# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2009, as then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was preparing to visit President Barack Obama in the White House for the first time, his aides devoted long strategy sessions to the nature of the gift that the prime minister would hand to the president. Eventually, they opted for a pen holder made from wood from the sister ship of H.M.S. Resolute -the nineteenth-century boat from which the Oval Office desk was made-and a seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill. The president's staff had not been so thoughtful. In return, Obama handed Brown a set of DVDs that worked only on a North American DVD player.

The United States and the United Kingdom have shared what both have called a "special relationship" since the end of World War II, though in truth the connection is much older. The ties between the two countries' governments are among the strongest and most harmonious between any two nations in the world. The countries have many of the same interests. Both have sought to uphold a rules-based international order. Both have been strong proponents of liberal democracy and free trade.

They have forged a powerful alliance in international bodies like the UN Security Council and NATO, and, at least until Brexit, the United Kingdom acted as a bridge between the United States and Europe. Though the closeness of the relationship has waxed and waned depending on the personalities in Downing Street and the White House, the underlying strength of the bureaucratic ties between diplomats, military officials, and intelligence agencies has endured-until now.

The United Kingdom has worried about the state of the so-called special relationship with the United States for as long as it has existed. "We've freighted it with all this symbolism, a lot of which is nonsense," Simon Fraser, a former head of the United Kingdom's diplomatic service, told me in an interview in London in September. "There is this exaggerated sense on the British side that United

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it needs a strong, reliable relationship with the United States more than ever, the United Kingdom looks across the pond with doubt and uncertainty. Even those British officials who had previously tried to convince themselves that Donald Trump wasn't that different from previous presidents have now accepted that his presidency is in fact acutely, disturbingly different.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the new withdrawal agreement create a border in the Irish Sea? - Full Fact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Corbyn hits the road in Scotland. Andrew Milligan/PA

Road trips to drum up support are an essential part of any election and 2019 has, so far, been no exception. The closer we get to polling day, the campaign trail will be crossing the country at ever more frenetic speed. But what can we tell about each of the two largest party's electoral ambitions from where the leaders are going?

In the first 12 days of the campaign, Johnson visited 18 constituencies. Besides his visit to the Tayto crisp factory in Tandragee, Northern Ireland and a visit to Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire, where the incumbent is the former Conservative Anna Soubry, his visits have been equally split between Conservative and Labour held seats. This is a fairly cautious strategy - the Conservative seats are largely safe (usually with the Liberal Democrats in second place), so he is able to conduct his visits in relatively friendly locations.

Apart from his visit to Stainforth, which is in the ultra-safe constituency held by former Labour leader Ed Miliband, the Labour seats Johnson is visiting are marginal. This hints at a wider expansionist strategy to come later in the campaign, concentrating on the type of seats Johnson needs to gain to enable him to hold a majority. This strategy is already beginning to emerge. The Conservative battle bus was launched in Middleton - exactly the type of traditional Labour area the Conservatives want to take. Winning such seats could deliver them a thumping majority.

Wherever he is going, what seems to be characterising Johnson's campaign trail is a very heavily orchestrated and "themed visit" strategy. He isn't delivering many speeches to local supporters - something that David Cameron did particularly frequently in 2010, for example.

Johnson's visits are instead themed around key policy areas - hospitals, schools and businesses. This gives him the opportunity to be pictured interacting with members of the public, appearing approachable, but with limitations to the degree of interaction. In these scenarios, people can be carefully selected for encounters with Johnson. That is not to say that these visits run without incident; after all, it was only September when Johnson was heckled at Whipps Cross Hospital.

What is perhaps surprising, however, is that Johnson's campaign trail reflects very much what Theresa May was doing in the 2017 campaign, despite Johnson's very different persona and his repeatedly polling more favourably than May. His strategy indicates that his team have yet to learn the lesson of a key failure of May's campaign - if you put the leader front and centre, you also need to allow access to them.

Can't stop Corbyn

Corbyn has hit the ground running, visiting the same number of seats as Johnson. His stop offs have included Conservative-held seats such as Pudsey, near Leeds, where the Conservatives won by just a few hundred votes in 2017, and Rossendale and Darwen, where they won by just a few thousand.

Corbyn has also been defending his own party's territory in Crewe and Nantwich and Blackpool. These are both marginal seats, where the parties are in a close second place. There are only 48 votes in it in Crewe. No wonder Corbyn has already appeared there.

What is particularly unusual about Corbyn's campaign so far is the amount of attention he has paid to Scotland. In 2010, for example, Gordon Brown only visited two Scottish seats towards the end of the campaign (visits to his own constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath do not count). Ed Miliband went to Scotland on three different occasions in 2015, visiting one constituency each time.

Corbyn visited Scotland three times in 2017, but only on one occasion visited more than one seat in a single trip. However, in this campaign he has already completed a two-day tour of eight different Scottish constituencies, speaking to supporters, canvassing and visiting the National Mining Museum. All bar one of these constituencies are held by the SNP and are mostly marginal.

This unusual concentration on Scotland so early in the campaign shows how much importance Labour is placing on retaining its seven Scottish MPs and trying to reclaim a whisper of the dominance the party once enjoyed. It would be surprising if this is the only time we see Corbyn in Scotland during this campaign.

Despite Wales being a key area for consolidating Labour support to prevent a Johnson majority, Corbyn hasn't been as active here, which hints that Welsh Labour is taking control of its own campaign there.

Public, but not too public

There are already rumblings that both party leaders are rarely engaging with voters in a spontaneous way in this campaign. Meeting people as they go would be a good way of boosting their popularity but, of course, it also comes with risks. When the public have been granted access to leaders on their visits, it hasn't gone smoothly.

Corbyn was heckled in Dunfermline, Scotland, and Johnson was confronted by angry locals in Yorkshire, who asked him why he had taken so long to travel to their flood-hit region, so it's easy to see why they might avoid improvised events.

Of course, heckling in British elections is nothing new, but the appearance of it so early in the campaign seems symptomatic of wider public dissatisfaction with politicians.

PA

There are still many more miles for the leaders to travel and the rate of constituency visits will crescendo in the final full week of the campaign, giving us a clear guide to the expectations of the parties on polling day. However, Johnson and Corbyn's reliance on highly structured visits provides voters with little real access, which might have been used to understand the men who are proposing to lead their country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where are Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn visiting - and what do their travel plans tell us about the election?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Road trips to drum up support are an essential part of any election and 2019 has, so far, been no exception. The closer we get to polling day, the campaign trail will be crossing the country at ever more frenetic speed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Backbencher

Term for an MP who is not a minister. They sit behind the front benches in the House of commons.

Ballot

Another term for vote.

Ballot box

A sealed box with a slit in the lid. Voters place their ballot papers through the slit into the box. When polls close the boxes are opened and counting begins.

Ballot paper

Paper containing a list of all candidates standing in a constituency. Voters mark their choice with a cross.

By-election

An election held between general elections, usually because the sitting MP has died or resigned.

Candidate

Someone putting themselves up for election. Once Parliament has been dissolved, there are no MPs, only candidates.

Canvassing

During a campaign, active supporters of a party ask voters who they will vote for and try to drum up support for their own candidates.

Close of nominations

The deadline for candidates standing to send in the officials forms confirming their place in the election. This is usually __ days before polling day.

Coalition

When two or more parties govern together, when neither has an overall majority. After the 2010 election, the Conservatives and Lib Dems formed a coalition, which lasted for five years.

Confidence and supply

A agreement between two political parties where the smaller party agrees to support a larger one without enough MPs to have a majority in parliament.

Conservative

The Conservative party is

Constituency

The geographical unit which elects a single MP. There are 650 in the UK.

Dead cat

In politics, a 'dead cat' strategy is when a dramatic or sensational story is disclosed to divert attention away from something more damaging. The term comes from the concept of an imaginary dead cat being flung onto a dining table, causing the diners to become distracted by it.

Declaration

The announcement of the election result in each constituency.

Deposit

A sum of £500 paid by candidates or their parties to be allowed to stand. It is returned if the candidate wins 5% or more of the votes cast.

Devolution

The delegation of powers to other parliaments within the UK, specifically the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.

Devolved parliament

The Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies are elected by voters in those nations of the UK. They make laws on policy areas controlled by those nations such as health, environment and education.

Dissolution of Parliament

The act of ending a Parliament before an election. When parliament is dissolved there are no MPs, but the prime minister and other senior ministers remain in their roles.

Electoral register / roll

A list of everyone in a constituency entitled to vote. Also known as electoral roll.

Exit poll

An exit poll is a poll of voters leaving a voting station. They are asked how they have voted, and the results are used to forecast what the overall result of the election may be.

First past the post

Term used to describe the UK's parliamentary election system. It means a candidate only needs to win the most votes in their constituency to win the seat.

Gain

When a party wins a constituency from another party, it is said to have "gained" it from the other.

General election

Election at which all seats in the House of Commons are contested.

Hung parliament

If after an election no party has an overall majority, then parliament is said to be "hung". The main parties will then try to form a coalition with one or more of the minor parties. Opinion polls have suggested that a hung parliament is a strong possibility after the 2015 general election.

Hustings

A meeting a which candidates address potential voters. The word comes from an old Norse word meaning "house of assembly".

Independent

A candidate who is not a member of any political party and is standing on their own personal platform. To qualify as an official political party, a party must be registered with the Electoral Commission, the organisation which administers elections in the UK.

Landslide

The name given to an election which one party wins by a very large margin. Famous landslides in UK elections include Labour's victory in 1945, the Conservative win in 1983 and the election which brought Tony Blair to power in 1997.

Left wing

A person or party with strong socialist policies or beliefs.

Liberal Democrat

The name of the party occupying the centre ground of British politics. They were formed from the former Liberal party and Social Democrats, a Labour splinter group, and combine support for traditional liberalism such as religious tolerance and individual freedom, with support for social justice.

Majority

A majority in Parliament means one side has at least one more vote than all the other parties combined and is therefore more likely to be able to push through any legislative plans.

Majority government

When one party wins more than half of the seats in the Commons, they can rule alone in a majority government

Mandate

Politicians say they have a mandate, or authority, to carry out a policy when they have the backing of the electorate.

Manifesto

A public declaration of a party's ideas and policies, usually printed during the campaign. Once in power, a government is often judged by how many of its manifesto promises it manages to deliver.

Marginal

Seats where the gap between the two or more leading parties is relatively small. Often regarded as less than a 10% margin or requiring a swing (see below) of 5% or less, though very dependent on prevailing political conditions.

Minority government

A minority government is one that does not have a majority of the seats in Parliament. It means the government is less likely to be able to push through any legislative programme. Boris Johnson has suffered a number of defeats in Parliament over a no-deal Brexit because he does not have a majority.

MP

Strictly this includes members of the House of Lords, but in practice means only members of the House of Commons. When an election is called Parliament is dissolved and there are no more MPs until it assembles again.

Nomination papers

A candidate must be nominated on these documents by 10 voters living in the constituency.

Opinion poll

A survey asking people's opinion on one or more issues. In an election campaign, the key question is usually about which party people will vote for.

Opposition

The largest party not in government is known as the official opposition. It receives extra parliamentary funding in recognition of its status.

Party Election Broadcast

Broadcasts made by the parties and transmitted on TV or radio. By agreement with the broadcasters, each party is allowed a certain number according to its election strength and number of candidates fielded.

Percentage swing

The swing shows how far voter support for a party has changed between elections. It is calculated by comparing the percentage of the vote won in a particular election to the figure obtained in the previous election.

Polling day

Election day

Polling station

Place where people go to cast their votes

Postal vote

People unable to get to a polling station are allowed to vote by post if they apply in advance.

Proportional representation (PR)

Any voting system where the share of seats represents the share of votes is described as proportional representation. The UK currently has a first past the post system.

Prorogation

Parliament is usually prorogued, or suspended, ahead of an election or Queen's Speech to allow for preparations. In September 2019 Boris Johnson attempted to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, but the Supreme Court later ruled the prorogation unlawful and MPs returned to Parliament.

Psephologist

A person who studies voting and voting patterns.

Purdah

This is the time between the announcement of an election and the final election results. During this period media organisations have to ensure any political reporting is balanced and is not likely to influence the outcome of the election.

Recount

If a result is close, any candidate may ask for a recount. The process can be repeated several times if necessary until the candidates are satisfied. The returning officer has the final say on whether a recount takes place.

Returning officer

The official in charge of elections in each of the constituencies. On election night they read out the results for each candidate in alphabetical order by surname.

Right wing

Someone who is right wing in politics usually supports tradition and authority, as well as capitalism. The Conservative party is regarded as the main centre-right party in the UK.

Safe seat

A safe seat is a constituency where an MP has a sufficiently large majority to be considered unwinnable by the opposition.

Spin room

The attempt to place a favourable interpretation on an event so that people or the media will interpret it in that way. Those performing this act are known as spin doctors.

Spoiled ballot

Any ballot paper that is not marked clearly, eg with more than one box ticked or with writing scrawled across it, is described as a spoiled ballot and does not count towards the result.

Tactical voting

This is when people vote not for the party they really support, but for another party in order to keep out a more disliked rival.

Target seat

In theory, any seat that a party contests and held by a rival is one of its targets. In practice, a target seat is one that a party believes it can win and puts a lot of effort into doing so.

Turnout

Turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot on polling day.

Vote of no confidence

It is usually the leader of the opposition, currently Jeremy Corby, who calls for a vote of no confidence, in an attempt to topple the government. If more MPs vote for the motion than against it, then the government has 14 days to try to win back the confidence of MPs through another vote - while the opposition parties try to form an alternative government. If nothing is resolved, then a general election is triggered.

Westminster

The UK Parliament is located in the Palace of Westminster in the centre of London and the term is often used as an alternative to Parliament.

Working majority

A working majority in Parliament is what a government needs to carry out its legislative programme without risk of defeat. It means the government can rely on at least one more vote than the opposition parties. However, in the current Parliament, the government no longer has a majority and MPs from a range of opposition parties have joined forces to form a parliamentary majority big enough to defeat the government over plans for a no-deal Brexit.

Main story continues below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Election translator: Key words explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Backbencher Term for an MP who is not a minister. They sit behind the front benches in the House of commons. Ballot Another term for vote. Ballot box A sealed box with a slit in the lid. Voters place their ballot papers through the slit into the box.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinion Former Articles

BASC has given away enough seeds to plant more than 6,000 square metres of wildflower meadow

2,500 native hedgerow plants and 25 oak trees have been planted on shoots in Cheshire by members of the UK's largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

Students from across the UK have been recognised by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) as outstanding, and have received a number of awards and scholarships.

What will it take put the UK back on the path of sustained economic growth? A new report investigates the challenges the UK faces after the economic downturn and explores a range of initiatives across education, business, housing, industry, and innovation that could help kick-start growth.

First | Previous | Showing 1 to 25 of 26 | Next | Last

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BASC has given away enough seeds to plant more than 6,000 square metres of wildflower meadow 2,500 native hedgerow plants and 25 oak trees have been planted on shoots in Cheshire by members of the UK's largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The House of Commons has become increasingly diverse over the years - but it doesn't yet mirror the country it represents.

Gender

The first woman to be elected to the House of Commons was Constance Markievicz in 1918.

However, she was a member of Sinn Fein - a party which boycotts its seats in parliament - and so she never sat in the Commons.

Conservative Nancy Astor, who won a by-election in December 1919, is regarded by many as the first female representative in parliament.

Since then, there has been a constant female presence in the Commons. The proportion of women jumped in the late 1990s following a Labour initiative under Tony Blair, which led the party's female MPs to be nicknamed "Blair's Babes".

In 1997, the number of female Labour MPs reached 101 - far more than the 37 elected back in 1992. Labour made the most of a landslide to dramatically change the face of parliament.

