The Constitution Unit Blog

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • Constitutional Standards and the Health of Democracy
  • Brexit
  • Parliament
  • Elections and referendums
  • Democratic Engagement and Citizens’ Assemblies
  • Government
  • Devolution
  • Events
  • About the Constitution Unit
  • Copyright
  • Judiciary and human rights
  • Parties and politicians
  • Constitutions and constitution making
  • Freedom of information
  • Monarchy, church and state

Category Archives: Public Engagement and Policy Making

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts→

Monitor 80: Defending democracy

Posted on March 16, 2022 by The Constitution Unit

Today, the Unit published the 80th edition of Monitor, which provides analysis of the key constitutional news of the past four months. In this post, which also serves as the lead article for Monitor 80, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick reflect on risks to democracy at home and the appalling invasion of a democratic nation, Ukraine, which could have long-term repercussions for the health of democracies across Europe.

Monitor has in recent years catalogued a succession of astonishing events in British constitutional politics: the 2014 Scottish independence referendum; the 2016 Brexit referendum; the parliamentary battle that ensued under Theresa May’s divided minority government post-2017; Boris Johnson’s unlawful parliamentary prorogation of 2019; and the politics of COVID-19 lockdown post-2020.

The shock likely to dominate memories of 2022 – Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine – is of a different order. The war is a terrible tragedy for all those directly affected; on the world stage it is Europe’s darkest and potentially most dangerous moment at least since the Cold War standoff of the 1960s, and perhaps since 1945. In response, British constitutional politics has seen a suspension of normal working. Hostile exchanges at Prime Minister’s Questions have been replaced by pledges of unity. The House of Commons has given standing ovations to Ukraine’s ambassador in London, and then to its President, Volodoymr Zelenskyy. A mutinous Conservative Party that had been gearing up, perhaps, to topple its leader now bides its time.

How Putin’s war might shift British politics beyond the short term remains to be seen. In this edition of Monitor, the developments discussed mostly predate the invasion. Some of these – notably, a raft of bills and consultations – have a momentum that will run on. As has been true for several years, these developments give some considerable cause for concern.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Brexit, Devolution, digital democracy, Elections and referendums, Europe, Government, International, Judiciary and human rights, Monarchy, church and state, Parliament, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged 1922 Committee, Alan Renwick, backsliding, boris johnson, Brexit Freedoms Bill, citizens assembly on democracy in the UK, Conservative Party, Conservatives, Democracy in the UK after Brexit, Elections Bill, Electoral Commission, House of Commons, House of Lords, human rights, Independent Human Rights Act Reviww, judicial review, Judicial Review and Courts Bill, meg russell, Monitor, Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Protocol, partygate, Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill, prime minister, retained EU law, Scotland, Scottish Conservatives, Simon Case, Sue Gray, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Wales

Democracy and the draft Online Safety Bill: the report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Posted on March 4, 2022 by The Constitution Unit

The publication of a draft Online Safety Bill has enabled two parliamentary committees to engage in detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. The conclusions of a special joint committee were discussed in earlier posts by its Chair, Damian Collins and Alex Walker. Here, Alex analyses the findings of the second report on the draft bill, authored by the DCMS Committee, and analyses the points of contention between the two reports.

Parliament has been giving close attention to the landmark Online Safety Bill since it was published in draft in May 2021. In December, the joint committee set up to consider the draft bill published its report. I considered its recommendations in the first part of this two-part series on the scrutiny of the draft bill. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee has since published its take on the draft legislation. As the DCMS committee commented, it is welcome that the bill was published in draft, and is receiving such comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny. Whilst the government is of course not required to accept the recommendations of the committees, failing to address gaps they have both identified would not be a constructive response to the pre-legislative process.

One such gap (highlighted previously on this blog) is that of online harms to democracy. Whilst they diverge on a number of points, the DCMS committee and the joint committee share the analysis that this is a serious issue which the bill should address. In this piece, I consider the DCMS committee’s proposals to address online threats to democracy and look at how they differ from those of the joint committee. Both approaches to improving this aspect of the bill are worthy of careful consideration and the government should not use the points of difference as a way to avoid taking action.

Content that undermines democracy should be in scope

Constitution Unit Deputy Director Alan Renwick and I argued in written evidence to the DCMS committee that online harms to democracy should be addressed in the legislation. The committee agreed. The government’s own 2019 Online Harms white paper detailed the dangers that online activity such as the viral spread of disinformation could pose to democracy. But the measures the white paper set out to address this issue were later abandoned, leaving the draft bill with a considerable blind spot. Both the DCMS committee and the joint committee concluded that leaving this gap unfilled would be a mistake. However, the two committees recommended different changes to the legislation.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in digital democracy, Elections and referendums, Parliament, Parties and politicians, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged Alex Walker, Culture Secretary, Damian Collins, DCMS select committee, Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport, Digital Culture Media and Sport Committee, disinformation, Doing Democracy Better, draft Online Safety Bill, Leader of the House of Commons, misinformation, Ofcom, online harms, online harms white paper, Online Safety Bill, Online Safety White Paper, social media

What Kind of Democracy Do People Want: a discussion

Posted on March 3, 2022 by The Constitution Unit

Last month the Constitution Unit published What Kind of Democracy Do People Want?, the first report of its Democracy in the UK after Brexit project. To mark the report’s launch, a seminar was convened to discuss its findings, their implications, and possible future avenues of research. The project’s research assistant, James Cleaver, summarises the discussion.

