DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee of Selection by Richard Kelly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Committee of Selection by Richard Kelly BRIEFING PAPER Number 08085, 11 September 2017 Committee of Selection By Richard Kelly 1. Motions to appoint a Selection Committee (12 September 2017) On 12 September 2017, the House is expected to debate a number of motions in relation to the appointment of a new select committee for the duration of this Parliament. The Committee, to be called the Selection Committee, is to have many of the functions of the Committee of Selection. Like the Committee of Selection in the last Parliament, it will have nine members, all but one of whom are whips from the Government, Official Opposition and second largest opposition party. 2. Role and operation of the Committee of Selection The Committee of Selection meets weekly in private to nominate Members to serve on Private Bill Committees and General Committees, which include Public Bill Committees, European Committees and Delegated Legislation Committees. Standing Order No 86 states that “In nominating such Members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House”.1 These nominations are not subject to approval by the House, and are reported in the Votes and Proceedings on the day the Committee of Selection’s decision. The Committee of Selection also considers nominations of members to the majority of select committees (excluding committee chairs, who are directly elected by the whole House). Nominations for select committees (departmental and non-departmental), unlike other nominations, are subject to approval by the House. At least two sitting days’ notice has to be given before the House can be asked to approve a motion to nominate a Member or Members to a select committee.2 The Committee of Selection normally meets on Wednesdays, Motions therefore appear on the remaining orders (Future Business) on 1 Committee of Selection, Committee of Selection and membership of general committees, Memorandum from the Committee of Selection for the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the Committee of Selection and Membership of General Committees (P26), September 2013, para 1 2 House of Commons, Standing Orders of the House of Commons – Public Business, 2015, March 2015, HC 1154 2014-15, Standing Order No 121 www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Committee of Selection Thursdays, and the earliest time the House can be asked to agree them will usually then be the following Monday. The Committee appoints Opposed Bill Committees (S.O. 111(1)) as well as the Unopposed Bill Panel, from which members for unopposed bill committees are drawn (S.O. 111(2)). It also appoints the Standing Orders Committee (S.O.103) and two Members of the Panel of Chairs whom the Speaker consults before certifying a bill to be a money bill (under the Parliament Act 1911). Box 1: Origins of the Committee of Selection The Committee is appointed under Standing Orders relating to private business because the Committee was first created to appoint private bill committees. Between the 1860s and 1930s, there were about two hundred private bills per annum, and appointing committees to consider these bills was a considerable task. From the 1880s, the Committee of Selection was charged with the appointment of general committees (until recently called standing committees). With the creation of modern day departmental select committees in 1979, the Committee took on the role of nominating members to these committees also. 3. Composition of committees As noted above, generally, the Committee of Selection is required to follow precedents that ensure that committees appointed by it reflect the composition of the House. 3.1 What happens when the Government does not have a majority? There have been three occasions in relatively recent history when the Government had no majority. After the February 1974 election, the Government did not have a majority. Even number of government and opposition members were appointed to committees. In October 1974, the Labour Government secured a narrow majority at the election. Having lost its majority by April 1976, in May 1976 it accepted that it was no longer entitled to a majority on committees. In January 1995, following the suspension of a number of Members, the Conservative Party technically lost its majority but argued that as it had not lost seats at by-elections or as a result of defections, it should continue to have a majority on committees. February 1974 After the general election of February 1974 the Labour Government did not have a majority in the House. However, the House appointed a “normal” Committee of Selection, with 11 members and a Government majority of one, and it appointed a Government Chair. This Committee of Selection appointed standing committees with even numbers of members split equally between Government and Opposition. Since, in line with precedent, the Chair of these committees would cast his/her vote in favour of the status quo, in the event of a tied vote, this effectively meant that amendments and new clauses could not succeed in committee against the Government’s will. Likewise, votes on clause stand part would succeed. 