Motions to adjourn are thus technical devices to allow for a discussion and debate around an issue to occur, without the actual issue in question normally being put to a vote.

Broadly, an adjournment debate can be on any subject. Back-bench MPs seek adjournment debates in order to raise specific issues and particular concerns with Ministers on the floor of the House. The MP initiating the debate is selected by ballot.

At least one adjournment debate a day takes place – after the Moment of Interruption. It normally lasts for 30 minutes (with time split between the initiator and the Minister responding) after which the House adjourns.

When debates on a motion for the adjournment take place other than after the Moment of Interruption, the order of speakers is similar to that for a debate on a substantive motion. The adjournment motion is said to lapse after the time allowed for the debate has expired, although very rarely a vote may be taken. The House then moves onto the next business, which may be another adjournment debate.

In Westminster Hall, all debates are on such a motion.

The post Adjournment Debates appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

All Party Groups provide an opportunity for parliamentarians to engage with individuals and organisations outside Parliament who share an interest in the subject matter of their Group.

They are not however official parliamentary bodies, and unlike Select Committees, such groups have to avoid preventing themselves as such.

In January 2021, there were All Party Groups dedicated to 130 different countries and territories across the world, ranging from Norfolk Island to Nepal.

In January 2021, there were a further 566 All Party Groups dedicated to different subject areas, ranging from cycling to zoos.

All Party Groups are registered and regulated by House of Commons Authorities.

There is a formal Register of All Party Groups available on the House of Commons website.  It lists the officers and Members of every group.

The post All Party Groups appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland describes itself as a non-sectarian party which advocates co-operation between nationalist and unionist communities. The Party is aligned with the Liberal Democrats and is currently led by Naomi Long.

The Alliance Party currently has one Member of Parliament at Westminster , Stephen Farry.

It also has one seat within the Northern Ireland Executive, with the party’s leader, Naomi Long, being the Executive’s current Justice minister.

The Alliance Party currently has 17 seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly.  It increased its representation by some 9 seats in the 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly elections polling 13.5% of the vote (up 4.5%).

The Party possesses over 51 Alliance councillors across Northern Ireland, with its 10 councillors in Belfast holding the balance of power on the City Council.

The Alliance Party has become the third largest Party in Northern Ireland.

Breakthrough of the Alliance Party

In the early part of the Twenty First Century, the Alliance Party’s share of vote remained relatively static.

However during the course of 2019, there was an Alliance surge as support for the party doubled to 16% of the popular vote. In the December 2019 General Election, the Alliance Party gained a seat in the House of Commons with Stephen Farry gaining North Down with a vote share of 45%.

In the 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly elections the allicance party became the third largest party in the assembly more than doubling its representation from 8 to 17.

Thanks to this breakthrough, the Alliance Party has recently been able to shrug off its small party status. It has now become Northern Ireland’s third largest political party.

In line with the party’s outlook, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland polls well amongst voters who define themselves as neither unionist nor nationalist. In 2019, supporters of the Alliance Party identified as 31% British, 33% Irish, and 26% Northern Irish.

The Alliance Party polls well amongst graduate voters. The proportion of Alliance Party voters who are graduates (31%) is double that found among supporters of the Democratic Unionst Party and Sinn Féin.

Early History

The Alliance Party has been involved in Northern Irish politics since it was founded in 1970. Although the Alliance Party originally positioned itself as a moderate and non-sectarian unionist party, it has since moved to a position of policy neutrality on the issue of a United Ireland.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Party’s then Leader, John Alderdice, was a well known figure within Northern Irish politics. When the Northern Ireland Assembly was created in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement, the now Lord Alderdice, became the first Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly,

In the 2010 General Election, the Alliance Party made headlines when the Party’s Leader, Naomi Long, ousted the rival Democratic Unionist Party Leader, Peter Robinson, from his Belfast East seat with a 22.6% swing. However, the DUP won back the East Belfast seat in the 2015 election.

Alliance Party Beliefs

On its website, the Alliance Party describes its aim as being to heal the divisions in Northern Irish society. It states how the party believes in ‘a shared society, free from intimidation, discrimination and fear, where everyone is safe, can play their part and is treated fairly and with respect’.

The Alliance Party is opposed to the Northern Ireland power sharing executive on the grounds that it believes the people of Northern Ireland should be able to elect their own Executive and decide their own system of government without systems imposed on them by Westminster.

The Alliance Party claims to be neither unionist nor nationalist and asserts its neutrality in the debate about Northern Ireland’s constitutional status. Like the Lib Dems, the Alliance Party strongly opposed the UK’s exit from the European Union.

At the 2019 General Election, the party was committed to increasing spending on health and education, it was in favour of integrated education in Northern Ireland, and committed to reducing the voting age to 16.

Contacts

Website: https://www.allianceparty.org/
Twitter: @AllianceParty

The post Alliance Party of Northern Ireland appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Angela Rayner is the 43 year old deputy leader of the Labour Party and Shadow First Secretary of State.  She would likely become deputy prime minister in any future Labour government.

Angela Rayner has a prominent tattoo of a Labour red rose on the back of her right leg, just above her ankle.

The red rose was introduced as the Labour Party logo under the leadership of Neil Kinnock in 1986.

The use of the Red Rose by the Labour Party was said to have been the idea of Peter Mandelson, who would go on to become a cabinet minister and key figure in the New Labour years under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Mr Mandelson was the director of communications under Kinnock at the time.  The image was created by designer Michael Wolff.

Ask whether her tattoo is a tribute to New Labour’s red rose in an interview with The Times, Angela Rayner explained that, “My political party is like my family. I came from a dysfunctional home, so the Labour Party was a place where I felt nurtured and could be who I wanted to be.”

Angela Rayner was born in Stockport on 28 March 1980.  Before becoming a Labour MP, Rayner was a Trade Union officer with UNISON and a care worker in Greater Manchester.

In 2017, Ms Rayner announced that she had become a grandmother, at the comparatively young age of 37, doing so with the hashtag #Grangela.  Rayner is 17 years younger than Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer.  However she is 1 year older than current prime minister, Rishi Sunak.

Angela Rayner is far from the only public figure to have a tattoo.  David Cameron’s wife, Samantha Cameron, also had a tattoo on her ankle. It has also been rumoured that Queen Victoria had a tattoo of a tiger and a python on her arm.

The post Angela Rayner’s Tattoo – All you need to know appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

While AI stands for Artificial Intelligence, many experts argue this label is misleading as these programmes don’t have their own conscious ‘intelligence’. Instead, these programmes are able to rapidly develop and adapt using machine learning, which allows computers to make decisions and predictions without being directly programmed to do so. The process uses algorithms, deep learning, and a neural network to build models that can be applied to a whole host of different purposes, including eloquent and informative chatbots (also called large language models); generating detailed and accurate images from text prompts; and copying celebrities’ voices to say whatever the user wishes.

Recently, this machine learning has allowed AI technology to become an immensely powerful tool that has surprised users by how accurate and detailed it can be. The chatbot ‘Chat GPT’ reached over 100 million users just two months after launching, and companies across the globe are working at break-neck speed to implement AI programmes into their businesses and develop the technology even further.

After the AI summit, Rishi Sunak has a potential legacy to cite — and a new dividing line with Labour

How could AI impact politics?

Currently, AI’s impact on politics remains limited as tech companies place strict regulations on what their AI is allowed to produce, and it can’t be anything too political. While many politicians agree that these regulations should be put in place, Eric Wilson, managing partner at Startup Caucus, an incubator for Republican campaign tech, would like to see tech plans loosen these restriction, at least when it comes to properly registered campaigns and committees.

The biggest fear among AI developers and politicians when it comes to AI’s use in politics is that it could be used to create deception and help spread misinformation – undermining the democratic process. There is particular concern over the use of ‘deepfakes’ which is when AI is used to make it appear as if someone is saying or doing something they aren’t.

Deepfakes are already spreading across the internet, in 2018 a Belgian political party released a deepfake video of Donald Trump giving a speech calling on Belgium to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. As AI advances, what is real and what is fake will become harder to distinguish, making it easier for politicians to spread convincing misinformation and undermine trust.

However, Wilson remains sanguine about the potential for AI in politics, noting that deepfakes are yet to be used by any legitimate political actor, and the best way for politicians to fight against misinformation spread by an AI model is to use other AI tools to help spot fakes.

Whatever the future regulations on AI will be, there is little doubt that its role in politics will continue to increase. In June 2023, Tony Blair delivered a speech to politicians where he remarked that AI will “change everything” and the future of politics will be “about understanding [AI] and dealing with it”.

