Watching Live

Live feeds from the various chambers can be accessed via the following links:

House of Commons

House of Lords

House of Representatives

Senate

European Parliament

When the relevant chamber is not sitting - recordings and other material are broadcast.

What the People Think

Last night the Hansard Society published its 7th annual "Audit of Political Engagement". As usual it contains the results of polling and further research which will be pored over and reflected upon by all those with an interest in the health of the British body politic.

The report is larger this year - with relevant analses and commentaries on two central questions.

* how have the expenses and related scandals affected attitudes to MPs and Parliament?

* how can public involvement, and in particular, electoral turnout be raised?

For all the furore over the scandals of the lat year the report found that "There has not been a fundamental realignment of views about MPs and the political process as a result...for the most part, it has merely confirmed and hardened the public's widely held scepticism about politicians rather than changed their views"

Another significant finding is that "proposals for constitutional, political, and parliamentary report in the light of the MPs' expenses scandal have yet to resonate with the wider public"

Furthermore "there is a huge gulf between the public's perception of what they think MPs should be doing and what MPs actually do."

The report highlights the need for effective education.

There is a useful division of people into eight groups. (Details of these groups - and how to engage with them is discussed in Chapter 6)

1 Politically Committed

2 Active Campaigners

3 Interested Bystanders

4 Detached Cynics

5 Politically Contented

6 Bored/Apathetic

7 Disengaged/Mistrustful

8 Alienated/Hostile

This should be a helpful tool to tackle the concerns of different sectors of the community.

I commend this report to you - which can be downloaded from here.

Greensboro Sit-Ins

Yesterday I attended a conference entitled "The Launch of the 1960s Civil Rights Protest: The 50th Anniversary of the Greensboro (North Carolina) Sit-Ins and the Formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee". It was held at the British Library Conference Centre - and had been jointly organised by the Eccles Centre for American Studies at the British Library and the Institute for the Study of the Americas, University of London.

During the day there were three panels. The first was "The Sit-Ins: Activism and Reaction". The history of the sit-ins was outlined - with a paper by John Kirk on 'The Sit-Ins and the Courts: Little Rock, Lupper and the Law, 1960-64. This described how the law was used - and described the US Supreme Court case Lupper v Arkansas. George Lewis considered "the impact of the Sit-Ins on the ideology of Southern Segregationalists - while Clive Webb discussed Southern White reactions to the Sit-Ins.

The first afternoon session dealt with the emergence and impact of the Student NonViolent Coordinating Committee. (SNCC - pronounced 'Snick'). Peter Ling argued, with an impressive use of statistics - that this was not one committee, but several. His colleague at Nottingham University, Professor Sharon Monteith, described some of the writings of key players - and how their stories (novels and short stories) give us an insight to the SNCC. Joe Street spoke of the intellectual transformation of SNCC impacted upon their view of community.

The final panel dealt with the international dimensions of the Sit-Ins. Simon Hall considered how 'Cold War Patriotism' influenced both sides of the dispute. Segregations alleged that it was a plot by Communists to attack the South's way of life - while pro-civil rights activists stressed how the actions of the segregationists was undermining the USA's role in promoting democracy around the world. Stephen Tuck described how the events affected other countries - including the UK.

A book based on the day's conference is anticipated.


The primary event in the campaign of Sit-Ins took place on 1st February 1960 -when four African-American students - Ezell A Blair Jr (later known as Jibreel Khazan); David Leinhail Richmond; Joseph Alfred McNeil and Franklin Eugene McCain - sat down in a segregated lunch counter in Woolworth's in Greensboro. They were refused service. A sit-in began and grew over the following days. A website on the subject can be found here.

An interview with Franklin McCain can be listened to -

Marathon

Fifty years ago the Senate had begun what was to become a marathon session. Senate Leader, Lyndon Johnson had begun an attempt to push through civil rights legislation. On February 15th he used a procedural device aimed to get the measures passed quickly (in Senate terms). Instead of introducing a Senate Bill he took opponents by surprise by a series of moves -

* he asked for, and received unanimous consent to proceed to consideration of a House passed bill, H.R. 8315. This was a minor, non-controversial bill authorizing the Army to use particular offices on a specific base for new purposes. No one objected.

* during consideration of the bill, he invited Senators to propose amendments which would introduce civil rights provisions. This meant that what became a civil rights bill would avoid being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where opponents could keep it tied up. Also, when it was returned to the House - as 'merely' Senate amendments, it wouldn't need a rule granted by the southern controlled Rules Committee.

To defeat the anticipated filibuster by the hardcore of less than 20 southern Senators, Johnson announced that the Senate would go into continuous (24 hour a day) session from 29th February. This would have tested the stamina and resolve of those that would try to filibuster. Senator Talmadge came up with a way to turn the tables. The hardcore 18 were arranged into "platoons" of 6 senators - each platoon was responsible for continuing the filibuster for a day (with two days 'off'). On the day they were covering a 'squad' of 2 would be responsible for 8 hours. Quorum calls were regularly made - this forced the majority to have at least 49 Senators available at all times. Otherwise, the senate would be adjourned - and those sustaining the filibuster would get a rest - and a new 'legislative day' would begin. Senators were only allowed 2 speeches per legislative day - so this would have meant that the filibuster could be sustained.

An aide to Senator Paul Douglas explained "A Senator who was filibustering didn't have to show except every third day and didn't have to speak except every sixth day. The people who were trying to break the filibuster hads to be around...at all times, to answer the quorum calls...The effect of it was to wear out the people who were trying to break the filibuster, rather than to wear out the people who were filibustering"

Floyd Riddick, in a journal article entitled "The Eighty-Sixth Congress: Second Session" which appeared in the Western Political quarterly in 1961 revealed that -

"The "around the clock" session ran from February 29th through March 8th - a nine day continuous session lasting 157 hours and 25 minutes, broken only by a 15 minute recess on March 2 and a recess over Sunday March 6 - giving a 42.5 hour respite. The longest unbroken period took 82 hours and 2 minutes, from March 2 to March 5, during which time there were 13 roll call votes and 51 quorum calls."

Johnson finally called off the continuous session when a cloture petition was filed. It failed 53-42. A watered down administration bill (rather than Johnson's bill) was referred to the Judiciary

Committee. It made it into law - but "in the end the bill satified no one completely".

The Great Offices of State

Sadly this post is only for those accessing the internet from the UK (though in the US you could contact BBC America to ask that the series be broadcast in the USA - press here or BBC World for other countries from here)

The BBC has recently broadcast a series about the Great Offices of State in the UK (Home Office; Foreign Office & the Treasury). True to the ethos of the BBC it is succeeds in being entertaining and informative (and provides a solid education in the working of the British system). There are interviews with politicians and civil servants covering a long period of time. The role, challenges and practices of each department are covered. The series is presented by the well respected veteran political reporter Michael Cockerill. The programme's website can be accessed here.

The programmes can be watched by following the links below (please note that these programmes are only available for a limited period - the site mentions 4th March)

Home Office

Foreign Office

Treasury

I would strongly recommend the series to anyone with a general interest in the way government operates in Britain - and particularly students of politics, history and Law.