Citizens’ Assemblies: what are they good for?

Posted on July 19, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

Citizens’ assemblies are suddenly in vogue. National, devolved and local bodies (including several Commons committees) have held or are intending to make use of citizens’ assemblies to seek guidance on topics such as climate change and social care. At the same time, senior politicians are now advocating for an assembly on Brexit. However, citizens’ assemblies are not a miracle cure: like any method of determining the public will, they have limitations. In order to explore the benefits of citizens’ assemblies, the Unit organised a seminar to discuss how they work, best practice and when they should be used. Lucie Davidson summarises the main contributions.

On 1 July, the Constitution Unit held an event entitled ‘Citizens’ Assemblies: What are they good for?’. Speaking were Joanna Cherry QC MP, SNP Justice and Home Affairs Spokesperson at Westminster; Sarah Allan, Head of Engagement at Involve; Lilian Greenwood MP, Chair of the Commons Transport Select Committee; and Professor Graham Smith, Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster. Chaired by the Unit’s Deputy Director, Alan Renwick, the event discussed past use of assemblies, what they can be best used for in the future, and what constitutes a ‘good’ citizens’ assembly.

Joanna Cherry

Joanna Cherry offered an overview of the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland, which was announced by Nicola Sturgeon in April. Just as Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly and Constitutional Convention were born out of a time of crisis following the financial crash in 2008, the constitutional crisis caused by Brexit stimulated the political interest necessary for the creation of Scotland’s own assembly. The Brexit process has reignited debate about the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK; Scotland voted to remain in the EU but has had ‘no say’ in the Brexit negotiations. In addition, if Brexit happens, Scots will lose their EU citizenship, despite the argument that independence was a threat to Scotland’s place in the EU being a prominent part of the 2014 ‘No’ campaign. A recent poll by the Sunday Times has indicated a majority of Scots would vote for independence if faced with a ‘no deal’ Brexit or a Boris Johnson premiership. Continue reading →

Scotland’s plans for doing referendums better: an assessment

Posted on June 25, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, recently announced plans for new rules on referendums and for a citizens’ assembly on Scotland’s constitutional future. Drawing on his recent research, Alan Renwick assesses the proposals. He argues that they are useful first steps towards enhanced democratic practice, and he urges all sides to engage constructively in strengthening them further.

The Scottish Government has recently proposed two important constitutional innovations. First, it has introduced a bill designed to regulate the conduct of any future referendum called by the Scottish Parliament. Second, it has announced a citizens’ assembly to encourage constructive public discussion of Scotland’s constitutional future. Opposition parties may be wary of these proposals, seeing them through the lens of the debate for and against Scottish independence. But the proposals deserve to be assessed on their own merits. Whatever our view of independence, no one can deny that active debate on this question exists. It is in everyone’s interests that that debate be conducted fairly and honestly.

Much of my recent work at the Constitution Unit is relevant to the proposals. In conjunction with the Independent Commission on Referendums and the Council of Europe, I have examined the principles and rules that should shape referendum conduct. In the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit, my colleagues and I considered how such deliberative institutions can best be designed and operated. My recent report with Michela Palese on Doing Democracy Better explores ways of fostering better information and discussion during referendum campaigns. In what follows, I draw on these projects – as well as the work of the Electoral Commission and others – to assess the Scottish government’s proposals and consider what further steps may need still to be taken.

Referendums Bill – an important step forward…

The Referendums (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament by Cabinet Secretary Mike Russell on 28 May. It does not call any referendum. Rather, it is intended to provide the framework for any future referendum that might be called by the Scottish Parliament on any matter. It covers the rules for triggering such a vote, conducting the campaign, and running the poll itself.

The mere fact of establishing a standing framework of referendum rules is a welcome step forward. Scotland currently has no such framework, meaning that all the rules have to be created afresh when a referendum is called. That is in contrast to the UK as a whole, where referendum rules were established by the Political Parties, Elections, and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000. The danger created by having no standing framework is that the rules can be manipulated by those in power to enhance their chances in a particular vote. Last year’s Independent Commission on Referendums suggested that Scotland might introduce such a law. The change also fits with the principle that basic referendum rules should be settled well before any actual vote. This is enshrined in the Code of Good Practice on Referendums produced by the Council of Europe’s legal wing, the Venice Commission, and was endorsed earlier this year by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Continue reading →

Monitor 72: Brexit and the changing logic of British politics

Posted on June 24, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

The latest issue of Monitor, the Constitution Unit’s regular newsletter, was published today. Since the previous issue was published in March, we have had two Brexit extensions, two — the first two — recalled MPs, multiple inquiries into the functioning of parliament and its members, and two party leadership resignations, one of which means that we will almost certainly have a new Prime Minister before the end of July. If the constitution was ‘in flux’ when Monitor 68 was published the previous March, then it must now be acknowledged that the ordinary logic of British politics has been changed — perhaps permanently — by the events that have flowed from the 2016 Brexit referendum. Here, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick review the last four months of constitutional events in what is also the lead article from Monitor 72. The full edition can be found here.

