmas pud.  I’ll put you down for extra sprouts.’

It was a close-run thing, but the winner is Tony Sands with:

‘Members of the Hull Mafia in a rare public appearance wait patiently for a signed copy, clearly delighted that their Godfather, Lord “Don” Norton, has written yet another book cleverly diverting public attention from where real power in Westminster lies.’

This was, I thought, a clever entry in that it lends itself to different interpretations.  I also note that four of the people in the picture are graduates or students of Hull University.  Rather like the winner.  If he would like to get in touch, his prize will be on its way.

Christmas 2023 Caption competition

I know several readers have been keen for a caption competition.  By now, I suspect (well, hope) that many readers will be in possession of a  copy of The 1922 Committee: Power Behind the Scenes, so it will be on offer as a prize, but with an alternative if the winner already has a copy.

Mention of The 1922 Committee brings me to the picture.  Several photographs were taken at the book launch in the House of Lords on 17 October and at the launch on campus two days later.  I have been spoilt for choice, but I decided the one that may provide the greatest challenge is the picture of people lining up to get copies of the book signed.

The reader who in my opinion comes up with the caption that is wittiest and most appropriate to the picture will be the winner.  Entrants will, all being well, line up like those seeking a signed copy…

British Government and Politics: posts for politics students

The posts on this blog have covered a range of issues as well as offering comments on my parliamentary work and providing light relief through a caption competition.  Some of the topics have been superseded by events – such as the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (on which I did several posts) being replaced by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act.  Others remain of relevance and I felt there may be merit in drawing together those that are likely to be of interest to teachers and students of politics.  They comprise a mix of analysis, opinion and factual reporting. 

What follows are posts I have done over the past ten years.  Where I have done several posts on the same subject, as on the 1922 Committee, I have confined it to one key post.  

Just click on the link to see the post.  You will see the date on each, but I like to think they have stood the test of time.

The constitution

Do we need a ‘written’ constitution?’  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/do-we-need-a-written-constitution/

A new Magna Carta?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/a-new-magna-carta/

Direct or representative democracy?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2019/08/29/direct-or-representative-democracy/

A Conservative view of the Constitution  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2018/11/24/a-conservative-view-of-the-constitution/

Who has responsibility for the constitution?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2023/06/30/who-has-responsibility-for-the-constitution/

Upholding constitutional principles  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2023/11/12/upholding-constitutional-principles/

When does a practice become a convention?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2020/04/19/when-does-a-practice-become-a-convention/

When is a convention not a convention?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/when-is-a-convention-not-a-convention/

Parliament and the courts  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/parliament-and-the-courts-2/

The Union  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2021/05/18/debating-the-constitution-3/

Standing in for the Prime Minister  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2020/03/28/standing-in-for-the-prime-minister/

The role of First Secretary of State  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2020/04/12/the-role-of-first-secretary-of-state/

Royal Assent  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2020/01/31/royal-assent/

The Prime Minister

 What type of Prime Minister do you want?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2022/07/09/what-type-of-prime-minister-do-you-want/

Effective Prime Ministerial leadership  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/effective-prime-ministerial-leadership/

Tony Blair and the office of PM  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/tony-blair-and-the-office-of-pm/

Ministers

The need for leadership training  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2021/09/23/leadership-training-for-ministers-and-civil-servants/

Staying in power: how partly leaders use informal space in Parliament

Keeping MPs onside  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2021/09/01/the-need-to-keep-mps-onside/

James Callaghan and Parliament  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2020/04/20/prime-ministers-exploiting-informal-space/

John Smith and Parliament  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2023/09/26/john-smith-and-parliament/

The unclubbable Prime Minister  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2019/05/24/the-unclubbable-prime-minister/

Parliament

The recall of Parliament  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/recall-of-parliament/

The demise of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2022/03/27/the-demise-of-the-fixed-term-parliaments-act/

The House of Lords

Making the case for second chambers  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2023/07/19/making-the-case-for-second-chambers/

Reforming the House of Lords  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2022/12/25/reforming-the-house-of-lords-2/

Lords reform: 1911 all over again…  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/lords-reform-1911-all-over-again/

Who speaks for the House?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/the-lords-and-crisis-management/

The Lords deserve better  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/the-lords-deserve-better/

The House of Commons

The role of the Speaker  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/the-role-of-the-speaker-2/

Who are the orators?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/where-are-the-orators/

Legislation

‘Law but not law’ – legislation that is not brought into force  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2021/10/24/when-law-is-not-law/

The use of skeleton bills  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/bare-bones-legislation-the-use-of-skeleton-bills/

The 1922 Committee

 Dispelling myths about the 1922 Committee  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2022/10/22/dispelling-myths-about-the-1922-committee/

 

Lobbying

Different modes of lobbying  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2021/10/24/different-modes-of-lobbying/

