Parliament is revolting

Preparing some post Easter material on Parliament for my AS groups, I have plundered the revolts.co.uk website.

The site is run by Professor Philip Cowley from the University of Nottingham, who is, by the way, due to speak at this year’s tutor2u Politics Teacher Conference. He is an excellent speaker and it’s well worth booking a place for Cowley’s appearance alone, never mind the other heavyweights in the line up.

Booking forms can be accessed here.

He has done a great deal of work outlining how Parliament has become a better, not worse, check on the executive in recent years. This flies in the face of popular opinion, and, indeed, the opinion presented by a great deal of Politics candidates in examinations.

Here is the concluding section of a piece Cowley produced for Anthony Seldon’s 2001-2005 Blair Effect.

In an interview with the Spectator in late 2004, Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, complained about the weakness of Parliament. ‘We should’, he said, ‘be breaking away from the party whip. The executive is much too free to bring in a huge number of extremely bad Bills, a huge amount of regulation and to do whatever it likes — and whatever it likes is what will get the best headlines tomorrow.’ Lord Butler’s complains were characteristic of a routine critique of Parliament during the Blair government.

It is at least plausible, however, to argue that the events in Parliament during Blair’s second term contradict much of Butler’s argument. It is, of course true that the government’s overall record on modernisation of the Commons (especially before and after the period where Robin Cook was Leader of the House) was not especially impressive. Its record with respect to Lords reform in the second term was even worse. Labour’s record in the Lords between 2001 and 2005 consisted of a hapless White Paper followed by a U-turn followed by a farce followed by another U-turn. It was not their finest hour. Labour had still not properly implemented its manifesto pledges of 1997 and 2001 to make the House of Lords more ‘democratic and representative’. And it is also true that Parliament does not have the influence that many people – including the authors – think it should have, and that governments today are able to introduce ‘a huge number of extremely bad Bills’; possibly whenever they think it will get them positive headlines.

Yet this is hardly new. To blame the Blair government for much of this is about as sensible as blaming it for the loss of the American colonies. Moreover, much of the evidence suggests that things are getting better, not worse. The Blair government - particularly the period from 2001-5 - resulted in a partial rebirth of Parliament. Almost none of this was intentional on the part of Blair or his immediate circle. The House of Lords Act 1999, for example, was not intended to result in the far more assertive body that it created - but it did. Similarly, it was not the wish of the government that its backbenchers, routinely dismissed as weak and feeble during the preceding Parliament, should became increasingly rebellious during the second Blair term – but they did, with the result that MPs are now increasingly ‘breaking away from the party whip’, with clear consequences for the government’s legislative programme.

Even the much maligned record of Commons modernization had its plus points. If some of the reforms have done little to strengthen the Commons, they have at least made it more efficient and more accessible. And, although not part of the modernisation process itself, the Prime Minister’s twice-yearly appearance before the liaison committee is an unprecedented extension of parliamentary scrutiny.

The Blair effect in Parliament was almost certainly not what Blair had intended – but it was far more positive than many realised.’

You can access the full article here.