The Brexit tumult goes on, and is increasingly challenging some central tenets of British politics.

Having been due to leave the European Union on 29 March, the UK will now remain until at least 31 October. Right up to the original deadline, the government was making frenetic efforts to negotiate addenda to the Withdrawal Agreement (see page 2), but it could not gain concessions adequate to persuade MPs to accept the deal (see page 4). Extensions were agreed, first just for two weeks, then for seven months. A key obstacle is fragmentation on the government side, with Conservative MPs (mostly those who are pro-Brexit) refusing to compromise. With great reluctance, the Prime Minister ultimately turned to seeking a pact with the Labour Party – a distinctly un-British approach whose necessity her European partners had apparently seen long before she did. But, with the pressure of an immediate deadline gone, and with looming European Parliament elections that she had never wanted to hold, the perilous politics of a cross-party deal proved unnavigable. Following her promise that a proposed Withdrawal Agreement Bill would include a referendum clause, Theresa May’s cross-party flirtations sufficiently infuriated sections of her party that she was eventually forced to acknowledge defeat. On 24 May she announced her intention to step down, triggering a contest for the leadership of the Conservative Party and (very likely) for the country.

Throughout these months of tumult the role of parliament has been central, and hotly contested. The 2016 referendum initiated such tension, by pitting popular sovereignty against the conventional logic of parliamentary sovereignty. Most recently there has been a long battle of wills between government and parliament. A key argument (see page 4) has concerned parliament’s ability to control its own agenda, with initiatives from backbenchers firmly backed up by the Commons Speaker. While these had mixed success, many MPs are clearly now willing to use all the powers they possess to prevent an outcome they believe would be deeply damaging to the country. Continue reading →

Rethinking democracy: is our democracy fit for purpose?

Posted on June 14, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

On 14 May, the Constitution Unit hosted an event to launch ‘Rethinking Democracy’, which was published by Political Quarterly earlier this year. The collection contains essays from leading academics, in which they explore the problems of representative democracy and suggest ways it might now be extended and deepened. In this blog, Tony Wright, Joni Lovenduski, Andrew Gamble and Albert Weale summarise their contributions to the event.

Tony Wright

Earlier this year, I gave evidence to the House of Commons Liaison Committee (alongside Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit) on the topic of the effectiveness and influence of select committees. At that session, I was asked about the reforms instituted as a result of the recommendations in the 2009 report of the Reform of the House Committee, on which I served as chair. That committee came about because the expenses scandal had spurred me into writing to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in a bid to encourage him to reform parliament in a way that might increase public regard for it, at a time when it was perhaps lower than it had ever been. The reforms made as a result of what is now called the Wright Committee have, I think, proved relatively successful. However, in that same letter I also proposed setting up what I called ‘a democracy commission’ to think through what kind of democracy we now wanted. Part of the problem I wanted that committee to deal with was the fact that people were increasingly disengaged from politics.

Ten years later, it is extraordinary what has happened: we have had democracy by the bucketload, so it’s claimed, and people’s engagement with politics has most definitely increased. But it wasn’t supposed to be quite like this. People like me had spent years looking for ways to replace or improve upon representative democracy, but now events have caused us to come to its defence. This is because this established democratic model is under assault across – and indeed beyond – the western world, and from all directions.

In this country, the 2016 referendum was the spur for this. And the result of that referendum was traumatic not just because we lost the vote, but because we lost the democratic argument. By this, I mean that we lost the argument when it comes to the idea of democracy itself. The Leave campaigns were the ones making the argument for democracy; they made the case for democratic self-government and sovereignty. And that case went unanswered, because instead of making a democratic argument, those campaigning for Remain focused on economics and how we would be ‘better off in’. There was a different argument that could have been made by Remainers, albeit a more complicated one. But it wasn’t made, and because of this, the proponents of a certain view of democracy prevailed. Continue reading →

This time it’s a crisis: results from the 2019 Audit of Political Engagement

Posted on May 2, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

Each year, the Hansard Society conducts an Audit of Political Engagement, which seeks to measure how the public views and engages with the political process. The latest Audit demonstrates that public dissatisfaction with our political systems and actors is worryingly high and increasingly intense. However, as Lawrence McKay explains, disaffection has not yet translated into disengagement.

The Hansard Society’s Audit of Political Engagement, now in its sixteenth year, is an annual study, giving a benchmark to measure public opinion about politics and the political system, as well as how engaged people are in the process. The Society describes it as an ‘annual health check’ – and this time round, the patient is in a bad way. Commentators love to declare a crisis, and the Society has often cautioned against such framing. More often than not, there is more continuity than change. Yet this year’s findings can hardly be described any other way.

Opinions of the system of governing are at their lowest point in the 15-year Audit series – worse now than in the aftermath of the MPs’ expenses scandal. People are pessimistic about the country’s problems, and large segments of the public seem willing to entertain radical changes which would alter or even undermine our democracy. While they are no less engaged in the democratic process, many people increasingly want to keep their distance and not to take part in decision-making.

