The Constitution Unit Blog

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • Coronavirus
  • Brexit
  • Parliament
    • House of Commons
    • House of Lords
    • All
  • Elections and referendums
    • 2019 general election
    • 2017 general election
    • EU referendum
    • 2015 general election
    • All
  • Democratic Engagement and Citizens’ Assemblies
  • Government
    • Cabinet manual
    • Coalition
    • Special advisers
    • All
  • Devolution
    • Scotland
    • Wales
    • Northern Ireland
    • England
    • All
  • Events
  • Other themes
    • Judiciary and human rights
      • All
    • Parties and politicians
    • Constitutions and constitution making
    • Freedom of information
    • Monarchy, church and state
    • International
  • Staff contributors
    • Meg Russell
    • Alan Renwick
    • Robert Hazell
    • Sam Anderson
    • Dave Busfield-Birch
    • Roberta Damiani
    • Lotte Hargrave
    • Lisa James
    • Rebecca McKee
    • Luke Moore
    • Honorary staff
      • Daniel Gover
      • Bob Morris
      • Patrick O’Brien
      • Akash Paun
      • Brian Walker
      • Alan Whysall
      • Ben Worthy
      • Ben Yong
  • Constitution Unit website
  • About the Constitution Unit
  • Copyright

Category Archives: Public Engagement and Policy Making

Post navigation

← Older posts

Gathering perspectives on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland

Posted on January 12, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

The Constitution Unit is leading a Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland composed of academics from London, Dublin, Belfast, and the United States. The Working Group released its interim report in November and is now working on a final report. In this post, the Working Group’s Project Manager and Research Assistant Conor J. Kelly explores how the group gathered evidence, as well as the challenges of examining this issue during a pandemic, and in a divided society.

Purpose of the project

The Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland is examining how any future referendums on whether Northern Ireland should become part of a united Ireland or remain part of the UK would best be designed and conducted. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is obliged to call such a vote if a majority for a united Ireland appears ‘likely’. If such a vote does happen, it will be vital that the process is designed and conducted well. The goal of the Working Group is to stimulate thinking on how this would be done.

Assembling an expert team

The first step was to assemble a diverse team of experts with insight on the legal, political, sociological, and historical elements of a question of this magnitude. These diverse perspectives created valuable awareness of both the possible and probable parameters of any future process of decision-making around the unification question, balancing both legal and political considerations. I feel that the ability to lay out legal realities alongside contextual analysis of the politics that might be at play is a major strength of the Working Group. As an early career researcher and a PhD student myself, working alongside such an esteemed group of academics has been an invaluable professional experience.

Researching existing literature and material

One of my main tasks has been to trawl through scholarly literature, reports, manifestos, and other policy documents in search of concrete proposals for the referendum process or the form of a united Ireland. Though this issue has in various forms dominated Irish (and often British) politics since the 19th century, surprisingly little has been written on different constitutional models and processes which might be undertaken. There has been more work in recent years, particularly by the Ireland’s Future and Constitutional Conversations groups, and in Justice Richard Humphreys’ book Beyond the Border. But despite these interventions, many of the issues which would need to be resolved were a referendum or a united Ireland ever to happen have scarcely been explored. There has been substantial commentary on a border poll in the media, but this is a fast-moving debate, without a detailed or agreed landing point.

Continue reading →
Posted in Devolution, Elections and referendums, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Conor Kelly, Coronavirus, Ireland, nationalists, Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Act 1998, referendums, secretary of state for Northern Ireland, unionists, united Ireland, Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland

Local citizens’ assemblies in the UK: an early report card

Posted on January 8, 2021 by The Constitution Unit

Citizens’ assemblies are now being widely used in the UK and elsewhere to promote thoughtful policy discussion. But do they actually work in terms of delivering substantive policy change? In this post, Robert Liao addresses that question by looking at local citizens’ assemblies in the UK. He finds that the record is overwhelmingly positive: councils that have invested in running an assembly have generally followed through with action.

The past 18 months have seen a wave of citizens’ assemblies in the UK and beyond. At the national level, there have been assemblies on climate change in the UK, Scotland, and France, on constitutional issues in Scotland and Germany, and on gender equality in Ireland. This post focuses on the numerous assemblies convened by local authorities. Citizens’ assemblies are widely lauded for bringing together representative samples of the population to learn about and produce recommendations on difficult policy questions. As shown by the Constitution Unit’s 2017 Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit, the deliberative conversations that they engender point to a better way of doing democratic conversation. But do they have a real impact beyond the people in the room? In particular, do elected officials really listen to them, and can they bring about substantive political change? 

