As the year comes to an end, blog editor Dave Busfield-Birch examines the blog’s content in 2025, and offers some insight into the reach of the blog through the lens of its readership statistics. The posts below cover a wide range of topics such as Prime Minister’s Questions in the French parliament, reform of the House of Lords, the effects on the monarchy of the actions of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. We also take time to recommend that you read a tribute to our late colleague Bob Morris. Read on to find out in which German city the blog seems to have a cult following, and other statistics that raise many questions, including ‘is former President of the United States Joe Biden reading our blog on a daily basis and if not, why are we so popular in Wilmington, Delaware’?
2025 has not had a change of Prime Minister, a general election, or a constitutional crisis, but it has been far from dull. Significant changes to the House of Lords are making legislative progress, changes to electoral law have been promised, we have had a significant reshuffle, several high-profile ministerial resignations, and the long-promised Ethics and Integrity Commission is finally operational.
Below are the most popular blogs of each month, as well as some personal highlights selected by me. If you have not read them, then I highly recommend that you bookmark them and read them over your festive break (if you get one). You will not be disappointed.
Editor’s Picks
Why the French parliament tried to introduce Prime Minister’s Questions, by Calixte Bloquet and Ruxandra Serban.
Not interested in a second fiddle – why the French parliament’s Prime Minister’s Questions experiment failed, by Calixte Bloquet and Ruxandra Serban.
This is a two-part series on the French experiment with PMQs, co-written by former colleague Ruxandra Serban, who specialises in questioning procedures in parliaments. It examines why the change was brought in, why the new procedure was terminated, and what lessons can be learned from the experiment. It is a fascinating analysis of a short-lived constitutional experiment.
Our most popular new blogs by month
January
The Canadian Prime Minister’s request for prorogation was neither ‘illegal’ nor unconstitutional, by Steven Chaplin
On 6 January, the Governor General of Canada granted a request for a two-month prorogation of parliament. A legal challenge was soon launched to have it declared unlawful. Steven Chaplin argues that the prorogation was perfectly proper, and that comparisons with the Boris Johnson prorogation request in 2019 and the subsequent ‘Miller 2’ case do not hold up.
February
Should we be worried about the decline of parliamentary scrutiny?, by Meg Russell.
Complaints about declining standards of government scrutiny by parliament have been commonplace in recent times – particularly during the troubled years of Brexit and Covid. But how can such claims be objectively assessed, and crucially, have scrutiny standards since recovered? Unit Director Meg Russell concludes in this post that there is significant cause for concern, and that standards actually worsened under Rishi Sunak, once the Brexit and Covid crises were over.
March
The constitutional landscape: new report on options for reform , by Lisa James.
In March, the Constitution Unit published a wide-ranging new report. The Constitutional Landscape: Options for Reform briefly summarises 31 areas of constitutional policy, describing the current state of affairs and the options for reform, and its analysis and recommendations remain very relevant to today’s debate. In this post Lisa James, one of the report’s authors, explores its contents.
April
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: the story so far, by Meg Russell.
Unit Director Meg Russell provided a two-part post on the bill that seeks to remove the hereditary peers from the House of Lords (which has still not completed its parliamentary passage). This post is the first half of this expertly written two-parter: it reviews the background to the bill, and progress up to the end of its Lords committee stage. In part two, she argued that the ability to amend the bill at its coming report stage offers a rare opportunity to make progress on other small and widely supported Lords reforms – and that this should be seized.
May
The rules of the coronation: how does constitutional convention differ from custom and practice?, by Carolyn Harris and Philippe Lagassé.
In this post, published on the second anniversary of the coronation of King Charles III, Carolyn Harris and Philippe Lagassé outlined the difference between a constitutional convention, which is considered to be constitutionally binding, and custom and practice, which are not. They discuss how Charles III’s coronation differed from those of his predecessors, before looking forward to the coronation of the next monarch and how the current heir to the throne might also do things differently, should he become king.
June
A tribute to Bob Morris, by Robert Hazell.
The Unit had the sad duty of announcing the death of our colleague Bob Morris, who had been associated with the Unit for three decades. Bob’s contribution to the Unit’s work was considerable, and he will be missed by all who knew him. This post barely scratches the surface of his impact, but is worth reading as an introduction and signpost to his massive contribution, particularly to the debate on coronation and accession processes.