Political debate

 The decline of politics  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2022/04/18/the-decline-of-politics/

The arrogance that threatens politics  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2020/12/19/the-arrogance-that-threatens-politics/

The Member of Parliament

The changing constituency role of the MP  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2021/05/01/the-changing-constituency-roles-of-the-mp/

MPs and constituency service  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/mps-and-constituency-service/

What makes an effective parliamentarian?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2019/12/01/what-makes-for-an-effective-parliamentarian/

The value of parliamentarians  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/the-value-of-parliamentarians/

Women and Westminster  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/women-and-westminster/

What if a candidate dies?  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/what-if-a-candidate-dies/

The perils of being an independent MP  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/the-perils-of-being-an-independent-mp/

Voters

Protecting voter choice  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/protecting-voter-choice/

Prisoner voting  https://nortonview.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/prisoner-voting-2/

I hope they prove of interest and, for A-level and undergraduate students, of some use. 

Upholding constitutional principles

I spoke in last Wednesdays’ debate on the King’s Speech.  During the five days of debate, the constitution was not among the topics listed.  The topics for Wednesday included devolution, so I used that as the basis for my contribution, speaking about the Union and, more generally, the constitution.

Regular readers will be aware that I have been pursuing the fact that there is no senior minister with dedicated responsibility for upholding the principles of the constitution.  This is more than a matter of good administration: it has fundamental implications for the health of the constitution.  You can read the speech here.  The two key paragraphs are:

“The health of the constitution is crucial to the well- being of the British polity. The fundamentals of our uncodified constitution have served the nation well, but the working of the constitution rests on the broad acceptance by both those in authority and citizens generally that it is legitimate and serves the nation well.

Our constitution, unlike some codified constitutions, is underpinned by a culture of constitutionalism. This embodies an understanding and embrace of constitutional principles. It is reflected in the requirement of the Constitutional Reform Act for the Lord Chancellor to swear to respect the rule of law. The Act does not define what the term means; the Lord Chancellor is deemed to know. However, the constitution has come under challenge in recent years, in part because of ignorance on the part of Ministers—on occasion, a wilful ignorance bordering on contempt—and is now in danger of being undermined by neglect. That needs to be countered by those at the heart of government having a clear understanding of our constitutional arrangements—not just process but the principles underlying it—and being vigilant in protecting those principles. For that purpose, there needs to be a senior Minister with a clear, defined responsibility for constitutional issues and the clout to ensure that the principles are upheld.”

It is a subject too important not to keep pursuing.

From Westminster to Hull: a successful launch

The 1922 Committee: Power Behind the Scenes was published on 10 October, with a launching party held in the Palace of Westminster on 17 October and another two days later at the University of Hull.

The Westminster reception drew an audience comprising senior MPs and peers, journalists, academics and parliamentary staff.  The key speaker was Sir Graham Brady, the current and longest serving chairman of the 1922.  He made some pithy comments that got picked up in the media, primarily by The Times Diary (not least that the 1922 Committee had done its best to help sales of the book by being especially active in the past year) and by John Rentoul of The Independent, who noted that Sir Graham had used to opportunity to declare publicly that he supported the election of the Conservative leader, at least when in government, reverting to MPs.  In speaking, I stressed the fact that the 1922 Committee was an important political body, but one that had largely been hidden in plain sight.  Mine was only the second book to be published about the 1922.  The first was published in 1973 to mark its 50th anniversary.  A lot has happened in the past fifty years, indeed in the past five.  I am pleased to say that the publisher did a brisk trade in selling copies of the book.

At the reception on campus, there was also a splendid turnout, not least of students.  I reiterated some of the points made at the Westminster launch as well as addressing some of the myths about the 1922.  As with the Westminster reception, not only was there a brisk sale of the book, but also a queue of people seeking signed copies.

The level of interest in the book has been notable.  I have been asked to address different meetings on the subject,  Indeed, on the evening of the Westminster launch, I spoke to the Political Committee of the Reform Club on the topic.  The book has been selling well: it had gone into a second printing even before the publication date and is I gather going into, or is already in, a third print run.  It has benefited from splendid reviews from Simon Heffer in The Sunday Telegraph (‘impeccable scholarship’; see the preceding post) and Lord Lexden, the historian of the Conservative Party, in The House magazine (‘meticulous… masterly account’), both in publications that reach a natural audience for the book.

The book is written to mark the centenary of the 1922 Committee.  In the event, the centenary coincides with the 1922 having gained a high public profile, but with people knowing little about it.  I planned to write the history anyway, but the book has clearly tapped a market for knowing more about this body with a name that confuses rather than clarifies.  It wasn’t formed in 1922 and it isn’t a committee..

A review worth having…

The 1922 Committee: Power Behind the Scenes is formally being published at the beginning of next month, but copies have been been received at the publisher’s warehouse today.  There will be a book launch in Westminster on 17 October and one in Hull on 19 October.

