Podcasts about constitution unit

This event marked official launch of the second edition of Exploring Parliament, a new book which brings together academic insights with real-world perspectives to bring parliament to life for readers. The book's 73 authors – leading academic experts and parliamentary practitioners – offer an unrivalled insider's guide to the UK parliament, providing an accessible yet in-depth exploration of how parliament works, its key functions, and the realities of law-making and scrutiny in the UK. Who are the key players in parliament? How is parliament organised and run? How is the government held to account? How are laws made? And what challenges does parliament face in the future? To explore these questions and more, we were joined by the editors of Exploring Parliament – who made opening remarks, reflecting on the book's unique approach, and a panel of the book's authors who discussed their chapters and insights. This was followed by a Q&A session. Panellists included: Professor Nicholas Allen, Professor of Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London Dr Sean Haughey, Senior Lecturer at the University of Liverpool Chloe Mawson, Clerk Assistant at the House of Lords Dr Rebecca McKee, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Government Margaret McKinnon, Director Member and Members' Staff Services Team at the House of Commons Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London (UCL) The event was chaired by Dr Hannah White, Director and CEO of the Institute for Government. Introductory remarks were also delivered by the editors Professor Cristina Leston Bandeira, Dr Louise Thompson and Dr Alexandra Meakin. We would like to thank the Study of Parliament Group for kindly supporting this event.

Talk of possible reforms to the Stormont institutions has been growing recently, spurred by concerns about repeated institutional collapses, perceived inequities between different parts of society, and criticisms of the institutions' record in governance. But what options for reform are there, and what impacts might these have if implemented? A newly published report from the Constitution Unit at University College London addresses these questions. It does not draw conclusions, but aims to promote wider, more coherent and better-informed debate.This public event, hosted in collaboration with the Democracy Unit at Queen's University Belfast, offered an occasion for such debate. The report's authors were joined by leading experts to explore the ideas and possible ways forward.Speakers:Professor Katy Hayward – Professor of Political Sociology, Queen's University BelfastProfessor Alan Renwick – Deputy Director of the Constitution UnitAnn Watt – Director of PivotalAlan Whysall, Honorary Senior Research Associate at the Constitution UnitChair: Professor John Garry, Director of the Democracy Unit, Queen's University BelfastRead the report  Links:Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/mailing-listBlog: constitution-unit.com

Politics in the UK has been in turmoil in recent years—Brexit, Covid, movements for independence in Scotland and Northern Ireland, rule-breaking Prime Ministers, and now the shockwaves from Donald Trump's return to the White House. These pressures have tested the UK's political system, raising serious questions about whether constitutional reforms are needed.In this episode, we dive into a new report from the UCL Constitution Unit, which examines possible constitutional changes, their likelihood of passing, and whether they could truly address the challenges the UK faces. Our guests are two of the report's authors:Meg Russell – Director of the Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCLLisa James – Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution UnitOur host, Alan Renwick, also a co-author of the report, leads the discussion on ossible constitutional reforms, their feasibility, and what reforms could be on the horizon.Mentioned in this episode:The Constitutional Landscape: Options for Reform, by Lisa James, Patrick Thomas, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell.S7:E10 A Primer on House of Lords Reform, with Meg Russell. UCL's Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

Politics in the UK has been in turmoil in recent years — Brexit, Covid, movements for independence in Scotland and Northern Ireland, rule-breaking Prime Ministers and now the shockwaves from Donald Trump's return to the White House. These pressures have tested the UK's political system, raising serious questions about whether constitutional reforms are needed.In this episode, we dive into a new report from the UCL Constitution Unit, which examines possible constitutional changes, their likelihood of passing, and whether they could truly address the challenges the UK faces. Our guests are two of the report's authors:Meg Russell – Director of the Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCLLisa James – Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution UnitOur host, Alan Renwick, also a co-author of the report, leads the discussion on possible constitutional reforms, their feasibility, and what reforms could be on the horizon.Mentioned in this episode:The Constitutional Landscape: Options for Reform, by Lisa James, Patrick Thomas, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell.S7:E10 A Primer on House of Lords Reform, with Meg Russell. Links:Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/mailing-listBlog: constitution-unit.com

The composition and role of the House of Lords are subject to frequent question. Since the last major change by a Labour government in 1999, proposals for further reform have ranged from wholesale change – e.g. creating an elected second chamber of the nations and regions – to smaller alterations to change the appointments system or to limit the chamber's size. To what extent should a new government prioritise House of Lords reform, and what specifically should be the priorities? If the Conservatives lose office, what challenges might be posed by their still being the largest single group in the upper chamber?  LinksWebsite: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involvedBlog: https://constitution-unit.com/

The role of courts and judges has been controversial in recent years, with criticism of both domestic judges and the European Court of Human Rights. Several government bills have raised difficult questions about the respective roles of government, parliament, and the courts. Has the rule of law been undermined by recent trends in policymaking or political discourse? If so, what should be done to bolster and protect it in the future?  LinksWebsite: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involvedBlog: https://constitution-unit.com/

The last two decades have seen major changes in the structure of sub-national government within England, with the gradual devolution of powers to a range of new mayors and combined authorities. How should this patchwork of devolution be built upon? Should structures be more consistent across the country? Should further powers be devolved, and – if so – to whom? What steps are required to ensure that this devolved power faces appropriate scrutiny and accountability? Speakers:Professor Tony Travers – Director of LSE London and Visiting Professor at the LSEProfessor Joanie Willett – Associate Professor in Politics and Co-Director of the Institute of Cornish Studies, University of ExeterAkash Paun – Programme Director, Institute for GovernmentEd Cox – Executive Director for Strategy, Economy and Net Zero at the West Midlands Combined AuthorityChair: Professor Alan Renwick – Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit  LinksWebsite: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involvedBlog: https://constitution-unit.com/

The 2019–24 parliament has been dogged by complaints of low standards of conduct by our politicians. Rishi Sunak has committed to upholding the ideals of ‘integrity, professionalism, and accountability', while Labour has promised to overhaul how standards are regulated in government and parliament. What are the priorities in this area for a new government to address? Does this require cultural changes, institutional reforms, or both? Which changes or reforms might be most effective? Speakers:Dominic Grieve KC – Chair of the UK Governance Project, former Attorney General and Conservative MPPeter Riddell – former Commissioner for Public Appointments, Director of the Institute for Government and journalistTim Durrant – Programme Director, Institute for GovernmentChair: Professor Meg Russell FBA – Director of the Constitution Unit  Episode links:The joint statement on standards  LinksWebsite: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unitMailing list: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involvedBlog: https://constitution-unit.com/

