Podcasts about hansard society

Why is Britain's first female cabinet minister almost invisible in our political memory?In this episode we are joined by historian and author Nan Sloane, whose new biography of Margaret Bondfield has just been published, to uncover the remarkable and largely forgotten story of this pioneering figure. Bondfield – a working-class trade unionist – became the first woman to serve in the British Cabinet yet is rarely mentioned alongside figures such as Nancy Astor or Ellen Wilkinson. She did not enter politics through the suffrage movement. Instead, she rose through the male-dominated trade union movement, often as the only woman in the room. Born into a large working-class family in Somerset, she left school at thirteen to work in shops where staff were legally treated as domestic servants and endured punishing conditions. Driven by a fierce commitment to social justice, she became a powerful organiser, accomplished public speaker and a leading national figure within the labour movement.Elected to Parliament in 1923, she made history in 1929 when she was appointed Minister of Labour, becoming the first woman to serve in the Cabinet and the first female Privy Counsellor. But it was, as one colleague put it, the worst job in government. In the grip of a deep economic crisis, unemployment was soaring, the national insurance system was stretched to breaking point, and painful decisions had to be taken. By 1931 the crisis had split the Labour Party and brought down the Government. Bondfield lost her seat and never returned to Parliament. Rather than being remembered as a trailblazer, her legacy was overshadowed by economic crisis and party division. Was she a pioneer, a pragmatist caught in impossible circumstances, or a woman judged more harshly than her male colleagues? In conversation with Nan Sloane, we explore Bondfield's character, her relationships and international networks, and the political choices that shaped both her career and her reputation.Nan Sloane, Margaret Bondfield: The life and times of Britain's first Cabinet Minister (Bloomsbury Publishing)

What happens when you lose the party whip? A conversation with Neil Duncan-Jordan MPLabour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan joins us this week to reflect on his experience as one of the new intake's most prominent rebels. He describes defying the whip over the means-testing of the Winter Fuel Allowance and proposed disability benefit cuts, the fallout from his suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the personal and political pressures that come with rebellion. He also discusses his relationship with the Whips and explains why he has twice called for Sir Keir Starmer to step down, most recently in the wake of the Mandelson affair. In this week's episode, we also assess Starmer's increasingly fragile position following the Mandelson–Epstein controversy, examining the risk of further damaging disclosures about Mandelson's contact with Ministers and the potential implications for the Government's legislative programme. We untangle the constitutional confusion surrounding proposals to strip Peter Mandelson and other disgraced peers of their titles, exploring weaknesses in the House of Lords' Code of Conduct, and the broader dangers of legislating in response to a single scandal. Gordon Brown has called for sweeping “root and branch” standards reform – from a new anti-corruption commission to greater use of citizens' juries on parliamentary standards and enhanced select committee scrutiny of ministerial and other public appointments. Ruth and Mark question whether such changes would genuinely rebuild public trust, pointing to nearly two decades of Hansard Society polling showing consistently low levels of trust in politicians and in the effectiveness of the political system. They also argue that the current focus on expelling disgraced Peers from the House of Lords misses a fundamental issue: the Prime Minister's largely unchecked power to appoint them in the first place. We return to the slow progress of the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords, where disagreement continues over whether the pace of debate reflects legitimate scrutiny or amounts to filibustering. Some MPs are calling for accelerated Lords reform in response – but would a wholly elected second chamber be more likely to block legislation rather than less? Finally, we discuss two significant reports from the Procedure Committee: one recommending against the introduction of call lists for debates in the Commons Chamber, and another proposing changes to the way select committee chairs and deputy speakers are elected in the House of Commons.

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer's vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings.______

This week we explore one of Westminster's strangest constitutional hangovers: why MPs can't simply resign. With the Gorton and Denton by-election triggered by Andrew Gwynne's departure, listeners asked the obvious question – why the medieval-sounding detour via the Chiltern Hundreds (or its less glamorous cousin, the Manor of Northstead)? We trace the rule back to 1623, when the Commons barred resignations, and to later fears about MPs being bought off by “offices of profit” from the Crown. The workaround – appointing an MP to a Crown office that disqualifies them – still survives, complete with modern legal “fudges”. Along the way, we revisit colourful resignations and near-resignations, from mass Ulster Unionist walkouts to John Stonehouse's attempted disappearance and Gerry Adams's objection to being handed a Crown role he didn't want.In this episode we also check the Government's legislative scorecard as the Session edges toward its expected May close, with several dozen bills already on the statute book and many more still in play. We explain “carry-over” motions – how some bills can leap across prorogation – and why the Government has produced surprisingly few bills for pre-legislative scrutiny compared with the first Session in recent previous parliaments.Finally, the focus shifts to the Armed Forces Bill, the five-yearly legislation rooted in the Bill of Rights that renews the legal basis for military discipline and Parliament's consent for a standing army. Labour MP Jayne Kirkham joins us to discuss how her Ten Minute Rule proposal secured Royal Fleet Auxiliary access to the new Armed Forces Commissioner, and what it's like learning the ropes on bill committees as a new MP._____

The assisted dying bill – properly known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – is facing an extraordinary procedural logjam in the House of Lords. More than 1,170 amendments remain to be debated, organised into 89 groups for debate, yet only 20 of those groups have been reached after seven days in Committee. With just a handful of sitting Fridays left before the end of the Session, Lord Falconer has warned that the Bill is very unlikely to complete its Lords stages in time. In a letter to Peers, he has floated a list of possible compromise amendments but has also, for the first time, strongly indicated that the Parliament Act may need to be invoked to override the opposition of a small group of Peers and secure the Bill's passage in the next Session.Although rarely used, and never in relation to a Private Members Bill, the Parliament Act has been deployed before on highly contentious measures, most recently the Hunting Bill in 2004. Using it to force through the assisted dying bill would require intricate choreography in both the Commons and the Lords, as well as major political decisions about whether the government formally takes ownership of the Bill or whether it continues as a Private Member's Bill. It would also raise difficult questions about how amendments are handled, and how far MPs and ministers are prepared to go to assert the primacy of the elected House in the face of sustained resistance from a small but determined group of Peers.In this episode, we explore how the Parliament Act works, how it could be used in this case, and the political and constitutional trade-offs involved in relying on it to deliver this legislation.____

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

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

In a dramatic day at Westminster, Kemi Badenoch launched a pre-emptive strike against Robert Jenrick, sacking him from the Shadow Cabinet, suspending the Conservative Party whip, and moving before his headline-grabbing jump to Reform UK. We unpack what the defection tells us about party discipline, Reform's “fishing operation” for Tory MPs, and whether anyone else might follow.We then turn to government difficulties over the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, better known as the Hillsborough Law. With its proposed “duty of candour” for public officials, campaigners fear national security carve-outs (especially around MI5/MI6 evidence) could fatally water it down, with MPs particularly from Merseyside and Manchester pushing back hard as the Bill heads toward key Commons stages.In our interview, Backbench Business Committee chair Bob Blackman MP sets out his committee's “manifesto” for Commons reform: spreading backbench time beyond Thursdays, fixing the committee's stop-start elections, and even replacing the Private Members' Bill lottery with a more rational selection process.Finally, we assess whether the assisted dying bill is being talked out in the Lords, what rescue routes might exist - including invoking the Parliament Act - and we note the arrival of a new Lord Speaker, Lord Forsyth, as wider Lords reform looms.____