Among the two main political parties, Labour and the Conservatives, the proportion of female representatives is higher in Labour. In 2017, 45% of Labour MPs were women, compared with 21% in the Conservatives.

That said, the Tories remain the only party to have had female leaders and prime ministers: Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May.

Labour has never had a permanent female leader or a female prime minister and the Liberal Democrats only elected their first female leader, Jo Swinson, in 2019.

There is some work to be done before the number of women in the Commons properly reflects UK society. Nationwide, women make up 51% of the population but just 32% of MPs.

Campaign groups such as 50:50 Parliament are seeking to increase the number of women, from all political parties, standing for roles in all levels of government.

Its founder, Frances Scott, told Sky News: "Rosie Duffield spoke movingly of her experience of coercive control and domestic abuse. Her bravery in bringing this experience to the floor of the Commons was a comfort and inspiration to many women who have suffered. It was the 50:50 Parliament #AskHerToStand campaign that inspired Rosie to stand for election and she went on to win her seat.

"More than 800 women have expressed an interest in standing for elected office right across the political spectrum via the 50:50 Parliament website. Our 'New Girls Network' of peer supporters are helping them take steps to be selected and elected.

"The mother of parliaments needs modernising. At the last election only 12 extra women gained seats in the Commons - at this rate it will take another half-century for women to have equal seats and equal say."

While apolitical campaigns may be fighting for equality in the House, Women2Win founder Anne Jenkin revealed on Twitter that the Conservative Party selection process was not equally split, finding that 15 of 60 selections for seats were women.

BAME

Likewise, BAME representation in the Commons is still lacking. Currently, 8% of MPs are BAME - the highest level since records began - but according to census data, 19.5% of the population comes from an ethnic minority.

There are 52 BAME MPs. If this was to directly reflect the UK population, this number should be closer to 112.

At present, Labour is the party with the highest proportion of black and ethnic minority MPs. In 1987, Labour had four BAME MPs - and the Conservatives' first BAME MP was elected in 1992 under John Major.

For two subsequent elections, Labour were the only party with any BAME representation.

At the 2017 election, Labour had 32 BAME MPs, the Tories had 19, and Liberal Democrats had one. These figures have changed following the defections of Conservative Sam Gyimah and Labour's Chuka Umunna to the Lib Dems.

LGBT

In 2017, there were 45 openly LGBT MPs serving in the Commons. Immediately following the election that year, there was an even split across the Labour and the Conservatives, which had 19 MPs each. Since then, two openly LGBT Conservative MPs have left the party.

Nick Boles quit after he was unable to persuade his colleagues to a compromise on Brexit, and Justine Greening was expelled when she voted against Boris Johnson.

The rate of openly LGBT MPs is about 6%. According to the Office for National Statistics, this is substantially higher than the 2% of the population who describe themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual (transgender people were not included in the ONS figures).

It is worth noting that the percentage of people who identify as straight decreased to 93.2% in 2017 - 0.6% identified themselves as "other", while 4.1% refused, or did not know how, to identify their sexual orientation.

Statistics on sexuality are not perfect as many people do not wish to be open about their preference, or feel unable to.

Age

The average age of MPs at elections has consistently been about 50 years old.

Conservative MPs elected at general elections over the past 60 years have tended to be younger than their Labour counterparts, while Liberal Democrat MPs are the oldest on average.

Education

Following the 2017 election, eight in 10 MPs were university graduates - and one in four attended the University of Cambridge.

The number of graduate MPs is 17 percentage points higher than in 1951, but the number of Oxbridge graduates has fallen over the same period.

However, there is still a stark difference in the type of education that MPs have had when compared with the rest of society.

Nearly 30% of MPs who entered parliament in 2017 had private schooling, and 24% went to Oxford or Cambridge. But according to The Sutton Trust, only 7% of Britons have had a private education - and less than 1% of the current working population attended Oxford or Cambridge.

In total, 86% of MPs have a university education - and comparatively, just 19% of the working population went to any university.

Occupation

Data from the House of Commons library shows the range of backgrounds that MPs have come from before entering parliament.

Sky News has taken the available information and divided it into six categories. Legal covers those who were barristers, solicitors, or another legal profession. Teacher covers those in education, while business covers those who were company executives, or directors, or worked in some form in private business.

Politicians covers those who were in politics in some way, or who were political organisers. White-collar work covers middle-class professions such as civil service, local government, the armed forces, and those who were in publishing or journalism. Manual workers include traditional blue-collar work like mining.

A rise in the number of MPs who are graduates has come alongside a drop in the number from manual labour backgrounds. There's also been a rise in the number with business and political backgrounds, such as those who moved from local councils into the Palace of Westminster.

Newcomers

While more MPs are moving from political fields into elected representation, there was a drop in the last election in the number of MPs entering the Commons for the first time. Only one in every 10 MPs was a newbie.

On the other hand, at the 1997 and 2010 elections, more than a third of MPs elected were new to the House. The high turnover of MPs on these occasions is attributable to the change of government and to the large numbers of MPs who did not seek re-election.

Disability

Data on diversity in parliament focuses on social backgrounds, and doesn't currently include information about disabilities. The Commons Library says there is no monitoring of disability in parliament.

According to The Guardian, there were five disabled MPs returned to the Commons in the 2017 election. Two Conservatives, two Labour and one Lib Dem made up that total.

It's estimated about 13.3 million people are disabled in the UK, accounting for about 20% of the population.

According to campaign group Disability Politics there are "a handful" of disabled MPs in the UK, but there would need to be 65 in order for parliament to be representative of wider society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commons people: How diverse are MPs - and do they reflect the UK?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The House of Commons has become increasingly diverse over the years - but it doesn't yet mirror the country it represents. The first woman to be elected to the House of Commons was Constance Markievicz in 1918. However, she was a member of Sinn Fein - a party which boycotts its seats in parliament - and so she never sat in the Commons.

# data[].attributes.body
SEMINAR WEEK 7

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party have formed an electoral pact, agreeing not to stand against each other in dozens of seats.

The three anti-Brexit parties will announce details of the deal on Thursday, but it is thought to cover between 60 and 70 constituencies.

In Wales, the pact will cover 11 of its 40 seats, BBC Wales has been told.

Such a pact means two of the parties would agree not to field a candidate, boosting the third candidate's chances.

Outside of Wales, the pact will simply be a two-way agreement between the Lib Dems and the Greens.

Thursday marks exactly five weeks until the UK general election on 12 December.

All three parties have already launched their election campaigns. They all support another Brexit referendum and want to Remain in the EU.

Last month, it emerged the trio were in negotiations about pacts in certain constituencies to ensure a pro-Remain candidate is elected.

"We are delighted that an agreement has been reached," said Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson.

"This is a significant moment for all people who want to support Remain candidates across the country."

The new pact followed a similar deal earlier this year in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, when Plaid Cymru and the Greens agreed to put forward a candidate but instead give way to the Lib Dems' Jane Dodds.

Ms Dodds went on to defeat the Conservative incumbent, Chris Davies.

The pact comes after Plaid Cymru's leader Adam Price wrote to several pro-Remain parties earlier this year, calling on them to work together in a snap general election.

In Wales, the plan is understood to involve the Lib Dems and Greens standing their candidates aside for Plaid Cymru in three out of the four seats that Plaid is defending: Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionydd and Carmarthen East and Dinefwr.

In Arfon in 2017, Plaid Cymru won by just 92 votes.

The deal does not involve the Ceredigion seat - which is currently held by Plaid Cymru but is a top election target for the Lib Dems.
Read more about the pact in Wales
Last week, the Brexit Party's Nigel Farage called on Boris Johnson to form a similar election pact. Mr Farage wanted the PM to drop his Brexit deal and then agree to stand aside candidates for each other.

Mr Johnson rejected the offer and said he would not enter into election pacts.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has also ruled out the idea of entering electoral pacts with rival parties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lib Dems, Greens and Plaid agree election pact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party have formed an electoral pact, agreeing not to stand against each other in dozens of seats. The three anti-Brexit parties will announce details of the deal on Thursday, but it is thought to cover between 60 and 70 constituencies.

# data[].attributes.body
Why Aren't There More Women in British Politics? - Kenny - 2015 - Political Insight - Wiley Online Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Meryl Kenny is Lecturer in Social and Political Science (Gender) in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, and Co‐Convenor of the PSA's Women and Politics Specialist Group.
Search for more papers by this author
First published:

Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.

If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, Please log in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Aren't There More Women in British Politics?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meryl Kenny is Lecturer in Social and Political Science (Gender) in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, and Co‐Convenor of the PSA's Women and Politics Specialist Group. Search for more papers by this author First published: Get access to the full version of this article.

# data[].attributes.body
The New Politics? 2010 General Election in Retrospect - Curtice - 2010 - Political Insight - Wiley Online Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The New Politics? 2010 General Election in Retrospect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Behind the headlines, the big story of May's election is the continuing demise of Britain's two‐party system, writes John Curtice. Hung parliament; Labour's second‐worst defeat since 1918; the Conser...

# data[].attributes.body
Localization – an alternative to corporate‐led globalization - Lucas - 2003 - International Journal of Consumer Studies - Wiley Online Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First published:

Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials.

If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, Please log in.

Abstract

In the aftermath of 11 September, there has been a growing recognition that an increasingly unequal world is not only morally unacceptable but also deeply insecure. This paper defines globalization as economic, corporate‐led globalization, a process that impacts every facet of our life. For illustrative purposes, this paper will briefly examine the role played by the globalization process in exacerbating the gap between rich and poor. It will make the case that, contrary to popular wisdom, there is nothing inevitable about this process. One such alternative is localization - a set of interrelated and self‐reinforcing policies that actively discriminate in favour of the more local, whenever it is feasible and reasonable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Localization - an alternative to corporate‐led globalization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First published: Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below. Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials. If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, Please log in.

# data[].attributes.body
Green Alternatives to Globalisation: a Manifesto ‐ by Michael Woodin and Caroline Lucas - Davison - 2006 - Geographical Research - Wiley Online Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Green Alternatives to Globalisation: a Manifesto ‐ by Michael Woodin and Caroline Lucas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Click on the article title to read more.

# data[].attributes.body
Caroline Lucas' plan to stop no deal Brexit is great – for the Greens, at least

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The central problem with a government of national unity is that most of the people who'd have to be involved don't want one.

The Liberal Democrats don't want to support a government with Jeremy Corbyn at its head because they believe that it would imperil their chances of winning seats off the Conservatives at the next election, and that Jeremy Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister. The Labour leadership don't want to support a government without Jeremy Corbyn at its head because they fear that it would damage them politically, and create a precedent that could be used against Corbyn if Labour are the largest party, or enter government after the next election without a majority. Labour MPs don't want to support a government without Jeremy Corbyn at its head because they fear it will lead to them being deselected, or end their hopes of leading the Labour party permanently after Corbyn has gone.

These groups are in any case divided over what their preferred way of stopping no deal would actually be, and it is not clear that there are enough Conservative MPs to vote for any unity government to make the question anything other than academic.

That does not change simply by suggesting an all-female-reboot for the idea, as Caroline Lucas, the Greens' sole MP, has done. But it's a clever way to keep the Green party in the headlines by emphasising some of its different credentials. Although the party is not constitutionally obliged to have joint co-leaders, it has had a run of them for close to four years, and its candidate for the London mayoralty, many of its most highly-rated MEPs, its sole member of the House of Lords (and, I'm told, its second member of the House of Lords, nominated by Theresa May in her resignation honours but not yet officially cleared by the new regime) are all women.

The idea reflects an underrated element of Lucas' political skillset: keeping her party in the headlines through eyecatching measures - a tax on meat was one, and this was another - that reiterate the party's key messages.

That fact would be a source of considerable solace to me if I worked in Downing Street, and a subject of great worry if I worked in Jeremy Corbyn's office. The nightmare scenario for Boris Johnson is that while the headline voting intention shows an opposition divided between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, tactical voting means that he loses seats to the Liberal Democrats in England and Wales, fails to make a breakthrough against Labour, and in addition is whomped in Scotland by the SNP.

That is less likely to happen if the Green party remains in the news and continues to be seen as viable entity, not just in safe seats where the outcome is up for grabs, but in marginal constituencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Caroline Lucas' plan to stop no deal Brexit is great - for the Greens, at least

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The central problem with a government of national unity is that most of the people who'd have to be involved don't want one. The Liberal Democrats don't want to support a government with Jeremy Corbyn at its head because they believe that it would imperil their chances of winning seats off the Conservatives at the next election, and that Jeremy Corbyn is unfit to be Prime Minister.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Caroline's work and achievements have gained significant national and local media interest. She regularly writes articles and blogs for a range of national publications.

Here are some recent articles and comment pieces by Caroline, as well as media coverage of her work in Parliament and for constituents in Brighton.

BBC1, 12 September 2013

Independent, 11 September 2013

Comment is Free, 22 August 2013

Independent, 22 August 2013

Independent, 20 August 2013

A Green Home for Labour voters'

Guardian, 19 August 2013

Why is Caroline Lucas our MP of the month?

Total Politics, 1 August 2013

Observer Interview, 28 July 2013

Independent, 17 July 2013

Huffington Post, 15 July 2013

BBC Daily Politics, 15 July 2013

BBC News Online, 11 July 2013

Brighton Argus, 02 July 2013

Solar Portal, 26 June 2013

Brighton Argus, 26 June 2013

Huffington Post, 22 June 2013

New Internationalist, 17 June 2013

BBC News, 13 June 2013

PoliticsHome, 13 June 2013

The Guardian, 13 June 2013

Channel 5 News, 13 June 2013

The Brighton Argus, 13 June 2013

The Guardian, 12 June 2013

The Guardian, 12 June 2013

Huffington Post, 12 June 2013

TimeOut London, 12 June 2013

Metro, 12 June 2013

BBC News, 12 June 2013

BBC Parliament, 12 June 2013

The Guardian, 12 June 2013

Daily Express, 06 June 2013

The Guardian, 06 June 2013

Irish Independent, 06 June 2013

The Guardian, 05 June 2013

BBC News, 04 June 2013

The Brighton Argus, 04 June 2013

The Independent, 04 June 2013

BBC Radio 4, 01 June 2013

Morning Star, 01 June 2013

BBC Radio 4 Face the Facts, 29 May 2013

The Guardian, 24 May 2013

Metro, 23 May 2013

OK Magazine, 23 May 2013

Digital Spy, 23 May 2013

Brighton Argus, 15 May 2013

Brighton Argus, 15 May 2013

House magazine, 13 May 2013

Metro, 08 May 2013

The Independent, 06 May 2013

BBC Daily Politics, 28 April 2013

BBC, 26 April 2013

Boulton & Co, Sky News, 18 April 2013

Brighton Argus, 18 April 2013

Daily Mail, 14 April 2013

The Observer, 14 April 2013

Pink News, 12 April 2013

Daily Mirror, 12 April 2013

Daily Mail, 11 April 2013

Daily Telegraph, 11 April 2013

Brighton and Hove News, 09 April 2013

Brighton Argus, 02 April 2013

Total Politics, 21 March 2013

The Independent, 20 March 2013

Sussex University Student Union, 20 March 2013

The Sun, 20 March 2013

The Guardian, 19 March

Huffington Post, 19 March 2013

The Guardian, 19 March 2013

The Guardian, 15 March 2013

Huffington Post, 18 March 2013

Speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs, March 2013

Left Foot Forward, 28 February 2013

Brighton Argus, 21 February 2013

Brighton Argus, 19 February 2013

New Statesman, 14 February 2013

The Independent, 12 February 2013

The Guardian, 08 February 2013

Daily Mail, 08 February 2013

The Guardian, 08 February 2013

Daily Mail, 08 February 2013

Huffington Post, 08 February 2013

PoliticsHome, 07 February 2013

Brighton Argus, 05 February 2013

Pink News, 05 February 2013

Huffington Post, 29 January 2013

Daily Telegraph, 28 January 2013

BBC News, 25 January 2013

The Guardian, 25 January 2013

Independent, 24 January 2013

Left Foot Forward, 23 January 2013

The Guardian, 22 January 2013

The Guardian, 15 January 2013

Left Foot Forward, 08 January 2013 (also see here for a follow up letter from Caroline to Cathy Jamieson, shadow economic secretary)