The following month, MIT Technology Review released a policy report on testable milestones to measure the impact of AI on politics. The milestones range from having legislation drafted or testimony submitted under the name of AI (which they believe is not far from happening) to AI achieving a coordinated policy outcome across multiple jurisdictions.

What do the developments in AI mean for the UK and what is the current policy?

AI’s power and usefulness is undeniable, something politicians and influential figures are quick to acknowledge. Bill Gates called artificial intelligence  the most important tech advancement in decades and is one of the most optimistic proponents of the technology.

Mr Gates regularly talks about how an AI system can be vital in improving education for the poorest; improving healthcare and diagnoses; improving business productivity; and improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of public services.

For the UK in particular, artificial intelligence provides an opportunity to become a global leader in technology, providing further jobs, wealth, and geopolitical influence. This is because the UK has already invested significantly in the sector, is home to some of the leading AI startups, and has a large talent pool. According to Tortoise Media’s Global AI Index, the UK ranks 4^th when it comes to their level of investment, innovation and implementation of artificial intelligence – only behind the US, China and Singapore. According to government data, AI industries already employ over 50,000 in the UK and generate £3.7 billion for the economy.

Global representatives gather for Sunak’s AI summit with threat of human extinction ‘potentially on the table’

Yet leaving the power of AI completely unregulated is clearly dangerous and has already led to job losses and an increase in misinformation. Further risks to privacy, human rights and fairness are also of great concern as the technology advances. In March 2023, an open letter was signed by tech leaders like Steve Wozniak and Elon Musk calling for a six-month halt in the development of advanced AI until we have robust governance systems.

As a result of the potential risks and benefits ofAI being both immense and uncertain, the government has yet to outline extensive and clear regulations on the technology. While the EU is close to passing an AI Act which would place significant regulation on development and use of the programmes, the UK is keen to be seen as far more open to AI innovation.

To help with this, the government launched the AI Foundation Model Taskforce in June 2023. The taskforce will be chaired by the tech entrepreneur Ian Hogarth and will be given £100 million in funding; its mission is to lead AI safety research and drive forward opportunities.

The taskforce will work within the guidance set out on the government’s white paper on artificial intelligence  from March 2023. The paper is designed to provide some protections on the dangers of AI by giving guidance on how to drive safe and responsible innovation. The white paper outlines that the government has no intention of creating a separate AI regulator, but will empower existing ones to manage the risks of the technology being used in the sectors.

The white paper also outlines the government’s five key principles when it comes to its AI policy: safety, transparency, fairness, accountability, and contestability.

In the autumn of 2023 the UK government hosted a global conference on artificial intelligence at Bletchley Park with the aim of achieving a global framework on the safety of AI. It was part of Rishi Sunak’s effort to win geopolitical influence as AI becomes increasingly powerful by positioning the UK as the natural hub for efforts to regulate the industry on a global scale.

What are the Conservatives’ views on AI?

Although Mr Sunak does acknowledge the “existential risks” posed by AI (which is why he has called for an international summit), he believes the development of AI is crucial in creating wealth and geopolitical influence to help revive the Conservative’s chances of winning the next general election. Conservative governments have already invested £2.3 billion into AI since 2014 and a new 10-year plan was launched in 2021 to “make the UK a global AI superpower”.

As a result, Mr Sunak is keen to be seen as pro-innovation and pro-AI. He regularly hosts leaders from the tech world including Bill Gates and Sam Altman as well as delivering a speech at London’s Tech Week in June 2023.

In a press conference at the close of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park in November 2023, Sunak acknowledged that “binding” rules are likely to be needed for the technology

However, he clarified that now is not the time to move quickly with legislation. The Bletchley Park agreement – which recognises that governments and companies have a role to play in ensuring external vetting of AI – serves as an example of what the government should be doing, he insisted.

Rishi Sunak declares achievements of AI summit ‘will tip the balance in favour of humanity’

Some Conservative MPs are more concerned by the risks posed by artificial intelligence. In May 2023, former Justice secretary Robert Buckland warned that the government needs to implement more regulation to mitigate the potential risks to justice and human rights posed by AI.

What are Labour’s views on AI?

Like the Conservatives, Labour remains optimistic about AI’s potential but would ultimately go about regulating it in a different way. Keir Starmer has also spoken about the benefits of AI but made it clear that if it’s not managed properly, It could lead to job losses mirroring those from the deindustrialisation of the 1980s.

Peter Kyle MP, shadow technology secretary, has said Labour would urgently introduce binding requirements for companies developing powerful artificial intelligence.

Labour has promised to force firms to report before they train models over a certain capability threshold and to carry out safety tests strengthened by independent oversight if it wins the next election.

Kyle said: “AI has the potential to transform the world and deliver life-changing benefits for working people. From delivering earlier cancer diagnosis, to relieving traffic congestion, AI can be a force for good.

“But to secure these benefits we must get on top of the risks and build public trust. It is not good enough for our ‘inaction man’ Prime Minister to say he will not rush to take action, having told the public that there are national security risks which could end our way of life.”

Lucy Powell, the former Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has a slightly different vision for AI and according to a Politico report from July 2023, worked to soften Labour’s stance against big tech, but argued for more stringent AI regulation to protect workers’ rights.

Quotes

“The development of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other. Entire industries will reorient around it. Businesses will distinguish themselves by how well they use it.” Bill Gates, March 2023

“Advanced artificial intelligence  could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control.” Open letter signed by tech experts including Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak

“AI is one of this Government’s five technologies of tomorrow—bringing stronger growth, better jobs, and bold new discoveries. As a general purpose technology, AI is already delivering wide social and economic benefits, from medical advances to the mitigation of climate change.” Michelle Donelan,The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

“Let us seize this opportunity of modernisation and reform, remembering this is about people and our country. We can put the technology revolution at the heart of our political agenda, our vision for a modern, reformed Britain. A strong, successful and sustainable economy. A technology revolution that works in the interests of the British people. A Britain that is upgraded so that it works once again.” Darren Jones, Labour MP

“It seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers… They would be able to converse with each other to sharpen their wits. At some stage therefore, we should have to expect the machines to take control.” Alan Turing, founder of the computer.

Rishi Sunak warns of ‘new dangers and new fears’ to come with AI — PM’s speech as it happened

The post Artificial Intelligence Policy appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Currently, 26 Bishops from the Church of England have an automatic right to sit in the Upper Chamber of the British Parliament (‘the Lords Spiritual’).

The Church of England fiercely defends the continuing presence of its Bishops within the House of Lords.

Critics on the other hand, comment that this is potentially the most anachronistic element of the British constitution. Today the United Kingdom is the only Western democracy that gives religious representatives the automatic right to sit in the legislature.

Indeed, there are just three countries in the world where “clerics” remain involved in law making: the Vatican, Iran, and the UK.

What do House of Lords Bishops Do?

At the start of each day’s sitting in the House of Lords, one of the Bishops reads out a prayer in the Chamber.  This ensures that at least one Bishop attends the House of Lords on every day that it sits.

Prayer reading aside, the Church of England’s Bishops then perform the same role as all other Members of the House of Lords.  They scrutinize legislation, ask questions, make speeches, and crucially, vote.

Within the House of Lords, the Bishops have been likened to operating as a political party. They are not the same as the independent cross benchers. Just like a party political group in the House of Commons, the Lords Spiritual sit in their own defined position, as one block to the right of the throne. Individual Bishops are each allocated to cover and lead on particular policy area for the Church of England.

The Bishops have what they call their own Convenor.  He or she fulfils a role somewhat equivalent to that of a political party’s Chief Whip,  The main purpose of the Convenor is to represent the Bishops in their discussions with the other political parties, and to organise the Bishops within Parliament. The Bishop’s Convenor is appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in 2021 the post was held by the Bishop of Birmingham.

Which Bishops sit in the House of Lords?

The 26 most senior Bishops in the Church of England are the ones that take up the Church of England’s seats in the House of Lords.

Apart from the two Archbishops (of Canterbury and of York) and the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester, the seniority of Bishops is measured in the number of years they have held office as a Bishop within the Church.

If a Bishop who sits in the House changes his title, he or she retain the right to sit in the House of Lords, as that right is conferred on the individual and not on the bishopric itself. Lords Spiritual are though required to retire from the House of Lords at the age of 70.

