Making sense of May 7: the 2015 election and the future of British politics

Events

Making sense of May 7: the 2015 election and the future of British politics

8 Sep 2015

On 8 September we invited Professor John Curtice and other leading analysts to dissect the implications of the 2015 general election at the launch of the first major book on the campaign and its outcome, Britain Votes 2015.

The general election was one of the most extraordinary contests of recent times, with an outcome that surprised many commentators. A race that was supposedly ‘neck-and-neck’ and heading for a hung Parliament resulted in the first majority Conservative government since 1992.

So how did a fragmented political system actually deliver single party government and what are the consequences for the future of the British political system?
Can the Conservative performance be explained by the ‘black widow effect’? And if so, having devoured the Lib Dems, what does the future now hold for David Cameron and his party given the structural problems it still faces and with an electorate whose support for it remains cagey and contingent?
Despite ideological and political incoherence are there still significant opportunities for Labour to exploit in the future? Might brand distinctiveness help nullify the Conservative advantages on economic competence and leadership?
What now for UKIP? Will the issue of immigration continue to exacerbate the break-down of the British party system?
And what of the polls? Should there now be an inquiry not just into polling methodology, but also into how the media cover polls during an election campaign – can we get away from the horserace?

Speakers

Professor Tim Bale

Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University of London, Tim is one of the leading commentators on British party politics. His most recent publications have chronicled the Five Year Mission: The Labour Party Under Ed Miliband and charted the development of The Conservative Party from Thatcher to Cameron. He is also a regular media commentator with articles featuring frequently in the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and Financial Times.

Professor Sarah Childs

Professor of Politics and Gender at the University of Bristol, Sarah was a special adviser to the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation and is currently on a ‘knowledge exchange secondment’ exploring how to make the House of Commons a more gender sensitive institution. She has written widely about women’s representation and party politics, most recently in her book, Sex, Gender and the Conservative Party: From Iron Lady to Kitten Heels.

Professor John Curtice

Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde, John led the team of academics that produced the general election night exit poll that delivered the now famous 10pm forecast of the final result. He currently serves as President of the British Polling Council which, following the election, set up an inquiry into the performance of the opinion polls. He is Research Consultant at NatCen Social Research where he co-edits the British Social Attitudes Survey. He was recently awarded an ESRC Fellowship to lead work on a new research initiative, ‘The UK in a Changing Europe’, which will provide easy access to comprehensive, impartial information about what the public thinks about Europe in advance of the proposed referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

Professor Matthew Goodwin

Professor of Political Science at the University of Kent, Matthew’s latest book, Revolt on the Right, won the 2015 Paddy Power Political Book of the Year award. A Senior Visiting Fellow at Chatham House he is the leading analyst of radical right politics. With unprecedented access to UKIP his forthcoming book, UKIP : Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics, will tell the inside story of the party’s election quest. Register here

Latest / Highlights

Blog / How should Parliament handle the Seventh Carbon Budget - and why does it matter?

The Climate Change Act 2008 established a framework for setting carbon budgets every five years. But the role of Parliament in approving these budgets has been widely criticised, including by the Prime Minister. The Environmental Audit Committee has proposed improvements in the scrutiny process to ensure effective climate action, particularly in the context of the UK’s commitment to achieving 'Net Zero' emissions by 2050. These reforms will significantly alter the way Parliament handles the Seventh Carbon Budget in 2025.

News / Tobacco and Vapes Bill: free vote blows smoke in Rishi Sunak's eyes - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 30

Rishi Sunak offered his MPs a free vote on his flagship Tobacco and Vapes Bill and dozens concluded they could not support it. As well as exploring the politics of the Bill, Ruth and Mark discuss the concept of a free vote and how they have been deployed in previous parliamentary sessions.

Guides / Private Members' Bills (PMBs)

Private Members' Bills (PMBs) are bills introduced by MPs and Peers who are not government ministers. The procedures, often a source of controversy, are different to those that apply for government bills. Below are 7 short guides that explain key aspects of the process, as well as data on the number of PMBs that are successful each Session, and our proposals for reform of the PMB system.

Blog / Two Houses go to war: the Safety of Rwanda Bill and the origins of the Parliament Act

The Parliament Act is being bandied about in the media again in connection with the Rwanda Bill. This blogpost explains why the Parliament Act cannot be used in relation to the Rwanda Bill and looks at the origins and key features of the Act to place the current debate about the role of the House of Lords in its historical context.

Blog / Creeping ministerial powers: the example of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill

The Government’s flagship Tobacco and Vapes Bill will ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2009. The genesis of the delegated powers in the Bill – dating back a decade - tells an important story about the way in which incomplete policy-making processes are used by Ministers to seek ‘holding’ powers in a Bill, only for that precedent to then be used to justify further, broader powers in subsequent Bills. This ‘creeping’ effect in the legislative process undermines parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial action.