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

With the Government investigating allegations of foreign influence in British politics, we are joined by John Pullinger, Chair of the Electoral Commission, to take stock of the health and resilience of the UK's electoral system. Our discussion ranges widely over the pressures facing elections and campaigning today, and what issues Parliament may need to grapple with in a future elections bill.A major theme is political finance and the extent to which current rules are fit for purpose. We explore concerns about the risk of foreign money entering UK politics, the role of large donations, company funding and unincorporated associations, and the growing difficulty of tracing money in a digital age. We also discuss whether capping donations is realistic, and how reforms can restore public confidence without creating new loopholes or partisan flashpoints.Participation and engagement are another key focus. With millions missing from the electoral register and turnout at historically low levels, we discuss the barriers facing groups such as young people, private renters and disabled voters, and whether better civic education and democratic literacy could help reverse long-term disengagement – while staying firmly politically neutral.We also look at the increasingly hostile climate in which candidates campaign, including harassment, intimidation and online abuse. We consider where responsibility lies between social media platforms, political parties and the police, and whether stronger standards and enforcement are needed. Linked to this are wider concerns about misinformation, deepfakes and digital campaigning, and how online activity is blurring traditional lines in election spending rules.Finally, the conversation turns to election security and foreign interference, the independence of the Electoral Commission, and practical challenges such as postponed local elections and the growing pressures on electoral administrators. Together, these themes underline the scale of the challenges facing UK democracy – and the difficult choices involved in tackling them._____

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

Why do UK Prime Ministers seem to burn out so quickly? Joined by historian Robert Saunders, we explore why so many leaders have struggled to survive in office since the Brexit referendum. The role has always been exceptionally demanding, but have the pressures of the post-2016 era made it harder than ever? Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic are major political shocks that have destabilised parties and strained the capacity of government, while the rise of new media has created a relentless and unforgiving environment of scrutiny.We also examine the leadership pipeline, with politicians reaching the top more quickly and with less experience of policy-making, party management and elections. Against this backdrop, we consider whether conventions such as collective cabinet responsibility are now part of the problem rather than the solution – encouraging inauthenticity, stifling legitimate disagreement and making it harder to manage broad political coalitions. The discussion explores the widening gap between public expectations and the realities of governing in a low-growth, post-financial-crisis economy, and concludes by asking whether rebuilding trust will require more honest communication, better political training and a willingness to rethink long-standing assumptions about how power is exercised at the top of British politics.___

We're taking a short break over Christmas and New Year, but to keep you company we've wrapped up a selection of standout episodes as a festive gift for you.

This episode brings you an exclusive recording of the official hustings for the election of the next Lord Speaker. Organised by the Hansard Society and chaired by podcast co-host Ruth Fox, the event took place last week in the Robing Room of the House of Lords.Peers put questions to the two contenders for the role: Conservative peer Lord Forsyth and Crossbench peer Baroness Bull. This episode gives listeners rare access to the full exchange between peers and the candidates.The discussion ranged from the practical business of running the House of Lords chamber to some of the biggest constitutional and governance challenges facing Parliament.The Lord Speaker chairs proceedings in the Lords from the Woolsack and acts as an ambassador for the House. The role also includes chairing the House of Lords Commission and sharing responsibility for the Restoration and Renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster. Created in 2006, the post replaced the Lord Chancellor as presiding officer and is filled by a five-year election among peers. Once elected, the Lord Speaker steps away from party affiliation and does not vote.From the outset, peers quickly tested a central tension in the contest: was Lord Forsyth too political, and was Baroness Bull political enough? Questions followed on how the Lord Speaker should defend the House if a future government had little or no representation in the Lords, prompting discussion of constitutional conventions, respect for the Commons' electoral mandate and the Lords' role as a revising, “think again” chamber.Key themes included governance, security and the looming decisions on restoration and renewal, with both candidates stressing the need for clearer accountability, better communication with members and efforts to rebuild public trust in Parliament. Other questions covered public engagement and media coverage, sitting hours and late nights, amendment grouping and Question Time, and the practical support available to members, especially those based outside London._____

There have been three significant developments at Westminster this week: a Commons vote that the Liberal Democrats are presenting as a major breakthrough, a peerages list that raises questions of political balance, and renewed concerns about the limited powers Parliament holds to scrutinise international treaties.We begin with the Ten Minute Rule Bill proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Al Pinkerton, intended to create a duty on the Government to negotiate entry to the EU Customs Union. The motion succeeded only on a tied vote, resolved by Deputy Speaker Caroline Nokes using her casting vote. This was not a vote on the Bill's text, nor does it compel Government action: it simply grants leave for the Bill to be introduced and placed in the Private Members' Bill queue, where its prospects are uncertain.We then turn to the latest appointments to the House of Lords. Labour gains the largest share, and the Liberal Democrats secure five new peers, while Reform UK receives none—an outcome that is increasingly difficult to justify given Reform's parliamentary and local government presence and their sustained lead in the opinion polls. We also consider the implications of the anticipated hereditary peer departures on Lords committee work and scrutiny.We also preview the upcoming Lord Speaker contest between Lord Forsyth and Baroness Bull. Ruth chaired the official hustings earlier this week, so she discusses the issues and questions that were raised. We talk to Lord Goldsmith, Chair of the International Agreements Committee, about treaty scrutiny. Lord Goldsmith argues that the current 21-day scrutiny period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is inadequate and overly dependent on Government control of parliamentary time. When in opposition Labour spokespersons agreed, but now they are in Government Ministers think the system is satisfactory.Finally, the programme closes with an update on the Assisted Dying Bill's slow progress in the Lords and the potential reputational consequences if proceedings continue to stall.____

This week we focus on the Hansard Society's new book, Britain Votes 2024, which brings together a powerhouse team of leading political scientists - including Professors Sir John Curtice, Phil Cowley and Tim Bale - and many other distinguished experts to dissect every facet of a record-breaking general election. The 2024 contest delivered the largest post-war swing, a Labour landslide, and the Conservatives' lowest-ever parliamentary representation. This volume, a special edition of our Parliamentary Affairs journal, explains how and why such a dramatic turnaround came about. We talk to the editors Alistair Clark, Louise Thompson and Stuart Wilks-Hee to unpack how Labour won a landslide on just a third of the vote, why the 2024 contest shattered so many electoral records, and what this says about the resilience – or fragility – of UK democracy. We explore the extraordinary disproportionality of the result, the historically low turnout, and the sense of voters “fishing around” for alternatives in a system under strain.Britain Votes 2024: The 2024 UK General Election is available now from all good bookshops and online retailers. Podcast listeners can get 30% off via the Oxford University Press website using the discount code: AUFLY30This week we also discuss another turbulent week in Westminster, from the Budget fallout and the sudden resignation of OBR chair Richard Hughes to the unusual constitutional power Parliament holds over his post via the Treasury Committee. We explore the politics of abstention versus rebellion inside a government with a huge majority, and what to expect as the Finance Bill and a separate National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pension Contributions) Bill reach Parliament before Christmas.We also examine the afterlives of ex-MPs: Lloyd Russell-Moyle's move from Labour to the Greens, the flow of former Conservatives into Reform, and what these shifts say about deeper tensions on the right. Plus, we dig into a row over local democracy as the government delays new mayoral elections in parts of Sussex, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire, prompting cross-party accusations that Labour is “cancelling democracy” and confusion about whether other local contests will still go ahead.____

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

In this episode we look at the latest Covid Inquiry report addressing the lack of parliamentary scrutiny during the pandemic and the need for a better system for emergency law-making. With the Budget approaching, we explore how the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, might discipline ministers who announce policies outside Parliament and why a little-known motion could restrict debate on the Finance Bill. Sir David Beamish assesses whether the flood of amendments to the assisted dying bill risks a filibuster and raises constitutional questions. Finally, we hear from Marsha de Cordova MP and Sandro Gozi MEP on their work to reset UK–EU relations through the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly.___Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___As the Covid Inquiry highlights how little parliamentary scrutiny many pandemic restrictions received, we look at the problems in the UK's emergency law-making process and urge parliamentarians to develop a better system for the next crisis.With the Budget looming, we explore how the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, could discipline ministers who announce major policies outside Parliament (for example, changes to income tax…). We explain why an obscure technical motion might limit debate on the Finance Bill – the legislation that will implement Rachel Reeves' tax plans – and why leading figures in the Government should steer well clear of using it.The assisted dying bill is inching through its House of Lords committee stage. Our Lords procedural guru Sir David Beamish joins us to consider whether the huge volume of amendments proposed by Peers could threaten the bill's progress. When does rigorous scrutiny become filibustering? And would it be unconstitutional for their Lordships to block the Bill?Finally, we meet Marsha de Cordova MP and Sandro Gozi MEP, the parliamentarians quietly working to de-frost the UK–EU relationship through the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly which monitors and reports on our Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Brussels.

