The rules of the election campaign: problems and potential solutions

Posted on December 20, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

The election campaign that concluded last week was often a depressing sight for democrats, with rampant misinformation and occasional threats against institutions that try to foster better debate. In this post Alan Renwick identifies key problems and assesses four possible solutions. Given the prevailing political environment, he concludes, a concerted effort from parliamentarians, broadcasters, and others will be needed to carry the case for positive reforms forward.

Electoral law in the UK urgently requires reform. This has been the unanimous conclusion of a slew of recent reports from respected organisations – including the Electoral Commission, Association of Electoral Administrators, and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs committees in the House of Commons. Michela Palese and I also argued the case in a report earlier this year. Many aspects need attention. Some are drily technical: our complex and often opaque election rules badly need basic consolidation, simplification, and clarification. Others get to the heart of the kind of democracy we want to live in. Campaigning has been transformed by the digital communications revolution, but the rules have utterly failed to catch up.

This post focuses on campaign conduct. It begins by briefly reviewing problems during the 2019 election before focusing on four possible solutions. Finally, it considers the prospects for serious reform.

The conduct of the campaign

The shift to online campaigning continued apace. According to Facebook’s data, the three main parties’ central organisations alone spent £3.5 million on advertising on the site in the 12 months preceding the election, the great bulk of it coming during the campaign period. Each party posted thousands of separate ads, often targeted at very small numbers of voters. Local parties and other campaign groups also weighed in strongly. It will take considerable time for detailed analysis of all this material to be completed.

Misinformation was rampant throughout the campaign, from all sides. Boris Johnson’s core promise to ‘get Brexit done’ by 31 January 2020 was well known to be a gross simplification, while Conservative promises on new hospitals and extra nurses were found wanting. So were Labour’s claims that 95% of people would pay no extra tax under its plans and that the average family would save over £6,000. The Liberal Democrats were criticised most for misleading bar charts and sometimes manifestly false claims about their own electoral prospects. Continue reading →

Enacting the manifesto? Labour’s pledges and the reality of a hung parliament

Posted on December 11, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

Media coverage in this election has been dominated by the Conservatives and Labour, and their competing policy plans. But a key difference between the parties is that, while a Conservative majority government is clearly possible based on the polls, a Labour majority government is not. Hence a Labour-led government would need to negotiate its policy with other parties, which would soften its stance. Robert Hazell and Meg Russell reflect on the lack of coverage of these questions, and what a Labour-led government would actually look like – in terms of personalities, policies and style.

Consistent opinion poll evidence during the general election campaign suggests that there are two possible outcomes: a majority Conservative government led by Boris Johnson, or a hung parliament. In the event of the latter, Johnson might still remain Prime Minister, but he has few allies – even having alienated Northern Ireland’s DUP. So a hung parliament might well result in a government led by Labour, even if the Conservatives are the largest party. But one thing is clear: nobody is really expecting a Labour majority government.

Consequently, particularly as the polls have failed to shift into majority Labour government territory during the campaign, it is strange that so little attention has been given to the question of what a Labour-led government might actually deliver in policy terms. To navigate policy through a hung parliament this would need to be accepted by other parties. In some areas – notably the commitment to a referendum on Brexit – the parties agree; but in other areas there may be less agreement. So whilst significant attention has been paid to the radicalism of Labour’s manifesto, a hung parliament – which might lead to a minority Labour government, or less likely (given statements from the Liberal Democrats and SNP) a formal coalition – would inevitably result in some dilution. As noted in the Constitution Unit’s 2009 report on minority government, hung parliaments ‘[entail] a greater degree of compromise and concession than leaders of governments at Westminster are used to’.

Thus focus on Labour’s economic policy – such as its tax or nationalisation plans – might usefully have been tempered by journalists asking questions of the other parties about the extent to which they would accept such plans, or how they might be softened as a result of negotiation. In a country where hung parliaments are more frequent, debate about the likely compromises between parties would be far more upfront during the campaign. Instead, the UK’s legacy of single-party majority government (notwithstanding the fact that this situation has applied for just two of the last nine years) has led to parties and journalists alike avoiding such questions. This, in turn, risks leaving the public ill-informed about the real prospects post-election. Continue reading →

Constitutional plans and pledges in the 2019 election manifestos

Posted on December 5, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

With just two weeks until polling day, the major parties have all published their manifestos: we now know their stated plans for the constitution. Stephen Mitchell, Elspeth Nicholson, Harrison Shaylor and Alex Walker examine what each party has to say about constitutional reform of the UK’s institutions, altering the devolution settlement and developing a written constitution.

This election sees a series of radical proposals for constitutional reform from all the political parties. You would not glean this from the introduction to most of the manifestos, or the table of contents; the parties are keenly aware that most voters are not interested in constitutional reform. So we have had to dig deep to extract the key constitutional pledges from the manifestos. We start with their high level plans for a constitutional convention and a written constitution, before discussing devolution and the Union, electoral reform and parliamentary reform. We have not included their plans for Brexit, because these are well known; but Brexit will obviously be a significant – if not the biggest – constitutional change, with major knock-on effects elsewhere. Nor have we included the parties from Northern Ireland, in the interests of space: this analysis is confined to the parties standing for election in Great Britain.

Democratic innovation

A number of political parties have promised citizen-led democratic initiatives in their manifestos, particularly on constitutional questions. Several parties want to develop a written constitution via this participatory route, and some have also promised citizen involvement on other questions, such as climate change.

Labour have set out their plan for a ‘UK-wide Constitutional Convention, led by a citizens’ assembly’. The scope of the proposed convention is broad – considering the renewal of parliament, how power is distributed and the relationship between the nations and regions of the UK. The convention will also consider the Welsh Government’s 20-point devolution plan, published in October.

