Publications

Representation of women in politics

2012-01-12T13:02:00Z

This month marks two years since the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation published its report and to date little progress has been made in implementing its findings.

Today, the report will finally be discussed by MPs after the Backbench Business Committee scheduled a debate on parliamentary representation on a motion proposed by Dame Anne Begg MP (who was the vice-chair of the Speaker’s Conference).

The Hansard Society has updated our Women at the Top briefing paper setting out some of the latest statistics about the representation of women in politics and public life in the UK today.

For further information, contact Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament and Government programme at ruth.fox@hansardsociety.org.uk

Parliamentary Affairs

2011-11-04T11:05:00Z

Essential reading for anyone interested in contemporary politics

Discounted rate for Hansard Society members

The latest issue of Parliamentary Affairs (October 2011) contains a variety of articles including an examination of women in Irish politics, an analysis of the Wright Committee reforms and an analysis of the SNP's draft constitution for Scotland.

As well as abstracts from the articles Parliamentary Affairs podcasts are also available. These are interviews with the authors designed to explore themes from their work. The podcasts are between 10 and 15 minutes long, and designed to inform researchers and to serve as teaching tools to stimulate discussion amongst students.

Parliamentary Affairs is a long-established quarterly journal published by Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society. Individual subscriptions to Parliamentary Affairs cost £62 a year but if you become a member of the Hansard Society for £60 a year, included within this cost is a special reduced subscription to Parliamentary Affairs for just £25 a year.

Become a member of the Hansard Society (£60 a year) and receive a reduced subscription rate to Parliamentary Affairs included within this cost.
Individual subscriptions cost £62 a year from jnls.cust.serv@oup.com or Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP

Connecting Citizens to Parliament

2011-09-19T11:41:00Z

Connecting Citizens to Parliament explores which communities and social groups are not engaging with Parliament, why and how this might be redressed. It concludes that connecting with ‘hard to reach' groups cannot be achieved by a sudden radical change of approach, but demands a number of smaller cumulative step-changes, many of which Parliament can initiate or suggest but cannot necessarily lead.

The Connecting Citizens to Parliament research is based on a quantitative survey of 2,005 adults and five qualitative semi-structured focus groups. It confirms that social class and age are the strongest determining factors for engagement. Barriers to engagement include:

Parliament itself because of arcane traditions and the complexity of its processes and procedures
The narrow range and overall lack of parliamentary coverage in the media
Weaknesses in the delivery of political literacy education in schools, in the community and voluntary sector
The dearth of informal learning opportunities through public libraries and social networks.

Parliament 2020: Visioning the Future Parliament

2011-09-19T11:18:00Z

Parliament 2020: Visioning the Future Parliament - international research from the Hansard Society - demonstrates that effective political literacy education and greater use of digital media are priorities to bridge the gap between elected representatives and the public.

The focus of Parliament 2020: Visioning the Future Parliament is on how parliaments can improve processes, enhance communication and better engage with citizens. The participants in the research project comprised parliamentarians, parliamentary officials and members of the public from four countries (Australia, Canada, Chile and the UK).

Audit of Political Engagement 8

2011-04-08T13:04:00Z

The eighth Audit of Political Engagement was launched on March 30 in Parliament.

The Audit series provides a statistical context to everyday speculation about the state of political engagement. In doing so, the Audits indicate the degree to which attitudes and behaviour change year-on-year and allows a fuller picture of participation and interest in politics.

The report shows that while last year's momentous political events increased the public's interest in politics to a record 58%, there was no matching rise in political or civic activity. Beyond voting, people were no more likely to get involved or participate in politics than they are in non-election years.

The Audit research also examines public attitudes to Parliament. While the public's knowledge of Parliament has increased, satisfaction has decreased.

At the launch event a packed room heard Rt Hon Peter Riddell , Chair of the Hansard Society preside over a panel consisting of Mark Harper MP - Minister for Political & Constitutional Reform, Lord Archy Kirkwood - Chair, Information Committee, Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP - Chair of Labour's Social Action Forum.