3 Commons Library Briefing, 11 September 2017 May 1976 After the general election of October 1974 the Labour Government had a majority, but it lost this in April 1976. Labour had been elected with a majority of three (and a lead over the Conservatives of 42). However, it lost a by-election, suffered two defections to the Scottish Labour Party, and then the repudiation of the Whip by John Stonehouse. This left it with no overall majority in the House. The Government eventually conceded the principle that only a majority on the floor of the House should guarantee a majority in standing committee. On 7 May 1976 it brought forward a motion to this effect, to which the House agreed. This is often referred to as the “Harrison motion” after the Deputy Chief Whip who moved it: Nomination of Standing Committees Resolved, That this House recommends that in this Parliament the Committee of Selection should interpret Standing Order No. 62(2) so that only an overall majority in the composition of the House should guarantee a majority in each Standing Committee and that this should apply to all Bills in relation to which the Committee stage has not been entered upon.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]3 The motion was agreed to without debate or division, the matter having previously been debated on a motion for the adjournment4. The issue arose after the nominations made by the Committee of Selection on 28 April 1976. In that Parliament the Committee had nine Members, with a Government majority and a Government Chair. Despite the Labour Party not having a majority in the House of Commons, the Committee of Selection gave it a majority on standing committees nominated that day, all of which had an odd number of members.5 This was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions the following day by Margaret Thatcher, leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Thorpe, leader of the Liberal Party, and William Whitelaw.6 At Business Questions that day, 29 April 1976, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a “Debate on appointments by the Committee of Selection”, on the Adjournment. Again both Thatcher and Thorpe questioned the Government’s approach.7 The Adjournment debate was held on Monday 3 May 1976.8 The following day, the death of the Chair of the Committee of Selection, Hugh Delargy, was announced. This meant that the Government lost control of the Committee of Selection. 3 HC Deb 07 May 1976 c1738 4 HC Deb 3 May 1976 cc983-1025 5 The issue was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions and at Business Questions on 29 April, see HC Deb 29 April 1976 cc551-553 and HC Deb 29 April 1976 cc557-559, respectively. 6 HC Deb 29 April 1976 cc551-553 7 HC Deb 29 April 1976 cc557-559 8 HC Deb 3 May 1976 cc983-1025 4 Committee of Selection January 1995 After the 1992 election the Conservatives had a majority in the House, but this was reduced in the course of the Parliament. Following the withdrawal of the Whip from nine “Maastricht rebels” who rebelled over the European Communities (Finance) Bill 1994-95 in November 1994, the Government no longer had an absolute majority subject to the party whip. On 11 January 1995 the House agreed the following motion: Resolved, That, unless and until the party which achieved an overall majority of Members elected at the preceding general election loses that majority either as a result of by-elections or through the secession of Members to another party the Committee of Selection shall interpret paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) in such a way as to give that party a majority on any standing committee.9 9 HC Deb 11 January 1995 cc157-201 About the Library The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents. As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing papers, which are available on the Parliament website. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publically available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes. If you have any comments on our briefings please email [email protected]. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members and their staff. If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons you can email [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliaments and Legislatures Series Samuel C. Patterson
    PARLIAMENTS AND LEGISLATURES SERIES SAMUEL C. PATTERSON GENERAL ADVISORY EDITOR Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government EDITED BY SHAUN BOWLER, DAVID M. FARRELL, AND RICHARD S. KATZ OHI O STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS COLUMBUS Copyright © 1999 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Party discipline and parliamentary government / edited by Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz. p. cm. — (Parliaments and legislatures series) Based on papers presented at a workshop which was part of the European Consortium for Political Research's joint sessions in France in 1995. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8142-0796-0 (cl: alk. paper). — ISBN 0-8142-5000-9 (pa : alk. paper) 1. Party discipline—Europe, Western. 2. Political parties—Europe, Western. 3. Legislative bodies—Europe, Western. I. Bowler, Shaun, 1958- . II. Farrell, David M., 1960- . III. Katz, Richard S. IV. European Consortium for Political Research. V. Series. JN94.A979P376 1998 328.3/75/ 094—dc21 98-11722 CIP Text design by Nighthawk Design. Type set in Times New Roman by Graphic Composition, Inc. Printed by Bookcrafters, Inc.. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1992. 98765432 1 Contents Foreword vii Preface ix Part I: Theories and Definitions 1 Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments 3 Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz 2 How Political Parties Emerged from the Primeval Slime: Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and the Formation of Governments 23 Michael Laver and Kenneth A.
