This is the first edition of this briefing. It has since been updated. Read the most up-to-date version and other briefings on the Constitution Unit’s website.

The media plays a vital role in democracies, as an arena for debate and a source of accountability. But concerns have been raised about the health of the sector in the UK. Caitlin Farrell and Lisa James argue that safeguarding the media’s role requires action from both politicians and the media.

Background

In a democracy, the media educates, informs and entertains – including through news, opinion, analysis, satire and drama. It is a key route through which the public hears about politics, and it plays an important role in shaping the public agenda and forming public opinion.

However, in recent years frequent concerns have been expressed about the health of the news media. Attacks on media independence or broadcaster impartiality have raised alarm. Media market changes have led to cuts in local and investigative journalism and have amplified polarising rhetoric and misinformation. Monopoly ownership may yield an undue concentration of power.

Why does the media matter for democracy?

The media is central to democratic participation. It creates an arena for the exchange of opinion, discussion and deliberation – a space sometimes referred to as the ‘public sphere’. It provides a channel of communication between politicians and the public, allowing politicians to communicate their beliefs and proposals, giving the public the information that they need in order to participate, and allowing the voices of the public to be heard by politicians. The media also assists in holding politicians to account – through reporting, and direct scrutiny such as interviews.

The media has an important role in the formation of public opinion. Via the content and tone of its coverage, it can influence how members of the public understand an issue, which topics they consider important, and what information they use in forming overall political judgements.

(more…)

Following her appointment as Prime Minister yesterday, Liz Truss has become the third Prime Minister in a row to take office directly as a result of a party leadership election. Ben Worthy explains that taking office in the middle of a parliament has historically not gone well for the incoming Prime Minister, with none of the last three ‘takeover Prime Ministers’ able to complete a full parliamentary term in office.

There are two routes to becoming Prime Minister in the UK. You can either win a general election or triumph in a party leadership election to become head of the largest parliamentary party when a predecessor leaves. As section 2.18 of the Cabinet Manual puts it:

Where a Prime Minister chooses to resign from his or her individual position at a time when his or her administration has an overall majority in the House of Commons, it is for the party or parties in government to identify who can be chosen as the successor.

Prime Minister Liz Truss is a ‘takeover’ leader, securing the post via the second route rather than the first. Remarkably, she will be the fifteenth takeover since 1916 and the second woman appointed mid-term since 2016.

There are some downsides to being a takeover. As the table below shows, takeovers’ time in office tends to be relatively brief. UK prime ministers in the last 100 years have lasted an average of just over five years, equivalent to the maximum length of one parliamentary term. Takeover tenure was considerably shorter at just over 3.6 years, compared with an average of 6.6 years for those who came to office following a general election. The longest takeover premiership was that of John Major, which lasted seven years, and the shortest was Andrew Bonar Law’s seven months (due to ill health).

The most recent takeovers are bywords for difficult, if not failed, premierships. Major (1990–1997), Gordon Brown (2007–2010) and the successive takeovers of Theresa May (2016–2019) and Boris Johnson (2019–2022) stand out as dysfunctional and struggling leaders. All led deeply divided parties and their names are linked to deep crises, whether economic (the Winter of Discontent or Black Wednesday), political (Maastricht or Brexit) or global (COVID-19).

(more…)