Normally, Archbishops are given a life peerage on retirement. There is though no automatic right to a life peerage on retirement for any other Lord Spiritual.

The average attendance rate of the Lords Spiritual (ie: the 26 Bishops who sit in the House of Lords) is approximately one third of the rate of the average Peer within the Upper Chamber. This is said to be a reflection of the fact that Bishops also have responsibilities within the General Synod and across the diocese in which they practice and serve.

A study of the voting behavior of the Bishops within the House of Lords over a sustained period of time indicates that they appear careful not to rile the Government of the day. Although they do not always vote together as one totally solid block, past analysis of the voting behavior of the Bishops has shown them to vote, both for and against the government, in almost equal measure.

Should the Church of England’s Bishops continue to sit in a modern Parliament?

Separate to the wider case that is made for House of Lords reform, those opposed to the automatic presence of a Bishop within the United Kingdom Parliament, typically make three points.

Firstly, it is argued that providing one particular religious group (the Church of England) with such a preferential and automatic status in the country’s legislature, is totally inappropriate in a society which is now so multi-faith.

According to the polling group, Com Res, in 2017 just 6% of the population were practicising Christians.  The Church of England’s regular weekly attendance is now less than one million (1.5% of the population).   This is not significantly advanced from those attending weekly mass in the Catholic Church or Muslim prayers, and yet these other faith groups lack any such automatic representation. For the Church of England’s Bishops to be afforded their preferential status is cast as being at odds both with modern Britain, and the affirmation of a plural society.

Secondly those coming from a non faith perspective, argue that it is actually totally inappropriate for any faith group to be afforded a role in the legislature. Aside from more general concerns about the formal mixing of politics and religion, it is noted how religion as a whole is no longer the dominant force in everyday life.  The 2018 British Social Attitudes Survey showed how the majority of the UK population (52%) defined themselves as non religious.

Thirdly, those from both a multi-faith and non religious perspective, take issue with the Church of England’s claim that it is uniquely qualified to provide ethical and spiritual insights on behalf of the general population.  Not least given the various religious and non religious viewpoints now at play. Humanists UK have branded the Church of England’s claim as both ‘factually incorrect’ and ‘offensive’, asserting that, ‘people from many walks of life, and from many religions and none, are at least equally qualified if not more so – for example, moral philosophers and experts in medical ethics’.

The History of the Bishops in the House of Lords

Those arguing that the Church of England’s 26 Bishops should retain their role in the Upper Chamber, point to the fact that the Church of England is the ‘Established Church’, and they refer to the historical contribution of the Bishops.

Bishops have been a feature of the House of Lords for over 700 years.

The role of Bishops in the Palace of Westminster dates back to the feudal and medieval days of the 14th Century.  Prior to Henry VIII dissolving the monasteries between 1536 and 1540, the Lords Spiritual (the ‘Bishops’) represented the majority within the House of Lords.

The Bishops were then briefly removed from Parliament in 1642 as a consequence of the Bishop Exclusion Act passed during the midst of the English Civil War. However the Bishops soon returned en-masse after the passing of the 1661 Clergy Act.  Indeed during the eighteenth century there was a block of over 200 Bishops within the House of Lords.

In 1847, the number of Bishops in the House of Lords was cut to 26 as a consequence of the Bishopric of Manchester Act. That reform, some two hundred years ago, came at a time when the Prime Minister was himself sitting in the House of Lords.  This remains the last time that the constitutional position of the Bishops was altered.  Since then, nearly two hundred years have passed, universal suffrage has arrived and the hereditary peerage has been abolished.

In 1985 the Church of England’s Bishops saw off an attempt by the then Conservative MP, Richard Holt, to reduce their numbers to 14. Mr Holt’s plan involved replacing 9 of the Church of England’s Bishops with representatives from other faith groups.

When the House of Lords underwent structural reform in 1999, namely to alter the position of hereditary principle and reduce the size of the Upper Chamber, the Bishops again successfully evaded reform.

The same happened again in 2009, when further reform then saw the Law Lords disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords.

The Church of England claims its Bishops fulfill a vital role in the House of Lords. Richard Chartres, the former Bishop of London, has claimed that the Bishops are “in touch with a great range of opinions and institutions”.

What do the public feel about Bishops in the House of Lords?

If someone is looking for a contested political issue, but one on which there appears to be the strongest public agreement, the case being made for the removal of Bishops from the House of Lords may well be it:

– Just 8% of people believe that Bishops should retain their seats in the House of Lords [Source: YouGov, 2017].

– Religious representatives are the public’s least favoured candidates for appointment to the House of Lords. [You Gov, 2003].

– 62% of Britons say there is “no place in UK politics for religious influence of any kind” [Source – Com Res – 2016]

– 70% of Christians believe it is wrong for Bishops to have reserved places in the House of Lords [Source – ICM Research – 2010]

The post Bishops appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Boris Johnson served as prime minister between the summer of 2019 and September 2022. At the point when he announced he was standing down from office, the website Celebrity Net Worth was suggesting that Mr Johnson had a net wealth of £1.67 million.

If this was the case, Mr Johnson has now more than tripled his net worth in the six months after leaving Downing Street.

Like his colleagues in the House of Commons, Mr Johnson is required by law to report certain financial interests to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, whose office publishes a register of MP’s interests every fortnight.

In March 2023, Mr Johnson’s disclosures in the Register of MPs interests showed his income in the first 6 months after leaving No 10 to have totalled almost £5m.

This is on top of the £84,144 salary that he still receives as a backbench MP.

Boris Johnson’s earnings over this period amounted to over £25,000 per day. Indeed in the first two months of 2023, Mr Johnson on his own, accounted for 85% of the total money earned by all 650 MPs for having a second job.

It was reported in February 2023 that Mr Johnson had agreed to buy a £4m, nine-bedroom house with a moat in Oxfordshire. According to other reports, Boris and Carrie Johnson have also recently purchased a five-bedroom house thought to be worth over £3m in south London.

Where has Boris Johnson been receiving money from?

Speeches
In January 2023, Mr Johnson received a £2.49m advance from the Harry Walker Agency in New York for future speaking engagements. This came after he made more than £1m for four speeches, booked through the agency, between October and December 2022.

The former PM’s speaking engagements have already seen him jet to Lisbon, Mumbai, New Delhi, New York, Pennsylvania, Singapore and Washington DC, to speak to corporate clients. The clients include: investment bank Centerview Partners, the Hindustan Times, law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Portuguese TV channel Televisão Independente, property developer Ballymore Groupand Bloomberg Singapore.

Books
In January 2023, Johnson reported a £510,000 advance from HarperCollins for his memoirs. Given that advances are usually paid in several installments, it is likely that this will be a multi-million pound book deal with more payments yet to come

An earlier £88,000 payment for a book on Shakespeare was paid by Hodder & Stoughton prior to Mr Johnson becoming prime minister and the book has still not appeared. But the newly released figures suggest that Mr Johnson took a further £42,500 advance from Hodder & Stoughton, suggesting work may have resumed.

Office Contributions
Mr Johnson has also received some £1.1m in donations to his office, the vast majority of which came from a £1m donation from Thailand-based businessman Christopher Harborne. Mr Harborne has previously given money to the Conservative Party.

In October 2023, The Office of Boris Johnson Ltd was set up.

What was Boris Johnson’s salary as Prime Minister?

As prime minister, Boris Johnson was entitled to an annual salary of £164,080. The prime minister’s earnings were then made up of £79,936 for his role as Prime Minister, and an additional £84,144 for being an MP. This placed him in the top 1% of earners in the UK.

However with Mr Johnson receiving high profile loan guarantees during his time in office, including one facilitated by Richard Sharp (later Chairman of the BBC) from his millionaire Canadian cousin Sam Blyth, and another relating to the cash for curtains affair, people commented that Mr Johnson had more extensive financial needs.

During his time as a backbench Conservative MP, prior to moving into Downing Street and after his time as Foreign Secretary, records previously showed Boris Johnson to be one of the highest earning MPs. Indeed, the Evening Standard newspaper speculated that Mr Johnson was previously earning some £275,000 from his newspaper column with the Daily Telegraph.

Past financial issues

During his time in Downing Street, several newspapers suggested that Boris Johnson was unhappy with his salary as prime minister. Boris Johnson was recently divorced from his ex wife Marina Wheeler, and reports suggested that the divorce settlement made a notable dent into Boris Johnson’s net worth.

It is was also speculated that Mr Johnson worried about his housekeeping costs while at No 10, and the ongoing financial support required for his children, including those costs connected to the childcare and future schooling of his two younger children from his marriage to Carrie Symonds.