    [Show full text]
  • Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
    Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Committee Office · House of Commons · 7 Millbank · London SW1P 3JA Tel 020 7219 6287 Fax 020 7219 2681 Email [email protected] Website www.parliament.uk/pcrc Written evidence submitted to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill On 14 July 2010, the Committee launched an inquiry into the Government’s proposals for voting and parliamentary reform. This document contains those submissions which deal with the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill only. FTPB 01 Dr Malcolm Jack, Clerk of the House of Commons Page 2 FTPB 02 Professor Dawn Oliver, University College London 8 FTPB 03 Professor Robert Hazell, The Constitution Unit, University College 11 London FTPB 04 Professor Robert Blackburn, Professor of Constitutional Law, King’s 46 College London FTPB 05 Professor Anthony Bradley 52 FTPB01 FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS BILL: PRIVILEGE ASPECTS Written evidence submitted by the Clerk of the House Introduction 1. In this memorandum I address aspects of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill which seek to make statutory provision for matters which fall within Parliament’s exclusive cognizance and which may affect the established privileges of the House of Commons as well as upsetting the essential comity which has been established over a long period between Parliament and the Courts. 2. I make no comment on the policy purposes of the Bill; indeed it would be improper for me to do so. My concern is with the way in which provisions of the Bill impinge upon Parliamentary privilege and which may bring the Courts and Parliament into conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Proponents of Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom from 1950 to 2017
    DOI 10.14746/ssp.2017.4.3 Omelian TARNAVSKYI Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, Ukraine Proponents of Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom from 1950 to 2017 Abstract: The author of this article explores the issues of the Proponents of Euroscep- ticism in the UK from 1950 to 2017. The researcher claims that Winston Churchill was the first Eurosceptic Prime Minister. The author believes that Euroscepticism is not related to any political party, but is a non-party phenomenon, not linked to a par- ticular ideology. However, the researcher concludes that the biggest number of Euro- sceptics in the UK can be found among the Conservatives. In addition, in his study, the author identifies the main theorist of contemporary British Euroscepticism as well as the moderate and radical types of Euroscepticism. Key words: European Union, Euroscepticism, Brexit he idea of a united Europe gained special significance and was ac- Ttively discussed in the academic and political circles of Europe after the Second World War. In spite of enthusiasts, this idea also attracted sceptics and opponents. The British were the most sceptical politicians regarding European integration processes. Therefore, the aim of this arti- cle is to identify the adherents of Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom between 1950 and 2017 and to study the ideological foundations of their Eurosceptic positions. The main methods applied in this study are histori- cal and comparative methods as well as analysis. The author investigates the problem taking into consideration the positions of the leaders of the government, ruling parties and opposition in the UK, so an institutional approach is fundamental in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future Impact and Effect of Brexit on Scots Law and the Scottish Legal System
    The Law Society of Scotland The Future Impact and Effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system I Chapter1 The Law Society of Scotland: The future impact and effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system Contents Foreword 1 Executive summary 2 Introduction 4 CHAPTER 1 The development of the Scottish legal system 7 CHAPTER 2 The courts and tribunals in Scotland 12 CHAPTER 3 The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union 18 CHAPTER 4 The consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union 25 CHAPTER 5 The EU impact on Scots Law 40 CHAPTER 6 Common frameworks 59 CHAPTER 7 Teaching EU Law in law schools post-Brexit 67 CHAPTER 8 Conclusions 70 Bibliography 74 III The Law Society of Scotland: The future impact and effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system Chapter IV 1 The Law Society of Scotland: The future impact and effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system Foreword In 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. In the three years since that historic vote there has been much debate on Brexit and the impact it will have throughout the UK and in Europe, however a great deal of uncertainty remains over our departure and future outwith the EU. What we can be certain of is that leaving the EU will We are very grateful to the Legal Education Foundation have a profound effect on Scots Law and on the legal whose funding has allowed us to dedicate the time and profession.
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Dispossessed', The'never-Possessed' and The
    The ‘Dispossessed’, and the ‘Bastards’ the ‘Never-Possessed’ ‘Dispossessed’, The the‘Never-Possessed’ The ‘Dispossessed’, and the‘Bastards’ Debunking Major’s Myths of the Eurosceptics the‘Never-Possessed’ Euroscepticism within the Conservative Party has been growing steadily since the Maastricth Rebellion of 1993. And yet the lessons of those turbulent months have yet to be learned properly. This book sets out clearly the reasons why some MPs rebelled and the‘Bastards’ and others did not - and points the way to the future. Debunking Major’s Myths of the Eurosceptics Between 1992 and 1993 the Maastricht Rebellion tore apart John Major’s Conservative Government. An ever-shifting group of Eurosceptic rebels consumed hours of Parliamentary time, derailed legislation and brought the government to the brink of collapse. Major denounced the rebels as the ‘Dispossessed’, the ‘Never-Possessed’ and the ‘Bastards’. This paper rebuts the myths about the Maastricht rebels. Luke Stanley Debunking Major’s Myths of the Eurosceptics Myths of Debunking Major’s With Prime Minister Cameron’s proposed renegotiation and referendum on EU The Bruges Group membership set to take place in 2017 recognising the factors affecting MPs’ willingness to defy the party line is vital. Should Cameron secure re-election at the head of a minority or slim-majority government, the ensuing Europe debate within the Conservative Party is likely to be even more divisive than Maastricht. Understanding MPs’ behaviour on Europe will allow the pro-withdrawal faction to assess the optimum methods of convincing MPs to side with them, as well as how to counter the Europhile faction’s attempts to poach their followers.
    [Show full text]
  • GV311 Britain and Europe Part 1
    GV311 Britain and Europe Part 1: A Troubled History Simon Hix Professor of European & Comparative Politics It didn’t start well … “Fog in the Channel. Continent Cut Off” British newspaper headline, circa. 1936 (allegedly) While others set up the EEC … “The future treaty which you are discussing has no chance of being agreed; if it was agreed, it would have no chance of being ratified; and if it were ratified, it would have no chance of being applied. And if it was applied, it would be totally unacceptable to Britain. You speak of agriculture, which we don't like, of power over customs, which we take exception to, and institutions which frighten us. Monsieur le president, messieurs, au revoir et bonne chance.” Russell Bretherton, British Foreign Office representative at a meeting of Spaak Committee, November 1955 Britain’s Alternative to EEC: European Free Trade Association Founded in January 1960 in Stockholm 8 original members: Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Finland (1961) Known as the “Outer 8” (vs. “Inner 6” of EEC) Joined by Iceland (1970), Liechtenstein (1991) UK and Denmark left EFTA & joined EEC in 1973, as did Portugal in 1986, and Austria, Sweden & Finland in 1995 3 of the 4 remaining members (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) have an agreement with EU: European Economic Area (a “Puerto Rico relationship” !) Please Let Us In … 1961 Macmillan government applies to join 1963 De Gaulle vetoes UK membership 1967 Wilson government re-applies 1967 De Gaulle vetoes again 1969 De Gaulle replaced
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: How Rhetoric Became Reality
    Brexit: How Rhetoric Became Reality Year: 2017 ​ ​ ​ Semester: 6th ​ Supervisor: Helene Dyrhauge ​ Group Members: ​ Christopher Molge Andersen: #55629 Timothy Peter Murphy: #55636 Character Count: 112,348 ​ 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Problem Area 3 Chapter 2: Methodology 5 2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. Quantitative Methods 5 2.3. Qualitative Methods 6 2.4. Reliability and Validity of Sources 7 2.5. Project Structure 7 Chapter 3: Theory 8 3.1. Introduction 8 3.2. Euroscepticism 8 3.3. Nationalism 11 3.4. Populism 13 3.5. Use of Theory 14 Chapter 4: Background 15 The UK’s Relationship With the EU 15 4.1. Introduction 15 4.2. British Euroscepticism 16 4.3. UKiP and Euroscepticism 20 4.4. Sub-conclusion 21 Chapter 5: Analysis (Part 1) 23 5.1. Introduction: History Revisited 23 5.2. Statistical Findings 25 5.3. The Rise of UKiP 30 5.4. The Success of UKiP 31 5.5. Sub-conclusion 36 Chapter 6: Analysis (Part 2) 38 6.1. Introduction 38 6.2. David Cameron’s Miscalculations 38 6.3. How The Conservative Party Split Impacted Voters 39 6.4. Factors external to UKiP and the Conservatives (Demographics) 42 6.5. Sub-conclusion 44 2 Chapter 7: Discussion 45 Chapter 8: Conclusion 50 Bibliography 50 3 Chapter 1: Problem Area The United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal of its membership from the European Union (EU) (referred to as Brexit) in the EU Referendum that took place on the 23rd June 2016 (from here on known as the 2016 EU Referendum) has come to represent an internal division within both the EU, and the UK itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 686 30 December 2020 No. 155 