After a brief election-induced hiatus Mark and Ruth are back to look at the party's manifesto plans to reshape Parliament and politics. They are joined by one of the country's leading constitutional experts, Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, to give us her verdict on the parties' proposals to reform both the Commons and the Lords. They explore Labour's proposals for a Modernisation Committee in the House of Commons which will be tasked with considering procedural reforms, driving up standards and improving working practices. So, what might the agenda for this new Committee look like? How will the membership be constituted in a House with so many new MPs who have little knowledge and experience of how Westminster works?The conversation then shifts to the House of Lords, where Mark and Ruth speak with Earl Kinnoull, Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, the facilitator of the second largest group in the House. The Lords is one of the few real speed-bumps that a Labour Government with a large Commons majority would face. Could a Labour Government even with a very big majority run into resistance on some of its proposals to reform the Upper House? Lord Kinnooull suggests that building cross-party consensus is likely to be the most productive approach to these constitutional reforms. Back in the studio Meg Russell suggests ways in which the relatively vague manifesto commitments might be implemented, to improve the way Peers enter and leave the House and to police its future size.

Democracy 101 is the monthly podcast series from Cumberland Lodge about giving a comprehensive introduction to democracy. In this episode, we speak to Alan Renwick from The Constitution Unit at UCL to explore what it means to have a democratic system, what that looks like in the UK, and how we can influence our future.

The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales launched its final report in January 2024. Its recommendations – which  assessed options for ‘entrenched devolution', full federalism, and Welsh independence – have implications for the whole UK. How would such arrangements be viewed outside Wales? How would they function in practice? Would they affect constitutional debates in Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland?This webinar discusses these UK-wide implications with an expert panel including the Commission's Co-chair, Professor Laura McAllister.Speakers:Laura McAllister - Professor of Public Policy at Cardiff University's Wales Governance Centre and co-chair of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of WalesNicola McEwen - Professor of Public Policy in the College of Social Sciences and Director of the Centre for Public Policy at the University of GlasgowCiaran Martin - Professor of Practice in the Management of Public Organisations at the Blavatnik School of Government and former Constitution Director in the Cabinet OfficeChair: Alan Renwick - Professor of Democratic Politics and Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit

Peace in Northern Ireland is widely recognised as one of the leading achievements of politics in recent decades.  The Good Friday, or Belfast Agreement, reached in 1998 by the British and Irish governments and most of the main Northern Ireland political parties brought an end to thirty years of violent conflict in which over three and a half thousand people were killed.It did so in part by establishing a system of power-sharing government.  A new Northern Ireland Assembly would be elected by proportional representation, so no one group could dominate. Within the new Northern Ireland Executive, representatives of Northern Ireland's two political traditions would have to work together.Over the years since the Agreement was reached, the power-sharing institutions have worked well some of the time. But for others they have worked badly or not at all. Since February 2022 their functioning has once again been suspended. Public anger at this situation is intense. Negotiations for restoring the institutions are ongoing. But, as yet, there has been no breakthrough.Indeed, the situation has become so grave that many think the future viability of power-sharing government is now in doubt. And there are suggestions that the settlement reached in 1998 may need to be revisited.In this episode we're joined by two experts:Alan Whysall is an Honorary Senior Research Associate at the Constitution Unit here within the UCL Department of Political Science. He was previously a senior civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office, where he worked for many years on the Northern Ireland peace process – including the talks that led to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.Conor Kelly is a Research Assistant at the Constitution where he has worked on multiple projects relating to Northern Ireland, most recently examining perceptions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement among politicians and the public in Northern Ireland. Mentioned in this episode:Alan Whysall's reports: 'Report 1: Northern Ireland's Political Future' and 'Report 2: The Agreement at 25' https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/northern-irelands-political-futureConor Kelly and Alan Renwick, Perspectives on the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement 

Peace in Northern Ireland is widely recognised as one of the leading achievements of politics in recent decades.  The Good Friday, or Belfast Agreement, reached in 1998 by the British and Irish governments and most of the main Northern Ireland political parties brought an end to thirty years of violent conflict in which over three and a half thousand people were killed.It did so in part by establishing a system of power-sharing government.  A new Northern Ireland Assembly would be elected by proportional representation, so no one group could dominate. Within the new Northern Ireland Executive, representatives of Northern Ireland's two political traditions would have to work together.Over the years since the Agreement was reached, the power-sharing institutions have worked well some of the time. But for others they have worked badly or not at all. Since February 2022 their functioning has once again been suspended. Public anger at this situation is intense. Negotiations for restoring the institutions are ongoing. But, as yet, there has been no breakthrough.Indeed, the situation has become so grave that many think the future viability of power-sharing government is now in doubt. And there are suggestions that the settlement reached in 1998 may need to be revisited.In this episode we're joined by two experts:Alan Whysall is an Honorary Senior Research Associate at the Constitution Unit here within the UCL Department of Political Science. He was previously a senior civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office, where he worked for many years on the Northern Ireland peace process – including the talks that led to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.Conor Kelly is a Research Assistant at the Constitution where he has worked on multiple projects relating to Northern Ireland, most recently examining perceptions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement among politicians and the public in Northern Ireland.  Mentioned in this episode:Alan Whysall's reports: 'Report 1: Northern Ireland's Political Future' and 'Report 2: The Agreement at 25' https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/northern-irelands-political-futureConor Kelly and Alan Renwick, Perspectives on the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement 

Over the past two years, a Constitution Unit team has been examining public attitudes to democracy in the UK. The project's final report draws together the findings – from two large-scale surveys and a citizens' assembly – and reflects on implications for policy-makers. It examines what kind of democracy people in the UK want and consider what changes in policy or behaviour may be needed in response.Marking the report's launch, this seminar gathered several leading figures from Westminster, together with an expert on public attitudes and members of the project team, to explore the findings and identify possible next steps.Speakers:Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, Shadow Cabinet Office MinisterWendy Chamberlain MP, Liberal Democrat Chief Whip in the House of CommonsDamian Green MP, former First Secretary of State and chair of the One Nation ConservativesProfessor Maria Sobolewska, Professor of Political Science, University of ManchesterProfessor Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of the Constitution UnitChair: Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution UnitUseful Links:Read the report (pdf)The Future of Democracy in the UKDemocracy in the UK after Brexit