The Guardian, 08 January 2013

The Guardian, 07 January 2013

Independent, 07 January 2013

The Guardian, 30 December 2012

The Guardian, 11 December 2012

The Guardian, 08 December 2012

The Brighton Argus, 08 December 2012

BBC Daily Politics, 06 December 2012

The Brighton Argus, 05 December 2012

The Guardian, 16 November 2012

The Guardian, 15 November 2012

The Guardian, 13 November 2012

The Guardian, 08 November 2012

Brighton Argus, 06 November 2012

Economics Voice, 06 November 2012

BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour, 06 November 2012

Huffington Post, 05 November 2012

Daily Mirror, 03 November 2012

BBC Daily Politics, 01 November 2012

The Guardian, 01 November 2012

Channel 4 News, 31 October 2012

The Brighton Argus, 26 October 2012

BBC News, 26 October 2012

Farmers Guardian, 26 October 2012

The Guardian, 25 October 2010

Huffington Post, 25 October 2012

The Argus, 25 October 2012

The Argus, 23 October 2012

The Guardian, 19 October 2012

The Independent, 18 October 2012

The Argus, 16 October 2012

The Guardian, 16 October 2012

The Guardian, 15 October 2012

The Independent, 05 October 2012

The Guardian, 05 October 2012

The Guardian, 05 October 2012

The Sun, 23 September 2012

Brighton Argus, 22 September 2012

Left Foot Forward, 15 September 2012

BusinessGreen, 10 September 2012
The Green case against airport expansion
The Independent, 30 August 2012

The Guardian, 29 August 2012

Brighton Argus, 09 August 2012

BusinessGreen, 20 July 2012

The Guardian, 26 June 2012

Brighton and Hove Free Press, 25 June 2012

PoliticsHome, 20 June 2012

New Statesman, 20 June 2012

Sunday Telegraph, 16 June 2012

Daily Mirror, 14 June 2012

Newsnight, 13 June 2012

The Guardian, 13 June 2012

The Guardian, 07 June 2012

The Guardian, 15 May 2012

The Fairness Instinct - chapter entitled 'Building Solidarity At Home And Abroad'

The Fabian Society, 24 April 2012

PoliticsHome, 28 February 2012

The Independent, 10 February 2012

The Guardian, 10 February 2012

The Guardian, 27 January 2012

The Guardian, 16 December 2011

Independent, 14 December 2011

PoliticsHome, 14 December 2011

The Brighton Argus, 06 December 2011

The Guardian, 06 December 2011

BBC, 05 December 2011

The Guardian, 05 December 2011

Daily Telegraph, 04 December 2011

The Guardian, 03 December 2011

The Guardian, 27 November 2011

Huffington Post, 27 November 2011

Morning Star, 25 November 2011

Responding to Climate Change, 25 November 2011

Independent, 25 November 2011

TUC blog, 19 November 2011

Daily Telegraph, 18 November 2011

MSN News, 11 November 2011

BBC, 11 November 2011

G2, The Guardian, 11 November 2011

FalseEconomy, 10 November 2011

The Guardian, 07 November 2011

BBC, 07 November 2011

BBC News, 05 November 2011

The Guardian, 04 November 2011

Financial Times, 02 November 2011

Financial Times, 28 October 2011

PoliticsHome, 21 October 2011

ePolitix, 19 October 2011

Huffington Post, 19 October 2011

Huffington Post, 13 October 2011

ePolitix, 12 October 2011

The Guardian, 11 October 2011

ConservativeHome, 30 September 2011

The Guardian, 28 September 2011

The Guardian, 22 September 2011

The Guardian, 12 July 2011

Huffington Post, 07 July 2011

The Guardian, 04 July 2011

The Observer, 26 June 2011

The Guardian, 21 June 2011

The Argus, 20 June 2011

insidehousing.co.uk, 17 June 2011

leftfootforward.org, 16 June 2011

BusinessGreen.com, 16 June 2011

The Guardian, 13 June 2011

The Telegraph, 2 June 2011

The Guardian, 1 June 2011

Brighton and Hove Free Press, 25 May 2011

The Guardian, 17 May 2011

The Guardian, 10 May 2011

9 May 2011

The Guardian, 3 May 2011

The Guardian, 1 May 2011

Article co-authored by Caroline, Chris Huhne and John Denham on reasons for voting yes to AV

The Independent on Sunday, 17 April 2011

Article featuring Caroline as one of a number of notable new MPs

politics.co.uk, 1 April 2011

The Guardian, 31 March 2011

The Guardian, 24 March 2011

BusinessGreen.com, 22 March 2011

leftfootforward.org, 17 March 2011

The Guardian, 11 March 2011

Climate Action Programme, 8 March 2011

Blog post, News From Brighton, 8 March 2011

The Guardian, 4 March 2011

The Guardian, 3 March 2011

The Guardian, 25 February 2011

18 February 2011

The Guardian, 17 February 2011

The Guardian, 10 February 2011

The Guardian, 4 February 2011

Robert Webb, The Telegraph, 4 February 2011

New Statesman, 3 February 2011

Jackie Ashley, The Guardian, 31 January 2011

Article discussing Caroline's report, The Case for Parliamentary Reform

The Guardian, 27 January 2011

The Guardian, 20 January 2011

10 December 2010

The Guardian 09 September 2010

Letter in Argus 15 July 2010

The Guardian 13 June 2010

After weeks aboard a battlebus that ran on recycled cooking oil, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, learned she had trounced her nearest Labour rival by 1,200 votes. Meet the first Green Party representative in the House of Commons...

The Independent 28 May 2010

Guardian Online and hard copy 15 May 2010

Caroline Lucas: 'We could have had a new politics. This isn't it' So far, Britain's first Green MP is not impressed. Westminster is 'archaic' and the Lib-Cons, for all their talk, are simply 'an awful lot of men in a lot of grey suits, doing things in much the same way'

The Independent on Sunday - 2 May 2010

The Independent - 25 April 2010

The Economist - 31 March 2010

BBC News - 19 February 2010

The BBC pull out their highlights from Caroline's Leader's speech to the Green Party Spring Conference

The Today programme - 18 February 2010

The Guardian - 8 February 2010

The Guardian - 4 February 2010

The Guardian - 3 February 2010

John Harris voyages to the seaside seat where Caroline Lucas could become Britain's first Green MP.

The Badger - 27 January 2010

The Independent - 11 January 2010

A poll of voting intentions carried out by ICM Research shows that the Greens, who had their best-ever result in the constituency in 2005, hold an eight-point lead over their nearest rivals, the Conservatives, with the Greens on 35 per cent, the Tories on 27, Labour on 25 and the Liberal Democrats on 11 per cent.

Guardian.co.uk - 27 September 2009

Detractors are mumbling after Caroline Lucas was scheduled to appear alongside Harriet Harman at a Labour Party conference fringe meeting in Brighton.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to the media centre page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Articles and features Caroline's work and achievements have gained significant national and local media interest. She regularly writes articles and blogs for a range of national publications. Here are some recent articles and comment pieces by Caroline, as well as media coverage of her work in Parliament and for constituents in Brighton.

# data[].attributes.body
Written questions and answers - UK Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UIN

Unique Identifying Number - Every written question in the House of Commons has a UIN per Parliament. In the House of Lords each written questions has a UIN per parliamentary session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unique Identifying Number - Every written question in the House of Commons has a UIN per Parliament. In the House of Lords each written questions has a UIN per parliamentary session.

# data[].attributes.body
Caroline Lucas, Nicola Sturgeon and Vince Cable are the only leaders who have shown any courage on Brexit | inews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The real heroes are behind the scenes, and are working across party lines to build a consensus

Theresa May in the House of Commons. (Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament via AP)

Wednesday night found me sitting in a cold, blustery tent on College Green outside Parliament on LBC's Cross Question hosted by Iain Dale. It's a bit like Question Time, but people call in to yell at you.

I was on with Labour's shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth and a Vice Chair of the Conservative party, Paul Scully. We were all trying to process the vote to block a no-deal Brexit and predict what would come next, while eating a lot of Haribo sweets appropriately designed for small children.

Sign up to our newsletter
'The art of the deal in politics is to bring people in, make them feel like they have ownership of the project and flatter those giant egos to allow them to claim some credi'
As you can imagine, the calls came thick, fast and were furious. Angry Brexiteers were denouncing British politics, decrying the end of democracy and saying that the whole of Parliament was a disgrace.

I would normally be inclined to agree, but if you really look at how the Brexit shambles has unfolded, blame lies squarely at the Russell and Bromley-clad feet of our Prime Minister and the executive, not backbench MPs.

She has bungled this endeavour from day one. She disappeared into a bunker at Number 10 and the only people she tried to negotiate with were her hard line Brexiteers in the European Research Group, which was always going to be futile.

She could have crossed the political divide

There was another way. She should have strained every sinew to reach out across the political divide, involve our regions and nations and include trade unions and business.The art of the deal in politics is to bring people in, make them feel like they have ownership of the project and flatter those giant egos to allow them to claim some credit. But May chose not to do that.

Instead, we have had more than two years of Tories talking to Tories vacillating between war and appeasement.

It's important to note that the Labour leadership has also failed to cover itself in glory by doing as little as possible to intervene. For once, Jeremy Corbyn has been present but definitely not involved, and history will judge him harshly.

Talented, experienced MPs on both sides of the house grew fed up of this dynamic and decided to do something about it and take back control, to coin a phrase.

Behind the scenes

Caroline Spelman (Photo: Getty)

Since last Autumn, MPs from different parties and traditions have been quietly coming together to work out how to wrest control from a Prime Minister who refused to take the horror of crashing out with no deal off the table.

This week, they did. Labour's Jack Dromey and Conservative Caroline Spelman are political rivals but also neighbours in the West Midlands. Dromey has Jaguar on his patch, Spelman Land Rover. They could see what was coming down the track for their constituents who depend on these plants.

There are many others too including Yvette Cooper, Dominic Grieve, Chris Bryant, Anna Soubry, Oliver Letwin, Hilary Benn and Nick Boles, as well as MPs from the Lib Dems and SNP who have beavered away behind the scenes, trying to find consensus and building vital parliamentary bridges to try and prevent national, political and economic catastrophe.

They may pay a heavy price for their brave actions at the next election, but they have made history and they have made Parliament great again. I salute them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Caroline Lucas, Nicola Sturgeon and Vince Cable are the only leaders who have shown any courage on Brexit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theresa May in the House of Commons. (Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament via AP) Wednesday night found me sitting in a cold, blustery tent on College Green outside Parliament on LBC's Cross Question hosted by Iain Dale. It's a bit like Question Time, but people call in to yell at you.

# data[].attributes.headline
Grade descriptors - what you should aim for

# data[].attributes.subject
Grade descriptors - what you should aim for

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As revealed by The Times, a series of peers have financial interest in Russia. Some of these have "requested government assistance for Russian associates" from the security minister.

This is of serious concern, particularly in light of revelations this year which have shown the Kremlin's willingness to proactively influence matters overseas in a bid to further its own interests.

Peers behaving in such a way are not necessarily breaking any rules. There are glaring loopholes in the House of Lords' code of conduct which mean that work on behalf of a third party does not necessarily have to be declared.

Given that we are talking about an institution at the very heart of Westminster - one of the two debating chambers which decides on legislation affecting every individual and community in the UK - it is vital these rules are tightened as a matter of urgency.
But the problem goes much deeper than lax rules - the Lords by its nature is ripe for unscrupulous interference.
Crucially, there is a severe lack of accountability. Were a peer to act in a way which you found to be undeserving of a place in the Lords, there is nothing you can do to remove them from office.

With a severe lack of accountability, the Lords by nature is ripe for unscrupulous interference - and there's nothing you can do to remove them from office. Click To Tweet

In the House of Commons, MPs are accountable to their electors - the people they represent - at least once every five years. That is representative democracy.

But in the Lords, peers can legislate for life - appointed until their death or retirement. And more than one in ten Lords are 'hereditary peers', who can only sit there because of their aristocratic titles. This, in the 21 st century.
Most people could not tell you the names of more than one or two Lords - and yet they have a great influence over some of the biggest political decisions of our time. It's perfect territory for corporate lobbyists and foreign states.
Most people could not tell you the names of more than one or two Lords - and yet they have a great influence over some of the biggest political decisions of our time. Click To Tweet

As if the House of Lords did not already look like a private members' club, another investigation by The Times in January revealed that peers can continue to use the House of Lords' subsidised dining rooms even after they retire.

That means not only do unelected Lords have immediate access to the halls of power, but around 80 ex-Lords do too. Each can bring up to six guests per day - brushing shoulders with ministers in the Parliamentary restaurants and bars.

Accountability is a crucial element of representative democracy, and it is missing altogether in the House of Lords. Click To Tweet

Sadly, peers have exploited this. Our report The High Cost of Small Change found that 33 peers had claimed nearly half a million pounds between them while failing to speak, table a written question or serve on a committee in the previous 12 months.

A total of 109 peers failed to speak at all in the 2016/17 session. sixty-three of those claimed expenses - claiming a total of £1,095,701.

The lack of rules around lobbying is one problem. But it is the lack of accountability that means voters are unable to kick out those who abuse their power: yet another reason why this archaic chamber needs dramatic reform, so it resembles something like a 21 st century democratic legislature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lords are lobbying - our second chamber is leaving us open to foreign interference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As revealed by The Times, a series of peers have financial interest in Russia. Some of these have "requested government assistance for Russian associates" from the security minister. This is of serious concern, particularly in light of revelations this year which have shown the Kremlin's willingness to proactively influence matters overseas in a bid to further its own interests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Almost one in five staff members employed by MPs and peers also have lobbying or outside interests, an analysis of data by the Guardian reveals.

There are currently 113 passholders in the House of Commons who declare outside interests to other bodies, while another 206 in the House of Lords have similar links, the analysis of parliamentary records shows.

Those in possession of parliamentary passes include a defence industry lobbyist who was once suspended from the Palace of Westminster and people with links to banks, gambling firms and low tax campaigners.

Of more than 300 staff working for parliamentarians in Westminster with outside interests, the Guardian has found that only a maximum of 11 are likely to be required to sign the lobby register when it is introduced at the end of next month - and only then if they meet a minister or a senior civil servant in the course of their activities.

The register has been set up to satisfy David Cameron's pledge in 2010 to curb outside interests in parliament. The prime minister described lobbying as "the next big scandal waiting to happen".

It aims to target up to 75 "third party lobbyists" - public affairs companies employed by clients. But data shows that there are dozens of other bodies including thinktanks, PR companies, campaign groups and charities with access to a parliamentary pass.

The shadow communities minister, Hilary Benn, has acquired a parliamentary pass for his brother Stephen, who is a parliamentary adviser for the Society of Biology and, last year, reclaimed the family title Viscount Stansgate, which was dropped by his father, the late leftwing firebrand Tony Benn.

Stephen Benn said he helped to promote science in parliament. "I also provide Hilary Benn with occasional advice on matters relating to science," he said.

Hilary Benn said he was "proud" to support his brother's work to improve understanding and links between scientists and Parliament.

Among those who may be expected to register is the defence lobbyist Robin Ashby, the director general of the UK Defence Forum. Ashby was stripped of his parliamentary pass in 2008 after Lady Harris, who provided the access, said the pass could be "open to misinterpretation" due to his work as a defence lobbyist. His pass was reissued, sponsored by the former Labour defence minister Lord Moonie. Ashby said: "I'm retired from that line of work."