Ten years after the House of Commons Petitions Committee was created – does it actually work? Does it genuinely shift policy? Or is it an emotional release valve? In this special anniversary episode, we bring together four Chairs of the Petitions Committee – one current, three former – for a candid conversation about what happens after hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of people click “sign”.___Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___The House of Commons Petitions Committee is the place in Parliament where ordinary people set the agenda. Now, a decade after it was created, is it actually the most powerful pressure valve in UK politics?In this 10th-anniversary episode we trace the origins of the Committee – from the early battles with government and the breakthrough on brain tumour research – to the Covid era when petitioning briefly became the country's primary political participation channel. And we revisit the petitions that blindsided even the MPs in the room.To mark ten years, the current Chair — and three former Chairs — answer directly:• what really happens when a petition passes 100,000 signatures;• which petitions genuinely changed government thinking;• do ministers watch the queue of petitions nervously;• should petitions now get votable time in the main Chamber;• how the pandemic supercharged petition culture;• why petitions debates are the most watched debates after PMQs; and• whether petitions amplify the already-loud or give voice to the unheard. This isn't a theoretical seminar about “democracy”. This is the Committee inside Parliament where the public decides the agenda. After a decade, what's the verdict?____

As Britain's modern party system frays, we rewind 300+ years to Queen Anne's reign to trace the messy, very human birth of Britain's party politics in conversation with historian George Owers, author of Rage of Party. He charts how religion, war, and raw parliamentary management forged early party politics, as the Whigs and Tories hardened into recognisable parties. Parliament turned from an occasional royal event into a permanent institution, and the job that would later be called “Prime Minister” began to take shape through court craft and parliamentary number-crunching.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS ___ The Glorious Revolution triggered one change that proved transformational: Parliament now had to sit, and sit often. The Monarch's continental wars needed constant funding, and constant funding required annual Parliaments. That imperative created a new game: the Crown's ministers had to manage two chambers increasingly organised along party lines, avoiding the dreaded scenario in which a single faction could “force the chamber” and dictate to the Monarch. Out of that pressure cooker evolved new techniques of parliamentary management: whipping, coalition-stitching, patronage-trading. The dark arts of parliamentary arithmetic were born in this crucible.With Queen Anne's death in 1714, the Hanoverian succession froze out suspected Jacobite sympathisers and handed the initiative to the Whigs. Over the following decade, Robert Walpole consolidated that advantage into something new: stable, one-party government under a single commanding figure. His mix of administrative grip, parliamentary mastery, and monarchical confidence is why he is widely counted as Britain's first true Prime Minister.Our conversation lands back in the present with a sobering parallel. If today's House of Commons continues to splinter, tomorrow's successful leaders may look less like top-down disciplinarians and more like Walpole: Commons operators who live in the tea room, count every vote, understand every constituency interest, and build governing majorities from shifting factions rather than from iron party control. It's a story about where our party system came from – and a primer for the coalition politics it may be heading back towards.___

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage made headlines this week with his attempt to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill to take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposal was swiftly defeated by a coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent MPs, with Lib Dem leader Ed Davey leading the opposition._____Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS_____In this week's episode, we look at why Farage's bill was always doomed to fail, and why Labour's reluctance to formally whip against it raised eyebrows. Does that hesitation point to a deeper problem – has Labour really absorbed the lesson of the Caerphilly Senedd by-election, where Plaid Cymru took a Labour seat, Reform surged, and Labour's vote collapsed? If progressive voters are prepared to rally behind whichever party can stop Reform, should Labour be bolder in confronting them directly?We also consider Lucy Powell's decisive victory as Labour's new deputy leader – an unusual role outside government that frees her from collective responsibility and could make her a key power broker in what promises to be a gruelling budget season. How far can a tough fiscal package stretch manifesto promises before trust breaks, and is Keir Starmer in danger of drifting into a “Clegg zone” of broken-promise backlash?The discussion then turns to the Speaker's Conference reports on the abuse and intimidation faced by MPs and candidates. Guest Sofia Collignon, from Queen Mary University of London, outlines the full spectrum of harassment – from online threats to in-person intimidation – and explains why women and minority candidates are often targeted most. She explores what could genuinely make a difference: stronger accountability for social media platforms, a dedicated national policing unit, clearer party responsibility for campaign conduct, and improved citizenship education. Drawing on international examples, she argues for firm action that protects democratic participation without shielding politicians from legitimate public scrutiny.A listener's question about Westminster Hall sparks a discussion about the history and purpose of the Commons' parallel debating chamber. Ruth and Mark trace its origins to the late 1990s, when it was created to give MPs more space to raise issues and hold ministers to account. They explain why no votes are taken there, how it provides a forum for petitions, select committee reports and backbench debates, and why some of the Commons' most-watched debates now happen there._____

This week, we explore how far Parliament can go in holding members of the Royal Family to account, as pressure grows for MPs to scrutinise Prince Andrew's finances and royal titles. We ask whether Nigel Farage should get a right of reply at Prime Minister's Questions amid his growing prominence, and examine Labour's reshuffle of select committee posts and calls for greater transparency in how they're filled. Plus, a look back at the rebuilding of the House of Commons Chamber, 75 years after its postwar reopening. ___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS ___Normally Parliament steers clear of discussing the Royal Family but with Prince Andrew embroiled in the scandal around the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, there are increasing calls for MPs to act. Could he be called before a select committee to explain his finances and housing arrangements? Might Parliament legislate to strip him of his titles? Could he be removed from the line of succession to the Throne? To explore these issues we are joined by Dr Craig Prescott of Royal Holloway, University of London, an expert on the modern monarchy.With other party leaders increasingly using Prime Minister's Question Time to take potshots at Nigel Farage, does the Reform UK party leader deserve some kind of right of reply? The problem is that while he may have a commanding lead in the opinion polls, he leads a tiny contingent of MPs – so giving him a regular slot, ahead of other parties could create more problems than it solves. But there are ways he could hit back at his critics.There's also movement on the select committee corridor as Labour MPs elect new members to fill vacancies left by those promoted in the recent government reshuffle. But questions remain about the process itself. Should there be greater transparency around how parties decide who sits on these influential committees? Finally, this month marks 75 years since the Commons Chamber re-opened after being destroyed in the Blitz. We speak to Dr Eloise Donnelly, Curator of Parliament's Historic Furniture and Decorative Art, about how the reconstruction balanced modernisation with tradition. From a 15-year-old apprentice carving the Speaker's Chair to German prisoners of war quarrying the stone, the story of the rebuild is one of craftsmanship, controversy and continuity. At the heart of a new exhibition marking the anniversary is a remarkable architectural scale model of the postwar Chamber — built in 1944 to help MPs visualise the design, exhibited across the country, lost for decades, but then rediscovered in Parliament. As Ruth reveals, this long-missing model solves a small but fascinating mystery in the Hansard Society's own history.

