In this episode, we explore the outcomes and implications of the latest Select Committee Chair elections in Parliament. The newly elected chairs will play a pivotal role in scrutinising the government, but can they effectively work together? We talk to Dr. Marc Geddes, a leading expert on Select Committees, who highlights how this year’s competitive elections compare to previous parliaments and what that could mean for committee dynamics in the future.

What did the candidates promise in their nomination papers? We discover the unique candidacy of one MP who ran on a platform of "Stop this Nonsense," railing against the flood of campaign emails and leaflets during the election process (or what she described as the “Select Committee Chair silly season”).

Another newly elected chair is proposing weekly summaries of public hearings in a "crop and drop" format, allowing colleagues to easily communicate updates to their constituents.

Throughout the episode, we tackle listeners' pressing questions:

• How much influence do party leaders wield in Select Committee elections?
• Which committee chairs are likely to make it to the government frontbench before the next election?
• How do Select Committees decide which inquiries to prioritize?
• What role does public engagement play in their inquiries?

In addition, Ruth and Mark dissect the latest Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) session. Despite the influx of new MPs, PMQs remains a spectacle of soundbites and jeering, with little progress on substantive debate. They discuss how newer MPs seem to be following in the footsteps of the old guard, continuing the orchestrated shouting matches led by party whips.

One key issue raised during this PMQs was Rishi Sunak’s focus on whether the government will publish an Impact Assessment related to the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Allowance. Ruth explains the significance of Impact Assessments and why they matter for government transparency and accountability.

The episode also explores the political dilemma faced by Labour MPs who abstained from the Winter Fuel Allowance vote. Voting against the motion would allow the wealthiest to continue receiving the benefit, while voting for it would mean supporting means-testing, potentially disadvantaging struggling constituents. Ruth and Mark debate whether constituents will understand the nuances behind MPs' decisions to abstain and how this might impact their future support.

🎓 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

£ - 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.

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.