Peers who provide passes to staff involved in public affairs include Lord Laird, the former Ulster Unionist politician who was banned from the House of Lords for four months after he told undercover reporters to offer "bribes" of free holidays to Fiji, in order to win the support of the upper chamber.

According to the register, he has given a pass to an executive working for Biscuit PR. Its website says it specialises in developing a climate of opinion and favourable starting points with stakeholders and key influencers including "national and international governments".

Most of the staff with outside links do not see themselves as lobbyists.

But Tamasin Cave, a director of Spinwatch, which campaigns on lobbying transparency, said the figures showed that the lobbying bill, introduced last year, and the lobbying register, which will be introduced next month, should be scrapped. "If they fail to cover a majority of lobbyists who are allowed to wander into parliament at will, what on earth is the point?

"These figures show that the government has, either deliberately or through incompetence, blown a real chance to reform lobbying in parliament which allows vested interests to gain top level access to the levers of power. The lobbying registrar is producing a register which is utterly meaningless.".

There is no suggestion that rules have been broken, but one lobbying organisation said the figures show the potential for abuse.Iain Anderson, the chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, said it was "wholly unethical" to allow anyone who does lobbying to hold a parliamentary pass. The 319 staff with lobbying links are in addition to 28 staff who have gone on overseas trips paid for by lobbying groups, and 19 who have received gifts and benefits from interest groups, including interns paid for by lobbying groups and working inside the parliament.

Cameron has pledged to look again at tightening the rules around lobbying after last month's sting by undercover reporters when former foreign secretaries Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind were secretly recorded discussing lucrative work for a bogus Chinese firm. They have referred themselves to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and are under investigation by their parties. Both have denied any wrongdoing.

Under the current rules, those who work for a MP or peer for a few hours a month can receive a parliamentary pass and full access to most of parliament.

The great advantage of being given a parliamentary pass, insiders say, is that it allows "brush by" encounters with those close to ministers within parliament which do not have to be recorded or declared.

Among MPs' staff, Christian organisations are well represented, with six declaring paid links to organisations such as Conservative Christian Fellows and Christians on the Left, and an additional 11 interns paid for by Care and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England.

Nine staff members declare that they have been paid by organisations from the energy sector. These include representatives from BP and Centrica.

Thinktanks and lobbying organisations that have argued for a reduced tax burden on businesses are also well represented. Four senior staff members who also work for the TaxPayers' Alliance have parliamentary passes. One from the rightwing thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs also has a pass.

Labour's reliance on sponsorship from PwC is also in evidence in the registers. Shadow frontbenchers Tessa Jowell, Tristram Hunt and Ed Balls as well as the Middlesbrough MP Andy McDonald have declared staff from the accountancy firm, as well as the Tory peer Lord Marland.

MPs' staff are expected to register any occupation or employment if holding a pass gives them an advantage in their other roles or if the work provides income of worth more than £330 a year.

When a peer applies for a staff pass, he or she is asked to sign a document verifying the passholder is "genuinely and personally providing parliamentary secretarial or research assistance to them".

Others include Dougal Driver, a former MoD adviser and Defra official who is now the chief executive of Envoke Ltd, which specialises in "breaking down barriers to business, building successful partnerships and facilitating change".

Ed Vaizey, the culture minister, has one assistant who is the director of a firm that produces business plans for a health trust. Another has been working as a consultant to the Chamber of Commerce.

'Bowling over to the house of Westminster'

"Whether gliding around London on her electric Vectrix [scooter] or bowling over to the House of Lords at Westminster, [or] simply walking into a room - Sabine Raabe is a woman with presence," Biscuit PR's website said about its owner.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Sabine Raab and Lord Laird at the Lloyds TSB People Environment & Achievement Business Awards. Photograph: Vimeo

What it doesn't say is that the public affairs executive, like hundreds of other individuals with outside interests, has been able to gain access to parliament with a staff pass issued to her by a parliamentarian. Her sponsor is Lord Laird, the Ulster peer who was one of the peers caught offering to buy political access to undercover reporters.

Firms or individuals that earn less than £81,000 from lobbying, and therefore do not pay VAT, will be exempt - a requirement of the lobbying bill so that smaller traders are not forced to pay registration fees. Even then, a lobbyist will only need to register who they are lobbying on behalf of, not who they are meeting, what was discussed or how much money they have received to lobby for companies or on particular issues.

In December 2013, the House of Lords suspended Laird for four months after he indicated that he would use the promise of a trip to Fiji as a "bribe" in order to get people to join a parliamentary group.

Raabe, who writes on her LinkedIn page that through "lobbying work I have insight into government policy", said that she enters parliament sometimes two or three times a week. Laird appeared prominently on Biscuit's website alongside Raabe - he has "lobbied in both America and European parliaments", it said - but Raabe says his presence has not brought in business.

Raabe insists she has never used her pass for lobbying purposes and describes herself as a PR executive. "It is me that people buy into and not Lord Laird. On the new version website, he will not feature any more,' she said. Laird said he has never lobbied for Biscuit in the Lords. The website was taken down a few hours after Raabe was contacted.

Another recent passholder is Stephanie Lis, the head of communications for the Institute of Economic Affairs, who holds a pass provided by Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng.

She will not have to sign the lobby register when it comes into place at the end of this month because "in house" lobbyists, those who promote their own company, not a third party, are excluded.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Kwasi Kwarteng

Kwarteng, who provided the pass, said: "It would be one thing if she was working for a lobbying firm and I had given her the pass because then she would be doing business ... But if it's a thinktank and she wants to talk policy with people, I don't see any real conflict of interest."

But what exactly is a "lobbyist"? The UK Public Affairs Council, the independent body established to monitor the public affairs sector, defines the work of a lobbyist as "those who, in a professional capacity, work to influence, or advise those who wish to influence, the institutions of government in the UK."

Among more than 20 parliamentary staff who have outside interests approached by the Guardian, none describe themselves as lobbyists.

Steve Donoughue, who has a parliamentary pass from the Labour peer Lady Golding, insists that he is not a lobbyist and that his company, GamblingConsultant.co.uk, does not lobby. "I'm a strategic consultant. If you look at my website, you will see that I don't arrange meetings with politicians or civil servants," said Donoughue, who is also the secretariat of the all-party parliamentary betting and gaming group.

The level of disclosure required in the staff register of interests is poor. The Guardian discovered numerous staff with secondary jobs who had not had to disclose the nature of their work.

Ranil Jayawardena, who worked on a voluntary basis for MP James Arbuthnot and is standing as a Conservative MP for North East Hampshire in the May election, stated in his declaration that he was a senior manager for Lloyds Banking Group. However, disclosures from the European parliament show that he has lobbied MEPs on European banking legislation and acted as Lloyds' "government relations manager" during the integration of HBOS with Lloyds TSB.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Ranil Jayawardena.

Jayawardena said his current work for Lloyds involved engaging with MPs on matters concerning Lloyds operations, for whom he works three days a week, and undertaking political work the remainder of the time.

Critics of the new register have been quick to point out that its registrar, Alison White, has been handed a botched bill and asked to implement it. It is a narrowly defined definition of lobbying which excludes many who receive passes.

White, who was appointed last year, told the Guardian it would not stop lobbying in parliament or beyond. "Lobbying will go on which does not have to be registered because it is not within the Act," she said.

The register would be ready by the final week of March, just before parliament rises, she said. "The register was drafted to address a very specific problem which was that it wasn't always clear whose interests were being represented when lobbying was taking place.

"It is very specifically defined legislation. It doesn't define lobbyists, but does define lobbying," she said.

* This article was amended on 6 March 2015. An earlier version referred incorrectly to a parliamentary staff member paid by "lobbyists who represent Shell". In fact the company referred to advises Shell but does not lobby on its behalf.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
300 staff working for peers and MPs have lobbying interests, analysis reveals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Almost one in five staff members employed by MPs and peers also have lobbying or outside interests, an analysis of data by the Guardian reveals. There are currently 113 passholders in the House of Commons who declare outside interests to other bodies, while another 206 in the House of Lords have similar links, the analysis of parliamentary records shows.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Phrasebank.

You may find this phrasebank for ideas of how to introduce new ideas or wrap up something you have been discussing.

Introducing the importance of a topic:

One of the most significant current discussions in legal and moral philosophy is......
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the.....
X is the leading cause of death in western industrialised countries.
X is a common disorder characterised by......
X is an important component in the climate system, and plays a key role in Y.

Indicating importance of a topic with a time element:

Recent developments in X have heightened the need for......
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in......
Recent developments in the field of X have led to a renewed interest in......
Recently, researchers have shown an increased interest in......
The past decade has seen the rapid development of X in many.......
The past thirty years have seen increasingly rapid advances in the field of......
Over the past century there has been a dramatic increase in......

Drawing attention to an issue or debate in an area of research:

However, these rapid changes are having a serious effect......
However, a major problem with this kind of application is......
To date there has been little agreement on what......
More recently, literature has emerged that offers contradictory findings about.....

Despite its safety and efficacy, X suffers from several major drawbacks:

Concerns have been raised by several relevant bodies about the poor......

One of the most significant current discussions in legal and moral philosophy is......
One observer has already drawn attention to the paradox in......
In many Xs a debate is taking place between Ys and Zs concerning......
The controversy about scientific evidence for X has raged unabated for over a century.

Indicating a potential 'gap' in the research:

So far, however, there has been little discussion about......
However, far too little attention has been paid to......
Most studies in X have only been carried out in a small number of areas.
The research to date has tended to focus on X rather than Y.
In addition, no research has been found that surveyed.......

Setting out you will do (the aim or intention of an essay):

This paper will focus on/examine/give an account of......
This paper seeks to address the following questions:
This essay critically examines/discusses/traces......
The purpose of this paper is to review recent research into the......
This paper will review the research conducted on......
In this paper I argue that.....

Outlining the structure:

The main questions/issues addressed in this paper are: a), b and c).
This paper has been divided into four parts. The first part deals with......
The essay has been organised in the following way.
This paper first gives a brief overview of the recent history of X.
This paper begins by...... It will then go on to......
The first section of this paper will examine......

Defining or establishing what keywords mean in your work:

While a variety of definitions of the term X have been suggested, this paper will use the definition first suggested by Smith (1968) who saw it as.......
Throughout this paper the term X will refer to/will be used to refer to.......
In this article the acronym/abbreviation XYZ will be used.

Summarising your work at the end:

This paper has given an account of and the reasons for the widespread use of X......
This essay has argued that X is the best instrument to ......
This assignment has explained the central importance of X in Y.
This dissertation has investigated......

Reminding the reader of what the essay set out to do:

This study set out to determine......
The present study was designed to determine the effect of.......
In this investigation, the aim was to assess......
The purpose of the current study was to determine......

Summarising findings of your research:

This study has shown that......
These findings suggest that in general......

One of the more significant findings to emerge from this study is that.....
This study has found that generally .......
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study ......
The relevance of X is clearly supported by the current findings.
This study/research has shown that......

Making suggestions about what something might imply:

The evidence from this study suggests that......
The results of this study indicate that......
The results of this research support the idea that.......
In general, therefore, it seems that......
Taken together, these results suggest that......
An implication of this is the possibility that......
The findings of this study suggest that...

Stating the importance of what's emerged:

The X that we have identified therefore assists in our understanding of the role of......
These findings enhance our understanding of......
This research will serve as a base for future studies and ......
The current findings add substantially to our understanding of......
The current findings add to a growing body of literature on......
The study has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of......
The methods used for this X may be applied to other Xs elsewhere in the world.
Taken together, these findings suggest a role for X in promoting Y.

This extract is taken from: University of Manchester (2009) Academic Phrasebank [online]. Manchester: University of Manchester. Available from: http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/sources.htm [Accessed 8th February 2010].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may find this phrasebank for ideas of how to introduce new ideas or wrap up something you have been discussing. Introducing the importance of a topic: One of the most significant current discussions in legal and moral philosophy is......It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the.....X is the leading cause of death in western industrialised countries.X is a common disorder characterised by......X is an important component in the climate system, and plays a key role in Y.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is an awesome link! It should help you with the wording that you can use in your writing.

# data[].attributes.subject
This is an awesome link! It should help you with the wording that you can use in your writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are many ways to introduce an academic essay or short paper. Most academic writers, however, appear to do one or more of the following in their introductions:

establish the context, background and/or importance of the topic

present an issue, problem, or controversy in the field of study

define the topic and/or key terms used in the paper

state the purpose of the essay or short paper

provide an overview of the coverage and/or structure of the writing

Slightly less complex introductions may simply inform the reader: what the topic is, why it is important, and how the writing is organised. In very short assignments, it is not uncommon for a writer to commence simply by stating the purpose of their writing.

Introductions to research dissertations and theses tend to be relatively short compared to the other sections of the text but quite complex in terms of their functional elements. Some of the more common elements include:

establishing the context, background and/or importance of the topic

giving a brief review of the relevant academic literature

identifying a problem, controversy or a knowledge gap in the field of study

stating the aim(s) of the research and the research questions or hypotheses

providing a synopsis of the research design and method(s)

explaining the significance or value of the study

defining certain key terms

providing an overview of the dissertation or report structure

Examples of phrases which are commonly employed to realise these functions can be seen by clicking on the headings listed below. Note that there may be a certain amount of overlap between some of the categories under which the phrases are listed. Also, the order in which the different categories of phrases are shown reflects a typical order but this is far from fixed or rigid, and not all the elements are present in all introductions.

A number of analysts have identified common patterns in the introductions of research articles. One of the best known patterns is the CARS model (create a research space) first described by John Swales (1990). This model, which utilises an ecological metaphor, has, in its simplest form, three elements or moves:

Establishing the territory (establishing importance of the topic, reviewing previous work)

Identifying a niche (indicating a gap in knowledge)

Occupying the niche (listing purpose of new research, listing questions, stating the value of the work, indicating the structure of the writing)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many ways to introduce an academic essay or short paper.

# data[].attributes.headline
independent reading - beyond the reading list for this module

# data[].attributes.subject
independent reading - beyond the reading list for this module

# data[].attributes.headline
independent reading - beyond the reading list for this module

# data[].attributes.subject
independent reading - beyond the reading list for this module

# data[].attributes.headline
independent reading - beyond the reading list for this module

# data[].attributes.subject
independent reading - beyond the reading list for this module

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Politician, The Wife, The Citizen, and her Newspaper

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trolling ourselves to death Social media and post-truth politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members

The Code of Conduct describes the responsibilities that MPs have as Members of the House and are based on a set of principles. The Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members sets out in detail MPs' obligations to register and declare their financial interests, and the restrictions on lobbying for reward or consideration. It also describes the procedure for the investigation of complaints.

These responsibilities are separate from and additional to those of other citizens. The Code applies to MPs in all aspects of their public life. It does not seek to regulate what MPs do in their purely private and personal lives.

The obligations set out in the Code are complementary to those which apply to all MPs by virtue of procedural and other rules of the House and the rulings of the Chair, and to those which apply to MPs whose conduct is also within the scope of the Ministerial Code.

The rules create obligations that MPs must follow. The House of Commons also provides guidance to MPs. Guidance generally reflects good practice but it may not be appropriate on every occasion.

The Commissioner may only investigate allegations of breaches of the rules. She may not investigate complaints about:

a Member's views or opinions; and

a Member's handling of or decision about a case, including their handling of correspondence, whether or not anyone involved is a constituent of the Member

Unless the MP's conduct is such that it significantly damages the reputation of the House of Commons as a whole or of its Members more generally.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy and the Code of Conduct

Wider review of the Code of Conduct

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is asked to review the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members once in each Parliament.

