Parliament from above


9:30 – 11:00am, Thursday 14th April
Jubilee Room, Westminster Hall
Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA

Find out how public attitudes towards politics, Parliament and MPs have changed over the past year, as the authors of the 2016 Audit of Political Engagement share their findings and discuss the latest data with a panel of expert commentators.

  • Has there been a post-election bounce in the public’s engagement with politics?
  • What do the public think about referendums and how knowledgeable about Europe do they feel?
  • Do the public think more positively about MPs and Parliament than before?
  • Have attitudes to PMQs improved, worsened or flat-lined?
  • Has the increase in political engagement in Scotland after the referendum been sustained?

Get the answers to these and more at the launch of the annual health check on our democratic system on 14th April.



  • Joel Blackwell – Senior Researcher at the Hansard Society and co-author of the Audit of Political Engagement
  • Dr Ruth Fox – Director and Head of Research at the Hansard Society and co-author of the Audit of Political Engagement
  • Tim Loughton MP – Member of Parliament for East Worthing and Shoreham, and Member of the Home Affairs Committee
  • More speakers TBC


  • Penny Young – Librarian and Director General of Information Services, House of Commons


The Audit of Political Engagement is supported by the House of Commons.

Join Professor John Curtice and other leading analysts as they dissect the implications of the recent general election at the launch of the first major book on the campaign and its outcome, Britain Votes 2015.

Register here

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?

Join leading analysts and commentators to discuss these questions and more as they present the latest findings from their research on the election and assess what it all means for the future of British politics.

Register here


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

meAt the recent general election in Ethiopia the single opposition party MP lost their seat in the 547-strong House of People’s Representatives. In Bangladesh, the opposition party boycotted last year’s general election and 151 of the 350 MPs were elected completely unopposed to the Jatiyo Shangsad. So both Parliaments are in effect one-party fiefdoms in what are now only nominally democratic countries marred by significant post-election violence.

It would therefore be easy to dismiss the role and work of their MPs as of little import compared to elected members in more functioning democracies. But to do so would be to dismiss some important factors about how MPs work and relate to civil society and their constituents even when there may not be a strong electoral imperative pushing them to do so.

For the last eighteen months in partnership with colleagues at SOAS in London, Dhaka and Chittagong, and the Forum for Social Studies in Addis Ababa, we’ve been involved in a research project looking at the work of MPs in Parliament and in their constituencies in these two low-income countries.

Equality of representation is an important democratic benchmark yet until our election in May the number of women MPs in Ethiopia was greater than at Westminster. The active women’s caucus – including some male MPs – produces regular checklists on women’s issues and developed a five-year action plan to take forward women’s issues.

And in Bangladesh 50 of the 350 seats in the Parliament are reserved for women, enabling the legislature to be more representative. But female MPs in reserved seats represent constituencies roughly equivalent to the size of three non-reserved constituencies yet receive exactly the same funding as those MPs in the smaller territorial seats. Consequently female MPs have less money to disburse at a constituency level than their largely male counterparts in non-reserved seats.

In Ethiopia MPs are legally required to hold two public meetings each year in their constituency to explain the work they have been doing and take questions. Nonetheless MPs in Ethiopia appear to spend much less time in their constituencies than their counterparts in Bangladesh, some of whom court their public assiduously. In the UK there has long been concern that the balance between constituency and parliamentary work may be out of kilter but some of their Bangladeshi colleagues make our MPs look like slackers!

But what explains the nature of this constituency level engagement given the lack of electoral drivers?

At one level the visits in Bangladesh are about repetitive communication. Bill boards across the constituency reinforce the message and the presence of the MP in his or her community, and convey the achievements of the government particularly in relation to progress towards the Millennium Development Goals such as reducing child mortality and increasing school enrolment of girls.

But they are also about disbursement of funds. In addition to influencing resource allocation for poverty reduction programmes by different government agencies, MPs have access to a range of funding sources over which they have direct control including a discretionary grant and constituency development fund. Many MPs also appear to spend significant amounts of their own money helping the poor in their constituencies, something that is particularly noticeable as MPs increasingly have a business sector background and in the context of a national culture in which those who are rich and powerful are considered to have a duty to provide support to others in times of need. Thus, in focus group discussions MPs are regularly referenced as having ‘a kind heart’ for their acts of benevolence such as helping with wedding costs or educational expenses.

The result is that MPs in their constituencies often appear to be a cross between an all powerful, modern Mughal and a non-religious Shaman style figure, their approach to funding disbursement both reinforcing and disrupting traditional patronage and power relationships depending on the recipients and the complex web of local political relationships in play.

The research team presented these and other early project findings at the recent international Workshop of Parliamentarians and Parliamentary Scholars organised for the twelfth time by Professor the Lord Norton of Louth, with support from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and held at Wroxton College.

Our preparations for the conference were unfortunately disrupted when two of our principal investigators – one from Bangladesh and one Ethiopia – were denied visas to come to the conference, despite working on a project funded by grants from DfID and the ESRC. Unfortunately we are not the only research team affected. Denial of visas to eminent academics to come to conferences in the UK is an increasingly worrying trend that will harm educational collaboration and our ‘soft power’ status unless the government gets to grips with the situation. It’s hardly joined up government if one department helps fund local researchers to work on important issues related to future governance and development, while another denies visas to enable them to attend a conference to report on that work, something promised in the project proposal from the outset.

Nonetheless, the conference was helpful and fellow attendees from around the world helped to both challenge and hone our thinking. In the coming months as we continue to conduct constituency level research we’ll be looking at why the approach of MPs to their constituencies is so different in each country. We will be asking whether there is anything distinctive about the MP as a patron compared to other local figures of importance. And we’ll be looking at the nature of the incentives – beyond electoral success – which are shaping how MPs do things at the constituency level.

Newly elected select committee chairs, Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP and Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, of the Home Affairs and Health select committees respectively, discuss how committees organise their work, what their role is in the scrutiny process, the challenges the newly constituted committees face and what can be done to strengthen the committee system.

Today the House of Commons will debate the government’s proposed revisions to Standing Orders to introduce its plan for English votes for English laws.

The draft Standing Orders and explanatory documents can be found here.

There won’t be a vote today – that will come at a date to be confirmed in the Autumn, following a further round of debate. In the interim hopefully the Procedure Committee will have time to conduct an inquiry. Read more

« Page 1, 2, 3 ... 38 »

Press enquiries

For press enquiries, please contact:

020 7710 6080
020 7710 6077
07779 666 771

Research team

Dr Ruth Fox, Director and Head of Research

Joel Blackwell, Senior Researcher

Scholars Programme dates

Dates for upcoming programmes:

Spring 2016
January 16 - April 23
Fee: £10,250.

Summer 2016
May 21 - July 16
Fee: £6200.

Autumn 2016
September 3 - December 10
Fee: £10,500.

Click here to apply

Site navigation