Advertise on podcast: Parliament Matters

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer’s vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings. ______ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week we explore one of Westminster’s strangest constitutional hangovers: why MPs can’t simply resign. With the Gorton and Denton by-election triggered by Andrew Gwynne’s departure, listeners asked the obvious question – why the medieval-sounding detour via the Chiltern Hundreds (or its less glamorous cousin, the Manor of Northstead)? We trace the rule back to 1623, when the Commons barred resignations, and to later fears about MPs being bought off by “offices of profit” from the Crown. The workaround – appointing an MP to a Crown office that disqualifies them – still survives, complete with modern legal “fudges”. Along the way, we revisit colourful resignations and near-resignations, from mass Ulster Unionist walkouts to John Stonehouse’s attempted disappearance and Gerry Adams’s objection to being handed a Crown role he didn’t want. In this episode we also check the Government’s legislative scorecard as the Session edges toward its expected May close, with several dozen bills already on the statute book and many more still in play. We explain “carry-over” motions – how some bills can leap across prorogation – and why the Government has produced surprisingly few bills for pre-legislative scrutiny compared with the first Session in recent previous parliaments. Finally, the focus shifts to the Armed Forces Bill, the five-yearly legislation rooted in the Bill of Rights that renews the legal basis for military discipline and Parliament’s consent for a standing army. Labour MP Jayne Kirkham joins us to discuss how her Ten Minute Rule proposal secured Royal Fleet Auxiliary access to the new Armed Forces Commissioner, and what it’s like learning the ropes on bill committees as a new MP. _____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The assisted dying bill – properly known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – is facing an extraordinary procedural logjam in the House of Lords. More than 1,170 amendments remain to be debated, organised into 89 groups for debate, yet only 20 of those groups have been reached after seven days in Committee. With just a handful of sitting Fridays left before the end of the Session, Lord Falconer has warned that the Bill is very unlikely to complete its Lords stages in time. In a letter to Peers, he has floated a list of possible compromise amendments but has also, for the first time, strongly indicated that the Parliament Act may need to be invoked to override the opposition of a small group of Peers and secure the Bill’s passage in the next Session. Although rarely used, and never in relation to a Private Members Bill, the Parliament Act has been deployed before on highly contentious measures, most recently the Hunting Bill in 2004. Using it to force through the assisted dying bill would require intricate choreography in both the Commons and the Lords, as well as major political decisions about whether the government formally takes ownership of the Bill or whether it continues as a Private Member’s Bill. It would also raise difficult questions about how amendments are handled, and how far MPs and ministers are prepared to go to assert the primacy of the elected House in the face of sustained resistance from a small but determined group of Peers. In this episode, we explore how the Parliament Act works, how it could be used in this case, and the political and constitutional trade-offs involved in relying on it to deliver this legislation. ____   🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we ask whether MPs who switch parties should be forced to face a by-election – and what this month’s spate of defections says about representation, party power and voter consent. We also unpick a dizzying week in British and global politics as “hurricane Trump” batters the post-war order, testing the UK-US alliance and raising awkward questions about NATO, defence spending and procurement. Plus: the Lords’ push for an under-16s social media ban, Chagos ping-pong, and why is the bill to remove hereditary Peers from the House of Lords stalled? ____   With Westminster watching Washington’s every swerve, we explore why Keir Starmer’s most outspoken pushback on tariffs and Greenland matters – and why making big foreign-policy statements outside the Commons still rankles.   In the Lords, a proposed ban on social media for under-16s forces the government into damage-limitation. Is the government’s promised consultation a serious route to action, or simply a way of kicking a difficult issue into the long grass? We look at how enforceable such a ban would be, how it fits with the existing Online Safety Act, and the political and constitutional tension of tightening access at 16 while simultaneously debating votes at 16.   We then turn to a growing list of legislative headaches: the Hillsborough Law stalling again amid disputes over national security carve-outs; renewed procedural drama over the Chagos Islands Bill, how the financial privilege of the House of Commons blocks Lords amendments, and what options Peers have left.  We also ask why the bill to remove he remaining hereditary peers appears to be stuck in a curious parliamentary holding pattern.   