In the unexpectedly short 2015-17 Parliament, the former Commissioner had completed her review and sent her proposals for revisions to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules to the Committee on Standards for their consideration shortly before the Dissolution of Parliament in May 2017. The Committee on Standards made recommendations on revising the Code to take account of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in a report published on 13 July 2018, available here.

The Committee is continuing its wider review of the Code and Guide, in consultation with the present Commissioner, and will report further to the House in due course.

Details of the former Commissioner's consultation on revisions to the Code and Guide are set out below.

Public consultations by the former Commissioner (2016)

On 21 January 2016 the former Commissioner launched the first public consultation exercise of the review of the current Code of Conduct. The first consultation document is available here ( PDF 2.59 MB) ( PDF 2.59 MB)The responses to the first consultation document can be seen here ( PDF 229 KB) ( PDF 229 KB)

On 10 October 2016 the Commissioner launched the second public consultation exercise to help her with the review. The second consultation document is available here. The responses to the second consultation document can be seen here.

Page last updated: 16 August 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Code of Conduct describes the responsibilities that MPs have as Members of the House and are based on a set of principles. The Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members sets out in detail MPs' obligations to register and declare their financial interests, and the restrictions on lobbying for reward or consideration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. This Code of Conduct for Members' Staff applies to staff who have a parliamentary photo-pass or email account sponsored by a member of the House of Lords for the purpose of providing parliamentary secretarial or research assistance to the member. The same Code of Conduct applies to members' spouses or partners who provide such assistance.

2. Members of the House of Lords do not receive a specific allowance for employing staff; consequently, the level of staff support for members varies widely. Many staff working for members obtain income from sources outside the House.

3. Members' staff should at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the House of Lords.

4. Members' staff should observe the principles set out in the Parliamentary Behaviour Code [1] of respect, professionalism, understanding others' perspectives, courtesy, and acceptance of responsibility. These principles will be taken into consideration when any allegation of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct is under investigation.

5. Members' staff should not take any action which would risk undermining any member's compliance with the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords.

6. Members' staff are required to register in the Register of Members' Staff Interests:
(a) all employment outside the House;
(b) any other financial interest in businesses or organisations involved in parliamentary lobbying;
(c) any gift (e.g. jewellery) or benefit (e.g. hospitality, services or facilities) received in the course of a calendar year, if the value of the gift or benefit exceeds £300 and if it relates to or arises from the individual's work in Parliament (though excluding gifts or benefits from the member who sponsors the individual).

7. When registering employment, members' staff should state the employing organisation, the nature of its business (where this is not self-evident) and the nature of the post that they hold in the organisation.

8. Any change in the interests of members' staff should be registered within one month of the change.

9. The Registrar of Lords' Interests is available to advise members' staff and members themselves on the registration requirements. Anyone who acts on the advice of the Registrar in registering or not registering an interest satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Members' Staff in that regard.

10. Members' staff shall not make use of their access to the member who sponsors their pass, to other members (of either House), to the parliamentary email network or to the parliamentary estate to further the interests of an outside person or body from whom they have received or expect to receive payment or other incentive or reward.

11. Members' Staff are required to treat those with whom they come into contact in the course of their parliamentary duties and activities with dignity, courtesy and respect. Behaviour that amounts to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct is a breach of this Code.

12. Members' staff shall not disclose draft reports of select committees or other confidential information that is provided to them or to the member who sponsors them.

13. The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards investigates alleged breaches of this Code. Any such investigation is conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in the Guide to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, mutatis mutandis.

14. The Conduct Committee shall consider reports by the Commissioner into alleged breaches of this Code in accordance with the procedures set out in the Guide to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, mutatis mutandis.

15. Where a member's staff is found in breach of this Code and the case is not suitable for remedial action to be agreed between the Commissioner and the individual (or between the Commissioner and the member), the sanctions that may apply include:
* suspension of the individual's pass;
* withdrawal of the individual's pass;
* cancellation of the individual's email account.

16. Nothing in this Code affects the right of Black Rod or the Yeoman Usher to remove a pass at any time for security-related or other reasons.

17. Nothing in this Code affects the right of the Parliamentary Digital Service to cancel an email account at any time for security-related or other reasons.

Note

[1] See Appendix A.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
code of conduct for house of lords members' staff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Code of Conduct for House of Lords Members' Staff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. This Code of Conduct for Members' Staff applies to staff who have a parliamentary photo-pass or email account sponsored by a member of the House of Lords for the purpose of providing parliamentary secretarial or research assistance to the member. The same Code of Conduct applies to members' spouses or partners who provide such assistance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Referencing workshop times. Which session(s) can you attend?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a memorable scene in the film In the Loop when a British minister is seen discussing plans for another Middle Eastern war with his opposite number in Washington while simultaneously taking a call from an irate voter with an unstable garden wall. The American is amazed. He was appointed by the President and never has to worry about the everyday problems of real people. How can Britain function if its leaders double-up as the Yellow Pages, locating bricklayers for their constituents?

The Canadian-born academic Anthony King has built a career out of seeing Britain through transatlantic eyes. His latest book, Who Governs Britain?, poses a simple question, with a clear answer: no one does. The more complex answer is that government ministers have the power to do almost anything they like, but this could rarely be called governing because their decisions are so often ill-informed, wrong-headed and over-hasty. King returns to the case studies that made his earlier book, The Blunders of Our Governments (2013), co-written with Ivor Crewe, such a jaw-dropping read. The list included the poll tax, the exchange rate mechanism, changes to the insurance industry that led to mis-sold PPIs, the Child Support Agency, family tax credits, the NHS database, and the mishandled West Coast Main Line rail franchise.

King and Crewe concluded that the close connection between MPs and their constituents did nothing to make ministers better informed. The rise of a professional political class has narrowed the life experience of potential ministers and exacerbated the tendency to find leaders among identikit figures, often comfortably-off, middle-aged men, as the first debate of the 2015 election graphically showed. But the greatest problem, the authors concluded, is that the system encourages decisiveness, and if our leaders are decisively destructive then we have a problem.

READ: A fierce diatribe against lobbying and crony capitalism in British politics

King returns to ministerial competence in this book. Local constituencies have the power to choose prospective candidates, overruling party bigwigs. However, as parties dwindle from mass movements to hobby groups for ideologues, so they favour candidates who best reflect their prejudices. The proposal to reduce the number of MPs from 650 is a popular idea, but would further diminish the pool from which ministers are drawn.

The prime minister can parachute potential ministers into the Lords, yet this causes resentment on the backbenches and suspicion in the country, and in practice the workload rapidly overwhelms the ennobled politicians who find they must double as Cabinet ministers and the government's agents in the Lords. King argues that outside appointments do work; Churchill talent-spotted the union leader Ernest Bevin and made him a wartime minister. He also has a solution: namely, that we should follow the Nordic model and analyse problems in a spirit of consensus and respect. I believe the phrase "Nordic model" is used only by those who have never drunk with real-life Scandinavians; in any case, the only party advocating King's brand of maturity is the Liberal Democrats and polls suggest the electorate says yah boo sucks to that.

Ministers have the power of medieval monarchs. This mattered less when the Civil Service could offer sage advice but, King argues, Whitehall is a feeble shadow of itself, with none of its old institutional intelligence. Parliamentary committees only scrutinise actions after the event and the Prime Minister's Office is so tiny and understaffed compared with the White House or the vast ministerial building of the German chancellor that it is incapable of offering effective oversight. All the PM can do is shuffle the ministers after a year or so, which further encourages ambitious politicians to act as impulsively as hormones allow.

Today, the only challenge to ministerial power comes from the courts. However, the rising significance of judges and lawyers is inadvertent: they have more power only because they struggle to make sense of badly drafted legislation.

British sovereignty is qualified by the power of multinationals, free markets, treaties, Nato and Europe. Against this rise in institutional powerlessness, the British system can offer only the power of the hectic, thrusting minister, determined to make the greatest mark in the shortest possible time.

King may not have a solution, but he certainly shows that the UK has a terrific problem.

Who Governs Britain? by Anthony King

352pp, Pelican, Telegraph offer price: £7.99 (PLUS £1.99 p&p) (RRP £7.99, ebook £5.69) . Call 0844 871 1515 or see books.telegraph.co.uk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who Governs Britain? by Anthony King, review: 'terrifying'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a memorable scene in the film In the Loop when a British minister is seen discussing plans for another Middle Eastern war with his opposite number in Washington while simultaneously taking a call from an irate voter with an unstable garden wall. The American is amazed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Somewhere to hang your sword? It's what every socially progressive, green politician needs. That was the offer made to the UK's first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, when taking her place in the House of Commons, and this account of her Westminster years reads like the field journal of an incredulous anthropologist stumbling on an unusual tribe. You can't, of course, even call colleagues by their real names during parliamentary business; instead, MPs have to work out if they are an honourable member, a right honourable one or an honourable friend. The latter gives the book its ironic title. It is the term reserved for members of your own party and, in the Commons, Lucas is a party of one.
Caroline Lucas: 'The Green movement has to talk about the positives'
What comes across as most odd is parliament's lack of self-knowledge about its deep strangeness. There is an assumption that its peculiarities can be laughed off as quaint and traditional rather than dysfunctional and alienating. The withholding and giving of privileges - such as offices to work in - by party officials to compel compliance seems lifted straight from a prison playbook. This combines with an extraordinary sense of entitlement that surfaced in the recent cases of old‑hand MPs Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw. You could argue that the detachment from reality begins with the enforced habit of calling each other "honourable", regardless of evidence to the contrary, and the practice of not being able to accuse another member of lying. But Lucas is relentlessly polite about her fellow MPs who, with few exceptions and judging from her own account, seem barely to deserve the courtesy. As she peels back layers of tradition like Westminster's over-priced and ornate Pugin-friendly wallpaper, there seems little to honour.

Most remember the policy compromise that saw the Liberal Democrats unglue themselves from their promise on university tuition fees in order to build the coalition. But Lucas points out that it wasn't long before the coalition's shiny new commitments were also being broken. First dropped was a pledge to close a loophole that allowed illegal tropical timber to be traded within the UK, even though it couldn't have entered the country legally. Lucas's attempt to rectify the situation by introducing her own bill was talked out, bringing home the limitations of having too few honourable friends.

And, with an election looming, she remains alone, apart from some more clubbable Scottish Nationalists, members of Plaid Cymru and the sympathy of Commons officials. These overlooked public servants, Lucas points out, are particularly proud of the legacy of the suffragettes, and welcomed her as fresh air in an otherwise ossified institution. They probably played a hand in her winning one of the greatest Westminster power plays of all: getting a decent office.

Lucas exposes the political conjuring trick that punishes the victims of the economic crisis for the crimes and incompetence of its perpetrators. In pulling apart the statistical lies - sorry "dissembling" - of ministers such as Iain Duncan Smith to justify a punitive benefits regime, the point is made that austerity is an explicitly ideological, not rational or evidence-based, policy programme. This shouldn't be a surprise. Private Eye's Richard Brooks showed in his book The Great Tax Robbery that, pound for pound of criminal activity, HMRC were 1,800 times more likely to prosecute benefit fraud than tax fraud.

At HMRC, 300 people working in the gloriously titled Affluent Compliance Unit chase taxes dodged by the rich. At the Department for Work and Pensions 3,200 staff chase wrongly paid benefits, only some of which will result from deliberate fraud, worth just a fraction of the taxes lost from the rich. As this already overworked MP's office fills with the human fallout of policies both cruel and deceptive, so the pages of Honourable Friends? fill with indignation. During the first two years of the coalition government, when cuts "were being voted through night after night, sales of champagne in the restaurants and bars of Westminster rose from £31,000 to £35,000 per year".

Some tales grip then end abruptly, like the one about Lucas's maiden speech, which used parliamentary privilege to name the litigious company Trafigura in a case that saw toxic waste dumped in Africa. And the book can be episodic, which is perhaps inevitable when you are your party's parliamentary spokesperson on, well, everything.

But there is myth-busting here on everything from drugs to housing, wildlife to energy policy. If you have come across the Greens for the first time via the recent on-air gaffes of current leader Natalie Bennett or the mockery of some of their ideas, you might be surprised by the simplicity and pragmatism of their core policy: green public investment in housing and infrastructure to give people more comfortable homes and lower energy costs. They pledge to cut pollution, improve health, create jobs and lay the foundations of a modern, low-carbon economy. This would be paid for using fairer taxation and a variant of quantitative easing, already used to support the banks.

Compare that with the assumptions underpinning all the bigger parties' policies, which suggest it is viable to grow the economy infinitely on a finite island, and the mainstream parties appear more exotic than the Greens do in their attempt to ground economics in the real "real world".

You could read Lucas's book as an effective summary of key debates on the UK's future. But even more powerfully, it opens the door on a political past we are condemned to live with and sniffs the stale air of an institution to where we outsource our democracy. Stepping back, it is not Lucas who looks all alone in Westminster but Westminster that looks odd and out of place in the world. Far from hanging up swords, you suspect that, by the end of the book, many more readers will want to take up theirs to campaign for change.

* To order Honourable Friends? for £11.99 (RRP £14.99) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p on online orders over £10. A £1.99 charge applies to telephone orders.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Honourable Friends? Parliament and the Fight for Change by Caroline Lucas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Somewhere to hang your sword? It's what every socially progressive, green politician needs. That was the offer made to the UK's first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, when taking her place in the House of Commons, and this account of her Westminster years reads like the field journal of an incredulous anthropologist stumbling on an unusual tribe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Honourable Friends?
by Caroline Lucas ( Portobello Books, 2015)

Honourable Friends? Parliament and the Fight for Change, gives a real 'of-the-moment' and 'from the trenches' snapshot of life in Parliament. Caroline tells her story from the insightful perspective of an outsider, on the inside for the first time.

Honourable Friends? takes readers on a compelling journey in three parts. Firstly, we join Caroline as she arrives in Parliament and finds out that much about the way it works is either "obscure or downright weird". In the second part Caroline starts to work to reform Parliament and to use its existing processes to represent her constituents and to campaign on key issues. The final section offers her vision.

I shared in Caroline's bafflement when, on arrival in Westminster, she was given a pink ribbon to hang her sword on a hook outside the Chamber but wasn't allocated an office. Instead she, like all other MPs, was expected to camp out at a café table.

Offices, we discover, are Westminster "currency". Having an acceptable office in which to work is a perk that is allocated by the main political parties and their whips as a reward for well-behaved MPs. Officials told Caroline that MPs would have to wait for up to a fortnight: the whips needed time to decide which MPs deserved an office with a river view and which MPs would have broom cupboards with limited ventilation.

Whilst some of Parliament's daily workings are just strange and quirky, Caroline describes others as "actively malign; and probably kept that way deliberately." For example, the right for individual MPs or cliques of MPs to 'talk out' Private Members Bills, and the antiquated system for voting that Caroline explains works to keep power in the hands of the whips.

The story of the failed campaign by MPs from different parties to introduce electronic voting is also highlighted in the book. The challenge of reforming Westminster, warns Caroline, is that it's a race between new MPs seeing what needs to change and those same MPs being absorbed into the prevailing culture".

There's a warning for all new MPs from Caroline, who advises: "If you are ready to accept it all, the place will treat you like minor royalty bringing with it the risk that you lose your sense of perspective (even of reality) and also forget who you are there to serve."

With Honourable Friends? Caroline also signals what she sees as some of the biggest challenges for the future, including the battle against climate change and the threat presented by the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), that is under discussion. The TTIP, warns Caroline, would allow corporations to sue sovereign governments in so-called arbitration tribunals on grounds that their profits are threatened by policies or laws that protect the environment, or animal welfare, or food safety or privacy.

