These questions are taken up in a new article in The Political Quarterly, which examines the structural, cultural and political factors that have kept women from reaching the highest office in American politics. Is the United States an outlier in global terms when it comes to women's representation at the top of political life? And what would need to change — in parties, in media, in public attitudes — for that to shift?

Joining host Alan Renwick to explore these questions are the article's authors: Rosie Campbell, Professor of Politics at King's College London, and Joni Lovenduski, Professor Emerita at Birkbeck College and Visiting Professor at the Policy Institute at King's College London.

Mentioned in this episode:

• What Will it Take for a Woman to Become President of the United States? by Rosie Campbell and Joni Lovenduski, published in The Political Quarterly.

But is that focus too narrow? When considering how power operates in a modern democracy, should constitutional thinking extend beyond these formal branches of government? Might institutions such as the media, financial sector or other centres of influence also deserve attention when we discuss constitutional design?

This week, Daniel Hind joins host Alan Renwick to explore a fresh argument that the constitutional reform agenda needs to be broadened. The discussion is based on a new article in The Political Quarterly that calls for a more expansive understanding of how democratic power should be structured and overseen.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Popular Sovereignty and the Constitutional Reform Agenda

These questions ultimately turn on how we understand the nature of constitutions themselves. Are constitutions primarily legal instruments that set the framework within which politics operates? Or are they fundamentally political in character, relying not only on laws but also on conventions and democratic practices upheld by politicians?

While this may sound abstract, the stakes are immediate and real. Ongoing debates about the future of the European Convention on Human Rights, the resilience of democratic institutions, and the risks posed by populist governments all hinge on these deeper constitutional questions.

Fresh light on these issues comes from a new book, Defending the Political Constitution. Our guest is Richard Bellamy, Professor of Political Science at University College London, who joins me to explore what it means to defend a political rather than legal vision of constitutionalism.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Defending the Political Constitution by Richard Bellamy.

In this episode, we unpack what the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights actually are, how they work in practice, and why they continue to provoke such strong reactions. Where did the system come from? How has it evolved over time? What kinds of cases reach the Court, and how are decisions made?

Our guest is Marko Bošnjak, former President of the European Court of Human Rights and now a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Drawing on his experience at the highest levels of European law, his conversation with Prof Alan Renwick gives us a clear history and guide to the institutions that help define the rights of hundreds of millions of people.

In this episode, Rob Simpson, Associate Professor of Philosophy at University College London, joins Emily McTernan to discusses the moral dimensions of stepping away from social media platforms, drawing on his recent work on the ethics of quitting.

Mentioned in this episode:

• The Ethics of Quitting Social Media. In The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics (2022) Oxford University Press

One side of the debate argues that elections can work as intended. Voters understand the difference between left and right. They have a sense of where political parties sit on that spectrum. They broadly know where they themselves stand. And they choose which party to support on that basis.

Another influential strand of research is far more sceptical. It suggests that most voters do not have clear or well formed policy preferences at all. And when they do, those preferences often come after choosing a party, not before. Voters identify with a party first, then adopt that party’s positions as their own.

This debate has been running for decades. But a new book offers a third perspective that could help move things forward. It argues that the debate has set the bar too high for what counts as a meaningful voter preference. Once we measure preferences in a more realistic way, a clearer picture starts to emerge.

One of the authors of that book is our very own Ben Lauderdale, friend of the podcast and Professor of Political Science here in the UCL Department of Political Science. We are delighted that Ben joins us this week to walk us through the research and what it tells us about how voters really think.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Idiosyncratic Issue Opinion and Political Choice, by Nick Vivyan, Benjamin E Lauderdale, Chris Hanretty.