Finally, we focus on party switching, the e-petition calling for automatic by-elections for defecting MPs, and whether such a rule would enhance democratic accountability or simply hand party machines a powerful new weapon against dissent. As we were recording, news broke of an actual by-election, with Andrew Gwynne MP announcing his resignation on health grounds – a vacancy that could trigger a contest with significant implications for Labour’s internal politics and Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership. ____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend   Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What are MPs actually paid and what does the public fund to help them do their job? In this conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) we explore the delicate balance between supporting MPs to do their jobs effectively and enforcing strict standards on the use of public money. We discuss how IPSA has shifted from a rule-heavy “traffic cop” to a principles-based regulator, why compliance is now very high, and the security risks and pressures facing MPs‘ offices as workloads rise and abuse becomes more common. _____ Sixteen years after the expenses scandal that reshaped British politics, Richard Lloyd offers a rare insider’s account of how Parliament is now regulated from the outside. Drawing on his experience in government, regulation and civil society, he explains why MPs’ pay and expenses were taken out of politicians’ hands, how IPSA evolved from a body widely seen as hostile and bureaucratic into a more service-focused regulator, and why independence remains essential even when it attracts controversy. Richard explains the basic package of salary and pension, and how this compares with those of parliamentarians in other countries, but also the less well-understood support that sits behind an MP’s work: travel between Westminster and constituency, accommodation for those far from London, and – most of all – the funding that pays for staff, offices and equipment. We revisit how the 2008–09 expenses scandal changed everything, and how IPSA’s early reforms tightened the rules on housing costs, ending practices like mortgage interest claims and “flipping” second homes. Richard also addresses more recent controversies, including MPs renting to other MPs, and why IPSA has moved to stop new arrangements where public confidence and perceived conflicts of interest are at stake. Richard argues that today’s system is delivering: spending is now close to 100% compliant, serious wrongdoing is rare, and IPSA’s approach is evolving from dense rulebooks to clearer principles – parliamentary purpose, integrity, value for money and accountability – backed by enforcement when needed. We also explore the strain on MPs’ offices, the separation between parliamentary and party-political activity, the rising security threat, and the growing impact of AI on constituent correspondence. Finally, Richard discusses the politically charged question of MPs’ pay, the Citizens’ Panel work that shifted views once the reality of the job was understood, and the wider role independent regulators can play in rebuilding trust in our democratic institutions. _____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a dramatic day at Westminster, Kemi Badenoch launched a pre-emptive strike against Robert Jenrick, sacking him from the Shadow Cabinet, suspending the Conservative Party whip, and moving before his headline-grabbing jump to Reform UK. We unpack what the defection tells us about party discipline, Reform’s “fishing operation” for Tory MPs, and whether anyone else might follow. We then turn to government difficulties over the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, better known as the Hillsborough Law. With its proposed “duty of candour” for public officials, campaigners fear national security carve-outs (especially around MI5/MI6 evidence) could fatally water it down, with MPs particularly from Merseyside and Manchester pushing back hard as the Bill heads toward key Commons stages. In our interview, Backbench Business Committee chair Bob Blackman MP sets out his committee’s “manifesto” for Commons reform: spreading backbench time beyond Thursdays, fixing the committee’s stop-start elections, and even replacing the Private Members’ Bill lottery with a more rational selection process. Finally, we assess whether the assisted dying bill is being talked out in the Lords, what rescue routes might exist - including invoking the Parliament Act - and we note the arrival of a new Lord Speaker, Lord Forsyth, as wider Lords reform looms. ____   🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is it like to be part of a small but growing parliamentary party? We talk with the leader of the Green Party group at Westminster, Ellie Chowns, about the challenges of operating with limited numbers, the practical realities of parliamentary life, and how institutional structures shape the influence of smaller parties. We discuss our political culture, the Greens’ approach to leadership, internal decision-making, and the Green’s longer-term ambitions for electoral and parliamentary reform and a more representative system. With only four MPs, the Green Party covers a wide range of policy areas with a small parliamentary footprint. We explore how this affects visibility, workload, and the ability to intervene in debates and committees, within a system largely structured around the governing party and the official opposition and how smaller parties have to work strategically, pooling resources and coordinating closely to make the most of limited opportunities. Those structural constraints are set alongside the everyday realities of parliamentary work and the gap between Westminster’s formal traditions and the practical demands of representing constituents. Our discussion reflects on how much of an MP’s role is shaped by operational pressures: setting up offices, handling large volumes of casework, and mastering complex procedures while immediately taking on full responsibility for constituency representation. We explore how the Commons operates in practice and what this means for reform. Chowns raises issues around speaking rights, voting processes, and the allocation of time and