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 30 December 2020 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 503 30 DECEMBER 2020 504 House of Commons Virtual Participation in Proceedings during the Pandemic (Temporary Orders) (No. 2) Wednesday 30 December 2020 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Order of 4 June, as amended on 22 October, be further amended as follows: The House met at half-past Nine o’clock (1) leave out paragraph (1) and insert: “( ) Members may participate in proceedings in the Chamber PRAYERS by electronic means approved by the Speaker and in accordance with any scheme drawn up and published by the Speaker; ( ) for the purposes of paragraph (1) “proceedings” includes [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] proceedings on Questions, Urgent Questions and Statements, participation in debate (including moving a motion) and presentation Speaker’s Statement of petitions but does not include divisions, challenging the decision of Chair as to the decision of a Question, or proceedings for which no notice is required, with the exception of any motion Mr Speaker: Before I start, can I just mention the made in accordance with Standing Order No. 44 (Order in sad loss of a friend of all of us, Brian Binley? Our debate).” thoughts and prayers are with his family. (2) Leave out paragraph (2).—(Mr Rees-Mogg.) Before we come to the first item of business, could I thank all the staff of the House service and the joint 9.36 am departments who have worked hard to make this recall possible? Like many public servants, many of those Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): Can I thank the staff have worked with hardly a break at a time when Leader of the House for bringing forward this motion? one would normally be expected.
    [Show full text]
  • British Exceptionalism, Brexit, and Justice and Home Affairs
    ‘They Need Us More Than We Need Them’: British Exceptionalism, Brexit, and Justice and Home Affairs Professor Christian Kaunert, University of South Wales, UK Dr Alex MacKenzie, University of Liverpool, UK Professor Sarah Léonard, University of the West of England (UWE Bristol), UK This article analyses the EU-UK Future Relationship negotiations on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) through the lenses of ‘exceptionalism’. This concept refers to a given state’s self-understanding as being not only fundamentally different from other states, but also morally superior. In its exemptionalist variant, exceptionalism also calls attention to the belief that one is entitled to exemptions from ordinary rules. This article argues that, whilst exemptionalist exceptionalism can be said to characterise the UK’s position in relation to European integration in general, it has been particularly pronounced in the JHA policy area. This is shown through an analysis of the various exemptions from ordinary rules and arrangements obtained by the UK over the years. The existence of those also demonstrates a broad acceptance by the rest of the EU of this self-perception of the UK as being an exceptional state. Furthermore, this article shows that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the UK government has retained this stance in the Future Relationship negotiations with the EU. It has set its expectations of negotiating agreements with the EU that would set it apart from all the other partners of the EU. It has attempted to justify such an exceptional treatment on the basis of the remarkable quality of the contribution that it has been able to make to EU internal security as encapsulated in the idea that ‘the EU needs us more than we need them’.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Party of the Uk and the European Union
    CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF THE UK AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: FROM EUROSCEPTICISM TO BREXIT A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY FATİH IŞIK IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS JANUARY 2020 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences _________________________ Prof. Dr. Yaşar Kondakçı Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. _________________________ Prof. Dr. Oktay F. Tanrısever Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. _________________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zerrin Torun Supervisor Examining Committee Members Assoc. Prof. Dr. Giray Sadık (Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Uni., IR) _________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zerrin Torun (METU, IR) _________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Başak Kale Lack (METU, IR) _________ PLAGIARISM I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last Name: Fatih IŞIK Signature: iii ABSTRACT CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF THE UK AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: FROM EUROSCEPTICISM TO BREXIT IŞIK, Fatih M.S., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zerrin Torun January 2020, 160 pages The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom has shown differing attitudes towards European integration.