To help unpack this, they are joined by Professor Cécile Laborde, who discusses her recent work on structural inequality and the moral foundations of discrimination law. Drawing on her article 'Structural Inequality and the Protectorate of Discrimination', published in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, Cécile challenges common assumptions about who discrimination law is for and why.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Philosophically Speaking podcast
• 'Structural Inequality and the Protectorate of Discrimination' by Cécile Laborde

But how do young people themselves experience the online spaces they inhabit? Do they see digital content as harmful, empowering, or something more complex? And crucially, what do they think should be done to make the online world safer and more constructive?

In this episode, we explore these questions with Dr Emma Connolly, Research Fellow in the UCL Department of Political Science and a member of UCL’s Digital Speech Lab, where she leads research on digital civic education.

Mentioned in this episode:

• How does social media content go viral across platforms? Modelling the spread of Kamala is brat across X, TikTok, and Instagram, Journal of Information Technology & Politics

In recent years, however, this class-based model has been challenged. Education level and age now often predict voting behaviour more accurately than occupation, alongside the growing importance of cultural and identity-based issues such as immigration, gender, and morality.

But does this mean economic status no longer matters in politics? According to new research, the answer is no. Economic status remains a powerful predictor of voting behaviour - but the foundations of that status have changed. Rather than occupation, housing has emerged as a central factor shaping political preferences.

In this episode, Prof Alan Renwick explores this shift with Josh Goddard, a PhD student in the UCL Department of Political Science, whose research sheds new light on how housing has become a key driver of political divides.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Josh Goddard (2026) Housing and electoral behaviour: The changing face of class voting in advanced democracies. Electoral Studies, Volume 99

Our guest is Dr. Shuk Ying Chan, Assistant Professor of Political Theory at UCL Political Science. Regular listeners will recall her previous appearances on the podcast, including episodes on resisting colonialism and the trouble with exporting Hollywood films.

In Postcolonial Global Justice, Shuk Ying Chan proposes a new account of global justice centered on the value of social equality. Drawing on the ideas of Aimé Césaire, Frantz Fanon, Kwame Nkrumah, and Jawaharlal Nehru, Chan argues that a core commitment of anticolonial thought is the rejection of hierarchy and the embrace of equality. These insights from decolonization, she suggests, give us critical tools for challenging contemporary global hierarchies and for rejecting forms of postcolonial nationalism that are more focused on policing citizens than promoting their freedom and equality.

Against this backdrop, there is growing interest in how democratic systems might be reformed to function better and become more resilient. A wide range of proposals has emerged, tackling different aspects of democratic decline. While we can’t cover them all in a single episode, today’s discussion focuses on two specific reform ideas explored in recent articles published in the journal The Political Quarterly.

The first examines the role of donations to political parties, asking how political finance shapes power, influence, and public trust in the democratic system. The second looks at the position of smaller parties in the House of Commons, exploring how parliamentary procedures affect their ability to contribute meaningfully to debate and scrutiny.

To discuss these ideas, we’re joined by the authors of both pieces:

• Iain McMenamin, Professor of Comparative Politics at Dublin City University, is an expert on political finance and co-author of the article on party donations.
• Louise Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester, is a leading scholar of parliamentary politics and the author of the study on the role of small parties in the Commons.

Together, we explore whether reforming party funding and giving smaller parties a stronger voice in Parliament could help rebuild trust, improve representation, and strengthen UK democracy.

Mentioned in this episode:

• ‘Unbroken, but Dangerous: The UK’s Political Finance Regime and the Rationale for Reform’, by Logan De la Torre, Kevin Fahey, and Iain McMenamin 
• 'Modernising the House: Why the 2024 Parliament Highlights the Need to Formalise Party-Group Rights in the House of Commons’, by Louise Thompson. 