The report's authors Dr Ruth Fox and Matt Korris presented the report's findings.

Download the Audit of Political Engagement

Copy of presentation

Listen to the event:

Presentation by Dr Ruth Fox and Matt Korris/ Mark Harper MP

Lord Archy Kirkwood

Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP

Questions and answers:

Part one

Part two

Making Better Law: Reform of the legislative process from policy to Act.

2010-12-13T16:42:00Z

Making Better Law: Reform of the legislative process from policy to Act (by Ruth Fox and Matt Korris) is the most recent publication from the Hansard Society. Making Better Law (ISBN: 978 0900432 78 1) costs £18.50 (including P&P)

Laws are the essential threads that bind together our society, providing the framework within which our democratic system operates and mediating relations between us as citizens. Yet, whether the audience is parliamentarians who make the law, judges who have to apply it, or the public who must comply with it, it is not difficult to find vocal critics of the quality of legislation and of the process by which our laws are made today.

Making Better Law examines this legislative process, from policy to Act, analysing the political, procedural and cultural factors that together help determine the quality of the UK statute book. It diagnoses the causes and consequences of deficient law, charts how the culture and management of the law-making process by Government and Parliament could be enhanced, and explores how the consultation, drafting and scrutiny process could be improved, and greater expertise deployed, particularly in technically complex areas of legislation.

The recommendations provide an essential road-map for comprehensive reform of the legislative process if Government and Parliament are to improve the quality of law-making in the future.

The Hansard Society is grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for generously supporting this publication

[BUY:18.50:Making Better Law]

The internet and the 2010 election

2010-07-29T14:54:00Z

Download The internet and the 2010 election putting the small ‘p’ back in politics? here.

Listen to the discussion between our panelists and the audience on what they think really happened to the 2010 'internet election' here: Part 1 Part 2

"Described variously as a non event, the dog that didn't bark and a flop, the UK's first net election shocked all but the wise and sober in failing to refashion the landscape of British electoral politics"

That was Stephen Coleman talking about the 2001 General Election in the Hansard Society's 'Cyberspace Odyssey: Elections in the age of the Internet'. Nine years on, has much changed? Twitter, Facebook, blogs: 2010 was supposed to be Britain's first ‘internet election', but, in the end, it was the televised leaders' debates that really captured the public imagination. There was no pivotal moment at which we entered the age of internet politics but the 2010 election shows how the internet has become a ‘business as usual' space for people and, with this, for politics and campaigning.

With contributions from some key election observers and practitioners, this short volume sets out to cut through some of the hype that surrounded the election and provide some empirical evidence of the internet's place in the election and also assess what realistically we might expect from the internet. Edited by Rachel Gibson, Andy Williamson and Stephen Ward and with contributions from Mark Pack, Matthew McGregor and Will Straw, this volume lifts the lid on what really happened online and stands as a reference on the 2010 election and an informative guide to anyone interested in political campaigning online.

What's trust got to do with it?

2010-05-05T09:46:00Z

Politicians have rarely been trusted, and the expenses scandal did not therefore lead to a collapse in trust in politics and politicians because levels of trust were already so low. But public dissatisfaction with politics is based on deeper problems than lack of trust in MPs and Parliament. This briefing paper identifies the more urgent challenge as being the decline in the relevance of politicians and political institutions to people’s everyday lives.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? highlights the fact that distrust of politicians is long-standing – pre-expenses research in 2004 showed 27% of the public trusted politicians ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’; the same question asked post-expenses in 2009 showed a marginal decline in trust to 26%. The expenses scandal did not therefore lead to a collapse in trust in politics and politicians because levels of trust were already so low. In addition, for a majority of the public (53%) allegiance to a political party overrides perceptions of wrong- doing by candidates – they would still vote for them.

The briefing paper identifies declining rates of satisfaction with the country’s system of governance as a major challenge for politicians – while 60% of the public think Parliament ‘is worthwhile’, only 19% see it as an influential institution in their everyday lives. Furthermore, 85% of the public believe they have ‘not very much influence’ or ‘no influence at all’ over national decision-making. This perceived lack of influence is rooted primarily in the belief that politicians do not listen to what the public has to say and that the political system does not allow them to have influence.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? recommends that MPs should concentrate on reforms to tackle lost satisfaction, relevance and influence rather than trying to address trust. Policies introduced to address issues of trust through the provision of greater transparency and accountability (such as Freedom of Information legislation) often have the opposite, unintended effect of engendering a culture of suspicion rather than trust.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament & Government programme and author of What’s Trust Got To Do With It?, commented: ‘The events of the past year have opened up an opportunity for a serious dialogue about what kind of representative democracy we want for the future. Politicians, by focusing on policies designed to engender trust, have missed the bigger, broader underlying concern – the declining levels of public satisfaction, perceived influence on decision-making and confidence in the relevance of Parliament to their lives. MPs in the new Parliament must tackle essential questions about the role and function of politicians and Parliament – if it’s just business as usual, public attitudes to politics and Parliament may plummet still further.’

To download a copy of the briefing paper, please click here.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? – a Briefing Paper examining public trust in and expectations of politicians and Parliament draws on the latest academic research about public trust, politics and Parliament and is based on working group discussions conducted by the Hansard Society, the Political Studies Association (PSA) and the Centre for Citizenship, Globalization and Governance (C2G2) at the University of Southampton.

Political parties are digital followers not leaders

2010-04-09T14:08:00Z

Behind the Digital Campaign, a new report from the Hansard Society published today, examines the work done by the political parties' digital teams in the build up to the 2010 election. It demonstrates how their strategies have been influenced by digital campaigns in other countries and outlines the development of the ‘perpetual campaign'. It concludes that while the internet unlikely to lead to dramatic changes in the electoral landscape in this election, there are some noteworthy aspects to the general election digital campaign:

* UK political parties are largely followers not innovators

* Digital media is more effective in personality-led campaigns than party-led campaigns

* Expenditure and experimentation during the pre-election period has led to the ‘perpetual campaign' building communities of supporters to mobilise during the election period

* Third-party and single-issue digital campaigns are more likely to increase political participation and knowledge

* Social networking tools influence political activists, insiders and the media - stories generated on blogs and Twitter generally only reach the public when mainstream media take them up

Behind the Digital Campaign tracked online activity in the UK European elections, London Mayoral elections and a series of by-elections in 2008/09 as well as monitoring international online activity in seven case studies. In addition, online party strategists and activist were interviewed well before the start of the 2010 election, to examine the build up to the digital campaign.

Freddy Fallon, researcher on the Hansard Society's Digital Democracy programme and joint author of Behind the Digital Campaign, commented: ‘Whilst the internet will play more of a role than in previous elections, the stories that will be picked up by the media will, for the most part, be prominent because they are occurring online rather than simply because of their content. It is likely that the most meaningful examples of engagement online during this election will occur through single-issue campaigns and other third parties, rather than through the parties themselves.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225, 07812 765 552 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity.
The Hansard Society Digital Democracy Programme's thought-leading research has been a formative part of an emergent digital Britain from the internet's impact on Parliament, to better government engagement with citizens and the potential for civil society to harness digital media. The Digital Democracy Programme undertakes research and produces publications and commentaries with a focus on online political communication and citizen engagement, exploring the many faces of digital inclusion, citizen engagement, political campaigning and parliamentary process.

Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament

2010-03-10T14:03:00Z

Authors: Professor Robert Blackburn (Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College London) and Dr Ruth Fox (Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament & Government Programme), Oonagh Gay (Chair, Study of Parliament Group), Lucinda Maer (Senior Research Clerk, House of Commons Library).

