The Constitution Unit conducts timely, rigorous, independent research into constitutional change and the reform of political institutions. Our research has significant real-world impact, informing policy-makers engaged in such changes - both in the United Kingdom and around the world.
We run seminars throughout the year. We know that many people may not be able to make it to the Unit to watch the seminars so we've created this channel for you catch up here.
Пікірлер
Thank you for continuing to post these.
We dont need Charles, but wish the good, even if his not a good character
Oh goody. The people can pay another million dollars to put a crown on another imposter's head. Very expensive show. Think what a million dollars could do. They treat money like toilet paper. Do you still have to bow to them?
Are we really bothered 🤔
I can sleep in his voice
Wales can't be trusted to govern itself, everyone on this panel is a liberal. The Welsh refugee Organisation recently advertised school girls to islamic migrants men, disgusting. Both Wales and Scotland need Daddy to bail them out. Look at the SNP a national embarrassment
Good News for 🇨🇦 kzread.info/dash/bejne/iYynqLiForfVaaQ.htmlsi=tqwXV-EtGevYhmbL 3:37
Good news for 🇨🇦 kzread.info/dash/bejne/iYynqLiForfVaaQ.htmlsi=tqwXV-EtGevYhmbL
Every single MP, including the speaker have broken our Constitution. The alleged experts are anything but. They are think tanks and should be in government.
Interesting seminar which I enjoyed and learned from. I noticed the total lack of reference to the devolved administration's and Westminster role as a UK Parliament in this context. Quite a lot of comparative references to institutions in other countries but nothing about lessons from non-english nations in the UK. A great long discussion about PR voting systems but no effort to learn from the experience in Scotland in local and national elections. One part of the last audience question asked about comparison of working of committees in Scotland and Westminster and every panelist completely ignored it. Perhaps the panelists would say they were concentrating on UK rather than more local arrangements. My answer to that would be to point out they spent ages considering Chris Graylings probationary reforms as an example of policy failure, a policy which only applied to England and Wales. It's a pity, there is lots which can be learned in a 4 nation state with diverging governance arrangements.
Insightful discussion. High time to revisit and tweak the AV plus!
Washington DC is a Democracy that’s why they say “Our Democracy” that doesn’t include the rest of the country, our constitutional republic! Without a shadow of a doubt, Hitlery & Pitiful Liz are absolutely right! This is serious because their idea of Democracy is Insider Trading, Money Laundering, Election Fraud, Framing and imprisoning innocent Patriots and other Secret Society Epstein Island high crimes and treason. If they are all convicted it would definitely spell the end for “Washington’s Mafia Democracy”
US NATIVE BRITISH MUST BE THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE THE VOTE, COLOUREDS HAVE NOT PART OF OUR HISTORY SO MUST NOT HAVE SAY IN OUR FUTURE, WE SAY WHO COMES HERE, WE SAY ENGLISH ONLY AND THESE OTHERS HAVE TO ADAPT TO US, REMOVE RACE L;AWS, NEVER NEEDED IN THE PAST, SOL;
I think the second chamber should still be appointed but with 200 members or half the size of the elected house. But if you have ever been elected on any level (council, region, state and union) your barred from being appointed. The same should be true if you were appointed, you are barred from being ever elected. This is to protect the idea that these appointments are for experts and experience. Not failed attempts of being elected or retired politicians. They should serve 8 year terms with half being reappointed every four and yes the elected house should serve 4 year fixed terms, not flexible 5 years
You can see the next Constitution Unit event here: 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: ukandeu.ac.uk/podcasts/mark-darcy-on-his-career-at-the-bbc-and-how-brexit-has-changed-parliament/ The Hansard Sociey: www.hansardsociety.org.uk/ Subscribe to our mailing list here: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/get-involved/subscribe
MP represents constituency. It is not a party matter.
Screw Parliamentary sovereignty it’s THE PEOPLE that are Sovereign!! There is no operational constitutional law 😢 turn up at a magistrates court and witness a COUNCIL TAX case and you will see it’s bollox when they ride roughshod over Helen Mountfield famous victory in Nicolson. It’s bent as fuck particularly when the Clerks routinely deny the defendants any right to even make their case
How would you do what you had to do? The government
They should have all power and down with the democracy
The Monarchy is the best form of goverment. Democracy is the illusion that gives people illusion that they are in charge but they are not.