space, linking them to wider questions of efficiency, accessibility and accountability, and to longer-standing debates about whether existing procedures are suited to a more diverse and multi-party political landscape. We also look at how the Green Party functions internally, both within its small parliamentary group and in its relationship with the wider party leadership. We consider how approaches to policy development, legislative coordination and party discipline shape representation, particularly in the absence of the tightly enforced whipping systems used by larger parties. Finally, we talk about electoral reform and the case for a more proportional system. The experience of operating as a small party within a majoritarian parliament is connected to broader arguments about structural change, the future direction of UK politics, and how rising public support for the Greens could translate into greater influence. ____   🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the Government investigating allegations of foreign influence in British politics, we are joined by John Pullinger, Chair of the Electoral Commission, to take stock of the health and resilience of the UK’s electoral system. Our discussion ranges widely over the pressures facing elections and campaigning today, and what issues Parliament may need to grapple with in a future elections bill. A major theme is political finance and the extent to which current rules are fit for purpose. We explore concerns about the risk of foreign money entering UK politics, the role of large donations, company funding and unincorporated associations, and the growing difficulty of tracing money in a digital age. We also discuss whether capping donations is realistic, and how reforms can restore public confidence without creating new loopholes or partisan flashpoints. Participation and engagement are another key focus. With millions missing from the electoral register and turnout at historically low levels, we discuss the barriers facing groups such as young people, private renters and disabled voters, and whether better civic education and democratic literacy could help reverse long-term disengagement – while staying firmly politically neutral. We also look at the increasingly hostile climate in which candidates campaign, including harassment, intimidation and online abuse. We consider where responsibility lies between social media platforms, political parties and the police, and whether stronger standards and enforcement are needed. Linked to this are wider concerns about misinformation, deepfakes and digital campaigning, and how online activity is blurring traditional lines in election spending rules. Finally, the conversation turns to election security and foreign interference, the independence of the Electoral Commission, and practical challenges such as postponed local elections and the growing pressures on electoral administrators. Together, these themes underline the scale of the challenges facing UK democracy – and the difficult choices involved in tackling them. _____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend     Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we are joined by author and former royal correspondent Valentine Low to explore the evolving relationship between Downing Street and the Palace and why it matters for Parliament. Drawing on his book Power and the Palace, we explore how royal influence has shifted from Queen Victoria’s overt political interventions to Elizabeth II’s studied neutrality. Along the way, we connect historical episodes – where monarchs helped shape diplomacy and constitutional outcomes – to today’s flashpoints, from the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament to referendums and royal finances and the looming constitutional headaches of future hung parliaments. We trace the story from Queen Victoria, who sought to shape foreign policy and even push ministers out of office, to the modern expectation that the Sovereign stays “above politics.” Low brings this history to life with vivid portraits of royal–minister tensions: Victoria’s exasperation with Palmerston’s “forgotten” correspondence, Edward VII’s surprise charm offensive in Paris that helped thaw relations ahead of the Entente Cordiale, and George V’s attempt to convene politicians at Buckingham Palace to tackle the intractable question of Irish Home Rule. From there, we turn to the weekly audience between Monarch and Prime Minister – private, unknowable, but still constitutionally significant – before arriving at the Boris Johnson years, when prorogation and election timing strained conventions and exposed how fragile the “golden triangle” of Palace–No.10–Cabinet Office co-ordination can be. Low also unpicks the uncertainty over dissolution rules after the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the continued secrecy surrounding the expanded Cabinet Manual, and how “Sedwill’s Law” effectively created a new precedent for what happens if a Prime Minister dies in office. Referendums have revealed further strains: the carefully calibrated words attributed to the Queen during the 2014 Scotland vote, the controversy over claims she backed Brexit, and the Palace’s tightrope walk once neutrality is publicly questioned. We also revisit the aftermath of Diana’s death and the Blair years, the role of state visits as diplomatic “show business,” and the perennial politics of royal costs. ____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend       Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why do UK Prime Ministers seem to burn out so quickly? Joined by historian Robert Saunders, we explore why so many leaders have struggled to survive in office since the Brexit referendum. The role has always been exceptionally demanding, but have the pressures of the post-2016 era made it harder than ever? Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic are major political shocks that have destabilised parties and strained the capacity of government, while the rise of new media has created a relentless and unforgiving environment of scrutiny. We also examine the leadership pipeline, with politicians reaching the top more quickly and with less experience of policy-making, party management and elections. Against this backdrop, we consider whether conventions such as collective cabinet responsibility are now part of the problem rather than the solution – encouraging inauthenticity, stifling legitimate disagreement and making it harder to manage broad political coalitions. The discussion explores the widening gap between public expectations and the realities of governing in a low-growth, post-financial-crisis economy, and concludes by asking whether rebuilding trust will require more honest communication, better political training and a willingness to rethink long-standing assumptions about how power is exercised at the top of British politics. ___ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We’re taking a short break over Christmas and New Year, but to keep you company we’ve wrapped up a selection of standout episodes as a festive gift for you. 🎁 Whether you’re travelling, cooking up a feast, putting your feet up, or stealing a quiet moment away from the chaos, dip into these great conversations over the festive period. We’ll be back to normal parliamentary podding in the New Year. In the meantime, you can catch up on this selection — or explore our full back catalogue — via your favourite podcast app or on our website. With best wishes for the season from everyone at the Hansard Society. Ruth & Mark. __________ ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament for us to tackle in the New Year.   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode brings you an exclusive recording of the official hustings for the election of the next Lord Speaker. Organised by the Hansard Society and chaired by podcast co-host Ruth Fox, the event took place last week in the Robing Room of the House of Lords. Peers put questions to the two contenders for the role: Conservative peer Lord Forsyth and Crossbench peer Baroness Bull. This episode gives listeners rare access to the full exchange between peers and the candidates. The discussion ranged from the practical business of running the House of Lords chamber to some of the biggest constitutional and governance challenges facing Parliament. The Lord Speaker chairs proceedings in the Lords from the Woolsack and acts as an ambassador for the House. The role also includes chairing the House of Lords Commission and sharing responsibility for the Restoration and Renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster. Created in 2006, the post replaced the Lord Chancellor as presiding officer and is filled by a five-year election among peers. Once elected, the Lord Speaker steps away from party affiliation and does not vote. From the outset, peers quickly tested a central tension in the contest: was Lord Forsyth too political, and was Baroness Bull political enough? Questions followed on how the Lord Speaker should defend the House if a future government had little or no representation in the Lords, prompting discussion of constitutional conventions, respect for the Commons’ electoral mandate and the Lords’ role as a revising, “think again” chamber. Key themes included governance, security and the looming decisions on restoration and renewal, with both candidates stressing the need for clearer accountability, better communication with members and efforts to rebuild public trust in Parliament. Other questions covered public engagement and media coverage, sitting hours and late nights, amendment grouping and Question Time, and the practical support available to members, especially those based outside London. _____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There have been three significant developments at Westminster this week: a Commons vote that the Liberal Democrats are presenting as a major breakthrough, a peerages list that raises questions of political balance, and renewed concerns about the limited powers Parliament holds to scrutinise international treaties. We begin with the Ten Minute Rule Bill proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Al Pinkerton, intended to create a duty on the Government to negotiate entry to the EU Customs Union. The motion succeeded only on a tied vote, resolved by Deputy Speaker Caroline Nokes using her casting vote. This was not a vote on the Bill’s text, nor does it compel Government action: it simply grants leave for the Bill to be introduced and placed in the Private Members’ Bill queue, where its prospects are uncertain. We then turn to the latest appointments to the House of Lords. Labour gains the largest share, and the Liberal Democrats secure five new peers, while Reform UK receives none—an outcome that is increasingly difficult to justify given Reform’s parliamentary and local government presence and their sustained lead in the opinion polls.  We also consider the implications of the anticipated hereditary peer departures on Lords committee work and scrutiny. We also preview the upcoming Lord Speaker contest between Lord Forsyth and Baroness Bull. Ruth chaired the official hustings earlier this week, so she discusses the issues and questions that were raised.    