End of an era at the Constitution Unit. Meg has been an outstanding director. She’s massively expanded our understanding of parliament - & I was privileged to begin my career working for her.
But the Unit is also in safe hands with Alan and Tom taking over the helm. Wishing everyone the best!
Screenshot of the title and abstract of a piece by Colm Murphy. Title: "The Unavoidability of Scarcity and Necessity of Political Choice". Abstract: "Advocates of the ‘abundance’ agenda dream of a bright future, but in the UK its possibility relies on economic sacrifices in the present. The consequent politics are wicked and demand ideologically informed choices about scarce resources."
Pleased that the @ippr.org Progressive Review's special issue on 'abundance', edited by @carsjung.bsky.social, is currently open access. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/25732331...
My essay has been described as "satisfyingly blunt realism". See if you agree: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Me, in @thehousemag.bsky.social, on politicians ageing - they talk less about the future as they get older - and on the public's time horizons for change: this government‘s "short term" is coming to an end very soon.
www.politicshome.com/opinion/arti...
Other than the assisted dying bill, what happened to all the other private members’ bills this session? I was asked about this for Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4.
Full episode here: www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/...
New article for @thehousemag.bsky.social, this time on Early Day Motions. They are often dismissed as parliamentary graffiti, but even graffiti can sometimes be revealing.
www.politicshome.com/opinion/arti...
Very happy to have been able to contribute to the latest Commons Library briefing paper on private members’ bills. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-bri...
Benchmarks for later...
My thoughts on the poll showing the Greens have overtaken Labour following the Gorton and Denton by-election, whether this could be a "bandwagon effect", and what that means, for The Conversation: theconversation.com/how-to-under...
Me in the D.Tel today www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02...
A thing I wrote for @robfordmancs.bsky.social's excellent substack, The Swingometer. How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Recall Petition. Features Māori war canoes, Enoch Powell, Edmund Burke, and some spectacular examples of hypocrisy.
swingometer.substack.com/p/waka-waka-...
This line in Guide to Making Legislation, though, is about the fact that there are unlikely to be any Commons Fridays left. It’s not saying that if the bill needs amending the Lords will fail to pass it. It’s exceptionally rare, not standard practice, for Lords to fail to pass a PMB passed by MPs.
I’m not sure this is a parliament at all though
The real question is is it even a proper parliament if there is no mug?
Yes it is. Now hand over the cash!
What is the picture of tho?
Oh wow. So long as it meets the definition of a parliamentary mug…!
It's not really true to say that the witnesses were selected by the sponsor. This is true in a procedural sense. But there was consultation with opponents for additional witnesses. What made this bill different from usual is that the 'usual channels' processes (whips from 2 parties) didn't apply.
The reason there was a majority in the committee was because there was a majority in the House. That is normal practice. I've already said I agree with you on the two additional ministers.
I agree with your criticisms of the more limited pre-leg process. It is not true though that the PMB route was 'chosen by supporters in order to control the process'. This was the only route available to those outside govt - and many felt more appropriate to avoid the government taking a side.
On witnesses... Remember that some bills (inc some very controversial government ones) have no evidence sessions at all. This is the first ever PMB to have evidence sessions - and had lots of it. And unprecedented in *also* having evidence in Lords - this doesn't even happen on govt bills.
I agree with you on the inclusion of two additional pro-bill ministers in the committee. This did not stop the sponsor losing at least one vote, however. And does not apply to (also long) Report stage.
I don't agree on the composition of witnesses.
I agree that the pre-leg policy development side was challenging due to the PMB process constraints. I also agree on delegated powers - though this is one of the key areas where Falconer has moved.
But the time for parliamentary scrutiny itself has not been constrained - quite the opposite.
What was it about the Commons debates that led you to this conclusion? I've spent over a decade researching how parliament scrutinises legislation. I agree with the Hansard Society that this was 'among the most heavily scrutinised bills in recent times'. www.politicshome.com/news/article...
The reason for the delay has been the time required to discuss all of the amendments.
A significant number of amendments were accepted in the Commons, and significantly more non-government amendments than on government bills. We do not know if there is a majority in the Lords (let alone the Commons) for any of the proposed new amendments, because they've not been put to votes.
Thank you. However, this is not because the Lords would block the bill. It is because those amendments would then need to be approved by the Commons, and this is likely to be after the 13 Commons Fridays have been completed. In practice, the government (almost?) always facilitates the extra time.
Thank you. This text is specifically about the Commons, and yet MPs did pass the bill.
Bill may well be deeply flawed (it's a matter of judgement). But question is who should make that decision in a parliamentary democracy. Should it be (a) elected MPs, (b) unelected peers, or (c) a small number of unelected peers?
It is though an extraordinary number of amendments - far higher than for any comparable bill for many years. www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/assiste...
They would have been wrong to make such claims too. I explained why such claims were wrong at the time of this bill's 2R vote when I was on Parliament Matters. No reason to believe representative of House.