    [Show full text]
  • Could Brexit Break the Tories?
    Could Brexit Break the Tories? The Conservative Party in the UK is one of the most successful election-winning machines in history. It survived the effective destruction of the Whigs (the Liberal Party) and the concomitant rise of the Labour Party in the early 20th century. Indeed, it has spent most of the past century in power (making effective use of coalitions where expedient, in order to effectively neuter political opposition). Throughout its long history, however, it has faced numerous challenges and crises. Some have been existential – the split over the Corn Laws during the 1840s, for example. Other challenges have been broader but less severe, with the Attlee reforms of the 1940s leading to the emergence of so-called “one nation” Toryism. In this vein, it is noteworthy that Ireland has represented a consistent challenge to the Conservative Party over the past 150 years. Indeed, its full name – the Conservative and Unionist Party – indicates why this is the case. During the 1800s, the Tories consistently opposed home rule in Ireland, seeking to avoid any dilution to the Acts of Union of 1800. Ultimately, the Irish War of Independence scuppered this desire to retain ongoing an ongoing union with all of Ireland. During the 20th century, and particularly since The Troubles, the relationship between the Conservative Party and Northern Ireland has been complex. As such, it is perhaps not surprising that it is once again the issue of Ireland that is now posing another existential threat to the Conservatives. The great irony is that Ireland itself is not central to the issue at stake: it is merely that the complex relationship between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has so complicated the process of leaving the EU that resolution is elusive.
    [Show full text]
  • LSE Brexit: Brexit from the Back Benches: Have the Whips Become the Straw Men of British Politics? Page 1 of 3
    LSE Brexit: Brexit from the back benches: Have the whips become the straw men of British politics? Page 1 of 3 Brexit from the back benches: Have the whips become the straw men of British politics? Last year, 15 Tory backbenchers brought about the government’s first Commons defeat when they supported an amendment to the EU withdrawal bill to give Parliament a legal guarantee of a vote on the final Brexit deal. In light of the controversy that ensued, Peter Wiggins (Learning Skills Foundation) asks whether parliamentary whips have become the straw men of British politics? The liberal philosopher A.C. Grayling is one of the foremost opponents of Brexit. No doubt he salutes the bravery of those Tory MPs dubbed ‘mutineers’ by the Daily Telegraph when they brought about Theresa May’s first Commons defeat as they supported an amendment to her EU withdrawal bill to give Parliament a legal guarantee of a vote on the final Brexit deal. These Tory MPs defied the so-called ‘party whip’. Whips are MPs appointed by parties in Parliament to do what they can to make sure party members vote the way the party wants. Grayling is not a fan of the whipping system in general: he regards whipping as ‘undemocratic’, and he connects it to increasing levels of mistrust in MPs and a weakened parliament. “As the independence of members of the House of Commons has decreased under the system of party discipline—it is known as ‘whipping’ by analogy with the fox hunting practice of whipping pack of hounds into order for the pursuit—so both the quality and reputation of MPs has declined, rendering them even less likely to behave independently.
    [Show full text]