The table below summarises evidence from local citizens’ assemblies in the UK. By trawling through assembly and council websites and reports, alongside press releases, and news articles, I have identified 13 citizens’ assemblies convened by local authorities in the UK since the beginning of 2019 which have completed their work and published reports. Three of these – in Cambridge, Dudley, and Romsey – were supported by the UK government’s Innovation in Democracy programme, designed to enable assembly pilots (the IIDP’s work was summarised on the Unit blog, here). In others, local authorities acted independently. Reflecting perhaps campaigning for citizens’ assemblies by Extinction Rebellion, seven of the 13 assemblies focused on climate change, and another two on the related topic of air quality. Two looked at urban regeneration, one at hate crime, and one at social care provision. Each one has presented a report containing policy recommendations to its sponsoring council.

Continue reading →
Posted in Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Brent climate assembly, camden citizens' assembly, Camden Health and Care Citizens' Assembly, citizens' assemblies, Citizens' Assembly on Brexit, Croydon Citizens' Assembly, Dudley people's panel, Greater Cambridge Citizens' Assembly, Innovation in Democracy Programme, Kingston citizens' assembly, Lancaster District People's Jury, Leeds climate change citizens' jury, local government, Newham Citizens' Assembly, Oxford citizens' assembly, robert liao, Romsey citizens' assembly, Waltham Forest Citizens' Assembly | 1 Comment

Monitor 76: Democratic lockdown?

Posted on November 12, 2020 by The Constitution Unit

The latest edition of Monitor, the Unit’s regular news update on constitutional issues, was published today. In this lead article from Monitor 76, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick discuss the key events and themes of  the past four months. They include tensions between devolved and central govermnent related to Brexit and COVID-19; concern about parliamentary scrutiny of the pandemic; criticism of the government’s commitment to the rule of law (called into question by the UK Internal Market Bill, the Faulks review and criticism of the legal profession); the Russia report and other concerns about the country’s electoral framework; and the reshaping of government and civil service operations by Number 10.

England entered a new COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ just before Monitor went to press. The pandemic continues to dominate politics in the UK and globally, with a return to politics-as-usual appearing distant. Both the handling of the crisis and the government’s latest actions on Brexit have been key factors driving serious concerns about the maintenance of constitutional norms in the UK. But as this latest Monitor catalogues, the roots of those concerns – about declining respect for conventions and deliberate or accidental erosion of ‘checks and balances’ – are now spread across many fields.

There was tolerance in the early stages of the pandemic for quick decision-making, and partial bypassing of parliament. But that has increasingly grown thin. The UK is one of many countries where concerns have been expressed about COVID facilitating an executive ‘power grab’. Worldwide, experts have warned that ‘democracy, human rights and the rule of law cannot be allowed to become the collateral damage of the pandemic’. Most key decisions at UK level have come via secondary legislation, often published at short notice with little or no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. Increasing protests from MPs, parliamentary committees and the Commons Speaker (see page 5) extracted concessions from ministers that parliamentary oversight would increase – hence the difficult vote on the new lockdown arrangements on 4 November. A total of 34 Conservative MPs voted against the new regulations – which represents almost half of the government’s working majority – and others abstained; though the measure passed comfortably with Labour support. A concerted cross-party approach from the start might have been sensible, but can be uncomfortable for ministers, particularly when accompanied by internal party dissent.

Continue reading →
Posted in Brexit, Devolution, Elections and referendums, Europe, Events, Freedom of information, Government, International, Judiciary and human rights, Parliament, Parties and politicians, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Advocate General for Scotland, Alan Renwick, backbenchers, Bernard Jenkin, boris johnson, Brexit, Brexit negotiations, Charles Walker, Cheryl Gillan, Commons Liaison Committee, Conservatives, Constitution Democracy and Rights Commission, Coronavirus, David Gauke, devolved governments, Electoral Commission, government legal department, Graham Brady, House of Commons, House of L, House of Lords, House of Lords appointments, House of Lords Appointments Commission, human rights, hybrid proceedings, Independent Review of Administrative Law, Intelligence and Security Committee, Internal Market Bill, judicial review, Labour, Lady Hale, Lord Keen, Lord Kerr, Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption, lords appointments, meg russell, metro mayors, Monitor, Monitor 76, MPs, PACAC, Parliament and Brexit, prime minister, Procedure Committee, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, rule of law | 15 Comments

The Innovation in Democracy Programme and its lessons for deliberative democracy 

Posted on August 26, 2020 by The Constitution Unit

The Innovation in Democracy Programme (IiDP) was created in 2019 to support local authorities in using deliberative democracy – through citizens’ assemblies and associated methods – to shape decision-making and policy creation. Here, five of the key figures involved in creating and operating the IiDP outline the methods, challenges and outcomes of a programme that had to adapt and adjust to both an early general election and the COVID-19 crisis. 