How does Boris Johnson’s net worth compare to other former PMs?

All of Johnson’s recent predecessors as prime minister have been able to command substantial sums for speaking engagements. Indeed the going rate for a lecture by a recent former Prime Minister is said to be in excess of £100,000.

Since leaving office, Theresa May is said to have earned well from a number of such lucrative engagements including £115,000 for her speech to the Ivy League University, Brown, in the United States.

Another former PM, David Cameron, advised a number of international businesses after leaving office — concentrating on innovative technology-driven sectors, including Fin-Tech, Medi-Tech and Artificial Intelligence.

In March 2021, it was revealed that Cameron was employed by Greensill Capital, a firm that has subsequently collapsed. The Common’s Treasury committee later investigated Mr Cameron’s lobbying activities in relation to the company. The collapsed firm paid Mr Cameron a salary of more than $1 million a year, according to reports.

Tony Blair is currently thought to be the highest earning former prime minister. After leaving Downing Street, Mr Blair secured well-paid advisory roles with Zurich Financial Services and JP Morgan Chase. Back in 2014, the former PM insisted that his net worth was less than £20 million. He has previously been fated as the highest earning public speaker in the world.

The approach of Tony Blair contrasts with that of his successor, Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown, who left No 10 in 2010, has said that he “never” kept any of his additional money after leaving office. Speaking to BBC Radio 4′ ‘Today’ programme in 2021, Brown said: “I gave all the money to charity and I’ve always done that, I’ve never taken any money for myself. All I’ve got to live on is the pension, that is a good pension that I’ve got from being an MP”.

Current UK prime minister Rishi Sunak, and his wife, Akshata Murty, have already appeared in the Sunday Times Rich List and are variously reported to have a net worth of £730 million. It is fair to assume that when he leaves office, Mr Sunak won’t need to focus on his future earnings to the same extent as some of his most recent predecessors.

The post Boris Johnson Net Worth appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

By elections are elections that take place between scheduled elections.

The most famous by elections are those occuring for seats to the House of Commons, but they also occur regularly at local government ward level.

On polling day, parliamentary by elections follow the same procedure as they would in a general election in relation to postal vote rules, polling station voting hours, the electoral register, and the counting of ballot papers.

How many by elections take place during a typical parliament?

Since the 2019 General Election, some 10 MPs from a total of 650 have been elected at a subsequent by election.

The number of by elections occuring each parliament varies depending on circumstances and the length of the parliament in question.

Between the 2017 and 2019 general election, there were just 5 by elections.

Between 2015 and 2017 there were 10 by elections.

Between 2010 and 2015 there were 21 by elections.

Between 2005 and 2020 there were 14 by elections.

What causes by-elections?

An MP’s seat can become vacant between general elections for a number of reasons.

An MP Resigns
Firstly a by-election is cause if an MP resigns.  If an MP steps down before a general election there is a formal process by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer appoints them to the office of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or of the Manor of Northstead, allowing them to formally resign their responsibilities as an MP.

This procedural device dates from a 1624 Resolution stating that MPs are forbidden from directly resigning their seat.

This was during a historical period in which service as an MP was viewed more as an obligation rather than a coveted profession, meaning that resignations were not encouraged unless absolutely necessary. Prior to the 1500s it was rare for parliamentary sessions to exceed several weeks per year.

Until a new MP is elected the neighbouring MP has responsibility for representing the vacant seat.

An MP dies
On the death of an MP, his or her seat becomes vacant, and a by elections follows.

An MP is declared bankrupt
MPs who are declared bankrupt are not allowed to sit in parliament, and a by election then follows.

An MP is convicted of a serious criminal offence
MPs who are convicted of a serious criminal offence, involving imprisonment of more than a year, are disqualified from Westminster leading to an automatic by election.

An MP accepts a peergage in the House of Lords
MPs who are appointed to the House of Lords cannot continue to serve as an MP.  Prior to the reform of the House of Lords, this used to be a particular issue when an MP suddenly became a hereditary peer after the death of a parent.

An MP is ousted by a recall petition
If a recall petition is signed by 10 per cent of electors in the relevant local constituency, a by election is held.

Recall petitions were introduced in response to the 2010 MPs Expenses Scandal.  They are now possible when an MP had been imprisoned (for however long) and has had all their appeals  exhausted.

Recall petitions are also possible if an MP is suspended from the House of Commons for over 10 days following a recommendation of the Committee of Standards; or if an MP was convicted of making a false Parliamentary allowance claim.

How are by elections called?

When it is decided that a by-election is to take place, the chief whip of the party of the vacant seat‘s MP “moves the Writ”.

This means they submit a motion asking that ” the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the constituency of …. in the room of…”

The speaker then asks MPs whether they agree to the motion. If they agree to the motion it becomes an Order for the Speaker who henceforth issues a Warrant to Crown’s Clerk who forwards the Writ to the Returning Officer.

The fresh Writ is usually issued within three months of the vacancy. A by-election must take place within 21 and 27 working days from this.

If one is vacant close to a general election it is customary to leave it so, until it can be filled at the coming election. If there are numerous vacant seats by-elections can be scheduled for the same date.

Does the government always lose by-elections?

The government does not always lose by-elections, however voters may behave differently at by-elections to general elections. During by-elections voter turnout is often lower, likely because voters see the vote as less important.

Given the focus on a single constituency, local issues may also loom larger in voters’ considerations. By-elections also often offer an advantage to parties not in government as they can be used as an outlet for “protest votes” ahead of a general election.

Over the last forty years the Liberal Democrat party has regularly won by election seats in the English shires from the Conservative party.

By election results in this parliament

Previous election results occuring in by elections during the current parliament are listed below:

The post By election appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

It is made up of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and all other Secretaries of State, including other Ministers of ‘Cabinet-rank’ such as the Chief Whip, any Minister without Portfolio (normally a party Chairman) or some other key Ministers (such as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and the Commons and Lords business managers (the Leaders of both Houses).

As of July 2024, the following sat in the Cabinet:

• Keir Keir Starmer – Prime Minister

• Angela Rayner – Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

• Rachel Reeves – Chancellor of the Exchequer

• Pat McFadden – Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

• David Lammy – Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

• Yvette Cooper – Secretary of State for the Home Department

• John Healey – Secretary of State for Defence

• Shabana Mahmood – Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

• Wes Streeting – Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

• Bridget Phillipson – Secretary of State for Education

• Ed Miliband – Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

• Liz Kendall – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

• Jonathan Reynolds – Secretary of State for Business and Trade

• Peter Kyle – Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

• Heidi Alexander – Secretary of State for Transport

• Steve Reed – Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

• Lisa Nandy – Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

• Hilary Benn – Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

• Ian Murray – Secretary of State for Scotland

• Jo Stevens – Secretary of State for Wales

• Lucy Powell – Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

• Baroness Smith – Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords

• Alan Campbell – Chief Whip in the House of Commons

• Darren Jones – Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury

• Richard Hermer KC – Attorney General

It is the Cabinet’s endorsement of decisions as a whole that forms the instrument of government in the United Kingdom.

The key convention for Cabinet Government is that of ‘collective responsibility.’ This means that all members of the Cabinet must abide by and support its decisions, regardless of their individual view on a specific matter in question. Any member who dissents after a Cabinet decision has been taken, or who refuses to toe the line, would be expected to resign, or at the very least to remain silent on the issue.

Meetings of the full Cabinet are normally held once a week on a Thursday morning, although historically the frequency has varied. The Prime Minister sets the agenda for meetings and chairs proceedings. Members of the Cabinet present papers prepared by their departments to their colleagues for endorsement. The backing of the Cabinet is the strongest endorsement a policy can obtain from government.

Cabinet provides a forum for debate for key government figures, allowing for compromises to be struck, for dissent to be acknowledged and for future policy direction to be considered.

The length and content of Cabinet meetings is often taken as an indication of a Prime Minister’s style of leadership – whether Cabinet is used as a genuine forum for debate, or as a ‘rubber-stamping’ exercise. Prime Ministers will often seek Cabinet approval for their approaches to ensure all Ministers are ‘on-side’.

Minutes of Cabinet meetings are taken.  These are distributed to those in attendance and to top civil servants. Votes are not taken, as all decisions are made unanimously and individual opinions are not recorded. Minutes of Cabinet meetings, and copies of the papers presented, are released publicly after a time delay of 30 years.