Importantly, throughout the book, Caroline gives hope to every campaigner, by showing how the nearly impossible can sometimes be achieved. By writing letters, visiting MPs, protesting outside Parliament change can be achieved and disasters averted. Honourable Friends? demands to be read by anyone with an interest in how politics currently works and how it could be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Honourable Friends? by Caroline Lucas (Portobello Books, 2015) Honourable Friends? Parliament and the Fight for Change, gives a real 'of-the-moment' and 'from the trenches' snapshot of life in Parliament. Caroline tells her story from the insightful perspective of an outsider, on the inside for the first time. Honourable Friends?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his new book, Anthony King, Millennium Professor of British Government at the University of Essex, seeks to answer a question that has engrossed political experts and commentators for generations: "Who Governs Britain?"
In this short political primer, King analyses the power and influence of the main players in British politics today, including the Prime Minister, Ministers, civil servants and Special Advisers. As you might expect, I want to focus on King's chapter about the Civil Service.

If you've read his bestselling 'Blunders of Government' (co-authored with Ivor Crewe), you'll know he is an engaging writer. And, although concise, this latest book achieves what it sets out to do, outlining "the view that one person - the present author - has of Britain's political landscape as it appears from, so to speak, the window of a passenger aircraft cruising at 35,000 ft".
But, in doing so, it begs the question of just how accurate King's personal take on Britain as a nation "in chronic economic difficulties and ...continuing decline as a world power" really is when, as he admits, "enormous amounts of detail, visible and highly significant down below on the ground, are lost".

Take, for example, a subject close to my own heart - King's portrayal of the Civil Service as "increasingly no longer capable of providing ministers with the knowledge, the long experience and the 'ballast' that they require".

I would argue that the facts tell a very different story. In reaching his conclusion, I do not believe that King has really kept up to date with the major changes that have taken place over recent years to strengthen the modern Civil Service. Many of his sources appear out of date or at least highly selective. For example, there is no evidence that any of our recent apprentices, fast-streamers, frontline staff, policy experts or heads of professions and functions were asked for their opinions or insights.

This absence of more diverse voices underscores, in my opinion, King's rose-tinted view of what he identifies as the 'classic' form of British Government. For King, the highpoint of British statecraft was apparently between 1945 and 1970, when he suggests everyone's roles and responsibilities were clear and the British way of doing things was globally admired. What King fails to mention is that this was actually a period in which Britain emerged almost bankrupt following the Second World War and continued the relative economic decline which had taken firm root since the turn of the century. We exited from empire in a disorderly fashion providing little administrative support in places such as India and Pakistan, which caused chaotic conditions and inflicted misery on many.

In comparison, King believes today's civil servants are less dynamic, short on corporate memory and suffer from a deficit of essential skills. As a result, they no longer have the influence and authority they once had to advise ministers or "speak truth unto power".

Particularly coming from such an experienced and respected commentator, this represents a very strong challenge. And obviously, in any organisation as large as the Civil Service, there are areas of poor performance. For example, I have readily acknowledged that we need to do more to increase our commercial capability - one of my top priorities for Civil Service reform over the next Parliament. But what King's account fails to acknowledge is the progress that we have made in this area and for example in digital and project management skills in the last few years.

I also fundamentally disagree with King's claim that civil servants have lost their ability to influence ministers and speak truth unto power, and I do not think he provides any convincing evidence to substantiate this controversial suggestion. Just looking at the last five years, for example, civil servants have played a huge role in helping to design and implement some of the biggest reforms in a generation:

the British economy and our banking system have been rebuilt, the fiscal deficit has been brought under control, and major savings have been found in public expenditure, without damaging the quality and responsiveness of public services;

we have helped to deliver major projects like the wonderful 2012 Olympics, last year's NATO summit and the National Citizens Service;

we are leading on global issues including Ebola, climate change, crime and terrorism; and

we have helped to transform rehabilitation and begun to revolutionise the delivery of public services for the digital age through the ambitious work of the Government Digital Service.

The Civil Service now operates in a more complex and demanding operating environment, often needing to create bespoke IT solutions that are untested.

In areas where there have been issues - openly acknowledged by the newly created Major Projects Authority - such as changes to welfare, civil servants have taken a critical role in providing the sound advice that has helped address teething issues and get some of the largest welfare reforms this country has ever seen onto a more sound footing.

Despite a number of years of pay restraint, the Civil Service also remains one of Britain's most attractive employers - applications to the Fast Stream continue to be high and our retention rates compare favourably to the private sector.

In the Civil Service, we recognise that the competition for talent is now global and that the world of work has been transformed since the 1970s - the classic period, the passing of which King laments. People no longer expect or want to confine their whole careers to one job, organisation or sector. To flourish in this more dynamic, less deferential era, we need to offer our people challenging work, flexibility and support.

This includes helping them to develop their careers in professions such as communications, legal services and economics, or to gain broader experience and expertise through shadowing, secondment and loan opportunities with other teams, departments, public bodies or private sector organisations.

A more fluid relationship between the public and private sectors can work to the advantage of the Civil Service, helping us to develop the skills of our people, bring valuable skills and experience in from outside and making it easier for us to work with our suppliers and get the best deals for public money. I am proud of what we have achieved in terms of efficiency improvements over the last Parliament - we have started to embrace digital as a means of public service reform. For example, HMRC have built the Business Tax Account - this is currently making tax easier for 1.8 million businesses, and we expect a total of 5 million businesses to have access by next April.

The Department for Work and Pensions have also piloted a new form of Job Centre in London Bridge, then rolled this out nationally in six months with 6000 devices and wifi enabled offices. There claimants can job search, answer their own queries supported by Digital Advisers, if they get stuck. In addition, these Advisers can assist with simple benefit enquires, simple IT training, help customers upload CVs, and advise on using Twitter/LinkedIn/Facebook to find work in the 21st century.

Despite what Anthony King writes, the Civil Service hasn't always been the true meritocracy and driver of social mobility it should be. We have typically been dominated, certainly at senior levels, by Oxbridge-educated white males. That is simply no longer acceptable.

My predecessors and I have done a huge amount of work to change this culture, realising that we must draw on all parts of modern British society - not only to ensure we reflect the people we serve, but because we cannot afford to miss out on the depth of talent outside the relatively shallow pool that fed the 'classic' era. Our fast stream is now one of the most diverse graduate entry schemes in the country. We have also introduced our successful and expanding Civil Service Apprenticeship Schemes. And, as an employer of choice, we're leading the way with modern employment practices such as shared parental leave and flexible working.

I recognise the need to do more on diversity, but the Civil Service does better represent now the nation it serves. There were hardly any female and virtually no ethnic minority Permanent Secretaries in the era that King harks back to, there are now 8, and across the Senior Civil Service as a whole 38.6% are women and 4.1% are ethnic minorities.

While we continue to modernise the Civil Service, it is important that we retain our traditional strengths. Here, too, Anthony King provides a challenging perspective, arguing that our influence with ministers has been fatally weakened, and that Ministers more readily turn now to Special Advisers, political think tanks and other opinion formers.

If anything, I'd argue that the information explosion of recent years - with more political analysis and research available than ever before - has empowered, not threatened, civil servants. The greater availability and accessibility of data has stimulated an enquiring, evidence-based and practical approach that has reinvigorated policy-making in government, focusing on what people really do and think.

We need look no further than the Behavioural Insights Team - a real British success story - for proof of this. However, we recognise that we do not have a monopoly on good ideas, and, in recent years, we have become far better at collaborating with our partners and consumers at the local, regional and national level - including frontline staff and the public - to design and deliver more high-quality, cost-effective services. This is helping us to break down the silos that have led to mistakes in the past, and also break out of the so-called 'Westminster bubble'.

This does not reflect a weakening of the role or prestige of the Civil Service. Far from it - our willingness to embrace a new culture of openness is a sign of confidence and reflects my conviction that by opening ourselves up to greater challenge we sharpen and broaden our own performance, enabling us to provide better advice for ministers and to speak truth unto power with even greater authority.

At the click of a button, we're able to access the latest research from around the world. We can also gain an even greater understanding of the global, political environment in which we work - commissioning external research for Ministers, delivering our own high-quality analysis and consulting more closely with colleagues and outside experts, partners and consumers to provide the best advice.

This enthusiasm of officials to challenge assumptions, experiment with new ideas, broaden the range of views they seek and use the latest analytical techniques is something to be admired, not criticised.
It eliminates group-think, strengthens collective responsibility and give us a strong body of evidence on which to base advice and, if necessary, say no to ministers - and we do say no when it's the right thing to do and will lead to the best outcome for the citizens of the UK.

King's own recognition that the Civil Service is more open than it used to be highlights this very point. The regular appearances of senior officials before select committees, the FOI Act and, I add, the huge surge in the use of information online and social media does mean that there is nowhere to hide. Our decisions, mistakes and achievements are exposed and emphasised within minutes, to millions - a level of scrutiny and accountability that has surprised, impressed and even daunted private sector executives on our leadership exchange programmes. This in itself ensures that we speak truth unto power. We expect every Civil Service leader to be straightforward, truthful and candid in their communications to those they serve and lead. If King had talked to more current civil servants in the course of his research, he would know this.

So while King's book succeeds in giving one high-level, individual view - his own - of Britain's political institutions and leaders, it does not reflect the current situation and direction for civil servants. In modern Britain, with all its innovations, opportunities and challenges, the details matter.

We have worked, and will continue to work, on these details in order to improve the future for Britain. It is this point that King has missed, his snapshot opinion does no justice to the progress that has been made by government and the Civil Service and the strong position it stands in to continue to work for Britain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who Governs Britain? Reviewed by Sir Jeremy Heywood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, reviews Who Governs Britain? by Anthony King. In his new book, Anthony King, Millennium Professor of British Government at the University of Essex, seeks to answer a question that has ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sometimes a book can sound too timely. Who exactly is running the country is a question we may soon weary of asking. This shortish paperback seems recently written - the preface is dated January 2015 - and its author, Anthony King, has been sagely assessing British politics from the University of Essex for half a century. But no current book is likely to dovetail neatly with whatever bodged-together Downing Street arrangements the election on 7 May brings. "Britain's political landscape is changing - very rapidly," writes King, "and this particular book ... may fail to detect the most recent seismic shifts."

Yet, in fact, this is not a study of potential coalitions, or the main parties' seemingly narrowing electoral chances, or the rise of Ukip, who do not appear until five chapters in, and then only fleetingly - a welcome change after their red-carpet treatment by so many observers. Instead, King is interested in what lies beneath all this Westminster brittleness and messy possibility: in how the fundamental distribution of power in Britain has shifted.

He begins with a brisk history lesson. For decades, after the second world war, "the British way of doing government and politics", was admired by many foreign commentators for its apparent clarity and efficiency. Labour and the Tories regularly won large Commons majorities. The two parties were different, antagonistic tribes: in 1948 the miner's son and leftwinger Aneurin Bevan described the Conservatives as "lower than vermin". The governments that resulted, according to King, were powerful but accountable: through a competent Whitehall bureaucracy, they controlled much of the economy, maintained a relatively independent foreign policy, and were judged at general elections with massive turnouts.

This "classic British political order", says King, "no longer exists". Or rather, "like a very old building ... much of it has either fallen down or been torn down. New walls have been built and new extensions added. But, strangely, many of those who live and work in the old building - both politicians and voters - still imagine that it has not really changed." Prime ministers still try to sound commanding. Their parties still dream of transforming the country. But much of Whitehall's power has gone elsewhere: to the EU, to the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales, to global corporations and financial markets. The resulting disconnect between what governments want and are expected to do, and what they can do, has left voters feeling let down and restive. Hence our increasingly disillusioned and fickle politics.

In places, despite King's encyclopedic authority, all this feels like a pretty broad-brush argument. Was the British state that was forced by the US to abort its rash invasion of Suez in 1956 really so capable, and free of outside influence? Are modern governments such as the present one, which has radically reshaped the NHS, state education and the benefits system without even having a proper electoral mandate, really so weak? King anatomises the British political system with appealing certainty - a quick chapter on ministers, a chapter on the media, and so on - but sometimes his brief, conversational sentences are an awkward mix of media-ready soundbites and lofty generalisations. "Our grand old ship of state," he writes, "seems to have sprung some leaks."

Still, in the book's crevices are plenty of insights. King identifies 1974 - the infamous year of two general elections, one hung parliament, and prime minister Edward Heath's backfiring campaign theme, "Who Governs?" - as the beginning of the end for British political stability. That year, the combined Labour and Tory vote suddenly shrank, and the Liberal and SNP vote ballooned. Despite the subsequent reigns of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, the old two-party system has never quite been restored. "The great majority of those who have voted for one of the lesser parties in the general elections since 1974 cannot possibly have imagined that they were voting to choose a government," writes King. "They were voting ... to express their dismay with both major parties and, quite possibly, the whole political class."

That political class is harshly but perceptively characterised here: as both increasingly, offputtingly professional in style - the airless, Westminster-only careers, the over-complex policy-wonk language - and increasingly amateurish in practice - ever more transient ministers and civil servants unable to cope with longterm projects such as government computer contracts. To make things worse, King argues, since the Thatcher premiership governments have become obsessed by innovation, rather than settling for competent administration: "Change has become ministers' profession." Politicians' reforming ambitions and resulting public expectations have been raised, just as Whitehall's ability to shape the world has diminished.

At times, a rather traditional gloom settles over these pages. King sees contemporary Britain as "in chronic economic difficulties and in continuing decline as a world power", echoing state-of-the-nation books since the 60s. But in the London beyond Westminster and Whitehall, at least, Britain often doesn't feel like that. Compared to his namesake and fellow analyst of British power structures, the late Anthony Sampson, King is a little brusque and incurious when it comes to spotting new centres of energy and influence.

The book is much better on the traditional ones. A recurring, brilliantly counterintuitive theme is that Labour and Tory activists, far from being ever more deluded and anachronistic as the memberships of their parties have dwindled, have actually gained political leverage. Parties have become more internally democratic, so activists have acquired a pivotal say in who becomes leader, while retaining their traditional role as gatekeepers to membership of the Commons, and all that flows from it. "The 26 members of the House of the Commons recruited to the cabinet by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in May 2010," King points out, "had probably been selected as party candidates by ... [in total] about 4,000 individual party members."

And how does that crucial process work? "Almost every local party organisation selects its parliamentary candidate behind closed doors, in private." Much might have altered and blurred in our politics since the black-and-white days of Aneurin Bevan, but Britain is still a secretive country. We often like to keep power hidden.

* Andy Beckett's book about how Britain changed in the early 80s, Promised You a Miracle, will be published by Penguin in September. To order Who Governs Britain? for £6.39 go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min P&P of £1.99.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who Governs Britain? review - timely but brusque examination of UK politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sometimes a book can sound too timely. Who exactly is running the country is a question we may soon weary of asking. This shortish paperback seems recently written - the preface is dated January 2015 - and its author, Anthony King, has been sagely assessing British politics from the University of Essex for half a century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The list of the guilty is as long as it is familiar: the banks, a self-perpetuating and narrow political class, a "repressive" media (including the BBC), the City of London, think tanks, multinational corporations, the CBI, the Anglo-American alliance, the police and, frankly, everyone and anything of which and of whom Jones disapproves. This leads to odd conclusions: Ukip, for instance, represents the "mentalities of the Establishment in their purest form".

Equally and for all that Jones lands some heavy punches on the police, it is hard to see how Hayek and Milton Friedman can really be held responsible for South Yorkshire Police's Hillsborough cover-up. For that matter, the miners' strike was certainly a challenge to the established order but Jones never pauses to wonder if the government of the day should be chosen by voters or the National Union of Mineworkers.