The sense that our politics isn't working might be familiar to listeners of this podcast. If you heard last week's episode you'll know that I had James O'Brien discussing his book “How they Broke Britain”, which gets to the heart of these questions. But one area that James and I didn't touch on is our parliament. Britain's parliament, sometimes self-importantly calling itself the Mother of Parliaments, isn't working properly. Its members aren't scrutinising legislation properly, its regulations and procedures are largely broken and it contributes to a wider sense of cynicism around our politics. Two seasoned parliamentarians, Nick Harvey and Paul Tyler, have focused in on the way parliament currently works and how it should work and have produced a short, easily readable book which contains a set of clear proposals, around elections, parliamentary procedure, reform of the upper house and standards in public life. Although it's just about parliament, this book could be titled How to Fix Britain, because if its recommendations where followed, our national life would be improved immeasurably. It's actually called Can Parliament Take Back Control ? And comes with strong endorsements from the Institute for Government, the Constitution Unit at University College London and the Former Clerk of the House of Commons, Lord Lisvane.I was lucky to be able to speak to Paul and Nick and draw on their combined several decades of political experience to hear their recommendations for how to fix our politics. Here they areYou can find Paul and Nick on Twitter and in the usual places. I am @snellarthur on most social media and my Substack is https://arthursnell.substack.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lord Ed Vaizey, former culture minister and leading Cameroon, Baroness Kate Fall, David Cameron's deputy chief of staff in Downing Street, and Professor Meg Russell from UCL's Constitution Unit join PoliticsHome's Alain Tolhurst to discuss the former PM's shock return to Cabinet this week, and what it says about the direction of the Tories under Rishi Sunak. Presented by Alain Tolhurst, produced by Nick Hilton for Podot, edited by Laura Silver

Britain doesn't have a written constitution. Is it time we did?Armando and Anoosh are joined by former attorney general Dominic Grieve and the head of UCL's Constitution Unit, Meg Russell, to discuss Britain's "ramshackle" constitution - and whether democracy can continue to thrive in Westminster after Brexit without a codified system of government.GuestsDominic Grieve is a barrister and former Conservative MP who served as Attorney General for England and Wales from 2010 - 2014. Meg Russell is professor in British and comparative politics and director of the Constitution Unit at University College London.--This episode was originally published in the New Statesman podcast feed on April 27, 2022.Listen to the New Statesman podcast here: https://podfollow.com/new-statesmanSubscribe to the New Statesman for full access to all our reporting and analysis.Get your first month free: www.newstatesman.com/30daytrial Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mark D'Arcy recently retired after spending 21 years covering events at Westminster for the BBC. During that time he built up an unparalleled knowledge of the institution, its procedures and dynamics, with insider access to innumerable key players and a ringside seat at important political moments large and small. This conversation discussed his key reflections on parliament and parliamentary journalism, and how they have changed in the last two decades.Features:Mark D'arcy in conversation with Professor Meg RussellUseful linksYou can see the next Constitution Unit event here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/events/2023/nov/future-democracy-uk-public-attitudes-and-policy-options Mark D'Arcy on the UK&EU podcast: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/podcasts/mark-darcy-on-his-career-at-the-bbc-and-how-brexit-has-changed-parliament/ The Hansard Sociey: https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/  (we will add a link to Marks new podcast with them when it becomes available) Subscribe to our mailing list here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/subscribe

EPISODE SUMMARY This week we ask: What is going wrong with our democracy, and how we might fix it? EPISODE NOTES In this episode we're discussing elections, referenda, and how to fix our democracy, with none other than our long-time podcast host, Alan Renwick. In his inaugural lecture, Alan described democracy as rule for, and by, all, and suggested that the UK's democratic system is falling short of that ideal. We discuss three suggested "fixes": electoral reform, improving citizen's access to reliable information, and the use of citizen's assemblies. One of the central commitments in Prof Alan Renwick's work is to the importance of the citizen, and our role in the democratic process. He is a leading expert on citizens assemblies, and his fourth book, Deliberative Mini-Publics examines how these can contribute to the policy process and even revitalise democracy. Most recently, Alan's research examines the public's attitudes about democracy, and democratic institutions, post Brexit. Mentioned in this episode: Democracy in the UK after Brexit. The Constitution Unit, UCL Deliberative Mini-Publics: Core Design Features. Alan Renwick, Nicole Curato, David Farrell, Brigitte Geissel, Kimmo Grönlund, Patricia Mockler, Jean-Benoit Pilet, Jonathan Rose, Maija Setälä and Jane Suiter. A Citizen's Guide to Electoral Reform. Date of episode recording: 2023-06-01T00:00:00Z Duration: 39:47 Language of episode: English (UK)

 Presenter:Emily McTernan Guests: Alan Renwick Producer: Eleanor Kingwell-Banham

EPISODE SUMMARY This week we ask: What does the process of Brexit tell us about the role of the UK's parliament and whether it needs reform? EPISODE NOTES The last seven years in British politics have been tempestuous. The turmoil has had multiple causes: Covid, Putin's attack on Ukraine, and Trussonomics among them. But the politics of much of the period has been dominated by Brexit: by a referendum on an ever so simple question, followed by years of wrangling over what the question meant and how the answer that voters gave to it should be interpreted and implemented. Much of that contest took place in parliament. Meaningful voters, indicative votes, the Brady amendment, the Malthouse compromise, the Cooper–Letwin Bill and the legality or otherwise of prorogation – all became the stuff of prime-time television. So what should we make of that period? And what can we learn from it – about how parliament and our constitution work, and about how they should work? Well a new book recently published by Oxford University Press explores all these questions and many more. It's called The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit. And its authors join me now. They are Meg Russell (Director of the UCL Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science) and Lisa James (Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit). Mentioned in this episode: The Parliamentary Battle Over Brexit. For 30% off please visit https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/parliamentary-battle-over-brexit Date of episode recording: 2023-04-27 Duration: 36:24 Language of episode: English (UK)

 Presenter:Alan Renwick Guests: Lisa James; Meg Russell Producer: Eleanor Kingwell-Banham

This month's ARINS podcast examines how the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement has functioned over the 25 years since it was signed, and how it is currently received. Host Rory Montgomery speaks with Professor Alan Renwick and Conor J. Kelly authors of the UCL constitution unit's report on Perspectives on the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement: Examining Diverse Views, 1998-2003. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/publications/unit-reports The report offers an array of perspectives shared in political party manifestos, in interviews and in focus groups for UCL's constitution unit. The insights offered by politicians, academics, civil society representatives, from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, Britain and Ireland, show the impact and importance of the Agreement after twenty five years and identify the ways in which the different strands of the agreement have instituted a robust level of stability thus far weathering perceived vulnerabilities including wavering interest from London and Dublin and the ebb and flow of trust in and from political parties. The report's findings demonstrate the success of the agreement as a peace treaty and the need for unwavering commitment from the parties to peace to listen to the needs, fears and anxieties of the constituencies and communities in Northern Ireland. Professor Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit in UCL. He also chaired the Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland. He is an expert in the mechanisms through which citizens can participate in formal politics. Conor J. Kelly is a PhD student at Birkbeck College, University of London. He previously worked for the Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland. This is episode 26 of a podcast series that provides evidence-based research and analysis on the most significant questions of policy and public debate facing the island of Ireland, north and south. Host Rory Montgomery, MRIA, talks to authors of articles on topics such as cross border health co-operation; the need to regulate social media in referendums, education, cultural affairs and constitutional questions and the imperative for good data and the need to carry out impartial research. ARINS: Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South brings together experts to provide evidence-based research and analysis on the most significant questions of policy and public debate facing the island of Ireland, north and south. The project publishes, facilitates and disseminates research on the challenges and opportunities presented to the island in a post-Brexit context, with the intention of contributing to an informed public discourse. More information can be found at www.arinsproject.com. ARINS is a joint project of The Royal Irish Academy, an all-island body, and the Keough-Naughton Institute for Irish Studies at Notre Dame's Keough School of Global Affairs.

The recent book by journalist and author Ian Dunt provides a detailed and critical account of many aspects of the UK's political system, including political parties and elections, parliament and the legislative process, the work of ministers and civil servants in Whitehall, and the role of the media. The book analyses various perceived problems, and proposes a range of possible solutions. In this seminar Ian presents some of his key arguments, and responds to comments and questions from a panel of experts and the online audience. Speakers: Ian Dunt, journalist and authorDr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard SocietyJill Rutter, Senior Research Fellow at UK in a Changing Europe and Senior Fellow at the Institute for GovernmentProfessor Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit, UCL Chair: Dr Tom Fleming, Constitution Unit, UCLYou can buy Ian's book here.

Adopting a more proportional electoral system is opposed by the Conservative Party, and by the Labour leader, but attracts growing support elsewhere. Would such reform be desirable or practical, and what might be its consequences? What might politicians wish to consider regarding other aspects of our elections, such as the minimum voting age, voter ID rules, or the reform proposals of the Law Commissions? How might any such changes be delivered?SpeakersCat Smith MP – Labour MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood and former shadow minister for the Cabinet OfficeLord (Robert) Hayward – Conservative peerJohn Pullinger – Chair of the Electoral CommissionProfessor Sarah Birch – Professor of Political Science at King's College LondonChair: Professor Alan Renwick – Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit, UCL

This final keynote session considered the practicalities of delivering constitutional change in the round, whether under the current government, or a new Conservative, Labour, or coalition administration after the next general election. What kinds of changes might be ‘quick wins', and which might instead take longer to deliver? How is the balance to be reached between public consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and achieving desired changes? Two senior figures with huge experience at the heart of British government reflected on these challenges.SpeakersLord (Charlie) Falconer of Thoroton – Labour peer, and former Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord ChancellorDavid Lidington – former Conservative MP for Aylesbury, and former Minister for the Cabinet Office, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Chancellor, and Leader of the House of CommonsChair: Professor Meg Russell FBA – Director of the Constitution Unit, UCL

The issue of ensuring high standards of behaviour in public life remains high-profile following the Johnson and Truss premierships. Rishi Sunak pledged to lead a government of ‘integrity, professionalism, and accountability' when he first became Prime Minister, while Labour has proposed an extensive overhaul to the UK's system of standards regulation. What are the key problems in the current system, and what reforms could most successfully address them?SpeakersLord (David) Anderson of Ipswich – Crossbench peer, and former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism LegislationDr Hannah White – Director of the Institute for GovernmentJeremy Wright MP – Conservative MP for Kenilworth and Southam, former Attorney General and former member of the Committee on Standards in Public LifeChair: Professor Meg Russell FBA – Director of the Constitution Unit, UCL

Uncertainties over the UK's future territorial politics are great. The SNP is in turmoil, and the UK government's block on Holyrood's gender legislation is being challenged in the courts. Labour's Brown Commission has recommended major changes, and further proposals are being developed in Wales. Renewed devolution within England is on the cards. Is fundamental reform of the UK's territorial arrangements needed? If so, what might this mean in practice?SpeakersDr Anwen Elias – Reader in Politics at Aberystwyth University, and member of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of WalesKezia Dugdale – Director of the John Smith Centre at the University of Glasgow, and former Leader of the Scottish Labour PartyProfessor Michael Kenny - Director of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy, University of CambridgeChair: Professor Alan Renwick – Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit, UCL

Isabel Hardman, Assistant Editor of The Spectator, discusses the week's biggest political stories of the week with guests. Isabel Hardman discusses the future direction of the Conservative Party with Conservative MP Danny Kruger and Gavin Barwell, Conservative peer and former chief of staff to Theresa May. In the week of the 75th annniversary of the NHS, Lord Nigel Crisp former Chief Executive NHS England and Crossbench peer and Sally Warren, Director of Policy, The King's Fund discuss the challenges facing the NHS. Isabel discusses the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords with The Rt Revd Dr David Walker, The Bishop of Manchester And, Professor Meg Russell, director of the Constitution Unit at UCL and Rob Hutton, Sketchwriter for The Critic, discuss 'Parliamentary ping pong'.

In this episode we're discussing elections, referenda, and how to fix our democracy, with none other than our long-time podcast host, Alan Renwick. In his inaugural lecture, Alan described democracy as rule for, and by, all, and suggested that the UK's democratic system is falling short of that ideal. We discuss three suggested "fixes": electoral reform, improving citizen's access to reliable information, and the use of citizen's assemblies.One of the central commitments in Prof Alan Renwick's work is to the importance of the citizen, and our role in the democratic process. He is a leading expert on citizens assemblies, and his fourth book, Deliberative Mini-Publics examines how these can contribute to the policy process and even revitalise democracy. Most recently, Alan's research examines the public's attitudes about democracy, and democratic institutions, post Brexit.  Mentioned in this episode:Democracy in the UK after Brexit.  The Constitution Unit, UCLDeliberative Mini-Publics: Core Design Features. Alan Renwick, Nicole Curato, David Farrell, Brigitte Geissel, Kimmo Grönlund, Patricia Mockler, Jean-Benoit Pilet, Jonathan Rose, Maija Setälä and Jane Suiter.A Citizen's Guide to Electoral Reform.