It's been an extraordinary week in Westminster, with three separate ministerial statements to the Commons on the China spying case. To make sense of the confusion, Ruth and Mark are joined by Professor Mark Elliott, public law expert from Cambridge University, to unpack the sudden collapse of the prosecution against two alleged spies._____Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS_____Newly released government witness statements revealed details about the claims of espionage inside MPs' offices, yet the case was abruptly dropped amid tangled legal arguments over whether the Government had ever formally designated China as an “enemy state.”So, what really happened? Was this a legal failure or a political fix to avoid a diplomatic crisis? And with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy now launching an inquiry, where does the story go next?Plus, as the parliamentary season re-opens after the party conference break, Ruth and Mark look at the elephant traps ahead for the Government, including the Budget (Mark wonders why anyone in the Government thinks it is a good idea to “live-brainstorm” tax raising ideas), the lingering row over the Afghan data leak and superinjunction, the long-promised vote about the future of multi-billion pound restoration and renewal of Parliament and the steady drip of terrible local election results chipping away at Labour morale.And finally, the latest developments on the assisted dying legislation which is now facing scrutiny by a special Lords select committee. We go through the membership and the balance of opinion on what could be a very important body. If the subsequent debates on the bill over-run, Ministers could face a legislative logjam in the Upper House.________

In this episode, we speak with Peter Just, author of a new book, Margaret Thatcher: Life After Downing Street. Peter explores how Thatcher reinvented herself after her departure to maintain her status as an international figure, and how she remained a parliamentary thorn in John Major's side. We also compare her parliamentary afterlife with that of other Prime Ministers, and consider the value that former leaders can bring to the institution of Parliament. ___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS Peter Just's new book, Margaret Thatcher: Life After Downing Street, explores the political afterlife of Margaret Thatcher, once she had left No. 10. Peter explains how Thatcher reinvented herself as a global political figure, championing British business abroad, and how she exerted a continued influence on domestic politics and parliamentary life. We also compare her legacy with that of other ex-Prime Ministers, including the unusually active parliamentary role of Theresa May, and consider what value former Prime Ministers bring when they stay engaged in the work of Parliament. Peter explains how, after her personally devastating departure, Thatcher built a new role with the support of trusted aides. Though her interventions in the House of Commons were rare, her mere presence in Parliament carried weight. She became a political irritant to John Major's Government – encouraging rebels over Maastricht and criticising the Government's policy on Bosnia – yet behind the scenes she was often a diplomatic and commercial asset. ____

In this episode, we talk to political journalist Seb Whale about his new book The Usual Channels, which reveals the hidden world of Westminster's whips. Seb charts how party discipline has evolved – from the stormy politics of the 1970s and the Maastricht battles of the 1990s to the legendary “black book,” the Brexit showdowns and the short-lived Liz Truss premiership. He explains how the whips' office has adapted to a modern Parliament—especially with the influx of women MPs—and why, even today, whips still wield decisive influence over MPs' careers and remain indispensable despite the pressures of contemporary politics.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS Political journalist Seb Whale's new book, The Usual Channels: Inside the Mysterious World of Political Whips, takes us inside the famously secretive world of Westminster's whips. It lifts the lid on how these behind-the-scenes powerbrokers have shaped British politics for decades.Seb shares how he interviewed dozens of current and former whips to piece together the real story – tracking their evolution from the days of Humphrey Atkins, Walter Harrison and Jack Weatherill in the stormy 1974–79 Parliament, through the Maastricht battles of the 1990s, the Brexit upheavals under Theresa May and Boris Johnson, and the dramatic downfall of Liz Truss.We explore how the arrival of many more women MPs under New Labour, the rise of social media, and a more independently minded generation of backbenchers have forced whips to adapt their tactics – without losing their grip on ministerial careers or party discipline. Seb also reveals the truth behind the legendary “black book” of MPs' secrets and the enduring mix of “carrot and stick”.The conversation highlights why the relationship between the Government whips' office and Number 10 has been decisive – from Margaret Thatcher's exit to Liz Truss's collapse – and looks ahead to the whips' future in a Commons marked by high turnover, a commanding majority and ever-fractious politics. Despite these pressures, Seb argues, the whips remain the unseen grease that keeps the machinery of Parliament running.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has cleared another key hurdle: it was given a Second Reading in the House of Lords without a formal vote. But Peers have agreed to set up a special select committee to hear evidence from Ministers, professional bodies and legal experts before the Bill goes any further. That decision pushes the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny back to mid-November and could shape the Bill's prospects in unexpected ways. In this episode we explore the procedural twists and political manoeuvring behind that decision. ___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS To help unpick what happened and what it all means, we are joined this week by Dr Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London and an authority on Private Members' Bills, and Matthew England from the Hansard Society, whose briefings on the Bill have tracked everything from procedure to delegated powers. The debate at Second Reading showcased powerful speeches and some striking personal interventions. Beyond the moral arguments, Peers zeroed in on the Bill's constitutional and procedural implications – especially the sweeping delegated powers that drew sharp criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lord Falconer, the Bill's sponsor in the Lords, signalled his support for amendments to the Bill to address some of the Committee's concerns. The Government's role also came under the spotlight. Some peers bristled at the cancellation of the Lords' recess to complete the Second Reading debate, and critics accused ministers of tilting the timetable to favour the Bill. We consider whether those claims really hold up. The biggest twist, though, was the compromise deal negotiated between Lord Falconer and Baroness Berger to establish a temporary select committee. It will gather evidence from ministers, the medical and legal professions and the hospice sector, and publish its findings by 7 November, far earlier than originally proposed. Crucially, the committee will not be required to recommend whether the Bill should proceed or be amended, but the evidence it collects will frame the clause-by-clause scrutiny that is now expected to begin in mid-November, with four sittings scheduled before Christmas. The committee's membership and witness list are still to be decided, but the stage is set for a short, sharp inquiry whose findings could shape the next—and most testing—phase of this landmark legislation.

As Peers embark on a marathon two-day Second Reading debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – the measure that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – we are joined by former Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David Beamish, to decode the drama. With more than two hundred members of the House of Lords lining up to speak, Sir David explains why, despite the intensity of the arguments, no one expects the Bill to be rejected at this stage. Instead, the real fight will come later, after Peers get into the clause-by-clause detail and see what defects can be remedied.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___We look ahead to the second half of the Second Reading debate next week to unpack the procedural chess moves. One amendment calls for a special select committee to examine the issue in depth, but there's a risk that such a referral – while attractive in principle – would delay progress and could be seen as an attempt to derail the bill altogether. We also discuss a constitutional concern: the bill's heavy use of delegated legislation, including “Henry VIII powers” allowing ministers to amend primary legislation by delegated legislation which is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny. Critical reports from the Delegated Powers and Constitution Committees have already put ministers on notice, and even the bill's sponsor, Lord Falconer, concedes that some amendments will be unavoidable.It has been a tumultuous political week, which has seen the departure of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and Britain's Ambassador to Washington, Lord Mandelson, as well as a major ministerial reshuffle. Ruth and Mark look at the implications for Parliament. Will Lord Mandelson return to the House of Lords? Will the churn amongst ministers and the appointment of a new generation of MPs to posts in government disrupt the scrutiny of legislation and the work of select committees? And amidst increasing mutterings against Sir Keir Starmer, how might backbench Labour discontent manifest itself in the House of Commons?____

Does Parliament itself lie at the root of some of Britain's political and economic difficulties? Lord Goodman argues that it does and so makes the case for urgent parliamentary reform. This week we also examine the implications of a Downing Street reshuffle that has created a “Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister,” raising new questions about accountability in the Commons. The discussion ranges from Angela Rayner's uncertain position, Nigel Farage's controversial US appearance, and the Greens' leadership contest, to the growing use of artificial intelligence in parliamentary work.______Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS______This week we ponder the creation of a post unprecedented in modern government: Darren Jones as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. Ruth and Mark analyse what this role might mean for scrutiny, Commons procedure, and the balance of power at the heart of government, particularly with Angela Rayner's future unresolved. From there, they turn to Nigel Farage's decision to criticise Britain's free speech laws before a US Congressional committee – an intervention that may weaken rather than strengthen his position – and to the Greens' choice of a leader outside Westminster, with all the opportunities and risks that entails. They also consider how artificial intelligence is beginning to shape the way MPs work, from the appearance of formulaic phrases in Hansard to pilot schemes using AI tools for correspondence and drafting. Finally, in an extended interview, Conservative peer Lord Paul Goodman argues that economic renewal cannot be achieved without reforming Parliament itself: fewer, better-prepared bills, more serious scrutiny, and more experienced Ministers, including some drawn from outside Parliament._____

Every Wednesday at noon, the House of Commons chamber comes alive with Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), the loudest, most theatrical half-hour in British politics. To some it's democratic accountability; to others, a raucous playground of yah-boo antics. Loved and loathed in equal measure, PMQs is Parliament's weekly shop window, offering a revealing glimpse of how Britain does politics. In this episode, we explore its history, purpose, and international impact, including why France briefly trialled it last year only to drop the idea.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___Each week, Prime Minister's Questions turns Westminster into a spectacle of jeers, cheers, and gladiatorial verbal combat. Is it serious accountability, or just political theatre?Joining us this week is Dr Ruxandra Serban, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at UCL, whose research compares PMQs with questioning sessions around the world.Together, we explore:why it matters that the Prime Minister faces MPs each week;how PMQs evolved from dry “engagements questions” into today's noisy clash;what the public really thinks of when they watch MPs jeering, cheering and point-scoring; andwhether PMQs could ever change, or if the ritual is too entrenched.Dr Serban also explains how other countries view Westminster's weekly spectacle – sometimes as a model of democratic accountability, sometimes as a cautionary tale. She compares PMQs with similar sessions in Canada, Australia, and Ireland, and reflects on why France's National Assembly briefly adopted its own PMQs-style experiment in 2024, before quietly abandoning it months later.___

On Friday 12 September, the House of Lords will debate the Bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. We explore what lies ahead for the Bill in the Upper House with Sir David Beamish, former Clerk of the Parliaments – the Lords' most senior official. Sharing an insider's guide to the Chamber's unique, self-regulating procedures, Sir David explains how the legislative process differs from the Commons, and what that could mean for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill's potentially long and contested passage.____ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS____The process may look similar to that in the Commons, with a Second Reading debate, Committee and Report stages and then a Third Reading, but the way Peers handle legislation is very different. The Lords is a self-regulating House, with no Speaker to select amendments or decide who speaks next. Instead, a largely invisible web of conventions shapes proceedings and guides behaviour. Sir David predicts these customs, reinforced by “peer pressure”, will discourage maverick Peers from filibustering or using procedural tricks to block the bill.Nonetheless, the bill's progress in the Upper House could be long and demanding. Past assisted dying bills have drawn huge speakers' lists, marathon debates and a flood of amendments. This one already has 88 Peers signed up to speak at Second Reading on 12 September, with more likely to join in the remaining days before the debate. Significant amendments – particularly on constitutional questions, delegated powers and safeguards – are likely. Any such changes would send the Bill back to the Commons for at least one, and potentially several, rounds of parliamentary “ping-pong”.Sir David explains the timetabling challenges, the scrutiny role of the Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the informal but powerful influence of Peers with critical areas of expertise. From seasoned legal voices to vocal campaigners on both sides, the debate will cut across party lines, test the chamber's self-regulating culture, and could keep Peers engaged in lengthy Friday sittings for many months to come.____

In this episode we speak with historian Jonathan Healey about one of the most extraordinary days in parliamentary history when King Charles I entered the Commons Chamber with soldiers aiming to arrest five MPs. This dramatic moment, vividly recounted in Healey's new book The Blood in Winter, marked a crucial turning point toward civil war. We explore the power struggles, propaganda, and the geography that shaped the fate of a nation and the Westminster Parliament.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___January 4th, 1642: King Charles I enters the House of Commons with armed soldiers to arrest five MPs – Pym, Hampden, Haselrig, Holles, and Strode. It's a scene etched into British constitutional memory, echoed today in the symbolic slamming of the Commons' door during the State Opening of Parliament. But what led to this unprecedented royal intrusion?In this special Summer recess episode, we are joined by historian Professor Jonathan Healey, author of The Blood in Winter: A Nation Descends 1642, to unpack the political, legal and emotional drama behind that fateful day.We explore the rising tensions over Parliament's role in securing consent for taxation to fund the King's wars, controversial religious reform, and the escalating political crisis – including the moment when MPs used the parliamentary process to force Charles to agree to the execution of his powerful ally and chief enforcer, the Earl of Strafford. Healey reveals how political passions were stirred by the new technology of pamphlet-printing, city mobs, and the role of the great nobles in backing MPs who resisted the King.Jonathan also sheds light on the crucial role geography played in 17th century Westminster, with the royal palace of Whitehall just a short walk from Parliament, and both set along a public thoroughfare that left them exposed to rioting crowds from the City of London.We learn about Speaker William Lenthall's defiant stand, the fate of the elusive five MPs, and how figures like John Pym and Denzil Holles helped redraw the lines between Crown and Commons. Plus, a look at how near-unknown backbencher Oliver Cromwell was just beginning to appear on the scene.It's a gripping account of how political missteps and personal rivalries pushed the nation to civil war and shaped the parliamentary democracy we have today.

In our 100th episode, we take stock of Parliament one year after the 2024 general election. With a fractured opposition, a dominant Labour government, and a House of Commons still governed by rules designed for a two-party system, how well is this new Parliament really functioning?___Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.___We examine the rise in political defections — is this the social media age at work, making it easier for MPs to leave their parties and harder for party leaders to keep control?One year after the King's Speech, we also explore how Keir Starmer's government is echoing the habits of its predecessors—rushing through vague “skeleton bills” that grant ministers wide powers with little oversight. Meanwhile, MPs continue to be sidelined from properly scrutinising major international agreements, and Parliament still lacks a mechanism for keeping track of the UK's evolving relationship with the EU.This episode looks ahead at the challenges facing scrutiny and accountability as 10% budget cuts loom across the Commons. We reflect on the experiences of a new generation of MPs — many frustrated by outdated rules, creaking infrastructure, and a political culture badly in need of renewal.Can the House of Commons modernise itself before crisis forces change? Plus: the assisted dying bill as a crash course in lawmaking for new MPs, and why Prime Minister's Questions remains as theatrical — and infuriating — as ever.___

Has the Government's complacency in managing Parliament finally caught up with it? It's been a difficult week for Ministers, as a backbench Labour revolt forced a dramatic U-turn on plans to cut billions from Personal Independence Payments. With Rachel Reeves' financial strategy in tatters, questions are mounting about Keir Starmer's authority — and whether weak parliamentary management is to blame. We explore how it all went wrong, what it reveals about No.10's approach to Parliament, and what needs to change to stop further unravelling.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.___Is the Government missing its last chance at real House of Lords reform? As Ministers push ahead with plans to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, new polling from the Constitution Unit at UCL suggests the public wants more ambitious change. Professor Meg Russell joins us to warn that the current legislation could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact deeper reforms — including curbing the Prime Minister's power to appoint new Peers and reducing the overall size of the House of Lords.Plus, church and state collide over assisted dying in Dorking. Liberal Democrat MP Chris Coghlan has been barred from receiving communion at his local Catholic church due to his support for Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Is this an unacceptable case of religious interference in politics, or simply the inevitable fallout when faith and legislation collide? Ruth and Mark explore the implications and ponder the precedents from both Britain and the United States.Finally, we tackle listeners' questions on why primary legislation was needed to implement the Government's welfare reforms, inquorate votes in the House of Lords, the ability of Peers to amend the assisted dying bill and the mysterious books beside the Mace.

