Boris Johnson’s long-awaited list of new peerage appointments was published today, and includes 36 names. Instantly, by appointing such a large number of new members to the Lords, Johnson has undone years of progress in trying to manage the size of the chamber down – returning it to over 800 members. Here, Meg Russell, a leading academic expert on the Lords and adviser to two different parliamentary committees on the chamber’s size, analyses the numbers – showing the detrimental effects on both the chamber’s overall membership and its party balance. She argues that Johnson’s new peerages make it clearer than ever that constraints must be placed on the Prime Minister’s power to appoint to the Lords.

News reports about Boris Johnson’s first major round of Lords appointments have focused largely on personalities – the appointment of cricketer Ian Botham, the return to the fold of Conservative grandees such as Ken Clarke and Philip Hammond, who Johnson stripped of the party whip last year, and his reward of former Labour Brexiteers. But while some of these names may be notable, the bigger and more important issue is how Johnson’s new appointments will affect the Lords as a parliamentary chamber, and how they show up – yet again, and powerfully – the problems with the largely unregulated appointment process.

It is remarkable that in 2023 there are still no enforceable constraints on how many peers a Prime Minister can appoint to the second chamber of the UK legislature. Formally appointments are made by the Queen, but convention requires her to act on prime ministerial advice. The Prime Minister can choose when to appoint, how many to appoint, and what the party balance is among new members. A 【虚拟机连不上网怎么解决】 虚拟机怎么连不上网络 - 范文大全:2021-12-27 · 这篇虚拟机连不上网怎么解决是小编特地为大家整理的，希望对大家有所帮助!1、VMware Workstation虚拟机安装好后，网络不能连接，点击打开网页不能显示。2、点击虚拟机导航上的编辑，在 … (HOLAC) was created in 2000, but has very limited power. It merely vets the Prime Minister’s proposed nominees for propriety (e.g. ensuring that their tax affairs are in order), and recommends an occasional handful of names for appointment as independent members. It can do nothing to police the numbers, or even the broader suitability of the PM’s own appointees. In theory, a Prime Minister could simply appoint hundreds of members of their own party (indeed, during the Brexit debates there were threats to do so both from the now Commons Leader 手机虚拟专用网络设置 and from Johnson himself). Appointees could even all be personal friends of the Prime Minister. The sole constraint is HOLAC’s propriety check (which is rumoured to have 网络命伌和专用网络测试工具软件-网络命伌和专用网络测试 ...:阿里云为您提供网络命伌和专用网络测试工具软件相关的28420条产品文档内容及常见问题解答内容，还有daocloud nginx php，win7系统怎么共享文件，服务器涨价，云服务器双11有活动么，等云计算产品文档及常见问题解答。如果您想了解更多云计算产品，就来阿里云帮助文档查看吧，阿里云帮助文档地址 ...) and any fear of media or public backlash. This unregulated patronage is one of the last vestiges of pure prime ministerial ‘prerogative手机虚拟专用网络设置last year’s Supreme Court case, even the previously unregulated power to prorogue parliament now exists within some legal constraints.

Aside from general concerns about patronage, there are two main interconnected problems caused by unregulated appointments on the House of Lords. First, the ever growing size of the chamber. Second, the lack of any rational basis for its party balance.  Continue reading →

Continue reading →

Dominic Grieve, former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, discusses whether or not reform of the committee is desirable or sensible following the dual controversies of the delayed release of its report on Russia and the government’s unsuccessful attempt to whip committee members into supporting its choice of Chair.

The recent controversy over the election of a new Chair for the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament华为手机虚拟专用网络怎么用？华为手机使用虚拟专用网络 ...:2021-5-14 · 华为手机使用“虚拟专用网络”方法 第一步：我伊首先打开手机，点击设置选项。 第二步：进入到设置后，我伊选择其他设置。 第三步：进入其他设置之后我伊选择“虚拟专用网络”菜单。 第四步：我伊可伍看到下方有个添加“虚拟专用网络”链接。the failure to publish its report on the threat from Russia, has put the spotlight on both the constitution and work of an organisation that usually attracts limited attention.

Prior to 1989 the existence of all three of the UK’s intelligence agencies, the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was not even avowed, despite their existence being common knowledge. While from 1989, a degree of scrutiny started for the work of the Security Service (MI5), as a result of the Security Service Act, there was also no system of parliamentary scrutiny of their activities. Any question raised in parliament on a topic of national security involving the operational work of all three of the agencies would not and will still not normally be answered.

In 1994 the government of John Major put the work of all the agencies on a statutory footing with the Intelligence Services Act. This also made provision for the establishment of an Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to oversee their work. But this was effectively confined to their expenditure, administration and policy. The ISC had no power to investigate specific operations. The ISC was also answerable to the Prime Minister and not to parliament, even if it was composed of parliamentarians. Although the cross-party composition of nine members involved input from the leaders of the Opposition and of the third largest party in the Commons, appointment was at the discretion of the PM, who also chose the Chair. The ISC reported to the PM, who decided what if anything of any report might be published. There was criticism that the relationship between the ISC and the PM and the agencies was too close and that it did not have the independence needed to provide proper oversight. When after 2005 concerns grew about both UK involvement in US unlawful detention and rendition and in the handling of counterterrorism, the government allowed the ISC to widen its remit, by agreement, to allow it to look into some past operational matters. Continue reading →

The Constitution Unit is leading a 虚拟机配置NAT网络模式_VariatioZbw的博客-CSDN博客:2021-6-15 · 一、NAT模式介绍NAT（Network Address Translation，网络地址转换）是1994年提出的。当在专用网内部的一些主机本来已经分配到了本地IP地址（即仅在本专用网内使用的专用地址），但现在又想和因特网上的主机通信（并不需要加密）时，可使用 .... This week, it launches a public consultation, seeking views from people in Northern Ireland on the issues it is considering. In this post, Alan Renwick, 手机虚拟专用网络, and Charlotte Kincaid outline the purposes of the group’s work and the kinds of questions that it is asking.

Readers can access the consultation survey by clicking here.

The Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland is examining how any future referendum on Northern Ireland’s constitutional future would best be run. Such a referendum – sometimes known as a ‘border poll’ – would decide (alongside a parallel process in the Republic of Ireland) whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or become part of a united Ireland.

A referendum like this could occur in the future. Under the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may call a poll at any time. He or she would be required to do so if at any time it appeared likely that a majority of those voting would back a united Ireland. Most of the evidence suggests that this is some way off. But there are also signs that the majority in favour of the existing Union may have weakened, and that trend may continue. 

Yet, despite the possibility of a referendum, almost no thinking has been done about what the process would involve. The Working Group is seeking to fill that important gap. It takes no view on whether a referendum should happen or what the outcome of such a vote should be. But we think that planning for a referendum is important. Some people are eager for a vote in the coming years and will therefore no doubt be keen to discuss it. Others, we realise, view the prospect with great trepidation, and may not wish to give the idea undue prominence. We fully respect that. But we hope that even these people will see the value of planning ahead, just in case. Holding a vote without thinking through the process carefully in advance could be very destabilising, to the detriment of people across Northern Ireland.  Continue reading →

Seventeen of the Prime Ministers to take office since 1900 left office for reasons other than defeat at a general election. In this blogpost, Rodney Brazier, author of the recently published 手机虚拟专用网络, reflects on how those Prime Ministers have secured and surrendered the keys to Number 10, and the Queen’s role in their appointment.

一种适用于虚拟专用网络的快速重连方法与流程 - X技术:本发明属于网络安全技术领域，尤其涉及一种适用于虚拟专用网络的快速重连方法。背景技术随着虚拟专用网络(VPN)技术的普及，VPN技术已经支持移动设备，移动设备安装VPN客户端，接入网络(Wlan网络或移动网络)后即可访问专网。但是网络信号仍旧不稳定，移动设备经常变化位置，造成网络信号的 ...Choosing a Prime Minister then brows might furrow. The book notes that 17 of the two-dozen individuals who have occupied Number 10 since 1900 were forced to leave without any push from the voters. Illness or old age, revolts in the governing party, loss of the confidence of the House of Commons, or personal political blunders all contributed to that high total. Indeed, three of Johnson’s four immediate predecessors (Tony Blair, David Cameron and Theresa May) quit without the electorate’s help. Ill health and party coups were the main, but not at all the only, causes of all those 17 exits. Johnson himself had a brush with death【虚拟机连不上网怎么解决】 虚拟机怎么连不上网络 - 范文大全:2021-12-27 · 这篇虚拟机连不上网怎么解决是小编特地为大家整理的，希望对大家有所帮助!1、VMware Workstation虚拟机安装好后，网络不能连接，点击打开网页不能显示。2、点击虚拟机导航上的编辑，在 … Continue reading →

Four decades after the dismissal of the Whitlam government, letters between the Palace and the Governor-General of Australia have been made public. Anne Twomey explains that they show the Queen acted properly, neither advising nor encouraging the government’s dismissal, recommending simply that he obey the Australian Constitution.

For more than four decades, the question has been asked: did the Queen know the governor-general, Sir John Kerr, was about to dismiss the Whitlam government, and did she encourage or support that action? The release of the ‘palace letters’ between Kerr and the palace can now lay that question to rest. The answer was given, unequivocally, by the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, in a letter to Kerr on November 17 1975. He said:

‘If I may say so with the greatest respect, I believe that in NOT informing The Queen what you intended to do before doing it, you acted not only with perfect constitutional propriety but also with admirable consideration for Her Majesty’s position.’

Certainly, Kerr had kept the palace up to date with the various developments in Australia. While governors-general usually communicate with the Queen only three or four times a year during ordinary times, it is common during a crisis for updates on the political situation to be made every few days – particularly if there is a risk of the Queen becoming involved or the exercise of a reserve power drawing the palace into the crisis.

In 1975, there were multiple issues that might have drawn the palace into the crisis. First, there was the question of whether Kerr should exercise a reserve power to refuse royal assent to an appropriation bill that had been passed by the House of Representatives but not the Senate. Fortunately, Whitlam dropped this idea, so that controversy disappeared.

Then there was the question of whether state premiers would advise state governors to refuse to issue the writs for a half-Senate election, and whether Whitlam would then advise the Queen to instruct the governors to issue the writs. This didn’t happen either, because Whitlam did not get to hold his half-Senate election. But the prospect was enough to worry the palace. Continue reading →

虚拟机不能大唐_优惠券-抓券网:2021最新_虚拟机不能大唐_优惠券免费领取-抓券网 独家内部优惠券直播!每天万款内部优惠券免费领取、让您享受更多优惠！Alex Walker offers an analysis of the report.

On 29 June, the House of Lords Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technology published a major report华为智能手机虚拟专用网络设置的用途是什么-太平洋IT百科:华为智能手机虚拟专用网络我伊可伍把它理解成是虚拟出来的伋业内部专线。华为手机最近很火爆，因为这是华为转型的一个重要战略，伍前华为很低调，只做研发，不过现在华为目标是做全球顶级手机厂商，所伍面对消费者还是刚刚开始，华为手机通过明星手机塑造品牌形象。

The committee’s recommendations on fact-checking, digital imprints, libraries of online political advertising, and promotion of digital literacy echo those of many earlier analyses, including those of the Electoral Commission and the Independent Commission on Referendums, as well as the Unit’s Doing Democracy Better report, published last year. Drawing on one of the core proposals of Doing Democracy Better, the Unit’s Deputy Director and author of the report Alan Renwick, along with co-author Michela Palese and Joe Mitchell (then of Democracy Club), gave written evidence to the committee setting out the case for an independent democratic information hub. The committee fully endorsed the proposal.  Continue reading →

Monitor 75, the latest edition of the Unit’s regular news update on constitutional issues, was published this morning. Since the last edition in March, what had once been the defining issue of this political generation — Brexit — has been almost entirely subsumed by an even larger crisis: COVID-19. A new and inexperienced government has found itself temporarily without its Prime Minister, announced the departure of the Cabinet Secretary, and encountered significant dissension from the backbenches on more than one occasion. Tensions within the Union have been thrown into stark relief  by the increasingly different courses pursued by its constituent nations. As for the state of democracy, parliament has trialled numerous methods of operation, passing laws and changing how it regulates itself in multiple ways, whilst elections have been put on hold and organisations involved in deliberative democracy have struggled to continue their work. Meg Russell and Alan Renwick discuss the key events and themes of  the past four months, and also reflect briefly on the Unit’s history as it celebrates its 25th anniversary. 

As the last issue of 手机虚拟专用网络设置 went to press in early March the idea that COVID-19 might change everything was  only just dawning. In the subsequent four months, its impact on politics as well as daily life has been transformational. Just as the UK hoped to exit one torrid period of politics dominated by a single issue, a new, still bigger challenge eclipsed it. Brexit has barely featured in the past few months’ political news. Instead, Boris Johnson rapidly shifted from the Prime Minister who would ‘get Brexit done’ to the one who needed to steer the nation through a health crisis, and perhaps in due course through an economic crisis as well.

COVID-19 has touched almost every aspect of how politics is done, and raised new questions about the functioning of some aspects of the UK constitution, as this issue of Monitor sets out. The Coronavirus Bill was rushed through both chambers of parliament – with consent from the devolved legislatures – in just six days in March, as the official ‘lockdown’ was just beginning. At the outset this barred most workplaces from opening and confined most people – except when undertaking limited activities – to their homes. The Prime Minister spoke to the nation in a televised address, and daily Downing Street press conferences involving ministers and (usually) government scientists became the norm, seven days per week. On 6 April Boris Johnson himself was hospitalised with the virus, leaving Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab to deputise (see page 12). Other key ministers and officials – notably including Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings – also fell ill.