Discontent: more widespread and more intense

The striking thing about this year’s Audit is that not only are more people unhappy, but the intensity of their discontent is unprecedented. Our ‘core indicators’ are the best evidence that something is amiss – in particular, our question on ‘the present system of governing Britain’, and how much it could be improved. We find that discontent is at its historical peak, with more than seven-in-ten feeling it needs either ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ of improvement. Furthermore, people are moving into the most negative category. The proportion who stated that it needs ‘a great deal’ of improvement, at 37%, has roughly doubled since the first Audit in 2004. This increased discontent is broad-based, occurring across all social classes, age groups and levels of education. If there is a common thread to where it occurs, it is among non-voters where discontent has risen most. It may be that people who are already disengaged are finding more reasons to hate politics, but many voters are, too.

system discontent audit diff graph (1)

Yet, while the wider system is held in contempt, it is mostly political actors that bear the brunt of this. We asked our respondents to give their level of confidence in different groups ‘to act in the best interests of the public’. Groups like civil servants and judges generally garnered positive ratings, but the government, MPs, Lords and political parties were judged more negatively, with around two-in-three expressing low or no confidence. The exception – in line with results of previous studies – was local councils and the Scottish government who were seen somewhat more positively than UK-wide actors. Continue reading →

Citizens’ assemblies: breaking the Brexit deadlock?

Posted on April 5, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

A week after the original date set for the UK to leave the European Union, there is still no firm plan for how to do so. The Prime Minister has sought a further extension of the Article 50 process, but it remains unclear how the different factions in the House of Commons can be brought together. Jim Gallagher argues that the citizens’ assembly process might offer a way around the current impasse.

With parliament unable to agree away forward on Brexit, the only option other than ‘no deal’ is a long delay for the UK to rethink its approach. Europe is still open to this, but says it needs a ‘strong justification’.

Citizens’ Assemblies offer a new way to resolve the issue and help unite the country during that period.

A no plan Brexit and broken public trust

The Tory party’s search for a quick, simple fix, largely driven by its internal needs, has defined the Europe debate so far. Contrast this with Harold Macmillan’s decision to apply for membership in 1961, based on a deep and comprehensive analysis, or Labour’s 23 volumes on whether to join the euro. Little wonder Westminster and Whitehall failed to secure a workable agreement, and that few members of the public find it possible to support the options now on the table.

This present deadlock is reason enough to bring the public back into the debate. But, more importantly, we have not just a government unable to lead but a public unwilling to be led. 68% of people now feel none of the main political parties speaks for them. ‘Betrayal’ and ‘treason’ are the everyday language of debate. Remain supporters say the referendum was won by lies and stolen data; Leave supporters feel robbed of a clean break with Europe.

A last minute compromise deal, with far-reaching economic and social consequences, conjured up behind closed doors in Westminster, will not get public acceptance from either Remainers or Leavers. People already deeply distrust the Brexit political process. Continue reading →

Monitor 71 — Brexit: the constitution under strain

Posted on March 11, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

The latest issue of Monitor, the Constitution Unit’s regular newsletter, was published today. When the previous issue came out in November, the lack of a withdrawal agreement was a cause of great uncertainty. Four months later, a deal has been reached with the EU, but it has failed to gain parliamentary support and what will happen on 29 March remains an open question. As our editorial team says below, the current crisis is testing our constitution on multiple fronts and the strain is starting to show. This post is the opening article from Monitor 71; you can download the full issue (as well as past editions) here.

This Monitor appears less than three weeks before the date set for the UK to leave the European Union. Remarkably, the form that Brexit will take – indeed, whether it will happen at all – remains highly uncertain. The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining the UK’s future direction. Brexit has placed the UK’s political and constitutional system under great strain. That is partly because it is so contested – dividing the main parties internally and risking alienation between the popular majority who backed Leave in 2016 and the parliamentary majority who opposed it. The 2017 general election added to these challenges by resulting in a minority government. Meanwhile, the political task is immensely complex and the stakes exceptionally high.

This strain has manifested itself in numerous ways. The Independent Group (TIG), created on 18 February (see page 12) and currently including 11 former Labour and Conservative MPs, is the largest breakaway from the main parties since the ‘Gang of Four’ founded the Council for Social Democracy – precursor to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) – in 1981. Labour disquiet is widespread, and Deputy Leader Tom Watson has proposed an intra-party grouping of social democrats to stem further defections. The Conservatives have their own party-within-a-party, in the strongly pro-Brexit European Research Group. After many false starts, it forced a vote of no confidence in Theresa May’s leadership of the party in December, which she won by 200 votes to 117. Continue reading →

The Constitution Unit Blog

Category Archives: Public Engagement and Policy Making

Scotland’s plans for doing referendums better: an assessment

Monitor 72: Brexit and the changing logic of British politics

Rethinking democracy: is our democracy fit for purpose?

This time it’s a crisis: results from the 2019 Audit of Political Engagement

Monitor 71 — Brexit: the constitution under strain