We are joined this week by two guests who bring invaluable insight into the intersection of health policy and parliamentary life. Dr. Sarah Wollaston and Steve Brine – both former MPs, health policy experts, and co-hosts of the podcast Prevention is the New Cure – share their experiences of how the House of Commons handles health and social care.__Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___Both chaired the Commons Health Select Committee during their time in Parliament, and both bring broader career experience: Sarah as a former GP and Steve as a former Health Minister. They offer a candid and often striking comparison between GP surgeries and MP surgeries, revealing how health and social care concerns often dominate the concerns constituents bring to their representatives. Their experiences underscore how central the NHS is to public life and how fraught it is in political terms.We explore the dangers MPs face when navigating NHS policy, particularly around controversial local hospital closures and service changes. Steve recounts his own strategic focus on healthcare in Winchester and the delicate balance between constituency advocacy and ministerial responsibility. While Sarah shares her frustration with the legislative process, particularly during the Lansley reforms, when her medical expertise was side-lined by the party whips.The conversation moves to Labour's current proposals for NHS reform. Our guests reflect on the gap between political rhetoric and delivery, particularly the challenge of achieving meaningful change in a system under financial and structural pressure.Turning to the role of Parliament, Sarah and Steve reflect on the importance – and limits – of select committees in influencing policy. Drawing on their own time as committee chairs, they describe the committee corridor as one of the few places in Parliament where serious scrutiny and cross-party collaboration take place. Yet they also lament MPs broader failure to engage seriously with evidence or exercise proper scrutiny of departmental spending.Finally, as more than 100 Labour MPs signal a potential rebellion over proposed cuts to Personal Independence Payments, we explore the culture of dissent at Westminster. Steve and Sarah – both with a track record of principled rebellion – offer advice to the new intake of MPs weighing loyalty against conscience. Their message is clear: in the long run, the votes you regret are the ones where you didn't make a stand.

This week, we reflect on a landmark moment in UK parliamentary history: the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons, moving one step closer to legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. We are joined once again by former House of Commons Clerk Paul Evans to examine how this Private Member's Bill navigated the political and procedural obstacles in its path and to explore what lies ahead in the House of Lords.__Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___We start with the numbers: 605 MPs took part in the Third Reading vote, an exceptionally high turnout for a Private Member's Bill, signalling the seriousness of the issue. With a majority of 23, the Bill now advances to the House of Lords, but not without questions over the opposition's next moves and whether the unelected chamber will respect the will of the Commons, or obstruct the Bill's path? This historic moment wasn't achieved by debate alone. It was the product of a quiet but coordinated effort to protect parliamentary time and avoid the procedural ambushes that often beset Private Members' Bills. Other backbench sponsors of Private Members Bills temporarily stood aside to give the assisted dying bill a clear route through, critics refrained from procedural sabotage, and the Speaker and his deputies helped shape a timetable, ensuring MPs knew when decisions would be made.Now the focus turns to the Lords, where the Bill may face its toughest challenges yet. Will Peers accept that the principle of assisted dying has been established by the elected House, and limit themselves to scrutiny and amendment of the details? Or could opponents attempt to delay or even derail the Bill entirely? We explore the possible scenarios and the constitutional, political, and procedural stakes in each case.We also look at how the extensive scrutiny of the assisted dying Bill contrasts sharply with the swift and limited debate on abortion decriminalisation earlier this week – an issue settled via a backbench amendment to the Police and Crime Bill that was debated for just 45 minutes. Finally, we consider what this might mean for the bigger picture. If this Bill is indeed the most far-reaching social reform since the 1967 Abortion Act, might it be the harbinger of a new wave of legislation promoting further social change?____

In this episode, we return to the Commons Chamber for day two of the Report Stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — the Private Member's Bill proposing to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – and another set of amendments, new clauses and votes. For the first time the supporters of the Bill lost a vote, on a new clause banning medical practitioners from raising the option of an assisted death with under-18s.__________Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.__________ So, what does this mean for the Bill's chances? With day three of Report Stage now scheduled for Friday, 20 June, Parliament Matters' resident procedural expert Paul Evans joins Ruth and Mark to unpack what's happened so far — and what might be coming next. Is parliamentary support beginning to waver?They also look ahead to the Third Reading debate, and the quirky (and very real) parliamentary rituals that would follow if the Bill passes — involving a green ferret and some Norman French.Plus, MPs John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn complain after facing investigation for joining a pro-Palestinian demonstration. They claim the police said that MPs should be held to a higher legal standard than ordinary citizens – raising troubling constitutional questions. Could this be a case of using the law to intimidate parliamentarians? If so, what can and should be done?__________

Another big Government announcement – and another row in the Commons row about why it wasn't made to MPs first. We look at why ministers keep breaking their own Ministerial Code by choosing to make important announcements to the media instead of in the Chamber – and wonder whether, in a shifting media landscape, they might be less likely to muddle their message if they returned to delivering statements on major issues like their Strategic Defence Review from the Despatch Box.Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. Also in this episode: The Lords vs the Tech Lords: the Data Use and Access Bill has become the focus of a prolonged tug-of-war between the House of Lords and the Commons. At the heart of the dispute is whether tech companies should be allowed to use content to train artificial intelligence systems without compensating the original creators. Peers in the Lords have repeatedly amended the bill to protect creators copyright by requiring payment and safeguards, only for the Government to reject those changes in the Commons. As the Lords look set to concede, Ruth and Mark explore what this clash reveals about the limits of the upper chamber's influence — and the growing political weight of Big Tech. Critics claim the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill hasn't had enough scrutiny. Armed with figures comparing the times spent debating other legislation, Ruth and Mark reject the claim that the Bill has been under-debated compared to other legislation. The problem, they argue, is that Westminster's law-making processes are generally ineffective and badly in need of an upgrade. A Speaker's Conference is digging into how to improve security for MPs and candidates. Ninety six percent of MPs say they have personally experienced threatening behaviour during their time in office. But tackling political intimidation is anything but straightforward. Ruth and Mark unpack the Conference's interim findings and recommendations — and explore where its spotlight will fall next._____

You wait ages for a post-Brexit trade deal – and then three show up at once. With the Government unveiling new agreements with India, the US and the EU, we explore why Parliament has so little influence over these major international agreements. Liam Byrne MP, a former Labour Minister and current chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee argues that this needs to change.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___ According to Byrne, Parliament should make its voice heard much earlier in the process – before negotiations even begin. He wants a greater role for select committees to examine the details of deals as they develop and insists that MPs must be given the chance for a meaningful debate before any final agreement is approved. Without these changes, Parliament risks being reduced to little more than a rubber stamp. Meanwhile, a call to find 10% in savings from the House of Commons budget over the next three years – reportedly around £54 million - raises pressing questions. Could cost-cutting measures strip away the very support systems that allow MPs to scrutinise laws and hold the Government to account? And as proposals circulate for “call lists” to tell MPs when they'll be able to speak in debates, Ruth and Mark ask: could this mechanised approach undermine the spontaneity—and the substance—of Commons exchanges? And farewell to Sir Roy Stone, who for 20 years was the lynchpin of Commons business, as Private Secretary to a succession of Chief Whips. Following his death earlier this month, we reflect on the legacy of the man who embodied the fabled “Usual Channels” — the behind-the-scenes negotiations that keep the legislative and scrutiny work of the House of Commons on track. Respected across party lines, he was the subject of a rare tribute session in the Commons, and Ruth and Mark discuss why he commanded such respect from hard-bitten Whips and Ministers.

