Today the Unit published Monitor 89, providing an analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Alan Renwick and Meg Russell, which also serves as the issue’s lead article, highlights welcome action by the government on devolution, commitment to the rule of law and the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords, but calls for stronger action on wider Lords reform, progress on the promised Ethics and Integrity Commission, and action on the pre-election pledge to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. It warns that the governments of the UK must strive to maintain healthy checks and balances, avoid polarisation, and foster open political discourse at a time when events in the US are showing the dangers of not doing so.

(more…)

Holding ministerial office or leading a public body involves challenges and duties that do not exist in the private sector. Using recent examples of high profile resignations by public office holders, former Commissioner for Public Appointments Peter Riddell argues that although it is rightly difficult to remove some public servants, it is also incumbent on them to know in what circumstances they should offer to resign. When they do not then do so, it should be difficult – but not impossible – for a minister to remove a person when confidence in their ability to fulfil their functions has been lost.

(more…)

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.