In this special episode, we turn to the concept of global governance - the institutions, norms, and practices through which collective action is coordinated beyond the nation state. Joining us is Professor Tom Pegram, Director of the UCL Global Governance Institute and Programme Director of the MSc in Global Governance and Ethics in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Tom recently delivered his inaugural lecture as Professor of Global Politics at UCL, titled “Crisis? What Crisis? Rethinking Global Governance Through the Lens of Crisis.” Drawing on that lecture and his wider body of work, this conversation ranges across his academic career and explores how moments of crisis, from financial shocks and pandemics to democratic backsliding and climate emergencies, both expose the limits of existing governance arrangements and create opportunities for innovation and reform.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Prof Pegram's lecture on YouTube
• Reflexive legitimation conflict: trumpism and the crisis of legitimacy in global AI governance in Global Public Policy and Governance.

Policy responses are often described as resting on three pillars. The first involves addressing the causes of climate change by reducing carbon emissions and improving carbon capture. Experts tend to refer to this as mitigation. The second concerns adapting to the climate impacts that are already unavoidable in order to reduce the harm they cause, for example by raising sea walls or improving the heat resilience of homes. This is known as adaptation. The third pillar deals with the harms that nevertheless arise, asking who should bear the associated costs and whether these harms can ever truly be compensated. This has come to be known as loss and damage.

This episode focuses on that third pillar. Although the definition above is one way to understand loss and damage, it is far from the only one. The concept is contested, and the way it is framed varies between different actors in international climate negotiations. Competing definitions are used strategically in order to influence outcomes.

These contests over meaning are only one example of the processes that shape international climate talks. Such processes can construct or, at times, manipulate the negotiation environment, and those with the greatest power often exert the greatest influence over how these processes unfold.

A new book explores how these shaping forces operate within the loss and damage arena and argues that they are having a significant effect on the effectiveness of the global response to climate change, and not always for the better.

Prof Alan Renwick's guest this episode is the author of that book, Professor Lisa Vanhala of the UCL Department of Political Science, UCL Pro-Vice Provost for the Grand Challenge Theme of the Climate Crisis, and a longstanding friend of the podcast.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Governing the End. The Making of Climate Change Loss and Damage

In this episode, we explore a fascinating new study that suggests they can — by turning to moral issues instead of security ones. Our guest, Dr. Daniel Schulte, Associate Lecturer in Protest, Revolution & Qualitative Methods at UCL’s Department of Political Science, discusses his research on how governments may use moral framing to distract or unite publics when under pressure, drawing on experimental evidence from Turkey.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Rallying around the mosque or flag: The effects of morality and security agenda setting on political performance in Turkey. Mediterranean Politics.

Host Prof Alan Renwick is joined by Kristin Bakke, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at UCL, head of the Conflict and Change research cluster, and a returning guest of the podcast. Together, they discuss new research from Ukraine that sheds light on how exposure to war influences people’s democratic commitments.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Kristin M Bakke, Marianne Dahl, and Kit Rickard. Conflict exposure and democratic values: Evidence from wartime Ukraine.
• Journal of Peace Research special issue on Political Violence in Democracies

Our guide through this complex and often painful story is Dr Julie Norman, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at UCL and co-author of the new book Gaza: The Dream and the Nightmare.

It’s a history that probably few of us know in any detail. But understanding Gaza’s story so far is essential for thinking about Gaza today and about what path Gaza may take in the future.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Gaza: The Dream and the Nightmare, by Julie M Norman and Maia Carter Hallward 

At a time of intense pressure on public spending, should the state cover the cost of fertility treatment? That question depends on what kind of good we think fertility treatment is. Is it simply another part of healthcare, like cancer treatment, competing for the same limited funds? Or does fertility occupy a different moral space — something unique that society has a special reason to support?

To help us think through these questions, our host Emily McTernan is joined by Dr. Giulia Cavaliere, Lecturer in Engaged Philosophy at UCL.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Guilia Cavaliere "Fertility treatment, valuable life projects and social norms: in defence of defending (reproductive) preferences".

New research provides a nuanced answer. It finds that expanding access to social housing does seem to lower far-right support — but only in areas with low immigration. In communities where immigration is already high, the effect reverses.