Our democratic system is not working as well as it should: on this, both the public and most experts agree. But what exactly are the problems? What are the pros and cons of the potential solutions? And are such changes feasible? Drawing on recent Constitution Unit research into public attitudes to democracy, as well as his own work on electoral systems, referendums, citizens' assemblies and other democratic institutions, Alan Renwick explores answers to each of these questions. Alan argues that there are no quick fixes, but that a series of changes in institutions, practices, and behaviours may lead to valuable improvements.With an introduction by Prof Meg Russell and an appreciation by Prof Anand Menon.

Our democratic system is not working as well as it should: on this, both the public and most experts agree. But what exactly are the problems? What are the pros and cons of the potential solutions? And are such changes feasible?  Drawing on recent Constitution Unit research into public attitudes to democracy, as well as his own work on electoral systems, referendums, citizens' assemblies and other democratic institutions, Alan Renwick explores answers to each of these questions. Alan argues that there are no quick fixes, but that a series of changes in institutions, practices, and behaviours may lead to valuable improvements. With an introduction by Prof Meg Russell and an appreciation by Prof Anand Menon.

Debates over standards in public life have a long history. Their evolution is partly cyclical, reflecting reactions to extended periods of one party in office. But there is also long-term growth in a belief that ministers cannot be trusted to behave well and that more formal structures are needed to check their power. Of late, the view that the abuses and challenges to institutional checks have been greater under some recent prime ministers – particularly Boris Johnson – has produced what amounts to a culture war between, on the one hand, defenders of the elected government – often citing an almost presidential mandate dismissing unelected regulators and judges – and, on the other hand, critics who would constrain or even eliminate ministers from some decisions. This debate is in danger of becoming very polarised. So where can a new balance be achieved? In this lecture, Peter Riddell will argue that the solution must recognise the legitimate rights of ministers as the elected government while also strengthening independent scrutiny where needed. Parliamentary committees should also play a more active role in holding both ministers and watchdogs/regulators to account. Introduction by Prof Meg Russell. Response by Rt Hon Jack Straw. Professor Sir Peter Riddell Peter Riddell was appointed an Honorary Professor at UCL in March 2022. He has taken a long interest in constitutional issues, parliament and standards in public life, both as a journalist and subsequently in various other roles. He joined the Financial Times in 1970 after graduating from Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, with a degree in History and Economics. He served as Political Editor for seven years before becoming the paper's Washington Bureau Chief. He joined The Times in 1991 serving as its chief political commentator until he retired from journalism after the 2010 election. He has written ten books on politics, parliament and political careers. Towards the end of his journalistic career, he became involved in other activities, initially as a trustee and then chair of the Hansard Society from 2007 until 2012, and then as Senior Fellow and then Director/Chief Executive of the Institute for Government from 2012 until 2016. He served for 18 months as a member of the Gibson inquiry into the involvement of UK intelligence agencies into the alleged mistreatment of detainees and rendition. In spring 2016 he was appointed to the independent office holder post of Commissioner for Public Appointments where he served an extended term of five and a half years until September 2021. His other public roles have included conducting a review for the Cabinet Office into the future of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and serving on the Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee. He has had close contacts with the academic world in various forms, notably with the Constitution Unit over more than two decades. He chaired the advisory panel of the ESRC's Constitutional Change research programme from 2001 to 2006, is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a recipient of the President's Medal of the British Academy.

“Soon there will only be five kings left: the king of spades, of clubs, of hearts, of diamonds, and the king of England”. King Farouk of Egypt was off in his prediction, but the permanency of the British monarchy has recently come under heightened scrutiny. The threat of independence from Britain's constituent kingdoms, accelerated by Brexit, means that this could well be the Last King of Britain we see. Across the seas, Commonwealth members are expected to hold referenda on removing the British monarch as their head of state, something that many had only retained out of respect for the longevity of Elizabeth II. This is the challenge the latest person to sit on the Stone of Scone faces. Charles III has waited a long time to be King, but his reign could mark the end of one of Britain's most enduring institutions. The monarchy is but one of many constitutional institutions, and this week we also looked at the history of Parliament and its struggles with the Crown over the centuries, as well as the constitutional legacies of seminal figures in British history such as Oliver Cromwell. To explore this vast topic, we sat down with Sir Peter Riddell, a former journalist with the Financial Times and Times of London, and an Honorary Professor of History at University College London, where he works with the school's Constitution Unit. We also covered recent constitutional crises stemming from the premiership of Boris Johnson and whether these exposed or validated the role of a monarch. Finally, our patreons will be able to hear an extended conversation on various constitutional reforms that have been floated in recent years, including by the commission led by Gordon Brown. As always, please rate and review Uncommon Decency on Apple Podcasts, and send us your comments or questions either on Twitter at @UnDecencyPod or by e-mail at undecencypod@gmail.com. And please consider supporting the show through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/undecencypod.

Debates over standards in public life have a long history. Their evolution is partly cyclical, reflecting reactions to extended periods of one party in office. But there is also long-term growth in a belief that ministers cannot be trusted to behave well and that more formal structures are needed to check their power. Of late, the view that the abuses and challenges to institutional checks have been greater under some recent prime ministers – particularly Boris Johnson – has produced what amounts to a culture war between, on the one hand, defenders of the elected government – often citing an almost presidential mandate dismissing unelected regulators and judges – and, on the other hand, critics who would constrain or even eliminate ministers from some decisions. This debate is in danger of becoming very polarised. So where can a new balance be achieved? In this lecture, Peter Riddell will argue that the solution must recognise the legitimate rights of ministers as the elected government while also strengthening independent scrutiny where needed. Parliamentary committees should also play a more active role in holding both ministers and watchdogs/regulators to account. Introduction by Prof Meg Russell. Response by Rt Hon Jack Straw.  Professor Sir Peter Riddell Peter Riddell was appointed an Honorary Professor at UCL in March 2022. He has taken a long interest in constitutional issues, parliament and standards in public life, both as a journalist and subsequently in various other roles. He joined the Financial Times in 1970 after graduating from Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, with a degree in History and Economics. He served as Political Editor for seven years before becoming the paper's Washington Bureau Chief. He joined The Times in 1991 serving as its chief political commentator until he retired from journalism after the 2010 election. He has written ten books on politics, parliament and political careers. Towards the end of his journalistic career, he became involved in other activities, initially as a trustee and then chair of the Hansard Society from 2007 until 2012, and then as Senior Fellow and then Director/Chief Executive of the Institute for Government from 2012 until 2016. He served for 18 months as a member of the Gibson inquiry into the involvement of UK intelligence agencies into the alleged mistreatment of detainees and rendition. In spring 2016 he was appointed to the independent office holder post of Commissioner for Public Appointments where he served an extended term of five and a half years until September 2021. His other public roles have included conducting a review for the Cabinet Office into the future of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and serving on the Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee. He has had close contacts with the academic world in various forms, notably with the Constitution Unit over more than two decades. He chaired the advisory panel of the ESRC's Constitutional Change research programme from 2001 to 2006, is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a recipient of the President's Medal of the British Academy.

