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?
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 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 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 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
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