July
10 reasons why the hereditary peers bill should be amended to constrain Prime Ministerial patronage and the size of the House of Lords, by Meg Russell.
In another post on the hereditary peers bill, Meg Russell argues that peers should have amended it to place constraints on the Prime Minister’s ability to appoint unlimited numbers of members to the chamber, which is inappropriate and drives its ever-increasing size. As another legislative vehicle to implement this essential change may not present itself for decades, Meg urged peers to seize the opportunity.
August
Prince Harry, security and RAVEC: does the Court of Appeal ruling really ‘imprison other members of the royal family from choosing a different life’?, by Francesca Jackson.
Francesca Jackson analyses the claim that senior members of the royal are trapped in the institution. She argues that although Prince Harry has managed to free himself from what he sees as a trap, as a general rule senior royals have no choice but to serve the country because to refuse to do so would pose an existential threat to the institution of monarchy that it might not be able to survive.
September
Government plans for electoral reform are a welcome start, but contain one surprising and serious error of judgement, by Alan Renwick.
Over the summer, ministers published plans for extensive electoral reforms, including reduction of the voting age to 16. In this post, Alan Renwick argues that much of what the government proposes is good, but ministers responsible for elections policy will need to make further progress on some crucial matters.
October
Prime Minister’s Question Period in the Canadian House of Commons: Lessons in parliamentary reform, by Ruxandra Serban.
Between 2017 and 2025, the Canadian House of Commons operated a Prime Minister’s Question Period procedure, introduced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Ruxandra Serban explores how this procedure worked, and how it differed from the traditional Question Period model. If you find this post interesting, you should take the time to read Questions to the Prime Minister in the Canadian House of Commons: Transformation or tweak?’, which goes into much greater detail on the findings and conclusions of her research.
November
Prince Andrew and the future of the monarchy, by Robert Hazell.
Former Unit Director and expert on the monarchy, Robert Hazell, responded to the news that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was to have his titles removed. In his usual clear and considered style, Robert explained what had changed, how it was done, and what this could mean for the monarchy as a whole.
December
ECHR reform: a danger of contagion in relation to Article 3, by Veronika Fikfak.
Veronika Fikfak argues that a tipping point for future significant change to the ECHR has been reached, and urges the Starmer government not to seek a reinterpretation of Article 3 (which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment), a policy that she views as undermining the very core of the human rights system. This is an insightful and persuasive analysis of the topic, that everyone interested in the debate should read.
The year in numbers
As of 22 December, our blog has been read 247,272 times this year. The UK hosts the highest number of Unit blog readers, but our posts have been read by people in hundreds of countries and territories, including Haiti, Mali and Palau. Malaysia, France and Pakistan have dropped out of the top 10, with China, South Africa and The Netherlands taking their place.
We also now have the ability to identify that outside of London, Falkenstein in Bavaria is (apparently) the city in which the blog is most popular, with Lansing, West Virginia, Kolkata, Dallas, and Amsterdam also in the top 10. My childhood home of Borehamwood was less impressive, managing a mere 66 views, placing it behind San Jose del Monte (the Philippines), Port Louis (Mauritius), and Baghdad (Iraq).
Many posts (and many issues of Monitor) have been written and edited in Wilmington, Delaware throughout the years I have been at the Unit, and so it is also pleasing to see that despite a population of just 70,000 people, it is 17th on the cities list (three views ahead of Johannesburg). Perhaps former President Joe Biden, a Wilmington resident, is reading the blog? We cannot say he is, but we also cannot be sure that he is not.
And finally…
The blog would be nothing without its contributors. They are too great in number to list here, but I am very grateful for their expertise and their time. As always, I also remain grateful for the expertise and support of my colleagues here at the Unit. 2026 will no doubt yield its fair share of constitutional debates and surprises, and the blog will be here to keep you informed throughout.
Having celebrated our 30th birthday this year and with a relatively new UK government in office, the Constitution Unit thinks that now is a good time to take a fresh look at what we are doing. Please complete our short survey about what we do and how we can do it better.
About the author
Dave Busfield-Birch has been the editor of the Constitution Unit blog and Monitor since January 2018.