This episode was first recorded for our sister podcast - UCL Uncovering PoliticsThe last seven years in British politics have been tempestuous. The turmoil has had multiple causes: Covid, Putin's attack on Ukraine, and Trussonomics among them. But the politics of much of the period has been dominated by Brexit: by a referendum on an ever so simple question, followed by years of wrangling over what the question meant and how the answer that voters gave to it should be interpreted and implemented. Much of that contest took place in parliament. Meaningful voters, indicative votes, the Brady amendment, the Malthouse compromise, the Cooper–Letwin Bill and the legality or otherwise of prorogation – all became the stuff of prime-time television.So what should we make of that period? And what can we learn from it – about how parliament and our constitution work, and about how they should work?Well a new book recently published by Oxford University Press explores all these questions and many more. It's called The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit. And its authors join me now. They are Meg Russell (Director of the UCL Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science) and Lisa James (Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit).

The last seven years in British politics have been tempestuous. The turmoil has had multiple causes: Covid, Putin's attack on Ukraine, and Trussonomics among them. But the politics of much of the period has been dominated by Brexit: by a referendum on an ever so simple question, followed by years of wrangling over what the question meant and how the answer that voters gave to it should be interpreted and implemented. Much of that contest took place in parliament. Meaningful voters, indicative votes, the Brady amendment, the Malthouse compromise, the Cooper–Letwin Bill and the legality or otherwise of prorogation – all became the stuff of prime-time television.So what should we make of that period? And what can we learn from it – about how parliament and our constitution work, and about how they should work?Well a new book recently published by Oxford University Press explores all these questions and many more. It's called The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit. And its authors join me now. They are Meg Russell (Director of the UCL Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science) and Lisa James (Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit). Mentioned in this episode:The Parliamentary Battle Over Brexit. For 30% off please visit https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/parliamentary-battle-over-brexit

Rafael Behr talks to Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit and co-author, along with Research Fellow Lisa James, of a new book called: The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit, a detailed account of the extraordinary way the Brexit process played out in parliament. Since the 2016 referendum, the hotly contested issue of Brexit has raised fundamental questions about the workings of British democracy. Nowhere was this more true than regarding the role of parliament. This book addresses important questions about parliament's role in the UK constitution, and the impact on this of the Brexit process. While initially intended to re-establish 'parliamentary sovereignty', Brexit wrought significant damage on the reputation of parliament, and the wider culture of UK democracy. This book is published as part of the ‘Brexit, Parliament and the Constitution' project, funded through Constitution Unit Director Meg Russell's Senior Fellowship with the ESRC-funded UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE) programme. For more about the book (and a 30% discount code) see this link: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/parliamentary-battle-over-brexit This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Many attempts at reforming the House of Lords have been made. Many attempts have failed. So what can would-be reformers learn from the failures of their predecessors to achieve more? Professor Meg Russell, director of the Constitution Unit at UCL, joined me to share her expertise on this in the latest episode of Never Mind The Bar Charts. Listeners may wish to enjoy her correcting me on voting systems. Feedback very welcome, and do share this podcast with others who you think may enjoy it.   Show notes Meg Russell on the podcast previously, talking about reforming the House of Commons. The Changing Role of the House of Lords: the Constitution Unit's research on the House of Lords. The House of Lords Appointments Commission. The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit by Meg Russell and Lisa James: Bookshop (independent bookshops) / Amazon / Waterstones.* The Constitution Unit on Twitter. Theme tune by Hugo Lee. Photo courtesy of UK Parliament (used under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 2.0). New to listening to podcasts? Here are some tips on how to listen to podcasts. Check out some of this show's most popular previous episodes.   Enjoy the show? Spread the word Follow the show on Twitter. Share the show's website, www.NeverMindTheBarCharts.com.     * This list includes affiliate links which generate a commission for each sale made.  

This week we look at parliament's role in shaping Brexit-related legislation between 2017 and 2019. We ask: What role did parliament play in Brexit? More particularly, how much influence has it had over Brexit legislation? And has it done harm or good? Politics in the UK is in a state of turmoil. Every time we think it can't get any crazier, it finds a way of doing just that. Many of the roots of the trouble can be found in Brexit. Whatever you think of Brexit, it's clear that the referendum of June 2016 forced parliament to implement a massive switch in the direction of the country that most MPs thought was wrong, and split the main parties – particularly the Conservative Party – down the middle. The politics of ideology trumped the politics of competence. This week we look at a new piece of research by two researchers here at UCL, which sheds light on an important aspect of the story. It assesses just how much influence parliament had in shaping the various laws that had to be passed to make Brexit a reality and put alternative arrangements in place. The authors of the study are: Dr Tom Fleming, Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science and a member of the UCL Constitution Unit, and Lisa James, Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit and co-author of the forthcoming OUP book, The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit. For more information and to access the transcript: https://ucl-uncovering-politics.simplecast.com/episodes/parliaments-role-in-brexit/transcript Date of episode recording: 2022-10-27T00:00:00Z Duration: 00:38:32 Language of episode: English Presenter: Prof Alan Renwick Guests: Dr Tom Fleming; Lisa James Producer: Eleanor Kingwell-Banham

Politics in the UK is in a state of turmoil. Every time we think it can't get any crazier, it finds a way of doing just that. Many of the roots of the trouble can be found in Brexit. Whatever you think of Brexit, it's clear that the referendum of June 2016 forced parliament to implement a massive switch in the direction of the country that most MPs thought was wrong, and split the main parties – particularly the Conservative Party – down the middle. The politics of ideology trumped the politics of competence. This week we look at a new piece of research by two researchers here at UCL, which sheds light on an important aspect of the story.  It assesses just how much influence parliament had in shaping the various laws that had to be passed to make Brexit a reality and put alternative arrangements in place. The authors of the study are: Dr Tom Fleming, Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science and a member of the UCL Constitution Unit, and Lisa James, Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit and co-author of the forthcoming OUP book, The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit.  Mentioned in this episode:Fleming, T. and James, L., 'Parliamentary Influence on Brexit Legislation, 2017–2019', Parliamentary AffairsRussel, M. and James, L., 'The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit'. Oxford University Press

