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
Should the Liaison Committee have as its chair someone who is not simultaneously a select committee chair, and should the identity of that person be determined by the government? The answer to these questions will tell us much about how this cohort of MPs, particularly government backbenchers, view the relationship between Parliament and the executive.
The Coronavirus crisis is spotlighting the importance of the House of Commons Chamber in our democratic life. 7-8 May marks 80 years since the Norway Debate, the event which demonstrated this most famously. Over two days of debate, MPs’ performances in the Chamber and a decision to force a division had historic consequences.
The extensive take-up of remote evidence-taking by House of Commons select committees during the Easter recess is a significant Coronavirus-induced change of practice. It shows how procedural and technological change can help support scrutiny.
Several parliamentary committees scrutinise delegated powers and delegated legislation. But what is the aim of this scrutiny, what standards are applied, and what are the value and limits of Parliament’s role in this aspect of the legislative process?
There will be gaps in a new House of Commons’ scrutiny of the government and engagement with the public until the events required at the start of a Parliament have taken place and all the necessary institutions and processes have been re-established. The length of time taken over procedures at the start of a Parliament therefore matters.
There have been many calls for Parliament to become ‘virtual’ during the Coronavirus pandemic, using remote working to ensure proper scrutiny of government during the crisis. But how should a ‘virtual’ Parliament operate?