The Hansard Society and the Study of Parliament Group have published a pamphlet on hung Parliaments. Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament examines what will happen in the event of an uncertain general election result this year – with particular focus on the implications for Parliament, but also looking at issues such as financial markets, how long it will take to resolve and the role of the Queen. Key questions include:

Who wins – the party with the most seats or the most votes?
What does this mean for formal coalitions or informal agreements with other parties?
What can a ‘caretaker’ Prime Minister do? What can he not do?
What is the role of the Queen?
How long does it all take to get sorted out?
What effect will the financial markets have on the process?
Does a hung Parliament mean weak government?
How will MPs balance Westminster and constituency duties in a hung Parliament?
What effect would a hung Parliament have on the House of Lords and the Salisbury Convention?

Download the full briefing paper here.

No Overall Control? The impact of a 'hung parliament' on British politics (March 2008)

For press queries please contact Virginia Gibbons on 020 7438 1225 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Read the Press Release here.

The 7th Annual Audit of Political Engagement

2010-03-03T12:32:00Z

The 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement has been released. The Audit this year has a special focus on MPs and Parliament, raises a number of topical issues in the context of MPs' expenses and the forthcoming general election, and provides longer term reflections on the level of continuity and change charted in the Audit findings over the course of this Parliament.

It shows that while the MPs' expenses scandal has affected the public's satisfaction with and perception of MPs and the Westminster Parliament, there has not been a change in the level of trust people say they have in politicians or politics. However, a significant finding of the Audit this year is that there has been a big decline since 2004 in the perceived impact of the Westminster Parliament on people's lives, compared to other institutions. Only 19% think Parliament is one of the top three influential institutions on their everyday lives - an 11% drop from 2004. But 60% still think Parliament is 'worthwhile', compared to only 14% who disagree.

Other key findings include:

Public dissatisfaction with how MPs in general do their jobs has risen by 8%
Whilst 71% of people say they have discussed MP's expenses in the last year, but only 41% say they have discussed politics or political views
76% say it is their duty to vote, but only 54% say they are absolutely certain to vote

Using statistical techniques the Audit divides the public into eight groups and looks at the 'voting gap' for each group - the difference between each group's 'duty to vote' and their 'certainty to vote'. Two groups of people have been identified as the people that politicians and political parties should concentrate on to increase voter turn out:

The 'politically contented' (6% of British adults) where 92% have a 'duty to vote' but only 55% have a 'certainty to vote'. This group are fairly positive about politics and therefore may be more open than most to positive efforts to engage with them.
The 'disengaged/mistrustful' (24% of British adults) where 60% have a 'duty to vote' and 24% have a 'certainty to vote'. This group are more likely to be mistrustful of politicians, but they are not alienated or hostile; at 24% of the population they are too large to ignore and present opportunities for targeted engagement initiatives.

Download the full 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement.

Listen to the launch event

See the photos from the launch

Read the press release for the 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement.

Televised Leaders' Debates - 1997 & 2001

2009-07-30T09:01:00Z

In the run up to the 1997 General Election the Hansard Society published a paper in the King-Hall Paper series looking at the implications of televised Leaders' Debates on political engagement. The debate about the merits of such events are being discussed again in the media in the run up to what is likely to be a General Election year in 2010; we have re-published our research on the area in electronic format for free download:

Televised Leaders' Debates: An Evaluation & Proposal 1997

Televised Leaders' Debates Revisted 2001

Restoring trust in the House of Lords

2009-07-24T09:01:00Z

Recent events in the House of Lords regarding conduct have raised serious questions about standards of conduct within the second chamber, including questions around allowances, peers' external interests and enforcement of sanctions for misconduct. This new briefing paper from the Hansard Society explores these issues and sets out a range of measures and recommendations for reinstating public trust in the House of Lords. Key recommendations include:

Empowering the office of the Lord Speaker to be able to better represent and act on behalf of the House and take forward a mandate for reform.
Significant revision of the Code of Conduct, including setting out a clear ethos and mission for the House of Lords and extending the Code to cover the use of allowances and expenses.
Consideration of the introduction of a hybrid payments system for allowances and expenses to better reflect the degree of each peer's involvement in the work of the House.
Establishing a hierarchy of possible sanctions that may be applied for breaches of a new Code of Conduct up to and including permanent expulsion from the House.
Establishing a system of external independent regulation for the management of the Lords allowances and expenses system and enforcement of the Code of Conduct.

Download the full briefing paper.

Lib Dem MPs more likely to be on Facebook

2009-07-02T09:30:00Z

Most MPs use Facebook for one-way communication not campaigning

Today, the Hansard Society launches MPs on Facebook, the first in a new series of short Digital Papers examining how parliamentarians are using social media.

MPs on Facebook shows that while over half (51%) of Liberal Democrat MPs have a presence on Facebook, the figures for Labour and the Conservatives are 15% and 9%, respectively.

The research identified three main types of usage: campaigning, communication and personal:

- 46% of MPs are using Facebook primarily as a communications tool

- 31% of MPs are using Facebook primarily to canvas and campaign

- 13% of MPs are using Facebook primarily for personal information

- 10% of MPs' Facebook pages are ‘inactive'

The research also examined the frequency and nature of online activity of MPs' Facebook pages:

42% of MPs publish at least one item daily
17% regularly make multiple posts in the same day
23% publish no more than once a week
6% publish less than that

Andy Williamson, Director of the Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme, commented: ‘Using Facebook as a one-way publishing medium ignores its real benefits. The key to harnessing this new generation of tools is conversation and engagement where citizens can communicate with their MPs and get a response. Most MPs have a long way to go before they can claim to truly understand the power of social media.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 / 07812 765552

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity.
MPs on Facebook is the first in an occasional series of short Digital Papers from the Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme.
The Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme's thought-leading research has been a formative part of an emergent digital Britain from the internet's impact on Parliament, to better government engagement with citizens and the potential for civil society to harness digital media. The eDemocracy Programme undertakes research and produces publications and commentaries with a focus on online political communication and citizen engagement, exploring the many faces of digital inclusion, citizen engagement, political campaigning and parliamentary process.

New briefing on House of Commons reform - June 15, 2009

2009-06-15T11:52:00Z

The Hansard Society published a briefing paper for reform of the House of Commons drawing on 20 years of research work and recommendations to strengthen Parliament. The blueprint was published to coincide with the first ever Speaker Hustings held in public view, and before the media, hosted by the Hansard Society. It can be downloaded for free here

Among the blueprint proposals recommended by the Hansard Society are:

A Business Committee for the House of Commons to put control of the parliamentary timetable in the hands of a cross party body of MPs rather than leaving it in the control of the executive.
A Parliamentary Finance Office, modelled on the US Government Accounting Office, would provide individual MPs with independent expertise and advice on financial matters, empowering them to better scrutinise public spending and taxation proposals.
A shift towards a committee based culture in the House of Commons with the main chamber taking on a plenary focus. Select committee chairs and members should be elected by MPs not party whips, the work of committees should be better integrated into wider parliamentary activity and more time should be set aside for the detailed work that committees undertake.
A system of e-Petitions, managed through a new Petitions Committee, to help revitalise public engagement with Parliament. Hansard Society research shows that the public are more likely to sign a petition than to engage in any other form of democratic activity. This has to be properly integrated into parliamentary procedures.
The appointment of a Chief Executive to professionalise the organisation and operation of the House of Commons. At present the House is managed by the Clerk of the House. Clerks are expert professional advisers on constitutional and procedural issues. They are not experts in management, budgets, human resources and logistics. A Chief Executive should take on these responsibilities.