Election 2024: the performance of the electoral system 

The general election has raised many questions about the functioning of the UK’s electoral system. In this post, Alan Renwick focuses on two main areas: the First Past the Post rules that form the core of that system; and the quality of democratic discourse during the campaign. The election result illustrates the arguments both for and against First Past the Post; change in this area is unlikely. But, he argues, the need to improve democratic discourse is more pressing than ever. 

The 2024 general election having concluded, we can begin to assess how the voting system performed. On one level, the electoral process was a resounding success. Nowhere did the system collapse. Nowhere are the results contested. Losing candidates up and down the country accepted their fates – often, though sadly not always, with good grace. As outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in his concession speech on election night, ‘Today, power will change hands in a peaceful and orderly manner, with good will on all sides. That is something that should give us all confidence in our country’s stability and future.’ 

Other aspects of electoral administration will take longer to gather evidence on. There were numerous reports during the campaign of voters not receiving their postal ballots on time, and some councils took emergency measures in response. The Electoral Commission will now collect thorough evidence on the extent of the problems, and may recommend reforms. This is no trifling matter: over a fifth of voters now cast their ballots by post, and they need to be able to participate with confidence. Similarly, the impact of new voter ID rules will also need careful examination. 

This blogpost focuses on two other aspects of the election process: the performance of the core of the voting system itself; and the nature of political discourse during the campaign.  

Continue reading

Elections and public participation in the 2024 party manifestos

The main party manifestos have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this third post in a series on the manifestos, Alan Renwick looks at the parties’ policies towards elections and public participation. What are they promising, and what should we make of their proposals?

The rules of elections are far from settled. As a recent post on this blog set out, they have changed in numerous ways – both formal and informal – since the last general election in 2019. In their 2024 general election manifestos, all parties pledge at least some further reforms. Some also advocate additional forms of public participation in policy-making, such as referendums or citizens’ assemblies. But the policies on offer differ widely. This post outlines and assesses the proposals.

Votes at 16

Just one pledge in this area has hit the mainstream headlines in the course of the campaign so far, and that is Labour’s plan to introduce votes at 16. Keir Starmer highlighted this policy within a few days of the election announcement, and it is reiterated in Labour’s manifesto. It is matched by the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP. By contrast, the Conservative manifesto says ‘We will not change the voting age from 18’. Indeed, the party has sought to weaponise the issue, claiming that Starmer’s policy is an attempt to ‘entrench his power’ for many years.

That Conservative riposte deserves to be greeted with decidedly raised eyebrows, coming as it does from the party that changed the voting system for mayors and police and crime commissioners in a way that benefited itself while damaging key democratic principles.

Continue reading

The 2019 Conservative Party manifesto: were its pledges on the constitution delivered? 

The 2019 Conservative Party manifesto contained a number of constitutional policy commitments – on Brexit, UK institutions, elections, civil liberties, and devolution. As the manifestos for this year’s general election emerge, Lisa James assesses the delivery record of the 2019–24 Conservative governments against the pledges made in 2019. 

The 2019 Conservative Party manifesto contained a wide-ranging set of constitutional commitments. Since its publication much has changed – the UK has left the EU, experienced a global pandemic, and had three Prime Ministers and five Chancellors of the Exchequer. But delivery against manifesto commitments still matters, so with the 2019–24 parliament dissolved, now is the time to reassess the pledges that were made. 

Getting Brexit done 

The single highest profile – and titular – pledge of the manifesto was of course the promise to ‘get Brexit done’. The election followed a period of parliamentary deadlock, and the negotiation of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal. The manifesto pledged to pass this deal, limit the length of the ‘transition period’ for negotiating new trade arrangements, end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the UK, and end the supremacy of EU law. 

The Brexit deal was rapidly passed following the Conservative general election victory, and the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020. The pledge not to extend the transition period beyond the end of 2020 was also kept. The deal largely removed ECJ jurisdiction from the UK, but the court retained a continuing role in relation to Northern Ireland as a result of its treatment under Johnson’s Brexit deal (discussed further below). The supremacy of retained EU law (a special category of legislation derived from the UK’s EU membership) was ended by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023

Continue reading