Why all the BS, why don't any of the government EVER ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED.
Welsh Councils don't use PR. They can choose to but none have (or likely will).
Wales, N Ireland, and Scotland have propotional voting in some form. Also why are we as a voter restricted to our local MP whose view we may disagree with and when we write to them give almost bland Party reply. As good as putting your letter in the bin!
Votes at 16 I don't feel is justified as most teenagers have not aquired sufficient knowledge. Especially as education system doesn't have constitution affairs in it's curriculm.
Woderful, but how to join in and communicate my views?
Unfortunately 1814 sound quality!
Regardless of what Labour do eventually decide to do with the HoL (and I'd like to see it remain unelected, personally), it's very difficult to support the continuation of giving a place in the Chamber to religous figures.
Thank you for publishing this.
One nation One people One destiny But this is not what we see from the modern politician. The modern politician sticks strictly to magnetism Like poles repel
The fundamental issue undermining all these discussions is that any powers Westminster gives to devolved administrations can be taken back at any time with an ordinary Bill passed by simple majority. There will always be UK governments that want to undo some facet of devolution, and whose own electoral interests are served by doing so. Under our constitution that can never be changed unless we somehow adopt a written constitution because we have supremacy of parliament and a parliament that cannot tie itself in future. There's no remotely foreseeable future in which the UK creates and adopts a written constitution, let alone doing so only for the purpose of giving secure powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The devolved administrations will forever be forced to choose between a devolution that's given at the goodwill of the UK government or seeking independence - or in Northern Ireland's case, reunion with the south. And all the talk in the world about devo-max or anything else makes no difference.
Thank you ALL, but Rory in particular. Thinking of powerful past politicians, they all had a spell of out in the wilderness from politics. Take strength from their experience and come back...
Quite an interesting discussion on the constitutional, institutional, and political processes. Perhaps next time you could also look at communities, informal relationships and social processes that help create a sense of shared values, and approach commonly held contemporary truths. Looking at possible applications of Hannah Arendt's theory of thinking and engaging as citizens at the community level.
Politicians don't answer questions because they know the public don't want the truth. Most people don't care if the politicians on their 'side' lie or cheat or steal or break laws, because they care more about their opinions holding sway over the enemy than about integrity. Increasingly, people on lower incomes are voting against their own economic interests, persuaded to do so by scare stories in newspapers controlled by offshore billionaires, about issues that don't actually affect their lives at all. We live in a world that becomes more and more complex every year; in which information and technology allow us to take better and better policy choices, but the public are mostly completely uninformed about any of this and demand that their politicians follow their own gut instincts to the letter and without equivocation or compromise. The idea that access to quality information will make any difference to that has been comprehensively destroyed by the first three decades of the internet era. People choose the information they like. As for citizens assemblies, would you congregate an assembly to decide on your brain surgery? To fly your plane? The idea that government is a game anyone can play is absolute nonsense. The public should get to decide the direction of travel on important issues, and then experts work with interested parties to achieve the objectives. The biggest problem in our democracy isn't the government, it isn't the parliament; it's the electorate. We get the democracy we deserve.
Very promiscuous women don't make for best society.
Skip to 17:51 to jump the waffle and get to the actual lecture.
Lol, this one made me laugh. I've never heard Prof. Meg Russell's intro's and talks being described as waffle. 😂😂
Fantastic lecture.
He is a criminal he shouldn’t be allowed to make a list . Cronies being paid back for helping him out.
The comments on pressure groups could really have done with some balance noting industry pressure groups!
Shocking why did these traitors do this to the UK people nearly 50 years of them that gave them UK powers 'steel industry gone' electrical shops gone and all because they sold the UK out to the EU' I hate every one them after I read about heath these secret papers.
