UK Democracy Research Articles

Financing UK democracy: a stocktake of 20 years of political donations disclosure

AbstractPolitical donations in the UK have been subject to comprehensive disclosure since 2001. We study the data produced as part of this disclosure policy to evaluate the role of private and public political finance over time. Total political donations have grown by nearly 250 per cent since 2001, reaching over £100 million in real terms for the first time in 2019. This increase has been driven by donations from private individuals, who now account for approximately 60 per cent of donations in election years compared to 40–50 per cent up to the late 2010s. Furthermore, ‘super‐donors’ (those contributing more than £100,000) have been a prominent driver of the rise, increasing their own share from approximately 31 per cent in 2017 to 45 per cent in 2019. We also show that private donations to the Labour Party fell sharply in the final stages of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. These trends have benefited the Conservative Party, leading to a historic donation gap between the two main parties emerging circa 2019. We calculate that this gap between parties now stands at approximately £27 million compared to a historic average of £8–£10 million. This gap remains even after considering publicly funded ‘Short’ money provided to the opposition, which aims to increase competitive balance in the UK's democratic system.

A Revolutionary Moment Founded on Forgetting: How Narratives of the UK’s Place in Europe and the World made Brexit Possible

This article examines Brexit from the perspective of the role played by multiple historical narratives about the UK and its place in Europe, as well as the wider world. Existing accounts associate the 2016 referendum result with the rise of popu⁠lism and the spread of particular anti-EU narratives grounded in Englishness, the Anglosphere and, more problematically, nostalgia about former national glories. The analysis shows that these different historical narratives served to delegitimise European integration as inimical to UK democracy and sovereignty. Equally importantly, narratives of delegitimation in turn depended on a highly selective reading of British history and convenient acts of forgetting or misremembering the role of economic or political borders. It was precisely this combination of selective historical memory and a narrative of EU oppression that created a revolutionary moment. Brexit was thus founded on multiple acts of forgetting.

Westminster as Usual? Three Interpretations for the UK Democracy

AbstractThe Brexit process has shattered the foundations of British politics, with prime ministerial resignations, government defeats, continuous rebellions and floor-crossings. These phenomena seem at odds with the usual decisiveness of Westminster systems. However, the aforementioned departures from the British tradition could be interpreted as compatible with the typical distance of any empirical reality from theoretical models, as exceptions to the rule due to the specificity of the European issue, or as the surfacing of some deeper social, economic and cultural tensions. Data alone are insufficient to confirm any of the alternative interpretations, although they seem to confirm the existence of long-term dynamics rather than some short-term exceptionalism. Within this scenario, the article suggests that a series of institutional innovations introduced since the late 1990s have facilitated the political consolidation of those tensions, contributed to the partisan dealignment, and made room for a potential departure from a Westminster model of democracy.

Brexit and Parliament: The Anatomy of a Perfect Storm

Abstract The Westminster parliament lies at the heart of UK democracy. Yet its role and powers became increasingly controversial during the ‘Brexit’ process, following the 2016 referendum decision to leave the European Union. Fierce arguments were framed as ‘parliament versus people’, which fed a populist narrative and raised fundamental questions about where UK sovereignty should lie. This article charts the stages of parliament’s Brexit ‘perfect storm’, tracing its causes to four factors: the design of the referendum, a period of (unfamiliar) minority government, deeply divided political parties, and the weakness of parliamentary rules in facilitating a solution. In the end, the Brexit argument was primarily one inside the Conservative Party, but parliament got the blame.

Brexit: Hatred, lies and UK democracy

This article analyses the Brexit debate within the UK. It examines the historical roots of the debate from 1973 when the UK joined the European Economic Community, but focuses primarily on the debates that occurred between 2013 when David Cameron pledged to hold a referendum up and the 2019 UK General Election. Section one briefly introduces the topic. Section two examines the rise of social hatred during the referendum campaign. It focuses on the history of British euro-scepticism, the immediate context of the Brexit campaign, concerns over UK sovereignty and immigration, and the increasing use of threats and political violence. Section three examines the decline of trust in politics due to the increasing failure to challenge lies in the Brexit debate. It explores the idea of “Project Fear”, the anti-expert narrative, and the anti-elitism narrative. Section four asks what this period tells us about UK democracy. It focuses on weak and disorderly government, the democratic status of the referendum, the erosion of trust in parliamentary institutions and mechanisms, and some reasons for (limited) optimism. The article concludes by considering possible ways forward for the UK government and polity following the decisive Conservative victory in the 2019 UK General Election.

What Kind of Brexit do Voters want? Lessons from the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit

AbstractThe Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit was a major exercise in deliberative public engagement conducted in autumn 2017. It brought together fifty randomly selected members of the public for two carefully structured weekends of listening, learning, reflecting and discussing. Assembly members considered what post‐Brexit arrangements the UK should pursue, focusing on trade and migration. On trade, most members wanted the UK to pursue a bespoke arrangement with the EU and rejected the option of leaving the EU with no deal. On migration, most wanted the UK to maintain free movement of labour while using already available policy levers to reduce immigration numbers. These findings provide unique insight into informed public opinion on vital, pressing policy questions. The Assembly also illustrates the valuable role that such deliberative exercises could play in UK democracy. We suggest they could be particularly helpful for unlocking progress on issues such as the future of social care, that are often felt to be ‘too difficult’ to handle.

Risk, politics, and development: Lessons from the UK's democracy aid

SummaryPolitical risks are inescapable in development. Donors keep them in check with a range of tools, but existing options provide little guidance about how political forms of risk can—or should—shape programme design. This paper presents a novel framework that offers practical guidance on how to think about and manage some of these risks. This is based on a review of programmes delivered by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which provides a specific type of aid: democracy assistance. Political forms of risk have a strong influence on that aid, so it provides a valuable example. Our framework centres on two trade‐offs inherent in the provision of aid for democracy support. The first relates to the type of approach employed in a programme; should it focus on a thematic issue or a specific event, or should it focus primarily on an institution and its processes? The second concerns the scope of a programme in terms of who it includes. Understanding the costs and benefits of these trade‐offs will help development practitioners to make decisions about political risks in a more rigorous and transparent way and, potentially, to shift from a culture of risk aversion, to one of informed risk‐taking.

Uk Democracy : Backgrounds and Challenges 2015 General Elections Review

Uk Democracy : Backgrounds and Challenges 2015 General Elections Review

The stamp of approval: Decision-making processes and policies in Japan and the UK

As mentioned in the introduction to this special edition, tracing the stamp design decision-making process in a totalitarian state is a relatively uncomplicated business because of the concentration of power and the obvious political messages emanating from the regime. Democracies are more difficult. In the case of stamp design, although the agencies for the creation and dis/approval of stamp design are clearly identifiable (usually skilled graphic designers working hand in hand with a stamp advisory committee representative of both government and society), hidden processes and other 'gatekeepers' only make themselves known on rare occasions. 1 This article focuses upon these occasions in order to trace the decision-making process and identify the influential actors in both Japan and the UK. Japan and the UK demonstrate a number of socio-political similarities and differences that allow for an interesting comparison and contrast of their stamp issuing policies. On the one hand, the comparative clich6s that are regularly and lazily cited point to the fact that both are democracies with constitutional monarchies, island nations bordering continents towards which they have ambivalent feelings owing to historical legacies, and both proudly claim to uphold a 'special relationship' with the US. However, on the other hand, they also demonstrate substantial differences: the UK was an early-starter economy, whereas Japan was a late-starter; the UK has a longer tradition of representative democracy, whereas in the case of Japan democracy was seen as a postwar 'gift from the gods'; the UK's democracy is a two-party system, whereas Japan has sought but never achieved this parity; and unlike Japan's relationship with Asia, the UK's relationship with Europe is not marred by a history of 'civilising' imperialism? Many of these stereotypes and characteristics have been manifested on the themes and designs of definitive and commemorative stamps in each country. However, as touched upon in Dean and Dobson's