On 20 March, Professor Sir John Curtice and a panel of leading commentators outlined their findings at the launch of the first major study of the 2017 general election, ‘Britain Votes 2017’.
The general election was one of the most extraordinary contests of recent times. Widespread assumptions that it would be a one-sided election - a coronation rather than a contest - were confounded as Theresa May mislaid her majority and a hung Parliament emerged.
- How did the Conservatives achieve the largest share of the vote by any party since the landslide election in 1997 but still not secure a majority?
- Is any party likely to secure an overall majority in the future or are narrow or non-existent parliamentary majorities to become the norm not the exception?
- Why was Labour’s left-wing manifesto not the ‘suicide note’ that most commentators anticipated?
- In many respects it was a novel election campaign, but what made the difference? Was it the ability to deploy activists on the doorstep, provide favourable visuals of packed rallies for traditional media, or innovations in digital campaigning?
Join leading analysts and commentators to discuss these questions and more as they present the latest findings from their research on the dramatic election and assess what it all means for the future of British politics.
Copies of ‘Britain Votes 2017’ will be available for purchase at a special launch offer price. The event will be followed by a reception with drinks and light refreshments.
Chair: Carolyn Quinn
BBC radio presenter across a range of political and current affairs programmes including Westminster Hour and PM
Professor Sir John Curtice
Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde and Chief Commentator at What UK Thinks: EU
Professor Tim Bale
Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University of London and Deputy Director of the Mile End Institute
Dr Kate Dommett
Lecturer in the Public Understanding of Politics at the University of Sheffield
Dr Eunice Goes
Associate Professor of Politics at Richmond University and BBC Dateline London panelist
Professor Jonathan Tonge
Co-editor of ‘Britain Votes 2017’ and Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool
‘Britain Votes 2017’ is a special edition of the Hansard Society’s journal, Parliamentary Affairs. It has been co-edited by Professor Jon Tonge, Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg and is published in partnership with Oxford University Press.
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?