To unpack why this is happening, and what it means for policymakers, host Prof Alan Renwick speaks with Dr. Gloria Gennaro, Lecturer in Public Policy and Data Science at UCL’s Department of Political Science. Dr. Gennaro shares insights from her latest study, exploring how housing policy, economic insecurity, and social dynamics intersect with political behavior.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Immigration, Public Housing and Support for the French National Front by Gloria Gennaro

Veronika brings a wealth of experience from institutions across Europe, including Oxford, Cambridge, Copenhagen, and London. She currently serves as co-director of UCL’s Institute for Human Rights and as an ad hoc judge at the European Court of Human Rights. Her leadership of two major European Research Council-funded projects places her at the forefront of cutting-edge human rights scholarship.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Prof Fikfak's inaugural lecture on YouTube
• Prof Fikfak's staff profile page and publications
• Human Rights Nudge project

In this episode, we unpack the seismic shifts that led to this remarkable result. Why did the vote fragment across so many parties? What drove the electorate’s choices in this cycle? And what happened to the underlying dynamics of voting behavior?

To explore these questions, we turn to a special issue of The Political Quarterly, our partner journal, which dives into the election’s implications and causes in depth.

Joining us are three distinguished contributors to that issue:

• Professor Jane Green – Professor of Political Science and British Politics, University of Oxford
• Professor Paula Surridge – Professor of Political Sociology, University of Bristol
• Marta Miori– Research Officer on British Electoral Behaviour, PhD candidate at the University of Manchester

Together, they provide expert insights into both the immediate drivers of the 2024 result and the longer-term transformations reshaping UK politics.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Miori, M. and Green, J. (2025), The Most Disproportionate UK Election: How the Labour Party Doubled its Seat Share with a 1.6-Point Increase in Vote Share in 2024. The Political Quarterly, 96: 37-64.
• Surridge, P. (2025), Values in the Valence Election: Fragmentation and the 2024 General Election. The Political Quarterly, 96: 26-36.

While many of us instinctively view discrimination based on attributes like sexual orientation as inherently wrong, not all human rights theorists agree that this wrong is best understood as a violation of a human right. Some argue that discrimination, though harmful, doesn't necessarily fall under the scope of human rights protections.

Joining us to unpack this complex debate is Dr. Saladin Meckled-Garcia, Associate Professor in Human Rights and Political Philosophy at UCL's Department of Political Science. Dr. Meckled-Garcia presents a powerful case for why the right against discrimination should be considered a core human right — and offers a fresh philosophical grounding for why such rights matter.

Mentioned in this episode:

• The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Human Rights, edited by Jesse Tomalty, Kerri Woods. Chapter 21: "Is there a human right against discrimination?" Saladin Meckled-Garcia

At first glance, this kind of injustice might seem beyond the reach of the law. There is no obvious villain to prosecute and no specific rule to repeal. But what if we have misunderstood what the law is capable of? What if legal systems are not just passive frameworks but active players in how injustice takes shape?

In this episode, we speak with George Letsas, Professor of the Philosophy of Law at University College London. He presents a powerful and original argument. The law, he suggests, is often implicated in structural injustice. But it is also one of the most promising tools we have to address it.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Structural injustice and the law, free download from UCL Discovery

But is that expectation realistic? Political insiders often argue that politics is a rough game – a competitive arena where playing fair can be a disadvantage. If truthfulness puts you behind, does it still have a place in modern democracy?

In this episode, we question whether we’ve been too quick to abandon truth as an essential political ideal. What do we lose when we let go of it? And is the cost greater than we realise?

To dig into these questions, we’re joined by Professor Richard Bellamy, Professor of Political Science at UCL and co-author of a new article arguing that truthfulness isn't just desirable—it’s foundational to democracy itself.

Mentioned in this episode:

• ‘Truthfulness, pluralism and the ethics of democratic representation’, by Richard Bellamy and Sandra Kröger. In the British Journal of Politics and International Relations.

So who's right? And what should this mean for public policy — especially in terms of how states regulate and fund religious education?

To help us think about these questions, we're joined by Professor Adam Swift, a leading philosopher of education and parenting, and co-author of a new book exploring these very issues. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Clayton, M., Mason, A., Swift, A. with Wareham, R. (2024). How To Think About Religious Schools: Principles and Policies.

So what can liberals (broadly understood as people who recognize social diversity and complexity in policy challenges) do about populism’s rise?

A new article in our partner journal, the Political Quarterly seeks to answer both of these questions. It delves into different theories of voting behaviour to understand the roots of populist strength, and explores what the optimal strategy may be through which liberals can respond. The authors joining us today are: 

• Dr Daniel Brieba, Assistant Professor at the School of Government at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez in Chile
• Professor Andrés Velasco, Professor of Public Policy and Dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• 'The Populist Playbook: Why Identity Trumps Policy and How Democrats Can Adapt' by Daniel Brieba and Andrés Velasco

Alan Renwick is joined by Dr Jonathan Golub, Associate Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Reading, and our very own Dr Michal Ovádek, Lecturer in European Institutions, Politics and Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Golub, J. and Ovádek, M. (2024) Informal procedures, institutional change, and EU decision-making: evaluating the effects of the 1974 Paris summit.

Cathy is one of those rare educators who always strives to focus less on grades and more on inspiring her pupils. She has spearheaded ungrading campaigns at UCL, as well as inclusive curriculums and student-led projects on inclusivity, belonging, political philosophy and international relations. She is a co-director of UCL Centre for the Pedagogy of Politics, a co-convenor of the Political Studies Association Teaching and Learning Network, and Vice-Dean Education for UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences. Cathy has made history as our department's first academic on the teaching track to be promoted to Professor. This in itself reflects Cathy's thoughts on education - if we remove some of the boundaries and change some of the criteria , wonderful things might happen (inc. it might be easier for teaching track academics to progress to prof)!

Mentioned in this episode:

• Cathy Elliott. Against anonymity: relational marking and awarding gaps. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Eudcation.
• Special Edition of Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education: Liberating Learning
• Inclusive Cirriculum Project

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 UCL
• Lisa James – Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit

Our 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.

In this episode, we explore an alternative vision inspired by Chinese philosophy. Emily's guest, Kyle van Oosterum, introduces the concept of ‘reparative civility’—a framework rooted in Confucian traditions that aims to rebuild fractured social relationships. Kyle is a Research Fellow in Political Philosophy at UCL’s Digital Speech Lab, specializing in political theory, social epistemology, and democratic discourse.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Digital Speech Lab
• Kyle van Oosterum (2025) Confucian Harmony, Civility, and Echo Chambers. Journal of Applied Philosophy.

In this episode, we explore groundbreaking research by two scholars from the UCL Department of Political Science—Dr Jack Blumenau and Prof Ben Lauderdale. Their work offers fresh insights into the nature of political disagreement, challenging conventional wisdom about its origins. Jack join us to discuss these findings. (Jack Blumenau, Associate Professor of Political Science and Quantitative Research Methods.)

Mentioned in this episode:

• Jack Blumenau and Ben Lauderdale. (2024) ‘Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Very Similar Sets of Foundations When Comparing Moral Violations’, American Political Science Review
• Benjamin Lauderdale and Jack Blumenau. 2025. “ Polarization over the priority of political problems.” American Journal of Political Science 

A new book addressing these challenges was published last year, and a recent article in The Political Quarterly highlights its key themes. The book and article explore the structural barriers that disabled candidates and politicians face and provide actionable recommendations for change.

In this episode, we speak with the co-authors of both the book and the article:

• Prof Elizabeth Evans – Professor of Politics at the University of Southampton.
• Dr Stefanie Reher – Reader in Political Science at the University of Strathclyde.