Jones is right to draw attention to the moral iniquity of crony capitalism or, as he calls it, "socialism for the rich". Yet bank bail-outs were opposed by many of the libertarians Jones believes have captured the state. Hayek's disciples are the establishment even when the establishment betrays Hayek's disciples. Moreover, though the doctrine of "There Is No Alternative" is an easy target, sometimes the alternatives are even worse.

Corporate welfare, of course, takes many forms and Jones is right to be appalled by the cosy manner in which powerful interests can subvert the wider national interest. On this the libertarian Right and the old Left can agree. The interests of the City are important - and legitimate - but they are not the only important interests.

If Jones's critique is useful, though hardly novel, his solutions are pedestrian: nationalise utilities, increase tax, develop a "new generation of modern industries" (Good idea! Should be easy!), capital controls and all the rest of it. As he notes, today's neo-liberal consensus is unlikely to last forever. It is telling, however, that Jones's parochialism - even as he calls for an international alliance against capitalism - allows no room for the inconvenient truth that globalised capitalism has lifted a billion people out of poverty.

"Private interests are completely dependent upon state largesse if they are to prosper," he concludes, "and thus they should pay up accordingly." If nothing else, it is unusual to see the case for government-as-protection-racket stated quite so explicitly.

The Establishment: and How They Get Away with It by Owen Jones

368pp, Allen Lane, Telegraph offer price: £14.99 (PLUS £1.95 p&p) (RRP £16.99, ebook £5.69) . Call 0844 871 1515 or see books.telegraph.co.uk

READ: Best books of 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Establishment: and How They Get Away with It by Owen Jones, review: 'pedestrian'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The list of the guilty is as long as it is familiar: the banks, a self-perpetuating and narrow political class, a "repressive" media (including the BBC), the City of London, think tanks, multinational corporations, the CBI, the Anglo-American alliance, the police and, frankly, everyone and anything of which and of whom Jones disapproves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Owen Jones's first book, Chavs, was a political bestseller. This follow-up skips over the middle classes and goes to the other end of society, the ruling class. On the cover of The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It the cod-philosopher and comedian Russell Brand endorses the author as 'this generation's Orwell'.

Jones's concept of the Establishment is more than Henry Fairlie's matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised through social networks; it is a state of mind, 'the ideas and mentalities' that govern the way certain people behave. The Establishment is made up of 'powerful groups that need to protect their position in a democracy'; its existence is, in the abstract, something upon which both left and right are agreed. Jones likens the perception of the Establishment in practical terms to the inkblot in the Rorschach test: it depends on where you are on the political spectrum as to what you see as the Establishment.

He is sufficiently self-aware to anticipate that some critical readers will regard him as a 'participant observer'. He was an undergraduate at Oxford with those who have emerged as pillars of the establishment; he is a columnist on the Guardian, the house journal of the public sector establishment; he regularly appears on the BBC; and he admits to knowing some powerful people on first-name terms. But he disqualifies himself from being a member of the Establishment because he challenges the powerful - though the Times columnist David Aaronovitch apparently only granted him an interview because they were both members of the same 'media universe'. 'Welcome to the elite,' chuckled Aaronovitch.

In his introduction Jones opines that '"The Establishment" is a term that is often loosely used to mean "those with power who I object to".' He then goes on to prove this to be his own working definition. Detailed in chapter after chapter are all the left's bogeymen - the aristocracy, the police, the City, the House of Lords, Old Etonians, Rupert Murdoch and the Daily Mail - together with their crimes against democracy.

Jones's partisan history, from the founding of the Labour Representation Committee to the MPs' expenses scandal and News of the World hacking trial, together with the 2008 financial crisis, is the least illuminating part of the book. The histories of the miners' strike, Hillsborough disaster and the Wapping strikers are conventionally Marxist, with the police characterised as tools of class oppression.

The analysis is better when it is ideological rather than historical: 'The Establishment is a shape-shifter, evolving and adapting as needs must' - for instance when change - such as universal suffrage - can no longer be resisted. But what Jones depicts as a self-perpetuating Establishment is really the prevailing orthodox political and economic consensus. He traces the change in the consensus views of the ruling class from 19th-century laissez faire liberalism to postwar mixed-economy socialism, up to the neo-liberal counter-revolution of the 1980s.

He correctly credits Hayek's founding in 1947 of the Mont Pelerin Society for providing the intellectual heavy-lifting to shift, over decades, the political elite's collective mindset. He writes admiringly of the influence of Westminster's contemporary free market think tanks in setting the climate of ideas for their campaigning allies in the media. There is some truth in this - and being someone whom he identifies as 'an unapologetic outrider for the wealthiest elements of society', I am flattered to be seen as so influential.

This, however, is not the Establishment of legend; it is the intellectual consensus that has been won in the battle of ideas over the previous decades. Press barons and industrialists are not natural free marketeers; they are merely men who are susceptible to intellectual fashions. Such people saw merit in fascism and corporatism before their grudging acceptance of the Thatcherite settlement.

Jones lives and writes to reverse that settlement, mesmerised by the concept of the 'Overton Window' - the political theory that there is a narrow 'window', or range of ideas, that the public will accept. The Establishment, he believes, now successfully constrains the Overton Window. In fact it is the other way round, The ideas that govern the way the Establishment behaves are determined by the Overton Window every day in politics, the civil service, newsrooms, universities, think tanks, workplaces and boardrooms.This is the Overton Window's operating system for the Establishment.

Jones's unsurprising conclusion is that we need a democratic revolution. But his book is mistitled. He should have called it The Consensus: And How I Want to Change It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Owen Jones's new book should be called The Consensus: And How I Want to Change it | The Spectator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Owen Jones's first book, Chavs, was a political bestseller. This follow-up skips over the middle classes and goes to the other end of society, the ruling class. On the cover of The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It the cod-philosopher and comedian Russell Brand endorses the author as 'this generation's Orwell'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Read the first chapter here

A year or two before the current crop of ministers took over Britain in 2010, I suggested to some of them that, as well as deciding what they wanted to do, they might also think hard about how they were going to accomplish it. They looked blank, as do the same people to this day. Partly because most modern politicians of all parties lack experience of running anything, once in government they are bemused about how to direct a department, never mind the country.

Meanwhile it becomes ever harder to get anything done. As Anthony King, millennium professor of British government at Essex University, points out in this excellent book on the changing face of power in Britain today, executive...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the first chapter here A year or two before the current crop of ministers took over Britain in 2010, I suggested to some of them that, as well as deciding what they wanted to do, they might also think hard about how they were going to accomplish it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Some helpful advise for your Book Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OWEN Jones was born to become a young tyro of the post-Blair British Left. He was raised in Sheffield, Stockport and Falkirk.
The Establishment
by Owen Jones

Allen Lane, 368pp, £16.99

His parents met at a Militant Tendency meeting and his grandfather was a communist. At the age of 27 he published his first book, Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class.

Passionate, angry and articulate, Chavs railed against the cynical slandering, by politicians and the media, of working people. The lower, labouring classes who had once been portrayed as the salt of the earth had been transformed into shirkers, strikers and scroungers, and Owen Jones wasn't having it.

The book won enormous acclaim. It also elevated Jones from a post as a Labour Party researcher into the world of national newspaper columns, television, radio and the lecture circuit.

Three years later he has turned his attention to the other end of the social scale. His new book is devoted to his class enemies, an analysis of that nebulous band of clubbable men and (lately) women who steer society in their preferred direction.

The book is what Owen Jones's grandfather would have known as agitprop. Jones had no more intention of producing a mildly interrogative study of his elders and betters, such as Anthony Sampson's seminal Anatomy of Britain 50 years ago, than he had of voting UKIP.

The Establishment's first task after the Second World War was to overturn the achievements of Attlee's government. It only took three decades, from the establishment of the National Health Service in 1948 to the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, to swing the public will against a socialist democracy and back in favour of a neo-liberal free market.

Jones is very good on the influence of what he calls the "outriders", intellectuals who, from behind the walls of some self-styled "institute" or "foundation", act as the Establishment's hired guns. In the 1960s, when they first appeared, they advocated the privatisation of such publicly-owned services as the coalmines, the railways and Royal Mail.

They were dismissed as mad but they would not relent or relax. When, 20 or 30 years later, those aims had been adopted by the political mainstream, they began to advocate the privatisation of everything else, from prisons to the police service and the NHS. Now they are suggesting that democracy is not a very efficient system of government.

This onslaught has of course been advertised daily by 80 per cent of the print media, putting the frighteners on such supposedly objective outlets as the BBC, by the perfectly logical suggestion that it too should be carved up and sold off to Rupert Murdoch. Its agenda, the Establishment and its foghorn Murdoch's agenda has been to remove power, wealth and control from the many and deliver it back to the few.

Even the last Labour government gave up on confronting rampant capitalism and attempted instead to harness some of its preposterous profits to the public good. In a single lifetime we have gone from a prime minister, Attlee, who correctly dismissed charity as "a cold grey loveless thing", to a prime minister, Cameron, who wants society to run on charity rather than on progressive taxation.

In Jones's analysis we have been robbed of true political representation. In the absence of clear class politics, crude nationalism has seized the stage in England and Scotland, exploiting on behalf of the Establishment the absence of a fair and redistributive agenda.

Older socialists might blink at some of Jones's historical analysis. We might remember that the reckless trade unions and the Labour-hating SNP ushered in Margaret Thatcher's government. We might bleat that we did our best in difficult times.

But Owen Jones's The Establishment, And How They Get Away With It confirms that our best was not good enough. We lost most of our battles. He is right to hope that a new generation of idealists can renew the battle against that little band of clubbable men and women, and, fighting as ever from the bottom, regain lost ground. Thanks to Jones's latest book, at least they know what they're up against.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book review: The Establishment, by Owen Jones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OWEN Jones was born to become a young tyro of the post-Blair British Left. He was raised in Sheffield, Stockport and Falkirk. The Establishment by Owen Jones Allen Lane, 368pp, £16.99 His parents met at a Militant Tendency meeting and his grandfather was a communist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to Erskine May online

Erskine May, often referred to as 'the Bible of parliamentary procedure' is both an iconic and practical publication. It's the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and constitutional conventions affecting Parliament. Rather than a set of rules, Erskine May is a description of how procedure in the House of Commons and House of Lords has evolved and the conventions that apply.

Erskine May in use

The Speaker regularly cites Erskine May in his rulings and it is often referred to during debate in the Commons. It's also relied on by people with a professional interest in Parliament and parliamentary practice.

Erskine May attracts wider public interest as a source of information and is influential outside the United Kingdom, particularly in countries which model their constitutional arrangements on the Westminster system.

The history of Erskine May

Thomas Erskine May produced the first edition of his 'Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament' in 1844 and the publication came to be named after him. Thomas was, at the time, a young assistant in the House of Commons library. Later he became the Clerk of the House, the Commons' most senior official. In total, he prepared nine editions of his Treatise and it has been updated regularly since.

Currently in its 25th print edition, you can now access Erskine May online.

Read the preface written by former Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir David Natzler KCB. Find out the names of the editors who compiled this edition.

A list of abbreviations used within the document is available, and you can report issues or errors in Erskine May online, to help us make it better.

Those interested in Erskine May may also be interested in the MPs Guide to Procedure - a practical guide aimed at Members and their staff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Erskine May, often referred to as 'the Bible of parliamentary procedure' is both an iconic and practical publication. It's the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and constitutional conventions affecting Parliament. Rather than a set of rules, Erskine May is a description of how procedure in the House of Commons and House of Lords has evolved and the conventions that apply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why is it that the people who caused the financial crash have got away with it while those who played no part have been punished? This, essentially, is the question that Owen Jones poses in his passionate account of political and economic injustice. In searching for the answer he, like other columnists before him, has alighted on the "e" word, the establishment.

David Cameron, the Conservative chameleon de nos jours, saw an opportunity in the mayhem wreaked by the bankers. Before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, the leader of the opposition had pledged to match Labour's spending plans. As the author points out, Cameron quickly changed tack and deftly turned crisis into opportunity. Prompted by financiers and their friends, he turned economics on its head, declaring that the problem was caused not by an out-of-control financial services industry but by a bloated state. Cuts became the mantra to turn Britain back on to the path of prosperity.

Jones sees conspiracy in the volte-face. He opens his dissection of the elite by conducting interviews with well-known rightwing bloggers and lobbyists, from Guido Fawkes to the Taxpayers' Alliance, via an array of thinktanks with acronyms familiar to Westminster anoraks, who share a thirst for political argument and polemic. The Alliance, he argues, has been fundamental to Cameron's political strategy, particularly since forming the government in 2010. Everything is done, Jones complains, to demonise the public sector, which cannot help but waste the public's money. However, for all the small-state rhetoric of the right, the elite can only serve its interests thanks to state structures. "The state is the backbone of modern capitalism and sustains it: protecting big business, training its workers and subsidising their wages, bailing out its financial heart, directly topping up bank profits," he writes.

The author notes the propensity of politicians to double up as representatives of business. According to a 2012 study, 46% of the top 50 publicly traded firms in the UK had a British parliamentarian either as a director or a shareholder. This figure, he claims, is higher than for any of the 46 other nations investigated - with the second highest being Italy, which comes in a long way behind. This is an arresting statistic but I wonder whether, in spite of the many faults of our system, British politicians are more biddable than others in Europe.

Jones is on more solid ground when he laments the role of the taxman, aka Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and its former boss, Dave Hartnett. After presiding over a period when HMRC cut deal after "sweetheart" deal with large corporations, ensuring that they paid a small amount of tax, as long as they paid some, Hartnett took up a job with Deloitte, one of the "big four" accountancy firms, which helps its clients minimise their tax. From the Daily Mail to the , via the ever-vocal chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge, that move was greeted with raised hackles. Citing a study published by the FT, Jones points out that in the past decade 18 ex-ministers and former civil servants ended up working with the big four, including two former New Labour home secretaries, a former head of the No 10 policy unit and a former adviser to the deputy prime minister.

Why, the author points out, did they go for the comedian Jimmy Carr and not for the many big figures in the City who have engaged in tax "minimisation"? Because, he argues, Carr has fewer friends in high places. From the police to politicians, via regulators and bankers, Jones compellingly highlights the accumulation of power and its abuse by small coteries determined to preserve their wealth and status. I am less convinced by his denunciation of the media. Of course, newspapers have committed crimes and egregious errors. He is right to point out that the biggest mistake of the flawed Leveson inquiry was its failure to engage with the biggest problem of ownership. "By focusing their fire at those at the bottom - often with coverage based on distortions, myths and outright lies - they deflect scrutiny from the wealthy and powerful elite at the top of society," he insists. Some outlets may show prejudice; others may be too pliant. But co-ordinated conspiracy, this is not. After all, some of the toughest critiques of this government and investigations into public life, not least MPs' expenses, have been conducted by pro-Conservative newspapers.

Very few of the many books on the greed and irresponsibility of the past decade have provided a route map to a fairer society. Jones identifies the previous Labour government as equally culpable. He quotes Stewart Wood, one of Ed Miliband's most influential advisers, as saying: "New Labour thought it could keep winning without tackling some of the things that progressive politics should be challenging." They regarded elections as in the bag. They didn't need to go further or to challenge the Thatcherite settlement. As a result, he says, millions of citizens find themselves unrepresented by conventional politics. Even mild shifts by the Labour leadership away from the establishment's group think trigger a frenzied response. "A narrow consensus is zealously guarded and policed."

Given the sense of disenfranchisement, given the limits set on supposedly mainstream debate, one might have expected more radical proposals for change. Jones focuses on a small list: limits to political donations; greater transparency in revealing ministerial meetings with business; MPs barred from taking second jobs for cash; and changing the demographic of parliament.

