What rules govern appointment of ministers? What about choosing a prime minister? Sun lounger constitutional law from me in the ⁦London Review of Books⁩ lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/…

No sunstroke here, but a thoughtful piece. Highlights the undesirable and constitutionally questionable role allotted by the major parties to their members in choosing a new leader when a PM resigns in office.

This highlights an interesting point about whether it’s proper for members to choose the next PM (effectively). Have to say it has swayed me toward the position that it would be constitutionally proper to insist on MPs choosing the next leader of their party.

ON THE BLOG: The House of Commons Modernisation Committee: background, opportunities, and potential pitfalls Tom Fleming and Hannah Kelly explore the opportunities and challenges facing the new Modernisation Committee, including its unusual composition. constitution-unit.com/2024/08/02/the…

‘The conspicuous failure of the Truss ministry has distracted attention from the failure of the process that led to it.’ Tom Hickman on the UK’s democratically dubious methods of ministerial (and prime ministerial) selection: lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/…

Good easy to read insights from Tom Hickman I think "sun lounger constitutional law" should be essential element in a qualifying law degree.

In a new piece for London Review of Books, Professor Tom Hickman (Professor of Public Law at UCL Laws) discusses the UK’s democratically dubious methods of ministerial (and prime ministerial) selection lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/…

‘Keir Starmer​ has made several eye-catching appointments to his new government from outside Parliament, continuing the practice of his predecessor.’ Tom Hickman on the use of peerages to appoint non-MPs to the cabinet: lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/…

Arrest of Telegram boss Pavel Durov is sequel to Twitter v Australia battle earlier this year (Aus e-Safety Commissioner failed to get permanent injunction for global removal of terrorist content)…/1

The ability of party activists to choose their leaders in both the UK and US has not been a happy experiment. The US car crashed almost immediately with McGovern and (I’m afraid to say) Carter. It took longer in the UK but Corbyn, IDS, Johnson and Truss show it’s a bad idea.

Bella Wallersteiner 🇺🇦 Tom Hickman has written rather convincingly on this subject (at the second half of this piece published by the LRB). He notes that all the major parties now use this type of system, but “historically this was not the case”. lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/…

Bella Wallersteiner 🇺🇦 Tom Hickman He noted a particular problem, insofar as the Prime Minister is meant to be the person “most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House”.

Labour moving quickly to remove hereditary peers from the Lords, a manifesto commitment, is welcome.

New post | The new Attorney General on the rule of law publiclawforeveryone.com/2024/10/17/the…

My latest piece for the The Spectator argues that Robert Jenrick is entirely wrong on the question of leaving the ECHR: it wouldn’t resolve the UK’s issues with illegal migration and is also bad policy: spectator.co.uk/article/what-r…

ON THE BLOG: Labour's removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords: 10 key questions answered Meg Russell explores some questions about hereditary peers, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill and Labour's policy in this area. constitution-unit.com/2024/10/15/lab…