The post Cabinet appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Cabinet Committees are set up by the Prime Minister, and he or she appoints their membership.  That membership can include Ministers who do not attend full Cabinet.

Each Cabinet Committee has a chair of Cabinet rank, and the Prime Minister chairs meetings of certain committees, normally those charged with intelligence and national security issues. Most Cabinet committees have more than 10 members, although some have fewer and some are made up of nearly the entire Cabinet (such as Domestic Affairs). Members are chosen from interested departments, and sub-committees may be formed.

Cabinet Committee meetings are technically meetings of the Cabinet. Their decisions have the same status and continue to be subject to collective responsibility. Committees unable to reach resolution must resort to full Cabinet for agreement to be reached.

There may be upward of 50 Cabinet Committees, although the frequency and regularity of meetings varies hugely. They are formed by subject, their terms of reference being set by the Prime Minister. They fall into some core categories each having a secretariat in the Cabinet Office, with each committee being known by an abbreviation of two or more letters or numbers:

Economic and Domestic Affairs
This is the largest category. It includes Cabinet Committees on such diverse subjects as crime, information technology, skills, drugs, equality, environment, local government, welfare and science. It also includes the Committee on the Legislative Programme or LP, which drafts the Queen’s Speech, and the Committee on Domestic Affairs or DA, which includes most Cabinet Ministers.

Civil Contingencies
This contains just one committee – the Committee on Civil Contingencies or CCC, which would come into play in an emergency situation. It is chaired by the Home Secretary and exists to preserve services and supplies essential to life. Its other members would be drawn from departments relevant to the emergency.  This committee is popularly known as COBRA.

Defence and Overseas
This is the second largest category. Mainly composed of sub-committees of the Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy or DOP, it includes Cabinet Committees on terrorism, the intelligence agencies and Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister chairs a number of these committees.

The post Cabinet Committees appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The 2014 Care Act changed the way that adults in England who require care due to old age, illness or disability receive support. The Act replaced most existing legislation on this issue. The Guardian newspaper called the Act, ‘the most significant change in social care law for 60 years.’

At the heart of the Care Act is the ‘wellbeing principle’, which establishes local authorities’ responsibility to safeguard and further the wellbeing of those under their jurisdiction.

The Care Act introduced new ways of supporting adult social care. A set of ‘National Minimum Eligibility Criteria’ was introduced to make sure that people across the country were receiving the same care for the same needs.

The 2014 Care Act updated the legal framework for care in the UK

The Care Act laid out a plan to introduce a ‘Cap on Care Costs’, a total of £72,000 over an individual’s lifetime, excluding normal living costs such as food.  This cap was based on proposals made by the Dilnot commission in 2011. In the 2017 General Election, Theresa May later proposed a new threshold which would see people funding their own care if they had assets in excess of £100,000, although the proposals were  subsequently dropped.

The Care Act also changed existing financial measures. Deferred Payment Agreements, a type of loan through which local councils pay people’s care home fees, were modified in relation to their interest costs and the fees levied to enter into such arrangements.

Finally, the 2014 Care Act also offered additional support to unpaid carers of family and friends and raised the means-test threshold for people to be eligible for financial support towards care costs.

Why was the Care Act introduced?

Before the 2014 Care Act was introduced, individuals’ care needs and the relevant public support were regulated by several different pieces of legislation, amounting to a complex system that was difficult to navigate.

As well as aiming to simplify and standardise care for eligible adults in England, the 2014 Care Act also reflected a wish to assist people in remaining independent as long as possible, focusing on the prevention of further issues, rather than just tackling them once they arise.

Main Provisions of the 2014 Care Act

Some of the main provisions of the Care Act include:

Responsibilities of Local Authorities
Under the Care Act 2014, councils saw their responsibilities extended to include ensuring people have access to care that prevents their needs from worsening. People became legally entitled to receive the information they need to make decisions about their care, and to know the options available to them.

Local authorities also became committed to protecting wellbeing, which can include mental and emotional wellbeing, the individual retaining control over their own life, and being involved in decisions about their care. It also involved protections relating to abuse and neglect.

Entitlement to Public Care
The 2014 Care Act dictated that adults with care needs across England would be assessed on the basis of their needs and of their financial means, using a new, single system for all types of care.

Support Planning
Under the Care Act 2014, any adult with care needs who wished to set out a plan for their future can do so with the local authority’s assistance, as well as that of their carers and other trusted adults.

This plan takes their needs and wishes into consideration and includes a personal budget. The concerned individual can then either ask for a direct payment from the local authority to cover the costs of organising their care, or the authority can do the organising on their behalf.

Paying for Care
Care is not a publicly funded service, so individuals pay for their own care to the extent that they can afford to do so. Councils and local authorities use financial assessments to determine the financial support, if any, that adults with care needs require, in order to meet those needs.

Under the Act, deferred payment agreements are a way for homeowners to access care without having to sell their house when they do not wish to do so – the council is paid back at a later date when the house is sold. Despite the outcome of an individual’s financial assessment, the cap on care costs is the same for all.

Continuity of Care
Under the provision of the 2014 Care Act, people with care needs are able to move to new areas, under new local authorities, without a gap in their care. This involves the sharing of information about the personal needs of the individual who is moving between the local authorities involved, as well as new assessments by the local authority of the area the person will move into.

This must be done before the person moves, so that by the time they do, the relevant services are already in place.

Carers
Carers are defined as adults who provide free care services to loved ones with care needs, be they partners, relatives or friends.

The Care Act 2014 provides support for carers when this is deemed necessary as a result of an assessment. If the carer is eligible for public support, they are entitled to a support plan and a personal budget.

Safeguarding
Local authorities are responsible for protecting a vulnerable person from abuse, exploitation, and neglect. This duty is carried out using safeguarding adults boards (SABs) which include representatives from local authorities, the NHS and the police and meet regularly to develop a safeguarding process and publish safeguarding plans.

Moreover, local authorities must carry out safeguarding enquiries into individual cases which they have identified as possible abuse or neglect risks, as well as undertaking safeguarding adult reviews when things go wrong.

The Care Act and Coronavirus

The Coronavirus Act 2020 made temporary changes to the 2014 Care Act. To ease pressures on local authorities and ensure the neediest individuals were cared for, these changes allowed councils to temporarily delay non-urgent care needs that they were unable to meet. During the pandemic, this aimed to prioritise pressing coronavirus-related care needs, such as those for the seriously ill.

Despite local authorities still being expected to provide as much support as possible, individuals’ entitlement for the duration of the Emergency Period was limited to services necessary to avoid breaches of their human rights.

Care Act in Full

Those wishing to read the Care Act 2014 in full, can do so here. The 2020 Coronavirus Act can be read  here.

The post Care Act 2014 appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The census covers a variety of areas, divided into the following topics:

• Demography and migration

• Ethnic group, national identity, language, and religion

• Health, disability, and unpaid care

• Housing

• Labour market and travel to work

• Sexual orientation and gender identity

• Education

• UK armed forces veterans

Since 1920, the census mandatory in England and Wales, with a £1000 fine for failing to complete the census, or providing incorrect information. However, some of the questions, namely those relating to sexual orientation and religion are optional. All information is anonymised and the actual census records are kept secure for 100 years.

The results of the census are used by a variety of organisations and individuals to aid and guide their work. This includes local authorities, businesses, and voluntary organisations, as well as academics and genealogists.

The first results of the 2021 census will be released on the 28th of June 2022. Read more about the Census 2021.

The post Census appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The 1989 Children Act brought together and simplified existing legislation relating to the care of children.  Within family law, it shifted the legislative focus towards keeping families together, and valuing children as individuals with their own interests and rights.

In order to strengthen protection for children, the law now placed new duties on local authorities to provide help to needy children and families in their areas. It’s statutory guidance also resulted in increased specialisation within public care services.

At the time of is establishment, the 1989 Children’s Act had cross-party support, as well as that of charities and people within child-caring professions. Thirty years on, there appears to be enduring support for the legislation itself, but certain criticism of its implementation and resourcing.

The 1989 Children Act laid out the legal framework for Children’s services in the UK.

Why was the 1989 Children Act introduced?

In the years preceding the Children Act 1989, a series of high-profile child abuse cases had triggered a public conversation on how to best protect vulnerable children.

This principle of child-centring was reinforced by Lord Scarman’s 1986 judgement that protecting the welfare of a child could justify a parent’s rights being overridden. The 1989 Act intended to codify this principle, as well as simplify and make child protection law consistent and easily applicable.

