Today, the Unit published Monitor 87, providing analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Meg Russell and Alan Renwick also serves as the issue’s lead article. It discusses the Labour landslide at the general election and the new-look House of Commons; the constitutional changes we can expect from the new government (such as House of Lords reform, measures on standards, and increased devolution in England); and unexpected changes in political leadership in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It also warns that aspects of the election campaign show that the divisive politics plaguing the UK has not gone away. And it commits the Unit to work hard to inform the new government, new opposition parties and wider public about the constitutional challenges ahead.

Since the last edition of Monitor was published four months ago, the face of UK politics has radically changed. Most obviously, a general election was unexpectedly called, and the dramatic results delivered a Labour landslide and therefore a change of government. Former Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer is now the UK’s Prime Minister, while former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is (at least for now) Leader of the Opposition. The Shadow Cabinet has very largely become the Cabinet, while many members of Sunak’s government lost their seats, as did former Prime Minister Liz Truss.

The Labour manifesto (analysed alongside others on the Unit blog) promised various constitutional changes, some of which were reflected in the King’s speech given on 17 July. The government promises reform of the House of Lords, with a first session bill to remove the hereditary peers; it is committed to reforming appointments and shrinking the size of the chamber, before turning to larger-scale reform. It also promises quick action on changes to the territorial constitution, with a new Council of the Nations and Regions, and further devolution within England. The speech reiterated plans to act on the integrity of elections and encourage participation – the manifesto pledged to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and improve electoral registration. As for the manifesto commitment to create a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, legislation on the detail of this is expected later – the Unit published a report on the options in March. Beyond legislation, the government has committed to creating a new House of Commons Modernisation Committee – a topic on which the Unit likewise issued a report, in June.  

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.  

The main party manifestos for the forthcoming general election have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this fifth post in a series on the manifestos, Lisa James looks at the parties’ policies on the standards system. What do they propose, what should they consider, and what might be missing? 

Standards scandals were a frequent feature of the 2019–24 parliament; MPs, ministers and even a Prime Minister were forced to resign amid controversy. In this context, expert bodies probed the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and suggested improvements, with major reports published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Boardman Review into the Greensill lobbying scandal, House of Commons Standards Committee, Institute for Government, UK Governance Project and Constitution Unit. And public opinion research revealed a strong appetite for reforms to enforce high ethical standards. Coming into the 2024 general election, political parties had both the impetus to take standards reform seriously, and no shortage of recommendations for how to achieve it. 

This blogpost assesses the manifesto commitments on reforming ministerial and parliamentary standards made by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Reform UK, with most of its material coming from the former two. The Scottish National Party does not address standards at Westminster; Plaid Cymru’s key pledge, on criminalising lying by politicians or candidates, was addressed in a previous post. And strikingly, given the party’s experiences in the last parliament, the Conservative manifesto makes no mention of standards at all. 

An Ethics and Integrity Commission? 

The most significant pledge in the Labour manifesto is to create a new Ethics and Integrity Commission. This policy has been well-trailed, and was the centrepiece of two major speeches by Angela Rayner in 2021 and 2023. But the manifesto gives scant detail on the commission’s remit and scope, saying only that it will have a brief to ‘ensure probity in government’. 

The parties contesting the general election have now published their manifestos, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this fourth post in a series on the manifestos, Patrick Thomas examines the commitments on devolution, and considers what these might mean for the future of the UK. 

It has now been a quarter of a century since the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were established. Twenty-five years on, devolution remains a live issue in all but one of the 2024 manifestos. But this inclusion of the constitutional questions around devolution is where the commonalities largely stop.  

The 2024 manifestos present four different visions and approaches in the area of devolution. The Conservative Party displays a hesitancy and even hostility towards devolution, and an instinctive desire to assert Westminster power. The Labour Party, on the other hand, clearly likes the system it created in 1998 and so sets out a vision for reasserting the status quo. The Liberal Democrats seek to take devolution much further, by making the UK a federal state. And the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru share a vision of ever greater devolution, at least partly in hope that it will further their end goal of independence from the UK. Two other manifestos do not present a vision for devolution, but in very different ways. The Green Party manifesto acknowledges the importance of devolution but seeks to stay out of the debate, while supporting freedom of choice. Reform UK, on the other hand, simply ignores devolution entirely. 

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.