A 15 point plan to reform House of Lords. As Meg Russell noted in an article for Prospect on this topic, proposals for a largely appointed chamber are dismissed as insufficiently democratic, and proposals for a largely elected one viewed by MPs as a threat to the primacy of the Commons. Here is my fairly simple solution for resolving this. It keeps the House of Commons as the primary legislative body and makes the House of Lords a more democratic and worthwhile second chamber. My solution also reflects the increasing calls for Proportional Representation while acknowledging that this is unlikely to happen for electing MPs while Labour and Conservatives dominate. 1) Have no more Lords than MPs - the actual number doesn't matter as such - but let's work with say 650 for now 2) Divide the country into (say) 10 regions - each region representing roughly 10% of the population but with outer boundaries corresponding roughly (where reasonably possible) to those of the MPs' constituencies in the region (note: you could have fewer regions with higher percentages or more regions with lower percentages) 3) Assign say 65 seats to each region (or fewer if you prefer a smaller second chamber - but basically each region gets the % of the seats, corresponding to their % of the population) - *I am aware that we might need to treat Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as three separate regions - but their seats should equally correspond to their share of the population. These things are not insurmountable. 4) Take the TOTA: votes cast in each region in the most recent General Election - and work out the percentage cast in favour of each party 5) Assign each party seats in their region in proportion to votes cast in their favour (we do this by region not the national percentages in order to favour regional parties and pressure groups - if it were done on the national share parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would barely feature - this way they would get more of say in their region's voice in parliament) 6) If we had 65 seats per region, it would mean that any party getting more than roughly 1.5% of the vote would get a seat 7) We could say make the threshold 2 or 3% to remove small potentially fringe parties - or we could make the threshold 1% to encourage diversity and restrict the maximum number seats for the largest parties (take your pick) 8) The parties would have to select people from the region to occupy the seat - no parachuting in people! (Tempted to make this a legal requirement but suspect parties that failed on this point would be punished by voters.) 9) Other than that, they would be free to choose who held their seats - they could be notable businesspeople, or legal experts or local Mayors or party grandees from councils within the region or even potential future candidates for the Commons 10) My preference would be for each party to rank their general election candidates in each region who did not become MPs by the number of votes they got - and then appoint those who got the most (this would encourage people to vote for their choice of party, knowing that a good candidate might make it to the second chamber even if they failed to make the first) 11) This would solve the democratic deficit - it is more representative than appointments (it reflects a popular vote for parties) 12) It would also maintain Commons primacy - indirectly elected Lords would have less authority than directly elected MPs 13) It would go some way to compensating for FPTP by balancing the legislature with a proportionally representative Lords 14) It would give the regions (however many we choose to have, whether larger or small - see point 2) a distinctive voice in parliament 15) Finally, it is functionally simple - it doesn't need a new voting system or even multiple votes - your vote for an MP would count towards the total votes for your preferred party and their strength in your region.
Lots of people don't vote for their favourite party under FPTP. Would probably help the Tories and SNP by discouraging tactical voting.
What you're basically describing is mixed members, like in Scotland. X amount are FPP and Y amount using the D'Hondt method elects. I think they should still be appointed, so that the elected house has primacy, but if you where ever elected into council, regional, state or union elections, you are barred from entering the second chamber and vice and versa.
IQ tests
i Gather HM has invited the chief rabbi to stay with him at clearance house the night before the coronation to prevent any problems
Anyone that does not live here 365days a year (holidays accepted 6 wks max per year) then he or she should not be there. And anyone who is not born here must be looked at. They must be royalists and not believe in, the end of the royal family. They must be the church of England's faith. This I am not but believe the person must be English through and through or she is British through and through who does not want to break up the Kingdom.
👏 cynicals ⌚
Butt they are stocking pilling horrible fvck rs...
As an ex MP and minister RS is showing how badly parliament needs urgent reform in order to stay relevant. Yes to PR, citizen assemblies and a serious discussion of universal basic income, given the warning signs of economic decline, pandemic and climate issues.
A great example of why we never needed the EU; 157 TFEU re equal pay for men & women was unnecessary as that was already assured in the U.K. by the Equal Pay Act 1970.
Let’s be honest the DUP are shitebags , completely bottled it from the prospect of another party governing failed state NI , reflective of the cowardly nature of unionists
I think it should be a fully elected upper chamber representing all the Nations and Regions of the UK!
Farages & Corbyns audiences were largely self-selecting and leader-supportive ( think fan clubs ). They held deep attraction but only to a tiny minority. Maverick Tories were needed to deliver on Leave for Farage. #politics
It's almost certainly impossible to conduct several thousand public speaking engagements and only speak to supporters, and I think the appeal of those two individuals was not to an insignificantly tiny minority but a quite significant section of the population, probably 20% each.
@@lutherblissett9070 if you compare Farages march with the Remainer march ( who had no overall leader ) Farages active supporters were negligible. I agree that Corbyn had strong support, maybe at your suggested level, but neither leader was powerful enough to enter Government honestly & through the front door. #politics