At the start of the crisis there was widespread support for the government’s position, within the governing party, across the parties and among the devolved administrations. Public approval for the government’s handling was high, in what political scientists would see was typical of the ‘rally round the flag’ effect often found in national crises. But since that time, tensions have gradually grown. Continue reading →

Image Credit: 虚拟专用网络（VPN）-培训视频教程-腾讯课堂 - QQ:用手机看 扫一扫继续用手机看 微信扫码 QQ扫码 下载手机APP 收藏 全部 虚拟专用网络 更多班级 虚拟专用网络 支持随到随学，23年07月过期 ¥7.72 本班因教学质量问题暂时不能报名 ... (CC BY 3.0) by UK Parliament

In recent weeks, the government has taken the Commons from an acceptable hybrid system to the current confused regime of limited virtual participation and proxy voting. As David Natzler has outlined in previous posts, during the coronavirus lockdown the Commons moved with surprising speed and unity to create a hybrid parliament in which MPs could participate remotely, with the same speaking and voting rights as members present in the chamber. Here David outlines how the Commons moved so fast and so far backwards on virtual involvement for MPs. 

什么是 VPN？虚拟专用网络 | 为什么要使用 VPN | 卡巴斯基 ...:了解虚拟专用网络 (VPN) - 什么是 VPN、VPN 的工作原理伍及应考虑使用它的原因。 ... 不，这不是您的被害妄想症。确实有人在监视不安全的 Wi-Fi 网络上的流量，试图截取您的个人数据。

The first regime of virtual participation: 21 April to 20 May

On 21 and 22 April, on its return from the Easter recess, the House agreed to several government motions which established a temporary regime allowing for virtual participation by members in hybrid scrutiny and substantive proceedings手机虚拟专用网络设置remote voting, to endure until 12 May. The regime was founded on a resolution of general principles also agreed on 21 April, including a requirement for parity of treatment between members participating virtually and those participating in person. Virtual select committee proceedings had already been established under a separate and longer-lasting order手机虚拟专用网络agreed to extend the debating and voting regimes until 20 May. 

Non-renewal of the regime

This regime operated successfully for the best part of a month, until the House rose on 20 May for the Whitsun recess, at which point the detailed operative Orders agreed on 21 and 22 April, but not the resolution setting out the founding principles, lapsed. It became known on 11 and 12 May through the government strategy statement and remarks路由设置_虚拟专用网络 VPN_常见问题_华为云 - Huawei:2021-3-13 · 虚拟专用网络是否支持SSL VPN？ VPN配置下发后，多久能够生效？ 旧版VPN资源无法正常使用如何解决？ 华为云VPN是否支持IPv6 如何选择购买VPN带宽的大小？ 组网与使用场景 是否可伍通过VPN实现跨境访问国外网站？ Continue reading →

A new bill currently before parliament alters the rules governing the periodic redrawing of the UK’s parliamentary constituencies, most notably by replacing a requirement to limit the House of Commons to 600 MPs with a new fixed size, set at the current 650. But, as 手机虚拟专用网络设置, David Rossiter and Charles Pattie show, the new rules are just as likely as those they replace to result in major disruption to the constituency map at all future reviews. 

In 2011, the coalition government passed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, which changed the rules guiding how the UK’s parliamentary constituencies are drawn up. Boundary reviews were to take place every five years (more frequently than before). Almost all new seats (with four exceptions) were to have electorates within +/-5% of the national quota (the average electorate). And the House of Commons was to be reduced in size from 650 to 600 MPs. To date, the Boundary Commissions have conducted two redistricting exercises under the 2011 Act. Neither review has been implemented: the first was lost to infighting in the coalition, and the second was tabled in September 2018 but has not yet been approved by parliament. The proposed changes they contained would have produced the largest shake-up in Britain’s constituency map in modern times.

Now the redistricting rules look set to change again. The Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 2023-21, published on 20 May, is now moving through its Committee Stage in parliament. It retains the requirements that all constituencies (with four exceptions) should have an electorate within +/-5% of the national average, but changes the number of constituencies to 650 – the argument being that with Brexit there will be more work for MPs, and thus a need for more of them, than if we had remained a member of the EU. If the Bill is passed, the Boundary Commissions will be required to recommend a new set of 650 constituencies by 1 July 2023 – in time for the next general election, due in May 2024. Subsequent reviews will then take place on a slightly longer timetable than under the 2011 Act – every eight years. Continue reading →