Is Kim Leadbeater's Assisted Dying Bill now "over the hump?" The Bill's supporters got it though its first day of Report Stage consideration in the House of Commons unscathed, with comfortable majorities in every vote. So, with debate on the most contentious set of amendments disposed of, will it now coast through its remaining scrutiny days in the Commons? Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS Ruth and Mark, joined by procedural guru and former Commons Clerk Paul Evans, break down the tactical landscape and recap how the debate unfolded. They alsoassess the Speaker's pivotal decisions that shaped the debate – awarding points for both artistic impression and technical merit. With the bill set to return to the Commons to complete Report Stage on the next Private Members Bill Friday, on 13 June, they suggest that the biggest remaining obstacle is the next "in principle" vote, at the end of the Third Reading debate. _______

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) – not a select committee, but a group of senior MPs and Peers appointed by the PM – has a “canary in the coalmine” function, to keep an eye on the security and intelligence services and reassure Westminster that all is well. But last week the canary emitted a loud squawk. The ISC raised concerns about its secretariat being under-funded and too tightly controlled by the Cabinet Office – issues that could hinder its independence and effectiveness. Ruth and Mark spoke with the Chair of the ISC – former Labour Defence Minister Kevan Jones, now Lord Beamish – about his efforts to ensure robust, interference-free oversight of Britain's spooks, and the growing threats facing the UK today. And then there's the mystery of the missing Ombudsman: why has it taken so long for a new Ombudsman to be appointed to investigate maladministration by Government and the NHS? Veteran Westminster-watcher, journalist David Hencke, untangles the chain of events which culminated in the recent pre-appointment hearing of nominee Paula Sussex before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. We also tackle listeners' latest questions on a backbench MP's battle to get a debate on the obscure Royal Albert Hall Bill, whether the next Speaker of the Commons has to be a man, and why MPs don't use spare time in the House of Commons Chamber more productively.___ Remember to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. In this latest episode of our special mini-podcast series, we sit down with Kim Leadbeater MP, sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as the legislation reaches a critical juncture. With Report Stage in the House of Commons now set for Friday 16 May, Leadbeater explains why she postponed it from its original April date, emphasising the importance of giving MPs time to digest significant changes made during Committee Stage. For a Bill dealing with such a complex and sensitive issue, she says, getting it right matters more than moving quickly.Our conversation explores the procedural hurdles facing Private Members' Bills – especially at Report Stage, where many stumble. Leadbeater outlines some of the key amendments she plans to table, including stronger conscience protections for healthcare professionals, a ban on advertising, and provisions to ensure the legislation is workable and legally sound. One of the most debated issues is whether hospices and similar institutions should be allowed to opt out of assisted dying requests. While critics want clearer rules in the Bill, Leadbeater argues for flexibility – preferring to let institutions make their own decisions, with the potential for the system to evolve over time.Concerns have been raised by some MPs about whether the Bill is being rushed. Leadbeater insists she's proceeding step by step and not looking too far ahead. Still, Ruth and Mark point out that the Government's own Impact Assessment suggests an extended Session into the Autumn — likely giving the Bill more breathing room. Beyond the legislative detail, Leadbeater reflects on the emotional toll of championing this Bill. She's endured online abuse and misinformation but is driven by the moving stories of people who've witnessed loved ones suffer or felt compelled to seek end-of-life options abroad. As the 16 May debate approaches, Leadbeater stresses how vital it is for supportive MPs to attend and vote — both to ensure key amendments are discussed and to maintain public confidence in Parliament's handling of the Bill. _____ Remember to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

As calls grow louder for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, we talk with Parliament's in-house human rights watchdog: Lord Alton of Liverpool, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.A former Liberal MP who now serves as a crossbench peer, Lord Alton was an unexpected choice to lead the Committee – traditionally chaired by a member of the House of Commons, and usually by a party politician. But his tireless advocacy on human rights around the world, especially his campaigning against China's treatment of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, has earned him widespread respect across the political spectrum and many cross-party alliesIn a wide-ranging conversation, Lord Alton talks about his ongoing push for a “Hillsborough Law” to impose a duty of candour on public officials involved in future disasters, to prevent cover-ups. He also discusses his Committee's work on the new Mental Health Bill, and his efforts to ensure the government's flagship green energy initiative, Great British Energy, does not spend public money on equipment like solar panels that are made with forced labour. Meanwhile, it's been all quiet on the assisted dying bill front at Westminster this week, but not in the Scottish Parliament. Ruth and Mark discuss how the approach to a Members Bill on assisted dying in Edinburgh compares favourably to the handling of Kim Leadbeater's Private Members Bill at Westminster. Plus, the appointment of a new Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod brings back memories for Mark of how this key House of Lords official has found themselves caught up at the centre of political controversies in the recent past.--------Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. �� Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D'Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Having cleared detailed scrutiny in a Public Bill Committee, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill faces its next crucial test when it returns to the House of Commons for Report Stage on 16 May.This stage is often where Private Members' Bills falter. Will opponents of Kim Leadbeater's proposals to legalise assisted dying win enough support to amend the Bill? Can supporters of the Bill fend off attempts to change it? And could the Bill be lost altogether, because of the procedural hurdles that still stand in its way? In this edition of Parliament Matters, our resident procedural expert Paul Evans joins Ruth and Mark to unravel the intricate mysteries of Report Stage procedure. Drawing on his experience as a former senior Commons Clerk, Paul highlights the hidden dangers posed not only by opposition to the assisted dying bill but also by a seemingly unrelated Private Members' Bill aimed at regulating the importation of ferrets. He also explains how amendments are selected and grouped for debate, how the debate itself is structured, and how opponents of the assisted dying bill might exploit parliamentary rules in an attempt to thwart its progress.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.After an extraordinary Saturday recall of Parliament to rush through emergency legislation aimed at saving the steel industry, Ruth and Mark reflect on how scrutiny of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill was sacrificed for speed. No amendments were debated—let alone voted on—even though the Bill handed sweeping new powers to Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.Meanwhile, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is under growing pressure. Critics accuse him of shielding Sir Keir Starmer by refusing to call outspoken backbenchers like Diane Abbott and Rosie Duffield during Prime Minister's Questions—even when they were central to the exchanges between the party leaders. Channelling Bond villain Auric Goldfinger, Mark quips that the first time may have been happenstance, the second coincidence, but a third could look suspiciously like enemy action.Still, the Speaker showed little reaction when Kemi Badenoch claimed the Prime Minister “didn't have the balls” to confront trans activists—remarks that would likely have earned an ordinary MP a swift rebuke. Will the Leader of the Opposition be quietly warned to mind her language?And as MPs and Peers rally to block an address to Parliament by President Trump during his upcoming second State Visit, Ruth and Mark ask: who actually decides which foreign leaders can speak to MPs and Peers—and where? While there are doubts over whether Trump even wants to address Parliament, they argue that this is a moment for Westminster to show some solidarity with Congress._______Don't forget to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn', we talk with Simon Hart, former Conservative Chief Whip during Rishi Sunak's Premiership. Hart opens up about his time in one of Westminster's most demanding and discreet roles, chronicled in his new book, ‘Ungovernable: The Political Diaries of a Chief Whip'. From late night phone calls about MPs stuck in compromising situations to managing high-stakes parliamentary votes, Hart gives a candid account of navigating one of the most turbulent chapters in British politics. He lifts the lid on the daily challenges of keeping a restless party in line while balancing scandals, shifting alliances, and the relentless demands of government business.Hart also takes us behind the scenes of the Whips' Office – a place often shrouded in secrecy. Beyond the headlines and power plays, he gives us a rare glimpse into the day-to-day work of the Whips – part disciplinarian, part therapist – shedding light on their lesser-known pastoral and administrative responsibilities, from safeguarding MPs' well-being to orchestrating the daily rhythms of Parliament.Reflecting on his time in office, Hart shares insights into what makes a good MP and why so many arrive in Westminster unprepared for the job and the reality of life as a parliamentarian or minister. He argues that political parties must do more to identify and nurture talent early, to raise the standard of future leadership across the board.

