Month: August 2022

Categories
Blog

Keeping an eye on the money we don’t have. Parliament’s oversight role on public debt 

Always be prepared for the next crisis. It seems that public debt spiraling out of control is on track to becoming the next global crisis.

Did you know that twenty-five of the poorest countries currently spend more on debt repayments than on education, health and social policy combined? Sixty percent of low- and middle-income developing countries are highly debt vulnerable. Public debt is currently at the highest level globally in over fifty years and triple its 2008 level. National economies might collapse, as we have seen recently in Sri Lanka. 

The origins of this situation are, among others, the COVID-19 crisis and its economic and financial impact, and debt management practices which might not have been very prudent.

But it is not all doom and gloom. There are ways to conduct public debt management in a responsible and accountable way. While public debt has traditionally been managed by the Ministry of Finance and executive agencies, there is increasing recognition of the unique roles for parliament in the governance of public debt. The role of parliaments is to ask questions, to scrutinize, to provide quality assurance of the process, and to ask what the priorities are. Parliaments are increasingly taking on this challenge, as we have seen in – for instance – Kenya, Zambia, Georgia, the Maldives, and the Caribbean.

In its submission to the UK House of Common’s International Development Committee’s inquiry, Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) suggested that the UK’s international development policies can be strengthened by including a public debt accountability lens through an enhanced role for parliaments in oversight of public debt. There are six incentives as to why national parliaments in partner countries can play a more active legislative and oversight role with regards to public debt:

  1. It serves as a catalyst for greater debt transparency.
  2. It helps to establish and implement a stronger legal framework on public debt management.
  3. It strengthens oversight over government policies and spending.
  4. It protects the national interest in emergency contexts and highlights the gendered effects of public debt.
  5. It unearths the risks of State-Owned Enterprises becoming a major cause of debt accumulation and debt crises.
  6. It contributes to deliver the requirements of successful Nature-for-Debt swaps, hence contributing to action on climate change mitigation and adaptation, for which these countries are otherwise receiving insufficient multilateral support, and to climate change finance accountability.

These six arguments for parliamentary involvement in public debt management should incentivise the UK and others making parliamentary oversight on public debt management one of the criteria for their debt relief schemes. Strengthening the governance and domestic accountability in debt relief schemes will contribute to prudent debt management and more sustainable economies.

However, based on our interaction with a range of parliaments globally, there are three main challenges. Firstly, parliaments might struggle with the technical nature of public debt questions. MPs and parliamentary staff might feel weary and intimidated about the complexity of the subject matter. Secondly, parliaments often do not have access to the relevant data to exercise oversight on public debt as the documentation is not shared by the executive. Fortypercent of low-income developing countries have never published public debt data or have not updated information in the past couple of years, and lenders such as China apply strict nondisclosure clauses. So, there is a need to bridge the information disconnect between the executive and the legislature. Thirdly, private sector lending has increased sharply in recent years, accounting for nearly 20% of loans to east and southern Africa. Often sold on to other private companies, including hedge funds and vulture funds, private lending is notoriously opaque as revealed by scandals in countries ranging from Mozambique to Malaysia.

To assist parliaments in facing these challenges, WFD is rolling out targeted support to parliaments through pilot assessments in public debt oversight, tailor-made learning and knowledge building, and parliamentary assistance programmes. Together with the National Democratic Institute (NDI), WFD recently published four new policy briefs. The briefs explain that, while most countries do have a financial administration act, far fewer countries have specific public debt legislation in place. Setting a legal framework for public debt management is one of parliament’s key tasks. The briefs outline best practices in the implementation and monitoring of a legal debt framework and the ratification of loan agreements. Beyond parliament’s legislative role, the briefs also cover parliament’s oversight role of public debt, and oversight over public debt in emergency contexts. The way how public debt was managed during the COVID-19 crisis has informed the brief on emergency context, though it is applicable to other potential future emergencies as well.

In addition, WFD developed a baseline assessment methodology on parliaments and public debt oversight and an e-course for parliamentarians, parliamentary staff, civil society and those engaged in public financial management. The e-course explores the concepts, mechanisms and risks which impact public debt management, and brings together expert contributors, country examples and interactive exercises.

In conclusion, it is worth mentioning that parliament’s capacity to oversee public debt management is very much linked to the depth of parliamentary scrutiny throughout the budget cycle, the resources available to committees, parliament’s oversight practices in general, and its ability to work collaboratively with civil society to enhance the political space to upscale transparency. 