Various media were sent bound copies of the initial proofs in order to facilitate reviews to precede or coincide with publication.  One has already appeared, a generous one in The Sunday Telegraph (on 17 September) by Simon Heffer.  I was enormously gratified both by the content as well as the prominence of the piece.  The book, he says in opening, ‘exhibits impeccable scholarship and a degree of charm’.  The good news is that this is not like an extract taken out of context to promote a show.

The review also appears to have had an immediate effect on sales.  By the end of the day, the book had shot up phenomenally on Amazon’s rankings.  Governing Britain did not receive any reviews (possibly a consequence of being published during lockdown), but the first print run sold out within a couple of weeks.  Given the review The 1922 Committee has received – and the obvious point that the 1922 Committee has rather been in the news in the past year or so – fingers crossed that this bodes well for a wide readership.

John Smith and Parliament

Publication is imminent of The 1922 Committee: Power Behind the Scenes – of which more shortly – but it is not my only forthcoming publication.  I have a number of contributions to different volumes in the pipeline.  One is on ‘John Smith and Parliament’ for a book on John Smith being edited by Kevin Hickson.

John Smith died of a heart attack in 1994.  Had he lived, he almost certainly would have led the Labour Party to victory in the 1997 general election.  Tony Blair’s leadership may have affected the size of the majority, but it was not the cause of victory.

For politicians wanting to achieve, and hold, political office, they need to utilise effectively three spatial domains in Westminster – public space, primarily the chamber and committees; private space, utilised especially by political parties (as well as by other bodies such as all-party groups), and informal space, where members mix away from the public arena and, unlike in private space, with no presiding officer, formal agenda or record of proceedings.  Some politicians are good are utilising one or two of them, but not necessarily all three.  There is no good being popular in the tea rooms and bars if you are hopeless at speaking in the chamber.  Neglecting fellow MPs meeting in party meetings or in the dining rooms may doom your progress.

John Smith was effective in utilising all three.  He was not a great orator – on the public platform he was solid rather than inspiring – but he was a good debater and enjoyed clashes at the despatch box.  He was aided greatly by circumstance.  The Major government ran into crises that Smith was able to exploit to great effect.  Some government backbenchers tried to catch him out, but he thrived on interventions.  He was deft in handling the Parliamentary Labour Party, adopting a liberal approach, including permitting dissenters to put forward proposals for amendments to the Maastricht Bill (Labour was as divided as the Conservatives over European  integration), helping absorb dissent behind closed doors.  He thrived in informal space, spending time in the House and mixing easily with fellow members.  Staying late for votes was not a particular imposition.  In the words of one of his Labour colleagues, ‘he just enjoyed the camaraderie and drinking whiskey’.  His mixing with others was also facilitated by the fact that he was willing to listen to the views of others.  He got on well with MPs who were on different wings of the party.  Tony Benn voted for him in the 1992 party leadership contest.

In being able to exploit successfully all three arena, he was unusual among party leaders.  Edward Heath was never good at using informal space and Margaret Thatcher was to neglect it the longer she was in office.  Heath was also poor in dealing with the parliamentary party.  Tony Blair did not mix in the tea rooms and bars in the way that Smith did and he took a notably stronger disciplinary approach in the PLP.  Jeremy Corbyn was perhaps the least successful in all three domains.  A comparison with other leaders emphasises just how effective Smith was as leader.  He was unusual, though not exceptional.  James Callaghan was also effective in all three arena.

Making the case for second chambers

Most nations have unicameral legislatures.  Where second chambers exist, they are often the subject of criticism.  Too often, supporters of second chambers take a defensive stance.  I decided it was time to be proactive and make the case for second chambers.  In the latest edition of The Journal of International and Comparative Law, I develop the case for complementary second chambers.

Here is the abstract of the article:

Most nations have unicameral legislatures. Where bicameral legislatures exist, the second chamber is usually a subject of contention, regarded as either mischievous or redundant. They are often studied in isolation, with few comparative studies and little theorizing. Where the membership is appointed rather than elected, second chambers are treated as self-evidently undemocratic. The principal justification tends to be one of representation in federal nations. Here, we take a case study of the UK House of Lords, and proposals for reform advanced by a Commission on the UK’s Future, as the basis for rebutting the case for elected second chambers and for theorizing the case for a particular type of second chamber. Moving beyond the extant categories of representative and reflective, and the challenges posed by each, we develop the theoretical foundations for a complementary second chamber. Building on the propositions that good government needs an effective legislature, and that good law is a public good, we show that complementary second chambers add value, enhancing rather than challenging or being superfluous to the first. This shifts debate to a new paradigm, establishing the basis for unicameral nations to embrace bicameralism.

You can access the full article here.