This year’s general election saw 335 new MPs elected to the House of Commons. Parliament has thus seen a large number of so-called ‘maiden speeches’, with many more still to come. In this post, Tom Fleming discusses maiden speeches’ potential benefits and downsides, and whether parliament could use its limited time more effectively. 

As parliament returns for its September sitting, we can expect to hear plenty more ‘maiden speeches’: the first speech by each newly-elected MP. These were very prominent in the short July sitting after the general election, given that over half of all MPs are new to the House. This blogpost explores the benefits and downsides of these speeches, and asks whether – and how – limited parliamentary time could be used more effectively. 

What are maiden speeches? 

An MP’s first speech in the House of Commons after they are elected is generally known as a maiden speech. As set out in the MPs’ Guide to Procedure, such speeches are supposed to be relatively brief and uncontroversial, and relevant to the subject under debate. It is also conventional for MPs to talk about their constituency, and to pay tribute to its previous MP. These speeches are usually given some priority in debates, and other MPs may not intervene during them. MPs have traditionally not spoken in the Commons chamber in any way (such as asking questions) until after their maiden speech, but – as with the content of the speech – they are free to disregard this convention. 

(more…)

With just over two weeks to go until polling day, most parties have now released their manifestos. In this post, Lisa James summarises their key pledges on the constitution, covering parliamentary reform, standards, the rule of law and rights protection, elections and public participation, media and democratic discourse, devolution and Europe.

With the 4 July general election fast approaching, political parties are releasing their manifestos. Though much of the election campaign has focused on the economy and public services, several of the manifestos also contain significant constitutional policy pledges. This post summarises the key commitments on the constitution, covering the manifestos of the main parties in Great Britain: the Labour Party, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party.

Parliament

The most striking commitment in relation to the House of Commons comes from Labour, which proposes a Modernisation Committee charged with assessing procedure, and improving standards and working practices. The party also proposes to grasp the nettle of House of Lords reform, pledging to scrap the remaining hereditary peers, introduce an age limit of 80 and ‘a new participation requirement’, and introduce reforms to ‘ensure the quality of new appointments’ and improve territorial diversity. Longer-term, the party commits to replacing the House of Lords with an ‘alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations’, and pledges to consult on proposals for doing so.

Lords reform is also pledged by the Green Party, which proposes replacement with an elected second chamber, and the Liberal Democrats (who propose to reform the chamber to have a ‘proper democratic mandate’ but offer no more detail). Reform UK proposes to replace the House of Lords with a ‘much smaller, more democratic second chamber’ – though it leaves further detail ‘to be debated’. The SNP supports abolition. The Liberal Democrats also propose strengthening parliament’s powers in relation to the calling of elections, trade deals, and military intervention. The Conservative manifesto contains nothing on the role of parliament.

(more…)

This is the first edition of this briefing. It has since been updated. Read the most up-to-date version and other briefings on the Constitution Unit’s website.

Healthy political discourse is vital for democracies to function well. In this post, Alan Renwick and Tom Fieldhouse set out five key elements of such discourse, highlight barriers that may be making achieving it increasingly difficult, and propose steps that policy-makers and others could take to support it.

Background

Healthy political discourse is a core feature of a well-functioning democracy. It can help to deliver many benefits to society, whereas unhealthy discourse has the potential to inflict great damage.

There is no definitive blueprint for what healthy discourse looks like. There is nevertheless widespread concern – in the UK and in many other countries – that the quality of political discourse is poor and that contemporary challenges, including polarisation and the nature of modern media, are placing it under increasing strain.

This briefing examines what healthy political discourse is and why it matters. It identifies some of the key factors that make maintaining healthy discourse difficult and highlights examples of unhealthy discourse. It considers what can be done to enable healthy discourse to flourish.

What is healthy political discourse?

Alongside other important constitutional principles – such as institutional checks and balances, free and fair elections, the rule of law, fundamental rights, and integrity and standards – healthy public discourse is an essential component of a well-functioning democracy.

Democracy is a process for making decisions. Citizens should be able to choose representatives who will serve their interests, and to hold those representatives to account for what they do. Policy-makers should be able to make and implement policy decisions that advance the public interest. People from all walks of life should feel included and able to participate actively. All these processes are underpinned by discourse – including discussion, debate, description, and commentary. This is generated by politicians, officials, campaigners, journalists, and members of the public. Healthy discourse enables such processes to run well, whereas unhealthy discourse inhibits them.

(more…)