We talk to Lord Goldsmith, Chair of the International Agreements Committee, about treaty scrutiny. Lord Goldsmith argues that the current 21-day scrutiny period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is inadequate and overly dependent on Government control of parliamentary time. When in opposition Labour spokespersons agreed, but now they are in Government Ministers think the system is satisfactory. Finally, the programme closes with an update on the Assisted Dying Bill’s slow progress in the Lords and the potential reputational consequences if proceedings continue to stall. ____   🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week we focus on the Hansard Society’s new book, Britain Votes 2024, which brings together a powerhouse team of leading political scientists - including Professors Sir John Curtice, Phil Cowley and Tim Bale - and many other distinguished experts to dissect every facet of a record-breaking general election. The 2024 contest delivered the largest post-war swing, a Labour landslide, and the Conservatives’ lowest-ever parliamentary representation. This volume, a special edition of our Parliamentary Affairs journal, explains how and why such a dramatic turnaround came about.   We talk to the editors Alistair Clark, Louise Thompson and Stuart Wilks-Hee to unpack how Labour won a landslide on just a third of the vote, why the 2024 contest shattered so many electoral records, and what this says about the resilience – or fragility – of UK democracy. We explore the extraordinary disproportionality of the result, the historically low turnout, and the sense of voters “fishing around” for alternatives in a system under strain. Britain Votes 2024: The 2024 UK General Election is available now from all good bookshops and online retailers. Podcast listeners can get 30% off via the Oxford University Press website using the discount code: AUFLY30 This week we also discuss another turbulent week in Westminster, from the Budget fallout and the sudden resignation of OBR chair Richard Hughes to the unusual constitutional power Parliament holds over his post via the Treasury Committee. We explore the politics of abstention versus rebellion inside a government with a huge majority, and what to expect as the Finance Bill and a separate National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pension Contributions) Bill reach Parliament before Christmas. We also examine the afterlives of ex-MPs: Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s move from Labour to the Greens, the flow of former Conservatives into Reform, and what these shifts say about deeper tensions on the right. Plus, we dig into a row over local democracy as the government delays new mayoral elections in parts of Sussex, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire, prompting cross-party accusations that Labour is “cancelling democracy” and confusion about whether other local contests will still go ahead. ____   🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend   Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s Budget week, so we look at what happens after the Chancellor sits down and how the days announcements are converted into the Finance Bill. We speak to Lord Ricketts, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, about whether Parliament is prepared to scrutinise the “dynamic alignment” with EU laws that may emerge from the Government’s reset with Brussels. And we explore the latest twists in the assisted dying bill story, where a marathon battle is looming in the New Year after the Government allocated 10 additional Friday sittings for its scrutiny. ___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS ___ In this episode, we unpick a Budget Day thrown off course by an early OBR leak that overshadowed Rachel Reeves’ statement, gave Kemi Badenoch an unexpected advantage, and left MPs scrolling their phones rather than watching the chamber. But once the drama fades, the hard legislative work begins. MPs must first approve 101 Ways and Means resolutions before the Finance Bill can be presented. We explain the crucial 30-sitting-day deadline for getting the Finance Bill through Second Reading, and we demystify why, in Westminster-speak, scheduling that debate for “tomorrow” almost never means it will take place the next day. We then turn to the new House of Lords report looking at the reset of the UK–EU relationship. Lord Ricketts, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, joins us to explain how “dynamic alignment” on food standards, carbon pricing, youth mobility and even defence loans could pull the UK closer to EU rules. He warns that Parliament – especially the Commons – has neither a plan nor the structures, expertise or capacity to keep track of the steady stream of technical agreements likely to emerge, raising familiar questions about whether “taking back control” has empowered ministers far more than parliamentarians. We also discuss what happens when a Lords committee cannot reach a consensus on a report, and whether such divisions may become more common in an age of polarisation. Finally, the Government Chief Whip has announced a further 10 ten Friday sittings for consideration of the assisted dying bill in the New Year. We look at what this reveals about government neutrality, the prospects for filibustering, and when this parliamentary Session is really likely to end. We also look at the proposed new Lords inquiries on national resilience, domestic abuse, vaccination and numeracy, and examine the justice reforms floated in Sir Brian Leveson’s review, including the contentious suggestion that the right to a jury trial could be abolished in some cases. ___ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.   ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:   ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.   📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social   £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.   Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.   Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend   Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.