Join us as we discuss the systemic obstacles, potential solutions, and the importance of disability-inclusive politics.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Stefanie Reher and Elizabeth Evans. "No Level Playing Field: Barriers to Disability Representation in Politics" The Political Quarterly
• Elizabeth Evans and Stefanie Reher. "Disability and Political Representation" Oxford University Press.

So, what are the real opportunities AI offers for public services? What risks need to be managed? And how well are governments—particularly in the UK—rising to the challenge?

In this episode, we dive into these questions with three expert guests who have recently published an article in The Political Quarterly on the subject:

Helen Margetts – Professor of Society and the Internet at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, and Director of the Public Policy Programme at The Alan Turing Institute. Previously, she was Director of the School of Public Policy at UCL.

Cosmina Dorobantu – Co-director of the Public Policy Programme at The Alan Turing Institute.

Jonathan Bright – Head of Public Services and AI Safety at The Alan Turing Institute.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Margetts, H., Dorobantu, C. and Bright, J. (2024), How to Build Progressive Public Services with Data Science and Artificial Intelligence. The Political Quarterly.

In this episode, Prof Alan Renwick dives into these questions with Dr. Manuel Vogt, Associate Professor of International Security at UCL. Drawing on new research, he explores how both global forces and local factors shape the relationship between religion and violence.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Pischedda, C., & Vogt, M. (2023). When Do Religious Organizations Resort to Violence? How Local Conditions Shape the Effects of Transnational Ideology. Ethnopolitics

In the UK, that power lies overwhelmingly with the government, leaving most MPs with little say over what they debate. That seems odd—after all, parliament is supposed to be sovereign. So why does it allow the government, a supposedly subordinate body, to set its agenda?

To unravel this, Prof Alan Renwick is joined by Dr Tom Fleming, Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics at UCL and a member of the UCL Constitution Unit.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Fleming, Thomas G., Simon Hix and Radoslaw Zubek. 2024. “ The Origins of Centralized Agenda Control at Westminster: Consensus or Controversy?” Legislative Studies Quarterly
• The controversial origins of centralised agenda control at Westminster. Constitution Unit Blog

One of the alternative realities found in many countries today is the politics of clientelism, where candidates effectively buy votes by rendering services to particular individuals, families, or other groups within society. How can systems where such practices are entrenched be nudged towards more so-called programmatic competition based on competing policy visions?

Alan Renwick is joined by Dr Jeremy Bowles, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at UCL Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Bowles, J. and Larreguy, H. (2025) ‘Who Debates, Who Wins? At-Scale Experimental Evidence on the Supply of Policy Information in a Liberian Election’, American Political Science Review

Today’s guest is Dr Helen Brown Coverdale, Lecturer in Political Theory at UCL Political Science. Helen's research explores these issues, arguing that we should reform punishment to mitigate some of these harms. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Helen Brown Coverdale (2024) Putting Proportional Punishment into Perspective. Criminal Law and Philosophy.

A fantastic new book, 'Autocrats Can't Always Get What They Want', challenges this simplistic view. It reveals how modern autocratic leaders operate within a web of constraints that can shape, and sometimes even limit, their power. Intriguingly, these constraints aren’t always by design. Instead, they often emerge from circumstances that are outside the ruler's control—yet they still influence the way states function under authoritarian rule.

To unpack these fascinating insights, I’m joined by two of the book’s authors:

• Dr Samer Anabtawi, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at UCL’s Department of Political Science, brings his expertise in comparative governance to the discussion.
• Professor Nathan Brown, a leading scholar of political science and international affairs from George Washington University, offers a global perspective on the nuanced realities of authoritarian regimes.

Together, we explore a thought-provoking conversation that examines the mechanisms of modern authoritarianism and its implications for politics worldwide.

To explore these questions, we turn to one of the foremost experts on the US presidency, Andrew Rudalevige, the Thomas Brackett Reed Professor of Government at Bowdoin College and Honorary Professor at UCL’s Centre on US Politics.