The Government has published “emergency legislation” — the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill — to block new guidelines coming into effect that single out differential treatment of ethnic minority offenders when ordering pre-sentencing reports. These reports would then be used by judges to make decisions on sentencing. Critics are calling it a case of “two-tier justice.” The Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood says there's “insufficient democratic oversight” of how the Sentencing Council operates. In this episode, Ruth and Mark examine Parliament's limited ability to scrutinise Sentencing Council guidelines — why that's the case, how it could have been different, and why successive governments have failed to address it. They trace the issue back to a 2009 “Christmas Tree” law that had so many policy baubles it was difficult to scrutinise, an enduring trend of outsourcing decision-making to arms-length bodies, and a culture of “perma-crisis” that has defined UK politics for over 15 years. Also in this episode: Chancellor Rachel Reeves' big moment before the Treasury Committee is eclipsed by President Trump's shock international tariff announcement. At the Transport Committee, Heathrow's Chief Executive issues a full apology for the massive flight disruption caused by a power station fire that brought the Airport to a halt. Meanwhile, MPs with disabilities and health conditions testify before the Commons Modernisation Committee about the challenges they face navigating Westminster - the building and the procedures. Plus: Did Hertfordshire Police cross a constitutional line by warning former Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden MP not to look into the arrest of two of his constituents over “disparaging comments” they made in their child's school WhatsApp group? Ruth and Mark consider how other cases involving vexatious constituents have been handled by MPs and how the issues engage parliamentary privilege. After Cory Booker's 25-hour speech in the US Senate, could a filibuster ever happen in Westminster? (Spoiler: absolutely not.) And should MPs be lobbying foreign governments to build airports when they oppose them here in the UK?

Political storm clouds are gathering over Chancellor Rachel Reeves' Spring Statement. What does it mean for Parliament, party discipline and the Government's economic credibility. We speak to Dr Marie Tidball MP about her first months in Westminster - and the accessibility challenges facing disabled MPs. Plus, why did Peers get a vote on postponing local elections, but MPs didn't?With MPs facing a bleak economic outlook, proposed welfare cuts, and local elections on the horizon, how long can Ministers hold the line? Ruth and Mark dissect signs of unrest on Labour's backbenches, with a growing number of voices warning against what they see as a return to “austerity 2.0.” We explore the growing calls for a shift in economic strategy — from a wealth tax to rethinking the triple lock — and the dangers for Reeves if her current path begins to look like a “doom loop”. Also this week, Dr Marie Tidball MP joins us to share her first-hand experiences as a newly elected Labour MP (for Penistone and Stocksbridge) — and the accessibility hurdles facing disabled parliamentarians in Westminster's historic (and often inaccessible) corridors of power. She tells us about the challenges of navigating the place of Westminster's physical and procedural barriers. We also explore why the unelected House of Lords got a vote on the Goverment's plans to postpone some local elections — but MPs didn't? It's all to do with delegated legislation! And we answer listener's questions. Is anonymous evidence to Select Committees common?What's behind the Government's new ‘business motion' to control time in the House of Lords Chamber on Thursdays, until the end of the Session?And which podcasts do Mark and Ruth listen to?

In today's podcast we return to the vitally important, hugely complicated and normally highly emotive subject of planning reform.And help is (potentially) at hand in the form of the long awaited Planning and Infrastructure Bill which was published last week and heralded by government as providing “transformative reforms to get Britain building, tackle blockers and unleash billions in economic growth”.So who better to bring back to the Infrastructure Podcast to explain and chew over this potential new dawn of planning than Robbie Owen, infrastructure planning guru and Partner at law firm Pinsent Masons.The UK's planning system has long been a battleground between the need for economic growth and the challenges of bureaucracy, local opposition, and environmental concerns. As the government pushes forward with ambitious targets—building 1.5 million homes, upgrading transport networks, and accelerating clean energy projects—the speed at which infrastructure is planned and delivered has never been more critical.Yet, delays remain a persistent problem. As we know, major projects can take years to navigate the approvals process, with judicial reviews and lengthy consultations slowing progress. The proposed legislation includes changes to infrastructure planning, environmental impact assessments, and compulsory purchase powers  … and, as discussed on the podcast before Christmas, limits on the role of Judicial Reviews.But will these changes truly unlock growth, or are deeper structural issues being overlooked? And how can the planning system ensure that infrastructure projects not only proceed faster but also deliver better outcomes for communities and the environment? ResourcesThe Planning and Infrastructure BillThe Banner ReviewNational Infrastructure Planning AssociationNational Infrastructure CommissionPinsent MasonsAbout NISTAPodcast with Robbie Owen and the Hansard Society on Parliament's planning role.Episode 93 of The Infrastructure Podcast with Robbie Owen on the Banner Review

With the return of the bill on assisted dying next week we're unapologetically getting into the weeds of Parliamentary procedure for this episode, and looking at whether a Private Members Bill from a backbench MP is really the best way of passing such potentially important legislation. Two doyens of PMBs in UK policy circles; Dr Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University in London, and Dr Ruth Fox, director at the Hansard Society, help shine a light on a little understood, but sometimes hugely important, part of our legislative system, while Liberal Democrat MP Roz Savage, who has her own backbench bill, explains what it's like going through the process to host Alain Tolhurst. We also hear from two former Conservative MPs; Virginia Crosbie and Dean Russell, who together managed to get a long-awaited bill securing fairer tips for hospitality staff onto the statute book last year, about how they did it. To sign up for our newsletters click here Presented by Alain Tolhurst, produced by Nick Hilton and edited by Ewan Cameron for Podot

Following the chaotic scenes in Parliament on Wednesday Sonia Sodha of The Observer analyses the political week. Dr Ruth Fox of The Hansard Society explains why an opposition day debate about Gaza, and calls for a ceasefire, descended in to bitter arguments about parliamentary procedure. John Nicolson of the SNP discusses why his party thinks the Commons Speaker should resign over the issue. And, to reflect on the wider crisis, Sonia speaks to former Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood and the Chair of the International Development Select Committee, Sarah Champion, who has just returned from a trip to the Egypt-Gaza border. On Monday the Business Secretary, Kemi Badenoch, gave a robust response to claims made by the former Chairman of the Post Office who she had previously sacked over the Horizon scandal. Sonia speaks to two MPs who were in the chamber for that statement: Conservative Conor Burns and Labour's Kevan Jones, who has campaigned for many years on behalf of wrongly convicted sub-postmasters. And, after Keir Starmer's chief of staff suggested Labour could make use of citizens' assemblies to decide on contentious issues, Sonia brings together Louise Caldwell, who took part in the Irish citizens' assembly on abortion, and Joe Twyman of Deltapoll, who has helped run such assemblies in the past.