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION – In this episode, Becky explores the unique role the monarch plays in British government, and considers what changes may come now that King Charles III has ascended to the throne following the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Becky talks to Sir Jonathan Jones KC, a consultant in constitutional law at Linklaters, and Robert Hazell, a professor of government and the constitution at University College London. They discuss the formal and informal powers the UK monarch has to influence legislation, and how Queen Elizabeth approached the role during her historic reign. What powers does the monarch really have? And which limits on the monarchy are based on convention rather than the constitution? Guests: – Sir Jonathan Jones KC, Senior Consultant in Public and Constitutional Law, Linklaters – Professor Robert Hazell, Founder of the Constitution Unit, UCL Find out more at tr.com/TheHearing

The Queen's sudden death has come as a shock despite her age, and has echoed across the world. Many nations remembering a time Her Majesty visited their country, or one of their Presidents were hosted by the Queen in London. But not all reaction was of condolence, in some of the former colonies, the pain of the past was once again brought to light and the question now remains, what will King Charles's role be in addressing the past and what role will the constitutional monarchy continue to play in our modern society? Nexus speaks to Bob Morris, an honorary member of the Constitution Unit at the University College London who says the Queen remained an impartial leader and was excellent at adapting to an ever chaining society. And Sello Hatang, the Chief Executive of the Nelson Mandela Foundation in South Africa - a Commonwealth nation - tells us about the fond relationship between the freedom icon Madiba and 'Elizabeth' or 'Motlalepula' as he nicknamed her.

Who are the least trusted people in society? Journalists? Car-sellers? Bankers?Nope. Politicians are top of the list. And you only have to look at the headlines to see why: Partygate here, Donald Trump's false election fraud claims in the US, the claims of WMD before the Iraq war in 2003, and of course the original “gate” – Watergate. But surely politicians have ALWAYS lied? Isn't it just what happens when you have to persuade people to vote for you? Or have Trump and Johnson taken us into a new era of almost instinctive dishonesty? Is there grave danger in assuming our leaders are lying to us? Does it undermine democracy? Phil and Roger hear from barrister Julian Burnside how a big lie about migrants won an Australian election in 2002, from former US Congressman John Leboutillier on how dishonesty has poisoned political discourse in America, and from Professor Alan Renwick of UCL's Constitution Unit on the risks to the UK's democracy from the death of trust Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How much influence does the public have on the decisions made by government? Should they have more? And how should that work? People want a greater say in the decisions that affect them and their lives, with polling by UCL's Constitution Unit finding that 77% of people felt they had too little influence over how the UK is governed. There is often a disconnect between the public and the UK's representative institutions. So what needs to be done to bridge this gap between citizens and the state? This event, part of the Institute for Government and Bennett Institute for Public Policy's Review of the UK constitution, explored ambitious ideas for reinvigorating democracy in the UK. From new digital technologies, tools for allowing people most affected by policies to help design them, and citizens' assembles on the most important policy challenges facing the country, our panel will pitch their proposals to improve the UK constitution and bring decision making closer to the people. Sarah Castell, CEO of Involve Miriam Levin, Programme Director at Engage Britain Professor Jane Suiter, Director of Dublin City University's Institute for Future Media, Democracy and Society Oli Whittington, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Collective Intelligence Design, Nesta The event was chaired by Jess Sargeant, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Government #IfGBennettInst

The renowned satirist and broadcaster Armando Iannucci returns to the New Statesman Podcast to co-host five more special episodes. In these shows Iannucci, explores the parts of British public life that he believes are broken, and he will be joined by guests from both inside and outside Westminster to discuss how politics could be better.In this episode, Iannucci and Anoosh Chakelian examine what is at the very heart of British politics: the constitution. What is it, is it fit for purpose, and what can be done to change it?They are joined by special guests Meg Russell, professor in British and comparative politics and director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, and Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative MP and attorney general for England and Wales.They discuss Britain's ramshackle constitution vs a codified system of government, concerns over “democratic backsliding” under Boris Johnson's government and a lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and the kind of democracy people want.Podcast listeners can subscribe to the New Statesman for just £1 a week for 12 weeks using our special offer. Just visit newstatesman.com/podcastoffer. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The norms and conventions of the UK's uncodified constitution are being pushed to their limits – and sometimes beyond. In the absence of clear legal rules, the constitution relies on a shared understanding of what constitutes good behaviour in public and political life, and trust that people in positions of power will abide by that understanding. The constitutional historian Peter Hennessy describes as this as the “good chaps” theory of UK government. However, the Brexit process saw conflict between different branches of government – parliament, the government and the courts – while Westminster has been rocked by a recent series of scandals around the behaviour of ministers and MPs. So is this a temporary aberration or a deeper problem? Is greater codification needed to regulate the behaviour of constitutional actors? Can the UK rely on “good chaps” or is more needed to ensure norms and conventions are followed? As part of our review of the UK constitution, the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy hosted a panel of experts to discuss these issues and more: Professor Andrew Blick, Head of the Department of Political Economy and Professor of Politics and Contemporary History at King's College London Dr Catherine Haddon, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government Professor Meg Russell, Professor of British and Comparative Politics and Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London The event was chaired by Maddy Thimont Jack, Associate Director at the Institute for Government. #IfGBennettInst

Senior Fellow Meg Russell, Professor of British and Comparative Politics at University College London and Director of the Constitution Unit, is our special guest in this episode of the Brexit and Beyond podcast. Hosted by Director Anand Menon, they discuss trust in politicians and politics more generally, challenges around political leadership, public views on democracy and more.