In an arresting conclusion, he argues that the structure of the UK (and global) economy is not just unjust, it is inefficient. "Future generations will surely look back with a mixture of astonishment and contempt at how British society is currently organised." And yet, and yet... nearly a decade on from the crash, the left across Europe has still not produced a sustainable counter-argument. Closer to home, even after the most protracted recession of modern times, Cameron still has a fighting chance of victory in next year's general election. If that's a conspiracy, it's a pretty clever one.
John Kampfner's latest book, The Rich, a 2,000-year History, is published by Little Brown on 2 October. The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It is published by Allen Lane (£16.99). Click here to buy it for £13.59 with free UK p&p Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It review - Owen Jones's biting critique of the elite

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why is it that the people who caused the financial crash have got away with it while those who played no part have been punished? This, essentially, is the question that Owen Jones poses in his passionate account of political and economic injustice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his recent book, Owen Jones sets out on a journey into the heart of our Establishment, from the lobbies of Westminster to the newsrooms, boardrooms and trading rooms of Fleet Street and the City. Sean Kippin finds that Jones's manifesto for a socialist Britain is a substantial addition to recent left-wing political writing. This review was originally published on the LSE Review of Books. The Establishment: And how they get away with it. Owen Jones. Allen Lane. 2014. Find this book:
The Establishment: And how they get away with it, is the follow up to Owen Jones's successful debut book, Chavs: The demonization of the Working Class. While his first book was an enjoyable polemic about the enforced decline and gradually normalised vilification of the working classes, The Establishment is a rather more ambitious project. It amounts, essentially, to his manifesto for a new socialist Britain.

This Britain is one which will break from the grasp of what Jones terms 'the Establishment'. This is not the 'you-scratch-my-back' Establishment of old, the network of privately educated, filthy rich, faceless men who pull the strings behind the scenes. Rather, this is the nexus of power in the modern British state; the interlocking interests who directly and indirectly sustain one another, knitted together by a devotion to the ideas and ideals of neoliberal capitalism.

Structurally, the book looks at the constituent parts of the Establishment, assessing the relative contributions of the intellectual 'outriders', the 'Westminster cartel' of the cross-pollinated business and political classes, the compromised media, the police, state-dependent corporations, the financial sector, and tax evaders in creating what Jones convincingly argues is a highly unsatisfactory status quo.

The section on media is probably the book's strongest. Here, Jones accuses the press of being heavily complicit in creating and crucially protecting neoliberal Establishment interests. Inevitably, the Murdoch press, and the oligarch-owned Telegraph come in for the sharpest criticism, but even the BBC is not freed from reproach, with Jones giving the corporation both barrels for its reluctance to meaningfully question the Government's business-friendly NHS reforms or broadcast a humanitarian appeal during one of Israel's periodic military forays into Palestinian territory.

Also noteworthy is the chapter on the police. Jones dwells on the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the police in the wake of their preferential treatment (in terms of pay) by the first Thatcher Government. The 'boys in blue', we are informed, were a key enabler of the dominance of the Establishment, first helping to break the hegemony of the Unions during the miners' strike of 1984, and in later years in their aggressive policing of protests and protection of corporate interests. He also reminds us of the national disgrace of the Hillsborough cover-up, and the death of Ian Tomlinson, who died after an unprovoked attack by a Metropolitan Police officer during the 2009 G20 protests. Some of the details are jaw-dropping, and provide a detailed anatomy of police misbehaviour over the last thirty years.

Jones also argues that that their compliance is less necessary now to further the aims of the Establishment, thanks to the enforced decline of organised Labour and a viable anti-establishment alternative. They have been cast aside, with officers joining the ranks of the masses of public sector workers smarting at their treatment by the current Government. These tensions reached a peak with the "Pleb Gate" scandal in which the then Government Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, was accused of verbally assaulting police officers at the gate of Downing Street.

The chapter on tax evasion is also noteworthy. Jones laments the lack of a more robust approach to those who opt not to pay tax, and the devious and deceitful ways the large and embedded accountancy firms interact with the state. Jones moves on to a discussion about the financial sector and its role in creating and sustaining the financial crisis, creating the political space for the austerity that he campaigns against so vigorously on the streets and in print. He rounds up his 'diagnosis' of the ills facing British society with a discussion of what he terms 'the illusion of sovereignty'; the misguided notion that the people are sovereign and that we have the power to change the fundamentals of our society. In Jones's view, it is the Establishment that rules, and continues to reserve the real power for itself.

His prescription is a "democratic revolution" in which power is returned to the public via a combination of policies such as shared ownership of key utilities, the removal of big money from politics, and the shutting of the 'revolving door' between government and interested big businesses. To get from here to there, he suggests that the left learn the lessons of the outriders of the mid-20 th Century, working with unions and campaign groups to return credibility to what are currently unfashionable ideas. His aim is ultimately to shift the ' Overton Window ' back to the left. And he seeks, evidently, to be the "outrider" in chief.

His prescriptions are in some respects forward looking, but in many respects amount to a recreation of the 1945-1979 period defined by the " Butskellite " "post-war consensus". And while many of the components of his preferred revolution are agreeable, few are novel or unheralded. This is a book which is ultimately stronger on diagnosis and prognosis than it is on prescription, though the dual intentions of the book - to define the new Establishment and explain 'how it gets away with it' - are resoundingly met.

This is a strong book which will have most readers nodding along in agreement: it is clearly written, compelling in narrative, and even dryly funny at times. However, in trying to create an anatomy of a newly defined 'Establishment' Jones possibly pushes at its definitional limits. The police, for example, have allegedly been involved in murky activity of the kind Jones describes long before the advent of neoliberalism, and their interests have often differed from the Establishment's other elements.

Different members of his Establishment can have wildly varying interests and conflicting beliefs at any given time - for example, over the bank bailouts (which many right-wingers opposed) and immigration (which is a perennial source of dispute between the Conservative Party and big business) - and while he is alive to this, it isn't fully tackled. At times, Jones presupposes a degree of shared belief and interest which does not always exist.

Despite this, Jones's manifesto for a socialist Britain is a substantial addition to recent left-wing political writing. While probably not deserving of the accolade of "this generation's Orwell" as Russell Brand has said, Jones at least allows readers to put their finger on the various things that have been troubling them about Britain's current political arrangements. While I for one would like to see more about the role of political and constitutional reform in tackling the myriad problems that Jones presents, as with Chavs, he should be warmly congratulated for The Establishment.

Sean Kippin is Managing Editor of Democratic Audit. He received a First Class (Hons) Degree in Politics from the University of Northumbria in 2008, and an MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics in 2011. From 2008 to 2012 he worked for the Rt Hon Nick Brown MP in Newcastle and in the House of Commons, and for Alex Cunningham MP. He has also worked at the Smith Institute think tank, and as an intern for the Co-operative Party. He has been at Democratic Audit since June 2013, and can be found on twitter at @se_kip. Read more reviews by Sean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book Review: The Establishment: And how they get away with it by Owen Jones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his recent book, Owen Jones sets out on a journey into the heart of our Establishment, from the lobbies of Westminster to the newsrooms, boardrooms and trading rooms of Fleet Street and the City. Sean Kippin finds that Jones's manifesto for a socialist Britain is a substantial addition to recent left-wing political writing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Glossary of terms to ensure you are using these appropriately and correctly,

# data[].attributes.subject
Glossary of terms to ensure you are using these appropriately and correctly,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kingdom, Fairclough: Government and Politics in Britain, 4th Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In July 2011, Jeremy Clarkson used his column in the Sunday Times to answer the suggestion that there was something sleazy about the so-called 'Chipping Norton set', a circle of friends in Oxfordshire who happened to include in their number Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron.

Determined to puncture the persistent claims of impropriety, he decided to open up about what had gone on at an infamous Christmas party at Brooks' home the previous year, also attended by James Murdoch. As the phone hacking scandal simmered and the government considered News Corporation's bid for BskyB, Clarkson wrote, Cameron and Brooks had indeed put their heads together. "What they talked about most of all," he explained, "is sausage rolls."

And that, to Jeremy Clarkson, is that: proof positive that this cosy relationship had no bearing on the country's future. Owen Jones takes a rather different view. In his new book, The Establishment, the young columnist and campaigner seeks to build a detailed portrait of the intangible network of associations and obligations that, in his account, makes the political weather in every sphere from tax policy to policing to the welfare state. And if he doesn't quite penetrate the sausage-roll circle, Jones does succeed in a timely anatomisation of these deep and largely unacknowledged structures.

Clarkson's defence is, of course, wilfully shallow. A conversation at a Christmas Party may not mean very much in itself, but when you are charged with adjudicating between competing accounts of News Corporation's influence in public life, the rest of us will probably feel more able to trust your conclusions if you haven't shared your view of savoury pastries with one of the key protagonists.

In any case, James Murdoch later acknowledged that, in fact, there had been more going on that night: he and Cameron, he admitted the following year, had discussed the BSkyB bid in "a tiny side conversation" which he couldn't really remember. To Murdoch, this is proof it meant nothing; to the rest of us, this casual, off-the-books tone may be exactly what is so worrying.

Jones' attempt at laying all this bare begins with a considerable amount of reporting: his undertaking is built upon dozens of interviews with establishment figures, some of whom would acknowledge themselves as such, some of whom wouldn't. In one sense, this doesn't reveal anything new, and probably no-one interested in the book will be surprised to read about the lobbyists who fund the thinktanks that influence the government, or the owners who appoint the editors who set the political agenda, or the tax accountants who get seconded to the civil service that decides how much their clients will pay.

Nor will the matching political argument, which sees the modern establishment as inextricably tied to the defence and promotion of Thatcher's legacy, come as a shock to those who have read Jones' columns. I would have loved to read a bit more about the psychology of self-deception that any unapologetic elitist must be practising, but the aim here is really more polemical than that approach would allow. Sometimes, the resulting arguments - about the subtly disastrous, matey groupthink that can permeate any such elite on the one hand, and about the particular political aims that the Establishment's current incarnation pursues on the other - get elided, so that even though he acknowledges earlier versions of the same phenomenon, he paints the problems it raises as bound up with a hard right agenda.

This feels a bit sneaky. And it raises the connected question of whether Jones himself, a prominent, well-connected figure who knows powerful people on first-name terms, counts as part of the Establishment, or an establishment, anyway. Jones mentions being on the advisory board of Class, a thinktank he praises. I know him slightly from his days working on this paper, and through friends of mine who he knew at Oxford, and I like him; now I'm reviewing his book. Even if no-one's doing anything untoward on purpose, this is all a bit old-boys-network, isn't it?

No, he says: "it's not...a degree of influence that defines whether [someone is] part of the Establishment. It is about power and mentality." But that seems to suggest that a left-wing agenda pursued by the same nefarious means would be acceptable. In the end, his argument would be more persuasive to sceptics if it were focused on the assertion of proper democracy and not the ideology of those who are quietly circumventing it.

It is plenty powerful all the same. The book's great strength lies in the simple power of accumulation. Again and again, Jones connects the dots in parallel lines, so that the single examples that might in themselves be dismissed as circumstantial or overblown become more or less unanswerable. Russell Brand recently branded him 'our generation's Orwell', a millstone that you suspect Jones will have greeted with roughly the same enthusiasm that Barack Obama did his premature Nobel Peace Prize, and as much use as a judgement of his achievement. But there is no doubt that he is a writer of real rhetorical force, and I came away from this account suitably disgusted at the patterns he delineates with such insistent clarity.

Jones' prescription for change is relatively modest, and may even so be unrealistic. All the same, his book will inspire those agree with him to work harder to achieve it. His position as the standard-bearer of a youthful alternative to Westminster's suffocating consensus seems assured, and perhaps this book will strengthen that group's hope to build what you might see as an alternative establishment of their own. In the meantime, Jones' influence only grows. You can bet he won't be using it to talk about sausages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Establishment by Owen Jones, book review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In July 2011, Jeremy Clarkson used his column in the Sunday Times to answer the suggestion that there was something sleazy about the so-called 'Chipping Norton set', a circle of friends in Oxfordshire who happened to include in their number Rebekah Brooks and David Cameron.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three years is an age in politics. Since this book was published, the United Kingdom has seen not one but two general elections - both with completely unexpected results - and the EU referendum, all of which have shaken Whitehall. Despite this change, however, Who Governs Britain is no less relevant or telling today. Written by the Canadian-born Professor of British Government at the University of Kent, the book is straightforward in both its premise and layout, yet the answer is perhaps not the one we would expect, and is all the more captivating for it. King does his best to remain objective rather than subjective, despite admitting a certain unease with the current state of affairs, and his assessment of the system as a whole delves into just the right level of detail while retaining the form factor of a commuter's paperback rather than a university textbook.

The book is divided up into chapters, each dedicated to a group that influences Whitehall in its own way, and in an almost prophetic nod, the first chapter deals with foreign influences, both economic, political and judicial, and the major impact this has had on the UK as a whole, as well as our government's sovereignty. Continuing in this manner through an array of parties and interests, some more abstract than others, a clear pattern emerges from the pages: everyone has power, and nobody has power. This oxymoron may sound nonsensical - moronic, if you will - yet it succintly sums up the great paradox of the Westminster system, and goes some way to explain why politicians have such a low standing with the public, as their promises simply cannot match reality.

Civil servants are at the mercy of ministers, who themselves can be hired or fired at will by the Prime Minister, who him or herself still needs the support of Parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers she is supposed to have a complete say over, and yet Parliament is powerless to stop the Judiciary overruling them, while the judges must abide by a legal code which was written primarily by an Englishman but is interpreted and upheld by a court based in Strasbourg. All the while, the media schmoozes and hounds politicians, and claims to influence and simultaneously reflect the minds of voters, who have the ultimate say, except for First Past The Post means most of their votes count for naught either way. It is a complete and utter mess, yet King navigates it all with calm precision. He also quietly explains, almost anticipating the "let's leave the EU and regain our sovereignty" argument, why populist solutions simply do not work, and why we can't go back to the post-war period, even though he himself includes the occasional nostalgic comparison.

In his review of the book, Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary and most senior civil servant in the land, dismisses King's description of a Civil Service on the decline, usurped by special ministers and flooded with yesmen in lieu of the fiercely independent Sir Humphrey types of yesteryear, as inaccurate, instead listing a series of recent achievements as evidence to the contrary. Yet the fiasco of Brexit negotiations and the government's tragicomic inability to properly prepare for the seriousness of such a monumental task more than a year and a half after the referendum would seem to suggest that King's words speak some truth. That such a senior figure should feel the need to issue a direct rebuttal, I think, is testament to the strength of King's chef d'oeuvre, and another reason why you should pick up this book.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WHO GOVERNS BRITAIN? by Anthony King (2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three years is an age in politics. Since this book was published, the United Kingdom has seen not one but two general elections - both with completely unexpected results - and the EU referendum, all of which have shaken Whitehall. Despite this change, however, Who Governs Britain is no less relevant or telling today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
White, male and middle class: why Britain’s political parties must change | Tim Bale | Opinion | The

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Being an effective select committee member

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parliamentary scrutiny briefing note final

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Aren't There More Women in British Politics? | The Political Studies Association (PSA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
White, male and middle class: why Britain’s political parties must change | Tim Bale | Opinion | The

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legislation is available in different versions:

Latest Available (revised): The latest available updated version of the legislation incorporating changes made by subsequent legislation and applied by our editorial team. Changes we have not yet applied to the text, can be found in the 'Changes to Legislation' area.

Original (As Enacted or Made): The original version of the legislation as it stood when it was enacted or made. No changes have been applied to the text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Act to establish an Electoral Commission; to make provision about the registration and finances of political parties; to make provision about donations and expenditure for political purposes; to make provision about election and referendum campaigns and the conduct of referendums; to make provision about election petitions and other legal proceedings in connection with elections; to reduce the qualifying periods set out in sections 1 and 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985; to make pre-consolidation amendments relating to European Parliamentary Elections; and for connected purposes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The future of the political parties in England

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English Identity and the governance of England