The Danish Nobel prize winning physicist Nils Bohr observed that prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. He wasn’t thinking about the 2015 general election when he said this, but he might as well have been.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
The Rochester and Strood by-election makes things more uncertain. It might get us thrown out of the ‘political science’ club, but here are 5 things that Mark Reckless’ win shows that we don’t know about the May 2015 general election.
We still think of politics as a left versus right clash, but is 2015 going to be an ‘up-down’ election: the people against a political class that they see as failed and out of touch?
If Labour is up then surely the Conservatives are down, and vice versa? But the day after Rochester and Strood both Labour and the Conservatives are down. Is zero sum politics dead and buried?
Can UKIP break the mould? They just won what experts listed as their 271st most winnable seat. Perhaps, as Nigel Farage said, all bets are off? Will support continue to drain from the mainstream parties to their smaller rivals like UKIP and the Greens? If it does, the dynamics of elections and coalition politics are transformed.
Can things get worse for the Liberal Democrats? This question has been asked for the last four years and the answer has tended to be yes. How much lower can they go? In Rochester and Strood they were polling at 1%, with the margin of error this could put them at -2%, which is truly unexplored territory.
Social media was seen as a way for politicians to connect with the electorate and for democratic debate to be widened and energised. Emily Thornberry didn’t get that memo.
These are all things that we don’t know about the 2015 general election. Keep checking this blog for even more.
On the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Dr Sarah Whitmore will be speaking to us about how the Ukrainian Parliament has functioned under wartime conditions. 6:00pm-7:30pm on Tuesday 24 February 2026 at the Houses of Parliament, Westminster
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan reflects on rebelling against the whip and calling for Keir Starmer to resign, as we assess the fallout from the Mandelson–Epstein affair and its implications for the Government’s legislative programme and House of Lords reform. We examine Gordon Brown’s sweeping standards proposals, question whether they would restore public trust, revisit tensions over the assisted dying bill in the Lord and discuss two key Procedure Committee reports on Commons debates and internal elections. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS
The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.
With the Government investigating allegations of foreign influence in British politics, we are joined by John Pullinger, Chair of the Electoral Commission, to take stock of the health and resilience of the UK’s electoral system. Our discussion ranges widely over the pressures facing elections and campaigning today, and what issues Parliament may need to grapple with in a future elections bill.
Why do UK Prime Ministers seem to burn out so quickly? We are joined by historian Robert Saunders to examine why the role has become so punishing in recent years. From Brexit and COVID to fractured parties, rigid governing conventions and relentless media scrutiny, the discussion explores what has gone wrong – and what kind of leadership and political culture might be needed to make the job survivable again.