Solid and accountable public debt management is not only the task of the government borrowing money. It is also a responsibility of the lenders — lending countries and lending international institutions — to ensure due diligence of the viability of the economic projects and of the rationale underpinning borrowing requests. Hence, the current initiative of revitalizing the UNCTAD principles on the promotion of sovereign lending and borrowing cannot be timelier and will hopefully contribute to avoiding a next global crisis of public debt spiraling out of control.

Franklin De Vrieze,
Head of Practice Accountability, Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

Categories
Urgent Questions

Professor Pete Dorey

PETE DOREY

Pete Dorey is Professor of British Politics at Cardiff University. He is the co-author of House of Lords reform since 1911: Must the Lords go? (Palgrave Macmillan) and the textbook Exploring British Politics (Routledge).

Please tell us a little bit about how you entered academia and your academic career

I’d always been vaguely interested in politics as long as I can remember, not from my parents, but somehow instinctively. I vaguely recall seeing some racist graffiti when I was about 9 or 10 years old, and instinctively being disgusted by it, and that, I think, prompted my curiosity about how people think (or don’t!), and what consequences that had on society in general, and people in particular. Once I started my degree at Sussex University, I knew I wanted to be an academic – I was interested in British politics, wanted to enthuse others in the way that I’d been inspired by my teachers, and loved writing, so becoming a Politics lecturer, teaching and publishing, seemed a natural career path to pursue. Besides, I could never envisage myself doing a corporate 9-5 job and wearing a suit!

Which five books/articles (written by someone else) have been most important to you in your academic career?

Ralph Miliband: The State in Capitalist Society – lent to me as summer holiday reading by my A-Level Sociology tutor. I have always been very grateful to her. It remains one of my favourite books about power and inequality in Britain; it is still relevant.

Ian Gilmour: Dancing With Dogma: Britain Under Thatcherism – the best critique of Thatcherism and its consequences, written by an eloquently despairing One Nation Tory.

Philip Norton: The Commons in Perspective – read this while doing my PhD at Hull University, and it prompted my life-long academic interest in Parliament.

John Kingdon: Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies – fascinating study about the interplay between problem-definition (including the role of ideas and ideology in ‘constructing’ problems), policy-formulation and adoption, and the need for the correct political circumstances to exist for policy change to be enacted, or else the problem/policy falls off the agenda.

George Orwell: The Lion and the Unicorn – Brilliant collection of essays on British politics, culture and national identity, and although published in 1941, many of his observations and criticisms are still relevant today.

Which person has been most influential and important to you in your academic career?

My A-Level English Lit, Politics, and Sociology, tutors at 6th Form, and also my Form Tutor who taught History; they all seemed to discern some academic potential in me, nurtured an intellectual curiosity (and lent me books), and encouraged me to apply for university – not something which anyone in my family had ever considered: “education is not for the likes of us.”

I also felt privileged to have been taught, at Leeds University, by the late David Coates, whose inspiring teaching reinforced by desire to pursue an academic career. We kept in touch thereafter, even after he’d emigrated to the United States.

Which of your own pieces of research are you most proud of?

I usually compare my publications unfavourably to those of the many more prestigious and prominent academics – Imposter Syndrome, I guess – but I was proud that my 2010 British Conservatism: The Politics and Philosophy of Inequality was awarded a PSA prize.

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

Writing, co-authoring or editing 18 books – so far!

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

Seeing universities transformed into soulless corporate businesses, replete with concomitant business jargon and management-speak, academics ‘proletarianized’ and micro-managed, and the slavish obsession with the REF and ‘grant capture’. Those of us who still believe in the educative, pedagogic and scholarly function of universities are made to feel that we are dinosaurs. I utterly despair at what has been done to British Higher Education by successive governments since the 1990s, and the unconcealed contempt with which they have treated academics; pandering to a philistine English anti-intellectualism.

What is the first or most important thing you tell your students about parliaments?

That if Parliament did not exist, it would have to be invented, and the importance of the ‘hidden face of power’ (Bachrach and Baratz) or ‘anticipated reactions’ which act as subtle constraints on Ministers and the Executive much of the time.

Where were you born, where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

Born and raised in Lancing (nowheresville), about 10 miles west of Brighton, but have always considered myself to be a proud Brightonian. There was absolutely nothing to do in Lancing, and I couldn’t wait to move away to a city. Since leaving, I have lived in Brighton, Leeds, Bristol and now Bath, where I live with my wife (having been married for 24 years).

