A temporary occupant of no. 10? : prime ministerial succession in the event of the death of the incumbent

The Prime Minister in the United Kingdom is head of government. He is the sovereign’s principal minister, chair of the Cabinet, and the nation’s representative at various international gatherings, including the European Council, who holds the office matters for the purpose of the direction of government and the formulation of public policy. The method by which a politician becomes Prime Minister therefore matters. Prime ministerial succession is usually determined by an established and accepted process. This article addresses an exception. We begin by addressing the process that is established, before addressing the exception and why it merits attention

The fixed term Parliaments Act and votes of confidence

The Government in the UK rests for its continuation in office on the confidence of the House of Commons. Until 2011, it was a convention of the constitution that a Government defeated on a motion of confidence resigned or requested the dissolution of Parliament. There were different categories of confidence votes. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 puts on a statutory basis the conditions for a general election following the loss of an explicitly worded motion of no confidence. Although not intended to do so initially, the provisions of the Act limit the options available to the Prime Minister in the event of a vote of no confidence and in so doing removed a significant power to maximise parliamentary strength in key votes

Social democracy is not the ideology we need in an economic downturn: even if the Left can sell social democracy to the UK electorate, it will have a hard time selling it to global markets

In our continuing series on social democracy, Lord Norton rejects Pete Redford’s idea that social democracy is the best way forward for the Left. But the appeal of social democracy is tarnished for three reasons: it rests on an inaccurate perception of the Conservatives as slavishly devoted to neo-liberalism; it focuses too strongly on the state’s ability to solve people’s problems, and it is wholly inadequate in dealing with globalised markets

Parliament and the courts : strangers, foes or friends?

For most of the 20th Century, the constitution of the United Kingdom was seen as essentially settled. It experienced some adjustments, and at time upheavals, in the relationship between the different components of the state. These included the relationship between the state and the people, the nations that formed the United Kingdom, and the two chambers of the legislature. However, the framework of the constitution and the principles underpinning it were viewed as fundamentally sound

Post-legislative scrutiny in the UK Parliament: adding value

Legislatures appoint committees for different purposes. Both Houses of the UK Parliament separate legislative committees from non-legislative, or select, committees. Each is unusual in that it utilises select committees to engage in post-legislative scrutiny. We examine why each engages in this type of scrutiny, given competing demands for limited resources. Distributive and informational theories are utilised to explain the difference between the two chambers, identifying why the form of asymmetrical bicameralism to be found in the United Kingdom facilitates scrutiny that would otherwise not be undertaken. The genesis and impact of post-legislative scrutiny committees are considered, with a focus on the House of Lords and why the use of such committees plays to the strengths of the House

Legislatures and the courts: the importance of place

Institutions of the state are studied primarily in terms of behaviour, powers and outputs. Little attention has been paid to their location and how this affects relationships between them. This article examines the effects of location through a study of the highest domestic court in the United Kingdom moving from the Palace of Westminster to a separate building across the road from the Parliament. It examines the perceived benefits of the court and Parliament sharing the same space and the consequences of separation. The move from within the Palace of Westminster has effected a shift in judicial-legislative relations from one of respective autonomy to one of democratic dialogue

Power behind the scenes: The importance of informal space in legislatures

Studies of legislatures focus on what happens in formal space, principally the chamber and committee rooms. Such studies are necessary, but not sufficient, for explaining behaviour within legislatures and its consequences. The use of space for members to interact informally with one another-informal space-can contribute to the institutionalisation of a legislature through facilitating autonomy. Such space provides an arena for socialisation, information exchange, lobbying and mobilising political support. This article examines the significance of informal space, drawing on the experience of the UK Parliament

Speaking for Parliament

The UK Parliament in recent decades has seen significant structural and behavioural changes that have rendered it more effective in carrying out its core functions than at any time in modern political history. These changes have not impacted greatly on public perceptions of Parliament and its members. Parliament and parliamentarians have been the source of declining satisfaction. The public have been more influenced by their perceptions of parliamentarians’ behaviour than a results-based performance. Parliamentarians have not recognised the source of the dissatisfaction and have no clear institutional mechanism for responding to it. There is no one authoritative figure who can speak for Parliament. To combat public perceptions requires a proactive and collective response on the part of members of both Houses