Andy is the author and editor of eight books on the American presidency, including By Executive Order: Bureaucratic Management and the Limits of Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2021). Drawing on decades of research, Andy reveals how the dynamics of power within the executive branch are far more nuanced than the actions of the president alone might suggest.

Mentioned in this episode:

• By Executive Order: Bureaucratic Management and the Limits of Presidential Power, by Andrew Rudalevige
• Other writings by Andrew can be found on his Bowdoin College staff profile page

In this episode, we explore a compelling study that examines this question in the context of Ukraine—a country caught between conflicting historical narratives from Russia and the West.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the nation has endured not only a devastating war but also an intense battle over history, identity, and legitimacy. Yet, these struggles are deeply rooted in Ukraine’s complex past.

The study we discuss was conducted in 2019, offering a snapshot from before the war. It investigates how Ukrainians recall their families’ experiences of victimisation during the Second World War and whether these memories are shaped by their present-day political beliefs.

Joining us to discuss these findings is Kristin Bakke, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at UCL and co-author of the study.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Bakke, K. M., Rickard, K., O’Loughlin, J., & Toal, G. (2024). Politicizing Memory: Evidence from Ukraine. Problems of Post-Communism, 1–20. 
• The study in The Conversation.

A prime example is incoming US President Donald Trump, who was famously banned from Twitter for glorifying violence but has since returned to X with Elon Musk at the helm. This raises critical questions:

• How should social media companies handle inflammatory or false claims from politicians?
• Can they continue to claim they are mere platforms, not publishers, despite the profound impact they have?
• And, if they challenge politicians' statements, do they risk overstepping their role in a democratic society?

To explore these issues, we’re joined by Jeff Howard, a professor in this department and the Director of the Digital Speech Lab. Jeff co-authored a recent paper that dives deep into the responsibilities of social media companies when it comes to regulating political speech.
 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Fisher, S., Kira, B., Arabaghatta Basavaraj, K., & Howard, J. (2024). Should Politicians Be Exempt from Fact-Checking?Journal of Online Trust and Safety.

In this episode, we examine these key questions with our expert guests, exploring what this election outcome could mean for US policy on critical issues, including climate change, trade, democracy, and America’s relations with Ukraine, the Middle East, and China. With so much at stake, there’s already intense debate about the direction the country – and indeed, the world – may take in the coming years.

To shed light on these issues we are joined by:

• Dr Thomas Gift, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the UCL Centre on US Politics (CUSP).
• Dr Julie Norman, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations and CUSP’s Foreign Policy Lead.

Both Dr Gift and Dr Norman bring deep expertise in US politics and policy, offering insights into where things stand, what to expect from the new administration, and the potential global implications. Together, they help to unpack the complexities of these developments and consider what the future might hold.

A subsequent review by Baroness Louise Casey highlighted deep-seated issues within the Metropolitan Police Service, pointing to "institutional racism, sexism, and homophobia" within the organization. Meanwhile, there’s a growing perception that the police have deprioritized certain types of crime, like shoplifting. Political figures, too, have weighed in, accusing the police of double standards in their approach to protests and civil unrest.

All of this has contributed to a significant decline in public trust. So, what exactly are the root issues? What realistic solutions could address these complex problems? And how might the current political climate impact the feasibility of any reforms?