What was your first job?

A paper-round while at school (at Christmas-time, I learned that the poorest people were the most generous tippers, and vice versa – I’m sure this helped shape my formative political values!), then a supermarket shelf-stacker on Saturdays and in school-holidays while at sixth-form. First academic job was a one-year Lectureship at Bath University, covering for the late, great, Elizabeth Meehan while she was on research leave.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

Temporary post-person in Leeds in the run-up to Christmas while I was a PhD student. The permanent posties thought it amusing to give the student ‘casuals’ the heaviest postbags, and delivery rounds in the least salubrious parts of Leeds. I was allocated two of the (then) most ‘renowned’ council estates, Gipton, and Halton Moor, where many gardens had an Alsatian or Rottweiler roaming free.

What  would your ideal job be, if not an academic?

As I love books, either a Librarian or working in a bookshop.

What are your hobbies?

Reading, independent cinema, gigs, attending plays at Bath Theatre Royal, curries, watching TV crime dramas and natural history documentaries, wine-tasting – have passed Level 1 of the Wine & Spirit Education Trust, coastal and riverside walks, European city-breaks.

What are your favourite novels?

Anything by my favourite author, Haruki Murakami – brilliantly imaginative writer whose stories have a slightly surreal quality to them.

The Handmaid’s Tale – Margaret Atwood’s harrowing dystopian novel which now tragically reads like current affairs.

The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet – David Mitchell’s wonderfully imaginative tale set in the era of late 18th century Dutch-Japanese trading; great characters and sparkling dialogue.  

Birdsong – Sebastian Faulks’ beautifully written intergenerational First World War saga.

The Wasp Factory – Iain Banks’ part-mischievous, part-macabre story.

The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists – Robert Tressell’s classis socialist novel – not much seems to have changed since it was published in 1914, in terms of the conservative and deferential attitudes of much of the working class.

What is your favourite music?

Music (rock/Indie/Glam) is very important to me, so I could not name just one album. My favourites include: Led Zeppelin – Volume IV and Physical Graffiti; Mott The Hoople – Mott; David Bowie – Aladdin Sane; The Stranglers – Rattus Norvegicus; Hawkwind – The Space Ritual; Portishead – Dummy; P. J. Harvey – Let England Shake; Manic Street Preachers – The Holy Bible; Pulp – Different Class; The Clash – Give ‘Em Enough Rope; Joy Division – Closer; Mitski – Be The Cowboy; Asian Dub Foundation – Tank; J. S. Bach – The Brandenburg Concertos.

Plus any albums by Half Man Half Biscuit, Klaus Nomi, Killing Joke, Wire, The Cure, Suede, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Psychedelic Furs, Mazzy Star, and Lee ‘Scratch’ Perry.

Basically, I’m an ageing Indie-kid who also likes dub-reggae!

Two film soundtracks I adore: Jocelyn Pook; ‘The Masked Ball’ (from Eyes Wide Shut and also Killing Joke’s ‘intro
music’ at gigs); Michael Nyman: ‘Memorial (from The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover).

What is your favourite film?

The Wicker Man – everything about it; the plot, the crackling dialogue, the quirky local characters, Christopher Lee’s fantastic role as Lord Summerisle, the slightly sinister soundtrack of supposedly Scottish folk-songs, and the totally mesmerising ending when Edward Woodward (Sergeant Howie) meets his tragic fate.

Pulp Fiction – Stellar performances from Uma Thurman, John Travolta, and Samuel L. Jackson, skilful juxtaposing of scenes from different time-frames, some superb dialogue and dark, desert-dry, humour.

Eyes Wide Shut – Weirdly wonderful, while sometimes exuding a somewhat sinister or menacing undercurrent, particularly ‘The Masked Ball’ scene. Great soundtrack.

What is your favourite building?

The Brotherton Library, Leeds University – I have such fond memories of studying in it while a postgraduate. Also, because it is on a slight hill, when you leave the building, Leeds city-centre is laid-out in front of you at the bottom of Woodhouse Lane. The library is also an iconic landmark which can be seen from many parts of Leeds.

What is your favourite tv show?

Crime dramas like Spiral, Mare of Easttown, Crimson Rivers, and ITV’s 1980s’ series of Sherlock Holmes starring Jeremy Brett. For laughter, Fawlty Towers, Have I Got News For You and Would I Lie to You.

What is your favourite holiday destination?

For adventure and/or experiencing different cultures – India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Costa Rica, Brazil.

For city-breaks – Aix-en-Provence, Bordeaux, Brighton, Bruges (my sister-in-law lives there!), Buenos Aires, Cascais, Istanbul, New Orleans, Paris, Porto, Prague, Sitges, and Venice.

What is your favourite sport?

Football – not to play, but because I am a life-long supporter of Brighton & Hove Albion.

Cricket – I love listening to Test Match Special in the summer while I am writing; the whimsical conversations and anecdotes are often more entertaining than the actual cricket!

What is your favourite food?

I love curries – fortunately, there is a marvellous family-run Bangladeshi restaurant just a 10-minute walk from our house. The curries are consistently delicious. We go once or twice each month, and are on first-name terms with all the lovely staff.

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

Preferably not, unless an MP has carer or primary childcare responsibilities.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Appointed, but entirely by an independent commission on the basis of expertise or experience from all walks of life, and reflecting Britain’s demographics, in terms of ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.

Restoration or Renewal?

Gradual renewal under the guise of restoration!

Cat or Dog?

Dog (Labrador).

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Trains – I like long train journeys where I can either write on my laptop, or immerse myself in a book.

Fish and chips or Curry?

Curry, obviously; see answer above!

Scones: Devonshire or Cornish Method?

I don’t eat scones, so have no opinion.

And, finally, a question asked by Seth, who has just turned 10: Who is your best friend and why?

My wife, Jane – she really is my soulmate. We share the same social values and political views; like the same indie-bands and dub-reggae, and regularly going to gigs (7-8 per year); have the same dark or dry sense of humour; love going for curries; like new world chardonnay and wine-tasting courses; share a love of literature and are always recommending or sharing books; have read The Guardian since our teens (to the dismay of our parents); and shared many adventure holidays together – backpacking around India/Vietnam/Cambodia, safari in Kenya, piranha-fishing in Brazil, and most recently, and best of all, trekking through the rain-forests of Costa Rica, successfully searching for tarantulas, scorpions, venomous snakes, poison dart frogs, and exotic birds.

Categories
Blog Uncategorized

The Butterfly Effect: Representation as Fractal Politics

What does a coastline have in common with effective rhetoric? Each component resembles something bigger, and bigger, and bigger. And what can this sort of fractal pattern show us about politics? To Alex Prior, fractals illustrate successful representation, and the impulses that drive it

‘As above, so below’

In launching the ‘Science of Democracy’ blog series, Jean-Paul Gagnon argues that democracy’s words require a new narrative. Agustín Goenaga credits Gagnon with a ‘living archive’ of stories. As I have argued previously, the best way of understanding narratives and stories – and their importance to democracy – is through their fractal nature.

Fractals are patterns; we see them constantly. They are in trees, lightning, coastlines. If you zoom in on any of those images, they still resemble themselves. This is self-similarity, a defining characteristic of fractals.

Self-similarity is a defining characteristic of fractals and of representation, which makes present what is not physically there

It is also a characteristic of representation (in its many forms): ‘making something present’, typically by acting on something or someone’s behalf. The notion that we can make present what is not physically there (a constituency, an idea, or anything else) is central to my research on parliamentary systems. Such systems depend on representatives making others’ voices and values present.

Fractal politics?

Self-similarity – and recursion (the repetition of a structure with continual reference, at each stage, to the structure itself) – is applicable to politics in many ways. For example, some advocate ‘fractal democracy’ as a practical model of governance. Says Jasper Sky: ‘Groups of seven people each choose one representative, and those seven representatives then meet to choose a representative, and so on, up several levels of representation…[with] the person at the top of the fractal hierarchy to be held fully accountable at every level.’

Fractals also give us a conceptual framework for politics. ‘Fractal politics’, writes Gordon Fletcher, ‘reflects the sociological sensibility that people seek out self-similarity in the form of opinions and worldviews that align with their own identity’. Fractals can help us understand not only political communication and support, but the ways in which we interact with our own social reality.

But how can we study (or even conceptualise) these opinions and those who ‘make’ them? And what does it really mean to seek out self-similarity (i.e., to seek ourselves) in the opinions and worldviews of others? The answer to both questions lies in representation.

A fractal reading of representation

Fractals can be read into theoretical works on representation, such as those of Derrida, who contends that ‘[e]verything begins by referring back (par le renvoi), that is to say, does not begin’. Derrida’s description centres around self-similarity and recursion (‘referring back’), as well as infinite replicability (‘does not begin’).

So far, so fractal. But fractals are even more relevant to contemporary representation theory. Saward’s theory of the representative claim identifies how ‘[m]akers of representative claims suggest to the potential audience: (1) you are/are part of this audience, (2) you should accept this view, this construction — this representation — of yourself, and (3) you should accept me as speaking and acting for you.’

Representation is a ‘claim’ made to an audience about the maker of the claim (a politician, for example), about what they ‘stand for’, and about that audience

Saward shows us how representation works. It is a ‘claim’ (or a series of claims) made to an audience about the maker of the claim (a politician, for example), about what they ‘stand for’, and about that audience.

A representative claim can be made at different scales (e.g., to a person, a group, a region), sometimes simultaneously. It is also accepted or rejected (i.e., interpreted) by audiences at many different scales (e.g., myself as an individual, as a citizen, as a person, etc). Fractals are invaluable in helping to conceptualise the way that representative claims in politics and beyond connect (or fail to connect) with their audience.

Effective (and ineffective) representative claims, in fractals

Consider Obama’s effective ‘yes we can’ 2008 slogan. People saw themselves within this slogan, at many (potentially infinite) scales:

Figure 1: An effective representative claim

Representative claim 'Yes we can' mapped out down to a fractal level, in a triangle figure

The left image resembles the right image at every scale. Effective representative claims resemble the audience at every level; audience members identify themselves within (with/in) the claim. We thereby read effective representative claims as successful appeals to self-similarity.

This process is not always successful. On 4 June 1958, against the backdrop of the Algerian War of Independence and the collapse of the Fourth Republic, Charles De Gaulle arrived in Algiers and uttered the famous words Je vous ai compris! [I understood you!]. To this day it is unclear who De Gaulle was addressing: Algerians? French Algeria? Colonists? The military?

Figure 2: An ineffective representative claim

Representative claim 'I understood you' mapped as a square figure, that is not fractal

The failure of this representative claim lies in a failed appeal to self-similarity. It failed to reflect (or even define) an audience at any scale.

Self-similarity matters for the maker of the representative claim, not just the audience. Obama included himself (‘we’) in a claim of common purpose, with/in which the audience recognised themselves. De Gaulle’s claim (‘I understood you’) lacks self-similarity. Audience members were left wondering who ‘they’ were, who De Gaulle was, and who/what he ‘stood for’.

Why fractals matter

The mathematician Edward Norton Lorenz is closely associated with chaos theory and the ‘butterfly effect’, by which small initial variations eventually yield drastic outcomes. For example – a person writes a short essay in Canberra; later, I see a broad and rich international academic debate. Fractals are a component of chaos, and a means of visualising it.

Studying representation in action (via fractals) clarifies the appeal of self-similarity, and why some statements are all-encompassing in their alienation

They also provide a means of studying narratives and stories within a ‘science of democracy’. Moreover, studying representation in action (via fractals) clarifies the appeal of self-similarity. We seek patterns, and we seek ourselves. This matters in terms of content and context. Alongside the political statements and patterns discussed earlier, consider that Obama reflected an audience (‘we’) descriptively and symbolically, in a way that De Gaulle could not, and arguably never claimed to (‘I…you’).

Fractals show us how ambiguous (but ostensibly all-encompassing) political and other statements are, in practice. They are all-encompassing only inasmuch as they alienate everyone at the same time. This mattered in 1958, it mattered in 2008, and it matters today.

By Alex Prior, Lecturer in Politics with International Relations, London South Bank University

Alex’s research focuses on public engagement with parliaments and other political institutions. His work also discusses the usefulness of narratives and storytelling in conceptualising, as well as strengthening, political engagement. He tweets @VoterEngagement

This post was originally posted on The Loop blog. See the original post here: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-butterfly-effect-representation-as-fractal-politics/

Categories
Blog

Breaking the Glass Chamber: Women, Politics and Parliament, 1945-1997

By Anna Muggeridge

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, women struggled to achieve political representation at the highest levels and at times, what progress and gains had been made could be lost. The number of women sitting in the House of Commons at any one time, for example, did not slowly but steadily increase. Fewer women were elected in the general election of 1951 than had been elected in 1950; fewer in 1966 than in 1964, and fewer in 1979 than (October) 1974. 1979 famously saw the first woman Prime Minister, but Margaret Thatcher’s relationship with feminism and the wider women’s movement is but one contentious aspect of her premiership. Notably, Thatcher only appointed one woman to a Cabinet position (Baroness Young, who served for just two years) and when Thatcher herself resigned and was replaced by John Major, the country had no women in Cabinet until 1992, when Gillian Shephard and Virginia Bottomley were appointed Education and Health Secretaries respectively. The first Black woman MP, Diane Abbott, was not elected until 1987, almost seven decades after the first white woman, Nancy Astor, took her seat in 1919. And in 1997, Labour’s landslide victory saw more than 100 women elected but this achievement was diminished and trivialised by labelling them ‘Blair’s Babes’. The story of women parliamentarians, and indeed women’s wider engagement with politics, through these years is therefore more nuanced and complex than an initial glance might suggest, and there is still much to be discovered about their experiences.

In September, the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary, University of London, will host a conference which seeks to bring together historians, political scientists, and sociologists to generate new conversations, relationships, and understandings of what politics meant to and for women in the second half of the twentieth century. In addition, the conference will play host to a number of current and former female members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, who will reflect on their own experiences, including Baroness Angela Browning, Dame Margaret Hodge, Baroness Estelle Morris, Baroness Emma Nicholson, Baroness Dawn Primarolo, Baroness Gillian Shephard, and Siân James. We will also hear from campaign groups including 50:50 Parliament and the Fawcett Society, who will lead discussions about the future of women in politics. Keynote lectures by historians, sociologists and political scientists – including Professor Laura Beers, Professor Julie Gottleib, Professor Khursheed Wadia, Professor Clarisse Berthèzene, and Professor Sarah Childs, will enable scholars to reflect on the different insights and perspectives from cutting edge research on women in political campaigns, parties and institutions.

It is only by drawing together those working in a range of disciplines, as well as those with direct experience of working in and with parliament, that a true picture of women’s experiences in politics in this period will start to emerge. More significantly, the conference offers the opportunity to develop new directions in research into women’s politics in the later twentieth century, shaping the questions and lines of enquiry of current and future researchers into this relatively understudied area of British political history.

Papers at the conference will address a variety of local, national and international themes. With talks by, for instance, Micaela Panes on women’s activism in South Wales before the 1970s; Tom Chidwick on women’s role in the campaign for a Scottish Assembly, and Charitini Ntini on women’s in the Provisional IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, we ask how far national identities impacted on gendered politics in this period. Other papers explore women’s experiences on the international stage, something which has often been overlooked, such as Richard Johnson’s examination of women and Euroscepticism or Charlotte Lydia Riley’s analysis of women and British overseas development policy.

A number of talks will explore the experiences of women from minoritized backgrounds in this period. Farah Hussain’s timely keynote invites us to consider the role Muslim women play and have played within the Labour party. Beckie Rutherford asks how disabled women conceived of themselves as ‘political’, while Ashlee Christofferson will address the whiteness of ‘sex discrimination’ legislation. While there may, broadly speaking, have been progress in terms of the number of women sitting in Parliament between 1945 and 1997, there is still much opportunity to reflect on how other aspects of individuals’ identities—their race, class, sexuality or religion, for example—intersected with their gender within and outside the House of Commons.

Indeed, many of the papers at the conference will address campaigns which did not (necessarily) take place within parliament, such as Rose Debenham’s talk on the women of Greenham Common; Frances Galt’s research into women’s industrial disputes around the time of the 1970 Equal Pay Act, or Grace Heaton’s analysis of women’s roles in the campaign for the ordination of women. At the same time, other papers will consider how structures, institutions and cultures worked to exclude women: and how women sought to break down these barriers: with Emma Lundin providing a comparative perspective on gender quotas and gatekeeping strategies and Gillian Murphy reflecting on the post-war lobbying group Women for Westminster.

The conference therefore offers a unique opportunity for academics, politicians, policymakers and campaigners to come together to discuss the female political experience in the second half of the twentieth century, and, in so doing, open up new directions for current and future research. We very much hope that you will join us at the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary, University of London from Thursday 15 to Saturday 17 September. Details of how to watch the main sessions if you are not able to attend in person will be available nearer the time. You can view the full programme and sign up for tickets at the MEI website.

Dr Anna Muggeridge is Lecturer in History at the University of Worcester and a Visiting Research Fellow at the Mile End Institute.