What is the Innovation in Democracy Programme?

The Innovation in Democracy Programme (IiDP) – established by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) – was an innovative experiment which challenged us to support local authorities to tackle a complex, local issue in a different way; we tested using a deliberative democracy process within a local government environment to change the way communities are involved in sharing and shaping decision-making. We think it’s fair to say it worked, but with lots of learning for all involved.

The programme’s aims were to:

  • increase the opportunities for local people to have a greater say over decisions that affect their communities and their everyday lives;
  • encourage new relationships and build trust between citizens and local authorities;
  • strengthen local civil society by encouraging participation in local institutions.

Involve, Democratic Society, mySociety and the RSA worked from March 2019 to March 2020 with three local authorities – Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council; Greater Cambridge Partnership; and Test Valley Borough Council – to involve residents in decision-making. We did this through piloting citizens’ assemblies. We were asked to support the local authorities in the following ways:

  • design, facilitate and report on their citizens’ assembly;
  • develop a digital strategy to extend the reach, transparency, and accountability of the process; and,
  • collect and share the local authority’s learning within and beyond their authority.

This video gives a unique insight into the citizens’ assembly process from the perspective of three participants from each of the areas. Continue reading →

Posted in Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged 2019 general election, Alex Parsons, citizens' assemblies, Coronavirus, deliberative democracy, Democratic Society, Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport, Department for Housing Communities and Local Government, digital democracy, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, Greater Cambridge Partnership, Innovation in Democracy Programme, Involve, Kevin Ditcham, Lizzie Adams, local government, Luminate, mySociety, Public Square, Riley Thorold, RSA, Suzannah Lansdell, Test Valley Borough Council | 1 Comment

Digital technology and the resurrection of trust: the report of the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee

Posted on July 10, 2020 by The Constitution Unit

IMG.20191203.WA0004.jpg

The House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee has published a report about how democracy can be done better as technology evolves, which endorsed Unit Deputy Director Alan Renwick’s key recommendation of a democratic information hub. Alex Walker offers an analysis of the report.

On 29 June, the House of Lords Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technology published a major report, following its inquiry into the effects of digital technology on democracy. The report focuses on how the practices of many large digital technology platforms risks feeding an erosion of trust in democracy and sets out a regulatory framework designed to restore faith in the system. Importantly, it goes beyond this to look at improving digital skills and using technology to aid democratic engagement.  

The committee’s recommendations on fact-checking, digital imprints, libraries of online political advertising, and promotion of digital literacy echo those of many earlier analyses, including those of the Electoral Commission and the Independent Commission on Referendums, as well as the Unit’s Doing Democracy Better report, published last year. Drawing on one of the core proposals of Doing Democracy Better, the Unit’s Deputy Director and author of the report Alan Renwick, along with co-author Michela Palese and Joe Mitchell (then of Democracy Club), gave written evidence to the committee setting out the case for an independent democratic information hub. The committee fully endorsed the proposal.  Continue reading →

Posted in digital democracy, Elections and referendums, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged 2017 general election, 2019 general election, citizens' assemblies, citizenship education, Committee of Advertising Practice, Coronavirus, deliberative democracy, Democracy and Digital Technolgies Committee, Democracy Club, Department for Education, digital campaigning, digital democracy, disinformation, Doing Democracy Better, elections, Electoral Commission, electoral law, Estonia, Facebook, fact-checking, filter bubbles, Finland, imprints, Independent Commission on Referendums, Innovation in Democracy Programme, Institute for Fiscal Studies, Joe Mitchell, Lord Puttnam, misinformation, mySociety, Ofcom, Office for Budget Responsibility, ombudsman, online harms, political advertising, Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act, PPERA, TheyWorkForYou | 1 Comment

Post navigation

← Older posts

Taking Back Control

Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland

Monitor 76: Democratic lockdown?

My Tweets

Enter your e-mail address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by e-mail.

Join 2,342 other followers

Unit Mailing List: Sign up to receive notifications of of our events, newsletter and publications

Mailing List

The Unit at 25: celebrating 25 achievements

Parliament and Brexit

Improving discourse during election and referendum campaigns

The Independent Commission on Referendums

Blog at WordPress.com.
The Constitution Unit Blog
Blog at WordPress.com.
Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×