The Conservatives agree that ‘proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates’ are needed. However, they stop short of a citizens’ convention, opting instead for a ‘Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission’ to be set up in their first year. One of the Commission’s key stated tasks will be to ‘update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government’; and ‘ensure that judicial review… is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays’.

The Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party both mention a written constitution and set out measures for greater citizen involvement. The Liberal Democrats promise a written federal constitution that enshrines home rule and makes permanent the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales. They also plan to introduce a range of citizens’ assemblies at both local and national level on ‘the greatest challenges we face’, including climate change and the state’s use of artificial intelligence. Continue reading →

Monitor 73 — On the brink: Brexit, the election and the state of British politics

Posted on November 13, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

The latest issue of Monitor, the Constitution Unit’s regular newsletter, was published today. Since the last issue, a new Prime Minister has been appointed, a new Speaker has been elected, a new Brexit deal has been negotiated, and a new parliament is imminent, as a general election campaign gets into gear this week. Meg Russell and Alan Renwick review the last four months of constitutional events in what is also the lead article from Monitor 73. The full edition can be found here.

With a general election scheduled for 12 December, the UK could be at a crucial turning point. Or, of course, not: with the polls uncertain, another hung parliament is a real possibility. The UK appeared closer to agreeing terms for leaving the EU in late October than previously, after Prime Minister Boris Johnson negotiated a revised deal and the House of Commons backed his Withdrawal Agreement Bill at second reading. But when MPs refused to accept Johnson’s demand that they rush the legislation through in three days, he refused to accord them more time, and demanded – as he had twice in September – a general election. A further extension of the Article 50 period – which Johnson had previously suggested he would rather ‘die in a ditch’ than allow – was agreed on 28 October – just three days before the 31 October deadline. That being in place, Labour reluctantly agreed to an election, which it is fighting on a pledge to hold another Brexit referendum. The Liberal Democrats want to revoke Article 50 in the unlikely event that they secure a majority, or otherwise hold a referendum.

In recent months much in British politics has already felt close to breaking point. While Theresa May fared badly in navigating parliament as the leader of a minority government (only in the final stages seeking agreement with other parties), Johnson seems actively to have sought confrontation with parliament. This is, to say the least, an unorthodox strategy in a system where the government depends on the Commons’ confidence to survive. It is the very reverse of what would normally be expected under a minority government. Such an approach lasted, at least briefly, due to MPs’ fears of triggering a vote of no-confidence – which might have delivered Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn to Downing Street, or indeed allowed Johnson to ‘crash’ the UK out of the EU on a ‘no deal’ basis. There were even suggestions that he would refuse to resign, and ‘dare’ the Queen to sack him (see page 15), if parliament sought to put an alternative prime minister in his place.

In his short time in office, Johnson has faced very limited parliamentary scrutiny, including just three sessions of Prime Minister’s Questions. He made and cancelled no fewer than three arrangements to appear before the Commons Liaison Committee, much to the frustration of its chair. Most controversially, of course, he sought to prorogue parliament for five weeks – an action ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court (see page 14). Despite the ruling, scrutiny was curtailed by the summer recess, the time lost due to this ‘prorogation that wasn’t’, plus a further short prorogation to facilitate a Queen’s Speech (described as a ‘sham’ by the Unit’s Robert Hazell, given Johnson’s evident desire for an election). The attempted prorogation, and loose talk about refusing to resign, have left many people alarmed that a constitution heavily dependent on convention has suddenly appeared fragile, when faced with players who show little regard for unwritten rules. Continue reading →

Five key questions about a further Brexit referendum

Posted on November 7, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

Proposals for another Brexit referendum will be at the heart of the election campaign and it is therefore important that the viability of politicians’ plans are thoroughly tested. Drawing on recent research, Alan Renwick, Meg Russell and Lisa James here set out five key questions. They suggest that Labour’s plans for a referendum within six months are challenging, though not necessarily impossible. A poll which pitted Boris Johnson’s deal against Remain would be simpler and quicker, avoiding additional negotiation time. This would also have the advantage of enhancing the referendum’s legitimacy among Brexit supporters.

The parties are finalising their election manifestos, and several will propose a further referendum on Brexit. These policies will come under close scrutiny during the campaign. This post draws on and updates a detailed report published by the Constitution Unit last year. It sets out the possible routes to a further Brexit referendum, the key choices that would need to be made, and the possible consequences of those choices. It finds that a referendum between Boris Johnson’s deal and remaining in the EU would be both the simplest, and the quickest, option.

How would a referendum come about?

The major unknown – and unknowable – factor at this stage is the outcome of the general election. It is impossible to predict post-election parliamentary arithmetic with any confidence, but it will have a material effect on the probability and form of a referendum.

There are three main possibilities. The first is a Conservative majority, under which a referendum is very unlikely to take place. The second is a Conservative minority government, which might accept a confirmatory referendum as the price of passing its Withdrawal Agreement. The third is a Labour-led government: either a majority government, or a minority government supported by smaller pro-referendum parties. Under this scenario, the Labour leadership proposes to negotiate a new deal with the European Union, and to offer a referendum between their deal and Remain. Continue reading →

The Constitution Unit Blog

Tag Archives: 2019 general election

The rules of the election campaign: problems and potential solutions

Like this:

Enacting the manifesto? Labour’s pledges and the reality of a hung parliament

Like this:

Constitutional plans and pledges in the 2019 election manifestos

Like this:

Five key questions about a further Brexit referendum

Like this:

The Constitution Unit Blog

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: