What evidence would MPs need to bring Boris Johnson down? with Hannah White

The New Statesman | UK politics and culture

The New Statesman

News & Politics, Society & Culture, News, Politics

4.4 • 1.4K Ratings

🗓️ 26 April 2022

⏱️ 24 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

With partygate rumbling on and Boris Johnson referred to the House of Commons’ Committee of Priviliges, Anoosh Chakelian speaks to Hannah White, the deputy director of the Institute for Government.

White is a former civil servant who worked on standards in public life and as a Commons clerk. She explains exactly how the privileges committee works, why the Prime Minister has been allowed to decide his own fate (so far) and what can be done to improve trust in parliament.

White’s new book, Held in Contempt: What's Wrong with the House of Commons, is published by Manchester University Press and available in bookshops now.

If you have a question for You Ask Us, email [email protected]

Podcast listeners can subscribe to the New Statesman for just £1 a week for 12 weeks using our special offer. Just visit newstatesman.com/podcastoffer.

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

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Hi, I'm Anouche, and on today's episode of the New Statesman podcast, I'm delighted
0:05.1	to be joined by Dr Hannah White, Deputy Director of the Institute for Government, who's previously
0:10.1	worked in Whitehall as Secretary of the Committee on Standards and Public Light in the Cabinet
0:13.7	Office, and before that was a House of Commons clerk. Her new book, called Held in Content,
0:18.9	Thoughts Wrong with the House of Commons, is published by Manchester University Press.
0:29.9	So, I'm delighted to be joined on today's episode of the New Statesman by Dr Hannah White,
0:34.9	and it's a very good time for your book to come out, or perhaps very bad time for democracy.
0:40.9	So, thanks so much for coming on, we've got a lot to talk about, but first of all, as you were
0:45.9	someone who previously was inside the system, I just wonder how you think the culture in the
0:50.9	Commons, and in Whitehall as well, has changed from the time that you were there, I think you started in
0:56.9	the House of Commons in 2004, and of course, you're around to see how the expenses scandal played out.
1:02.9	Was it very different back then? I think some things have changed. I think in any organisation
1:07.9	culture is the slowest thing to change, so what's really changed since 2004 is some of the
1:12.9	status around standards. We've outsourced MPs, expenses, salaries, and so on to an external
1:18.9	body, which I think has really put a lid on stories about misuse of expenses, largely speaking,
1:22.9	except the ones which end up being criminal. Then we had the new scandal about bullying and
1:27.9	harassment in the Commons, and that really exposed the inadequacy of procedures
1:31.9	believing that's been addressed, whether it's been totally satisfactorily addressed is another
1:36.9	question, but whether the culture change which needs to follow from putting those sorts of
1:41.9	structures in place has happened, I think, is a more doubtful question.
1:44.9	Okay, yeah, and I just wonder how you feel about all these stories about parties from Downing Street
1:49.9	coming out, and is that a Downing Street that you recognise from your time in Whitehall?
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The New Statesman, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The New Statesman and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.