What Kind of Democracy Do People Want?is the first of four reports from the Democracy in the UK after Brexit project. It is based on a UK-wide survey conducted in July 2021 in partnership with YouGov, with a sample size of almost 6,500 people who were representative of the UK’s voting age population.

A panel of three speakers was convened to discuss the report’s findings: Professor Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit, who is leading the Democracy in the UK after Brexit project; Paula Surridge, Senior Lecturer in Political Sociology at the University of Bristol and Deputy Director of UK in a Changing Europe; and James Johnson, founder of J.L. Partners and former Senior Opinion Research and Strategy Adviser to Prime Minister Theresa May. The event was chaired by Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit and a Co-Investigator on the Democracy in the UK after Brexit project. The summaries below are presented in order of the speakers’ contributions. You can watch the event here.

Alan Renwick

Alan Renwick outlined the structure of the research project and summarised the report’s key results. He focused on three overarching findings: while there exists broad satisfaction with democracy, people have very little trust in politicians; most members of the public want politicians who are honest, have integrity, and operate within the rules; and people generally prefer not to concentrate power in the hands of a few politicians, but rather to spread it to parliament, non-politicians, and the wider public. You can read more about the key findings of the report, and how they compare with other studies, in a recent post on this blog.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Events, Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged accountability, citizens assembly on democracy in the UK, citizens' assemblies, Democracy in the UK after Brexit, democratic engagement, digital democracy, James Cleaver, James Johnson, judicial accountability, judiciary, levelling up, MPs, Paula Surridge, prime minister, YouGov

What Kind of Democracy Do People Want? Putting our findings in context

Posted on February 10, 2022 by The Constitution Unit

Last month the Unit published the first report of its Democracy in the UK after Brexit project. Titled What Kind of Democracy Do People Want?, the report summarises the findings of a UK-wide survey conducted last summer. Ahead of today’s Unit seminar, the project’s Research Assistant, James Cleaver, asks how the findings compare with previous research.

The Unit’s new report, What Kind of Democracy Do People Want?, contains numerous important findings, many of which relate directly to current concerns about low political trust and standards in public life, and debates about the proper role of the courts. The report is based on a survey conducted in July 2021 in partnership with YouGov, with a sample size of almost 6,500 people who were representative of the UK’s voting age population.

Key Findings

When we asked respondents how satisfied they were with how democracy works in the UK, 54% said they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly satisfied’, against 40% who were ‘not very’ or ‘not at all satisfied’.

But respondents had very little trust in politicians. Net trust in the Prime Minister was -31%, and that in the UK parliament was -19%. In contrast, attitudes towards the civil service were neutral (+1%), and they were positive towards the judiciary (+19%).  

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged democracy, Democracy in the UK after Brexit, Human Rights Act, James Cleaver, judicial review, judiciary, parliament, prime minister, trust | 2 Comments

Our elected representatives can do better: a message from the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK

Posted on January 17, 2022 by The Constitution Unit

The Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK is sending a powerful message: people in the UK want their elected representatives to do better. The Assembly met over six weekends in the final months of 2021 to examine how the UK’s democratic system should work. Its full recommendations will be published in March. This post previews some of the key findings.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK comprises 67 members of the UK public who were carefully selected to be representative of the wider population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, educational background, location in the UK, and political attitudes. The members met over six weekends between September and December, hearing from experts, discussing among themselves, and drawing conclusions. They reached over 50 recommendations, covering many aspects of democracy in the UK, which will be published in full in March. They also crafted statements summing up their feelings about how democracy is working in the UK today. These statements – the focus of this post – send a powerful message that people in the UK want their representatives to do a better job.

The Assembly members began their final weekend of deliberations, on 11–12 December, by choosing words that summed up their feelings about current UK democracy. They could choose from a list of words provided, or add their own. The word cloud below shows how they responded. The most frequently chosen options were ‘dissatisfied’ and ‘frustrated’, followed by ‘concerned’, then ‘hopeful’ and ‘disappointed’.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • Print & PDF

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted in Public Engagement and Policy Making | Tagged citizens assembly on democracy in the UK, citizens' assemblies, Democracy in the UK after Brexit | 1 Comment

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts→

The Constitution Unit Website

Monitor 83: Sunak’s constitutional dilemmas

New Report: Public Preferences for Integrity and Accountability in Politics

New Report: Reforming the Prerogative


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

Join 2,523 other subscribers

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

Link to Join the Unit's Mailing list
Blog at WordPress.com.
The Constitution Unit Blog
Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Follow Following
    • The Constitution Unit Blog
    • Join 1,691 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Constitution Unit Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: