Linda Colley kicks off the webinar by explaining how her book differs from other studies of constitutional history: it is a global study rather than a study on a single constitution, & it explains the emergence of written constitutions as a product of war, rather than revolution.
The study looks at the history of constitutions from the 1750s to the modern day. Prof Colley argues that often war preceded political collapse. Post-conflict governments then set out new written constitutions to legitimise their power, both at home and internationally.
Prof Hazell asked Prof Colley why the US constitution is so idolised by its people.
Prof Colley explained that the US constitution is a cement which brings together its people who are at risk of being disconnected from one another, considering its vastness & federalism
Within the UK, Prof Colley argues, there needs to be greater constitutional literacy of the UK system.
One aim of the book is to revitalise and broaden interest in constitutional history which merits wide-ranging discussion.
ENDS
And that's a wrap!
Our webinars are taking a break in August but we'll be back with more fascinating discussions in the autumn.
In the meantime, check out our YouTube channel 📺where you can find recordings of past events. youtube.com/channel/UCh_CI…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In this blog post, book authors Stephan Haggard & Robert R. Kaufman summarise their comparative research on democratic ‘backsliding’, describing how, & why, countries slip away from democracy, and asking, could democratic backsliding occur in the UK? bit.ly/2TarYOR
2/
The authors’ work identifies at least 16 countries - some of which were not so long ago viewed as stable and robust democracies – most notably the United States - which have recently experienced democratic backsliding, to varying degrees.
3/
Backsliding is a process of democratic reversion. Unlike a coup d'état, it is more insidious, with illiberal leaders rising to power within a democratic framework, attacking core features of democracy from within.
A year ago today, the House of Commons returned to business transformed by COVID-19. This briefing (summarised in a letter to @thetimes) highlights five ways in which the government’s approach to the House of Commons has eroded parliamentary control
👇👇
3/
1.The use of emergency legislation.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 relaxed the normal safeguards on official action. But it passed the Commons in just one day, and despite requiring six-monthly renewal, has been debated by MPs for just five hours in the past year.
A new report by Unit Director Meg Russell and @danielgover argues that the House of Commons should govern its own time – and makes proposals for wresting back that control from the government. @UKandEU
There have been numerous recent controversies over control of the Commons’ time
Think of Brexit headlines about MPs ‘seizing the agenda’, or clashes over procedure during the pandemic. At the heart of both lie questions about who decides what the Commons discusses & when⏱️
2/8
At present, the government has significant agenda control 💪. And it has monopoly control over prorogation & recall, which determine whether the Commons can sit at all.
Our new report explores this system, its problems, and what can be done.
@DanielGover & @james_lisak review the development of the hybrid Commons during 2020 - arguing that remote voting must now be restored, & that these events reveal the problems of government control over the Commons agenda
Last spring, the Commons adapted quickly to the challenges of the pandemic. Hybrid arrangements for select committees & Commons debates, & online remote voting, were all in place by mid-May - a major achievement by Commons staff.
2/8
But in May the government simply allowed those arrangements to lapse, despite anger from opposition & backbench MPs.
It would take until 30/12 - when the government wanted MPs to debate its Brexit deal legislation - for full virtual participation in debates to be restored.
3/8
Statement from Unit Director Professor Meg Russell on the 16 new appointments to the House of Lords announced today.
"It is hard not to see the Prime Minister’s latest round of peerage appointments as anything less than outrageous"
1 of 3
It's 3 days before (what's left of) Christmas, so there will be no full analysis now.
But to see the effects of today's peerage announcements just add 16 (7 Con, 5 Lab, 4 Crossbench) to the details below. The rest of the analysis still stands.