Join us on this episode of the governance podcast between Simon Kaye and Mark Pennington for a conversation on the impact of Elinor Ostrom's work on public policy. Simon Kaye discusses his latest report for the New Local on how the ideas of self-governance and community power can transform public services in the UK. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast on iTunes and Spotify today and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us on facebook, twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). Read the Report Think Big, Act Small: Elinor Ostrom's Radical Vision for Community Power The Guest Having been awarded a PhD in democratic theory from the Department of Political Economy at King's College London in 2015, Simon Kaye has worked as a researcher and educator in academia and think tanks, with roles at UCL's Constitution Unit, The Hansard Society, Queen Mary, and King's College London. His last role was as Research Director at the Project for Modern Democracy, running projects on Whitehall reform and the rebalancing of UK economic policy.   Simon has written and spoken on a diversity of subjects, including democracy and voting systems, localism and self-governance, political economy, historical methods, constitutions, conspiracy theories, and post-truth. He has published work in venues including History and Theory, Critical Review, European Political Science, and The Fabian Society. He has also penned articles for popular publications such as The Independent, Politics.co.uk, CityMetric, and CapX. He has contributed to several podcasts to talk about his research, presented at festivals and international conferences, participated in public lectures and panel debates, won several competitive academic fellowships, and appeared on BBC News as a political commentator.  Simon's research at New Local is focused around the Community Paradigm, drawing on his expertise in democracy and political economy. His major projects include work on mutual aid groups, the new working practices and relationships that emerged during the 2020 pandemic, and the landmark research of Nobel Prize-winner Elinor Ostrom into governance systems and community management of common resources. New Local's Ostrom project is a direct development of the original Community Paradigm and forms the intellectual grounding for much of our work on public service reform and the need for more autonomous and empowered communities.   Skip Ahead 00:26: the New Local have recently produced a very interesting policy report which tries to apply some of the ideas of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom to look at aspects of a possible policy reform agenda in the UK and perhaps other countries. Those of you who follow our podcast will know that the Ostrom's work is quite important at our Centre because of their focus on the relationship between formal and informal institutions of governance. So Simon, welcome to the podcast. I wonder if we could start off by you giving a bit of background on what you do at New Local. 02:25: You've produced with New Local what I think is an excellent report on Ostrom. I wonder if you could say more about why and how the New Local has become aware of the Ostroms' work? 06:40: If we think about some of the ideas in the report, as part of this community paradigm, you are pushing an agenda which is emphasizing this idea of decentralisation, of communities taking control of how public services are delivered, or assets are managed—the idea of communities having the space to craft their own hybrids between communities, markets and states. What would you say to the idea that in the UK people have been arguing for decentralisation for many years, there's lots of complaints in the British government about over-centralisation, and yet the decentralisation agenda never really seems to take root. What do you think it is about the Ostrom agenda that can possibly make that happen? 11:08: So you would say, for example, that the Ostrom agenda, in its capacity to appeal to people across the political spectrum, is different from --what we heard in the late 1990s and early 2000s during the Tony Blair premiership in Britain, was a lot of talk about stakeholderism and participation—and this Ostrom agenda has aspects of that but also appeals across political groupings in a way that perhaps that agenda didn't. 12:46: Could you say a little bit about what you think she means by the phrase “beyond markets and states”? 18:26: So it's really an argument there that there is no fixed boundary about what kind of institutional arrangement is appropriate for particular kinds of goods—that that is constantly moving and varying according to local circumstances. 20:11: That leads me to what I think is a strange paradox about British politics, which is that on the one hand we do get people complaining (and we've seen this in the context of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic) that there is too much centralisation and not enough scope for community decision-making. But at the same time, the minute you start to get local variety, you have people complaining that they don't like the fact that there are different outcomes in different places—you often get the phrase “the post-code lottery” that people want there to be a uniformity of provision of outcome while the localism agenda is pointing to something else. How do you square that circle if you're trying to sell this idea? 23:30: If I'm understanding your argument, you're saying there needs to be some kind of levelling mechanism in that you need some kind of minimum standard which everyone as a citizen is entitled to, but then over and above that, that's the space where local control should come into play. What would be your view on the levelling mechanism being something like a universal basic income? 26:34: Speaking of that, the government here is talking about a “levelling up” agenda. Is there any way in which what you're talking about can inform what that might look like? Can you give some examples of cases where community control can facilitate levelling up? 31:30: I remember very well there's a distinction Ostrom draws between what she calls a facilitator state and a controller state.     33:55: I was going to say, if you're starting from a position where a state – whether at the local or national level – is actually responsible for managing assets or resources, there's no way it can just disappear. At the very least it needs a mechanism for transferring authority, however much authority we're talking about. This is certainly not a laissez-faire approach. Let's move on to discuss the pandemic: arguably a problem which requires a centralised response to a large scale collective action problem. How do you think the relationship between the centre and localities plays out in the pandemic? 39:23: This feeds back to an earlier dilemma I was describing, which is: isn't part of the reason central government has followed such a top down approach that there has been a popular demand for centralised action? 44:16: So you don't feel that what's happened with the pandemic is that there is a permanent setback to the ideas of decentralisation—you think this is actually an opportunity to show what can be achieved by thinking in a different way.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, turning a page on the country's constitution. The Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme." The Prime Minister responded that he "strongly disagrees" with the ruling but will "respect" it. So is British democracy at a crossroads? In an extended edition of the Briefing Room, David Aaronovitch asks who is running Britain and is it now time to have a written constitution.CONTRIBUTORS:Alison Young, Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge.Philip Norton, Professor of Government, and Director of the Centre for Legislative Studies, University of HullDavid Allen Green, contributing editor to the Financial Times and lawyer at Preiskel & CoMichael Keating, Director of the Centre on Constitutional Change at Edinburgh University and Professor of Politics, at the University of Aberdeen. Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, Senior Fellow at the UK in a Changing EuropeMurray Hunt, Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of LawProducer: Neil Koenig Editor: Jasper Corbett

Theresa May is urging her MPs to accept the deal she has struck with Brussels on the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The trouble is that few in Westminster believe this is a vote she can win and Brussels has said no further negotiations are possible. With the vote due on December the 11th the Prime Minister has less than two weeks to get MPs to change their minds. If Parliament does reject the deal, does that mean a no-deal in March next year? If not, how can no-deal be avoided. Contributors: Tim Durrant, Senior Researcher at The Institute for Government Alex Barker, Brussels Bureau Chief of The Financial Times Patrick Smyth, Europe Editor of The Irish Times Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London

How could a new referendum on Britain's relationship with Europe work? As pressure mounts on Theresa May to seal an agreement on Brexit, there are growing calls for a further referendum on the issue. From across the political spectrum, MPs, trade unions and campaigners are demanding another vote on the terms of the deal, or lack of one. In the Briefing Room, David Aaronovitch examines the mechanics of this hypothetical proposition. What would the procedure be to trigger another referendum and how would it be organised? And is there enough time? Guests: Chris Morris, BBC Reality Check Alan Renwick, deputy director of the Constitution Unit, University College London Professor Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe Initiative at King's College London Professor Matt Qvortrup of Coventry University Katya Adler, BBC Europe Editor