At the same time, the preceding Cleveland child abuse scandal, had drawn public attention to the actions of social workers at the time, who it was suggested were too quick to remove children from their families.

In the late 1980s, the National Association of Young People in Care and other non-profit associations petitioned the House of Commons to take the interests of children, as full human beings, into account. This included ‘Black and In Care’s’ concern about the erasure of the identity of children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly in relation to foster carers.

Main Provisions of the Act

The 1989 Children Act contained the following notable provisions:

Parental Responsibility
Under the Children Act 1989, what was previously legally described as a parent’s rights over their child, now became the parents responsibility towards the child.

This is defined in the Act as ‘all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property’ and covers parents making decisions on behalf of children in matters of education, health, and daily life.

Parental responsibility diminishes as the child gets older, and he or she is able to make more and more decisions alone.

All mothers automatically gain parental responsibility upon birth, as do fathers in married couples. Under the Act, unmarried fathers can obtain parental responsibility through one of a range of processes, such as appearing on the birth certificate, entering into an agreement with the mother or through a court order. If neither parent is able to take on parental responsibility, a guardian is appointed by a court.

Orders
The 1989 Children Act incorporates a ‘No Order’ presumption which assumes that both parents’ involvement in the child’s life is usually a benefit, and that a court’s paramount consideration must show that an alternative arrangement would lead to an improvement in the child’s welfare.

When considering an order, the family court must take into consideration a range of factors, including the child’s needs, wishes, risks, and welfare, and the parents’ capabilities, among others. The child or young person should always be at the centre of decisions about their life, and they should be protected from any unnecessary changes. For example, under the 1989 legislation it became prohibited to change a child’s surname without the approval of every party with parental responsibility.

In terms of specific orders, a Child Arrangement Order decides who the child should live with and lasts until the child’s 16th birthday. A Prohibited Steps Order limits the parental responsibility of a child’s parents. A Specific Issue Order is more targeted, relating to a particular situation.

For situations in which a child may be at serious risk, the 1989 Children Act enabled a court to issue a Care Order or a Supervision Order. The former places the child in the care of Local Authority social services.  A supervision order assigns a supervisor or social worker to observe and directly support the child, with the option of applying to the court for further orders.

In cases of risk of immediate harm, Emergency Protection Orders can be issued to swiftly take children out of dangerous situations.

Local Authorities
The 1989 Act gave local authorities additional responsibilities to contribute to the care of children.

Councils must provide the services required by children in need – defined as children with disabilities or other physical or developmental requirements.

A local authority must also provide accommodation for children who are not in a safe environment or have no adults with parental responsibility to look after them. This could be in a community home, which all local authorities are required to provide.

This local authority duty of care also involves providing young adults and care leavers, who age out of the system, with appropriate support to aid them in gaining independence.

Local authorities must also investigate cases in which it is suspected that a child may be at risk of significant harm.

Other Related Legislation

The 1989 Children Act was followed by the 2004 Children’s Act. This 2004 Children’s Act does not replace the 1989 legislation but develops a number of its principles, most notably by extending the responsibility for promoting the welfare and wellbeing of children to all who work with them.

The 2004 Children’s Act also created the role of a Children’s Commissioner, and that of a Director of Children’s Services within a local authority.

This 2004 Children’ Act was in turn followed by the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, which introduced further regulation regarding official intervention in children’s lives

The Children and Social Work Act 2017 also expanded on the 1989 Act by detailing what is expected of local authorities when acting as parents for children in care. It also established a central Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel.

1989 Children Act in Full

The Children Act 1989 can be read in full here.

The post Children Act 1989 appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The most senior civil servant is the Cabinet Secretary, who heads the Cabinet Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. The Secretariat is focused on ensuring that Government business is conducted in a timely and efficient manner. It facilitates the work of the Cabinet and of Cabinet Committees.

Civil servants are required by the Civil Service Code to show ‘integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity’ in all their work assisting the Government in making and administering policy. They are required, as servants of the Crown, to owe their loyalty to the Prime Minister, who is invited by the Monarch to form a government.

Each individual Government department has a Permanent Secretary, who heads up the civil servants in that department. The Permanent Secretary is responsible to the Minister and to Parliament for the operational competence of the department. The Minister alone is responsible for policy and decision-making.

The Permanent Secretary is also known as the Accounting Officer, in that he or she is accountable to Parliament for all departmental expenditure, not least to the Commons Committee on Public Accounts. Beneath the Permanent Secretary in each department are the ranks of Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary.

The post Civil Service appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Normally, the programme motion passed after Second Reading will timetable proceedings in a Committee of the Whole House. Private members’ Bills are never considered in Committees of the Whole House.

When the Committee of the Whole House has concluded its deliberations, it reports the Bill, with or without amendments, back to the House.

The post Committee of the Whole House appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The 2006 Companies Act is the main act now regulating British company law. It replaced the Companies Acts of 1985 and 1989.

The 2006 Companies Act was a long-awaited reform of company law, and emerged only after two solid years of deliberations and drafting. Its effects have been to simplify the rules that companies adhere to, as well as to clarify the duties of Directors and introduce protections for minority shareholders.

The Act is said to be the longest piece of legislation approved by Parliament.

The main changes brought about by the 2006 Companies Act included the abolishment of certain previous requirements, such as the need to appoint a company secretary and to hold an Annual General Meeting. The Act also loosened other requirements such as lowering the level of support required to pass a written resolution.  Additionally, the Act allows directors to submit a service address to public records instead of their home address, and only requires one director to sign deeds instead of two.

Why was the Companies Act introduced?

The Companies Act 2006 brought together the different aspects of UK company law into a single, comprehensive piece of legislation, uniting Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s systems. It modernised the existing legislation, much of which was old, adapting it for a 21st century economy.

A significant issue with the previous system around Company legislation was its bureaucracy, and the obstacles that created for small businesses, in turn discouraging them to set up as a limited company. This, along with the recognition that the vast majority of companies in the UK are small, inspired the ‘Think Small First’ approach driving much of the 2006 Companies Act.

Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange face tighter restrictions under the 2006 Companies Act than smaller firms.

Main Provisions of the 2006 Companies Act

The below constitute the main changes brought about by the 2006 Companies Act:

Company’s Articles
These are rules agreed upon when a company is set up by the shareholders and directors, to regulate how the company will be run. The 2006 Act made the articles of association a company’s main constitutional document and greatly simplified their requirements, for example by allowing the use of plainer language.

Incorporation Process
This was simplified by the Act. Companies can now be formed online, and by a single person.

Company Secretary
Previously a compulsory requirement, the 2006 Act has established that private companies do not need to have the formal role of company secretary. For some larger companies this changes little since the position was a useful one, and thus one they have voluntarily kept, but for small businesses, the change made their affairs easier.

Shareholders
Minority shareholders are better protected under the 2006 Companies Act through a provision which allows them to apply to a court if their interests are unfairly disadvantaged by the way the company is run. Shareholder meetings are able to be held more quickly, and communication between the company and its shareholders is allowed to take place online, such as through email, rather than entirely via letters.

Share Capital
Following the 2006 Companies Act, firms no longer need to have an authorised share capital. Furthermore, companies will be able to make some changes to the authorisation of their share capital without an order of a court:, for example private companies are now allowed to reduce their share capital.

Financial Assistance
Private companies are now allowed to offer financial assistance to those who purchase their shares. This has had the effect of simplifying transactions that previously involved a complex process to avoid infringing the law. Restrictions on this practice for public companies remain.

Political Donations
For public and listed companies, the 2006 Act clarifies rules around political donations and similar expenditures.

Transparency Obligations Directive
In order to implement what was originally an EU Directive, the Companies Act made it compulsory for companies on the London Stock Exchange’s main list to disclose information relating to their finances, major acquisitions and disposal of their shares.

Annual General Meetings
Compulsory Annual General Meetings (AGMs) for private companies were eliminated under the 2006 Companies Act. This has simplified matters for smaller companies which were previously forced to hold them despite not needing to. A public company listed on the London Stock Exchange, however, is still required to hold an AGM, and will have to do so and file their accounts in the first half of the financial year.

Written Resolutions
Private companies no longer require a unanimous decision in order to be able to pass written resolutions, which again has the effect of speeding up business.

Filing of Accounts
Accounts for private companies must now be filed within a shorter time limit (nine months instead of ten), and the penalty for exceeding that filing deadline has been increased.

Auditors
In cases of claims of negligence and breaches of trust and duty, under the Companies Act auditors are now allowed to limit their personal liability. This limitation must be believed to be ‘fair and reasonable’ by the court and have been approved by shareholders before the claims were made.

Director’s Duties
Previously laid out by confusing and contradictory common law, the 2006 Companies Act codified the role and responsibilities of a company director. It did not significantly change these duties but clarified them.

Under the Companies Act 2006, Directors have seven general duties.

Firstly, they must fulfil their Directors duty as laid out in the company’s constitution, but not go beyond the powers they have been officially assigned.

Secondly, Directors are expected to make decisions in good faith, choosing the path they believe will be ultimately the most beneficial to the company. This includes keeping in mind the interests of ‘stakeholders’: a general term which includes employees, customers, the community and the environment as well as shareholders.

Thirdly, Directors must make their own decisions and act with care, skill, and diligence. The last three general duties concern conflicts of interest: they must be avoided when possible, and if not, any interest needs to be declared to the rest of the company leadership. In an attempt to improve corporate governance, Directors must also not accept benefits from third parties as a result of exploiting their position in the company.

Companies Act 2006 in Full

The entirety of the 2006 Companies act can be read here.

The post Companies Act 2006 appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The main purpose of the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) was to tackle cyber crime by making unauthorised access to, and modification of, computer data illegal.

The Act represented the first major legislative attempt to tackle cyber threats and criminalise hacking, viruses, malware, and spyware.

Main Provisions of the Act

The Computer Misuse Act applies to any digital operation with a significant link to the United Kingdom. This covers situations where a computer being targeted is in the UK; if the person responsible carried out the operation from the UK; if they used a server located in the UK; or if the resulting cyberattack caused damage within the country.

Section 1 of the Act criminalises hacking and what it describes as ‘unauthorized access to computer material’. A person is guilty of an unauthorised act if they attempt to access information that they are aware they are unauthorised to access.

Section 2 then addresses ‘unauthorized access with intent to commit, or facilitate commission of, further offenses’. This is when the hacker, already guilty under Section 1, has carried out the hacking because they intend to commit more crimes, such as extortion or fraud, using the data they have accessed.

Section 3 of the Act then refers to unauthorized acts with the intent to impair the operation of a computer, either recklessly or intentionally.  Again, this  section relies on a crime under Section 1 having been established and adds further penalties if the hacking meant to damage (such as through a virus) or alter the computer or computer system and its contents (such as through modifying, deleting data or introducing malware and spyware), or simply had this effect as a result of the unauthorised access.

All crimes under the Computer Misuse Act can result in a fine and potential imprisonment.

Why was the 1990 Computer Misuse Act introduced?

The Computer Misuse Act’s purpose was to regulate the growing world of computers, which back in 1990 was simply not adequately protected by law.

The growth of computers during the 1980s led to the Computer Misuse Act of 1990.

Concerns around the relevance of the existing legal framework to computers was brought to light with the 1987 case of Steve Gold and Robert Schifreen, who gained unauthorised access to a BT service, which eventually led to them accessing the Duke of Edinburgh’s email account. Their conviction under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 was overturned on appeal, as the facts of the case did not match a criminal offence under existing legislation.

The Computer Misuse Act still governs the wider digital environment, with the internet, smart phones, and social media emerging in the decades after the Act first gained Royal Assent.

Subsequent Amendments to the Act

In recent years there have been a number of amendments to the Computer Misuse Act.

A 2006 addition to the original Computer Misuse Act, specifically outlawed the making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in an offense under Section. This now addressed the issue of people using malware, viruses and other such tools developed by others, for the purposes of hacking.

Where the original 1990 Act had for the first time explicitly criminalised activities which damaged computers, in 2015, a further provision was added in relation to serious damage. This 2015 addition significantly increased the penalties for ‘unauthorized acts causing, or creating risk of, serious damage’.

Under the 2015 change, ‘serious damage’ extended beyond the digital world and refered to damage to people, the environment, and States.  The remit of the Act now expanded to cover the possibility of cyber-terrorism and a state backed cyber attack. Crimes which are committed, and which fall within the remit of ‘serious damage’, can now result in a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Examples of the Act in action

Over the years, a number of cyber criminals have been prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act.

For example, in a 2013 case, the Crown (R) vs Martin, 2013, saw a defendant, who had hacked several websites including those of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, pleading guilty to breaches of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 3A and receiving a sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

In a 2014 case, the Crown (R) vs Brown, 2014, the offender, who was in possession of stolen bank details, was convicted of two crimes under Section 2 of the Act, as well as another count under the Fraud Act 2006, and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, reduced to two on appeal.

In a 2018 case involving a minor, the Crown (R) v Mudd, the accused confessed of crimes under Sections 1 and 3, as well as concealing criminal property, which is a crime outside of the Computer Misuse Act. The defendant was sentenced to two years in a young offenders’ institution, which was reduced to 21 months on appeal.

In 2018, the Information Commissioner’s Office also prosecuted its first Computer Misuse Act case when a car accident repair firm employee repeatedly accessed personal data stored on a software system used by his firm with colleagues’ login details. The trial resulted in the defendant receiving a 6-month prison sentence.

Calls for Reform of the Computer Misuse Act

The Computer Misuse Act was designed to retain some flexibility in the face of a swiftly developing digital landscape.

For this reason, ‘computer’ is undefined in the Act, allowing prosecutors to easily apply it to crimes involving new technology, such as smartphones.

As discussed, the Computer Misuse Act has also been amended several times to uphold its relevance and effectivity in deterring cybercrime.

According to an analysis of figures from HM Courts and Tribunals Service in 2019 by tech news website the Register, there were 441 prosecutions under the Computer Misuse Act between 2007 and 2018. In 2018, nearly 90% of these prosecutions resulted in convictions. However, out of the total of 45 convictions in 2018, only nine resulted in immediate prison sentences. In 2018, it was also equally likely for offenders under the Computer Misuse Act to receive an official caution rather than prosecution. Critics of the Act say that these figures show an attitude towards computer misuse that is too forgiving, and do not sufficiently deter people from breaking the law in this way, citing rising rates of cybercrime.

Another concern with the Computer Misuse Act is that, since its introduction thirty years ago, an extensive cyber security research industry has developed. The Act is said to fail to sufficiently differentiate the activities of this cyber security industry from those of hackers seeking to commit crimes. Accordingly, so-called ‘white hat’ ethical hackers who test unauthorised access for research reasons, may be liable to prosecution under the current Act.  Critics argue that this has worked to curtail the UK’s participation at the cutting edge of such research.

Computer Misuse Act in Full

The Computer Misuse Act can be read in full here.

The post Computer Misuse Act appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The Conservative and Unionist Party, most commonly known as the Conservative Party or Tory Party, is the current governing party in the British House of Commons. After the 2019 General Election, the Conservatives held 364 out of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. The Party’s Peers also accounted for 243 out of the 778 seats in the House of Lords.

The oldest party still represented in Parliament, the Conservative Party sits on the centre right of the political spectrum.

By the mid 2020s, the Conservative Party had been in government for approaching fifty of the last seventy five years. Currently led by Prime Minister Liz Truss, the Tories are the party of several well-known 20th century leaders such as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

Core Conservative Party Beliefs

In terms of economic policy, the Conservative Party is economically liberal, generally favouring the free market and opposing government controls.

Positioning itself as the party of small business, the Conservative Party advocates for low taxes, arguing that lower taxation will ultimately stimulate the wider economy, generating both a higher overall tax take and greater overall economic prosperity in its wake. The Conservative Party opposes the state ownership of industries and companies, albeit in recent years it has started to pursue a more actively interventionist regional policy.

In the Twentieth Century, the Conservative Party was typically associated with conservative social attitudes. However in the Twenty First Century there has been a significant change in the party’s approach.  The party has adopted a more socially liberal outlook. The most significant evidence of this change in approach is the introduction by the Cameron government of equal marriage rights for LGBTQ+ couples in 2010.  At Westminster, there are now 20 Conservative MPs who openly identify as LGBTQ, more than any other party.

The Conservative Party is typically seen as being more in favour of greater immigration controls than both the Labour Party and Liberal Democrat Party.

Since 1945, Conservative Prime Ministers have consistently cultivated close ties to American Presidents in pursuit of a ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US. Historically, there were both Eurosceptic and pro-European wings in the Tory Party, but in the Twenty First Century the party became more staunchly Eurosceptic. This culminated in the Party‘s 2019 Election manifesto promising to ‘Get Brexit Done’.

The Conservatives remain a staunchly Unionist party and oppose the break- up of the United Kingdom. The party is generally opposed to constitutional reform.

Conservative Party Voters

The 2019 election once again revealed a decisive preference for the Conservative Party amongst older voters in Britain. According to the polling organisation YouGov, with every decade older that a voter becomes, their chance of voting Conservative increases by around nine percentage points. The age at which the average voter stops voting Labour and starts to vote Conservative is currently said to be 39.

Men are slightly more likely to vote Conservative than women: this difference is much greater among younger voters and again decreases with age.

Despite the Labour Party’s historical claim through much of the Twentieth Century that it was the party of the working class, that is no longer sustained by the electoral evidence.

The 2019 General Election showed a preference for the Conservative Party across all social classes, with more working class voters supporting the Conservative Party than the Labour Party.

With regards to education, the Conservatives have a clear advantage among non-graduates. By contrast the Labour Party is more favoured by those with a university degree.

According to a YouGov 2017 study, there is strong Conservative support among Anglican voters (58% for the Conservatives, compared to 28% for Labour). The same is true amongst Jewish voters (63%  for the Conservatives, compared to 26% for Labour). Those of Catholic faith and other Christian denominations were more evenly split in their voting behaviour, with the Labour Party polling slightly better amongst those with no religious affiliation.

The Conservative Party is said to attract only minimal support from the Muslim Community (11% for the Conservatives, compared to 85% for the Labour Party). In 2019, the Singh Investigation was set up following certain high-profile allegations of alleged “Islamophobia” within the party.

YouGov polls from 2019 also found that Black and Minority Ethnic voters are more likely to vote Labour than Conservative (64% to 20%), whereas the opposite is true of White voters (29% for Labour and 48% Conservative).

Membership of the Conservative Party

As of July 2019, the Conservative Party had around 180,000 members. This represents a marked decline from the 1953 peak when the Conservative Party’s membership reportedly surpassed the 2.8 million mark.

Even though the Conservative Party won the 2019 General Election, Conservative Party membership levels in that year considerably trailed that of the Labour Party (485,000 members). Indeed in terms of membership levels, the Conservatives were only a little bit ahead of the Scottish National Party (125,500 members) and the Liberal Democrats (115,5000).

Conservative Party Funding

All political parties in the UK fund their activities and campaigns in a variety of regulated ways: public funding, donations, loans, and membership fees.

Being a party represented in the House of Commons by more than two MPs, the Conservative Party is eligible for policy development grants. Of a total of £2 million to be shared among all eligible parties each year, the Conservatives reportedly received £359,478 in 2015/2016.

A significant source of Conservative Party income is received through donations. These are defined as ‘money, goods or services provided without charge or on non-commercial terms’. Each political party has a responsibility to check a donation’s permissibility before accepting it. Donations exceeding £7,500 must be reported to the Electoral Commission and are known as registered donations. During the 2019 general election period, 63% of all registered donations were made to the Conservative Party, amounting to a total of £19.4 million.

Parties may also charge membership fees, which are not subject to regulation. The Conservative Party currently charges £25 for a standard yearly membership, with discounts for those aged under 26 and members of the armed forces (both current and former), who pay £5 and £15 a year, respectively.

Origins of the Conservative Party

The Tories were a Parliamentary faction that first emerged during Queen Anne’s reign, opposed by the then Whigs. During the 19th Century, the Tories transitioned to the term ‘Conservative‘ as the official party name, although ‘Tory‘ continued to be used informally.

The Conservative Party‘s infrastructure dates back to the efforts by Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, to court new city-based voters in the latter half of the 19th Century. This led to the creation of the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations and Conservative Central Office. The former’s role was to represent the party’s membership and to hold a yearly Conservative Party Conference. The latter, since renamed as the Conservative Campaign Headquarters, is the party‘s organisational organ.

Benjamin Disraeli developed the Conservative Party’s organisation in the late 19th Century.

Disraeli‘s government also redefined the role of the Conservative Party in British politics,  increasing the Tories’ popularity and associating them for the first time with patriotism.

When the question of devolving power to Ireland came to the forefront of mainstream political debate in the early part of the Twentieth Century, the Conservative Party aligned with Liberal Unionists against so-called Home Rule. This led to the two parties merging in 1912 to form the modern Conservative and Unionist Party.

Conservative Party Organisation

The lowest level of the Conservative Party organisation is the Conservative Association. This is a local group that typically corresponds to a Parliamentary constituency, with a President and various officials elected by local members.  These local associations often employ a local agent.

The Conservative Party‘s organisation in the country is also divided into Regions. The party has a small number of Regional Chairmen or Chairwomen who carry out organisational and administrative roles in each region.

Local association Chairmen, officers from the Regions and representatives from the Conservative Women’s Association meet twice a year as the National Convention. The officers of the National Convention represent the Voluntary Party to the Tory leadership.

Officers from the National Convention, along with representatives from the political and professional wings of the party, sit on the Board of the Conservative Party. This Board makes the final decisions concerning all party operations.

The Conservative Women’s Association, the Young Conservatives and Conservatives Abroad are also recognised party organisations, each responsible for representing a specific group within the party.

There are also dedicated branches of the Conservative Party in Scotland and Wales.

The Conservative Party‘s Campaign Headquarters can be found at 4 Matthew Parker Street in London.

Conservative Party Leadership

The process for electing the Conservative Party Leader is split into two main stages.

During a Parliamentary stage, aspirant candidates need to be nominated by 8 fellow Conservative MPs. Those that reach this benchmark are then put through a series of votes by the Parliamentary Conservative Party. During this process,  the candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated, before a subsequent round is held. The process continues until two candidates remain.

In the second stage of the leadership contest, the two top candidates face each other in a vote by the Party‘s membership. The winner becomes the Conservative Party Leader.

If Tory MPs are dissatisfied with the Party Leader, they can initiate a leadership challenge. This happens when 15% of Conservative MPs write of their intention to hold a vote of no confidence in the Party Leader to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee (the body that represents all Conservative MPs). A vote is then scheduled.

The last time this process took place was in June 2022. Boris Johnson survived a no confidence vote from his MPs, before announcing his decision to step down following mass ministerial resignations in July 2022.  Theresa May had previously withstood a similar challenge from MPs in December 2018.  She resigned as party leader in the summer the following year. 

After a failed vote of no confidence, a new vote cannot be called for at least a year. Should the party leader lose a vote of confidence, they must step down and are not allowed to run for the party leadership again.

Conservative Parliamentary Candidates

The current standard selection process for candidates to stand in Parliamentary elections for the Conservative Party involves several stages.

Potential candidates typically have to pass the Party’s Parliamentary Assessment Board (PAB). This stage aims to assess the applicants in several skills and areas considered important in the job, such as communications and political convictions. Assessors on the Parliamentary Assessment Board do not have access to applicants’ CVs in order to minimise possible bias. Applicants who are successful at the Assessment Board are accepted onto the Approved List.

When there is a vacancy for a candidate in a particular constituency (normally because the incumbent candidate has stepped down, or occasionally been de-selected by a vote of the local Association), applicants from the approved list typically apply for the vacancy.

The local party then goes through its own process of interviewing and filtering these applicants, with an eventual short list normally being put to a vote of the Conservative Party membership in that constituency. Once this process is completed, the chosen individual can stand to be elected as a Conservative MP.

Party Contact Details

Website:https://www.conservatives.com

Twitter: @Conservatives

The post Conservative Party appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Proceedings on the Consideration of Amendments are programmed as with all other stages. The Government tables motions agreeing or disagreeing with the Amendments. It may also move amendments in lieu of changes rejected.

Unless the other Chamber acquiesce with the alterations made by the other Chamber, the Bill will be passed back for their consideration. The Bill is communicated with ‘Reasons’, which outline why the Lower or Upper House does not agree with each other. Technically, these Reasons are drawn up by a Reasons Committee, which reports the Reasons and passes the Bill back.

If the other Chamber still cannot agree to the provision, they re-amend it and send it back (the Lords communicates with the Commons via ‘Messages’). The other Chamber will consider the changes and may again reject them or make further changes in lieu. The Bill goes back again.

In theory, this so-called ‘ping-pong’ can continue indefinitely until consensus is reached but this is limited by the availability of Parliamentary time, the length of the Session and the likelihood that one or other side will put forward an acceptable compromise. In most cases, if a Bill does not receive Royal Assent before prorogation, it is lost.

The post Consideration of Amendments appeared first on Politics.co.uk.