To explore these pressing questions, we are joined by three experts in crime and policing:

• Ben Bradford – Professor of Global City Policing in the Department of Security and Crime Science at University College London
• Jonathan Jackson – Professor of Research Methodology in the Department of Methodology at the London School of Economics
• Emmeline Taylor – Professor of Criminology in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City, University of London

Together, Ben, Jon, and Emmeline have edited a new special issue of The Political Quarterly titled Policing the Permacrisis, which dives into these challenges and potential solutions. Regular listeners might recall that The Political Quarterly shares our goal of making cutting-edge political and policy research accessible to a broad audience beyond academia. This episode marks the second installment in our occasional series where we discuss insightful work published in the journal.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Policing the Permacrisis, in The Political Quarterly

Over the past two decades, renewed interest in colonial reparations has emerged within political theory and philosophy, with a focus on assigning responsibility for redress. Yet, relatively little attention has been given to how redress might be achieved in the face of persistent colonial amnesia and apologia. In this episode Dr. Shuk Ying Chan, Assistant Professor in Political Theory at UCL Political Science, proposes a solution: expropriation (the unilateral public takeover of foreign assets) as a justified response to these overdue reparations.

In her argument, she shifts the focus from simply determining responsibility for reparative justice to exploring what victims of past injustices, or their descendants, are justified in doing to claim what they are owed. She also addresses the unique challenges of pursuing such political resistance at the global level.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Chan, S.Y. (20024) Expropriation as Reparation. American Journal of Political Science.

A new book challenges this approach, suggesting that such responses may (at least in some cases) be counterproductive. It argues that bureaucrats can often perform at their best when they are trusted with greater autonomy, encouraged to develop and apply their own expertise, and supported in collaborating with colleagues toward a shared mission. Despite this, the book acknowledges that managing for empowerment comes with significant challenges.

The book, Mission Driven Bureaucrats, is written by Dr. Dan Honig, Associate Professor of Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy, who joins us on the podcast today.
 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Mission Driven Bureaucrats. Empowering People To Help Government Do Better, by Dan honig

France’s Socialist Party was regularly in power from the early 1980s till the mid 2010s. But it collapsed spectacularly in the elections of 2017, and its very survival today seems in doubt. So what has been going on? And have the recent elections brought any signs of revival?

Joining us to explore these questions is Philippe Marlière, Professor of French and European Politics in the UCL European and International Social and Political Studies department.

This episode of UCL Uncovering Politics is the first in an occasional series of episodes based on pieces in Political Quarterly.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Marlière, P. (2024), French Social Democracy in Turmoil. The Political Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13442

This episode delves into the emotional landscape of politics and education, challenging the assumption that critical thinking and emotional engagement are at odds. They discuss the nature of hope, its importance in driving social and political change, and the emotional balance between hope and anger. They also explore the benefits of outdoor learning in higher education, where students engage with nature and develop a more profound sense of purpose and agency in addressing environmental issues. Prof. Elliot shares insights from her own outdoor teaching practices and provides tips for incorporating nature into the classroom to foster hope and resilience in students.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Cathy Elliott, 'Chapter 6: Hope in the Garden: Outdoor learning as politics', in Outdoor Learning in Higher Education. Educating Beyond the Seminar Room. Edited By Wendy Garnham, Paolo Oprandi

So what explains such divisions between the old and the young when it comes to voting? To what extent are these divisions underpinned by differences in voters’ ideological preferences? And how have these differences changed over time? 

A new article by Tom O’Grady, Associate Professor in Political Science here at the UCL Political Science, explores exactly these questions.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Tom O'Grady. 'Is ideological polarisation by age group growing in Europe?' European Journal of Political Research.

But this so-called ‘bellicist’ account of the origins of state capacity – seeing the modern state as rooted in war – does not go unchallenged. In particular, some critics see it as unduly Euro-centric and that it just doesn't work outside of Europe. 

We are joined by Dr Luis Schenoni, who has just been promoted to Associate Professor in International Relations here at the UCL Department of Political Science and who is also Director of our Security Studies Programme. In his new book, due out in July this year, Luis challenges that alternative perspective. He argues that, even in Latin America, the bellicist theory – if properly understood – does a remarkably good job in explaining outcomes. 
 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Luis Schenoni. Bringing War Back In. Victory, Defeat, and the State in Nineteenth-Century Latin America. 

That imposes two kinds of challenge:

- the idea that some people, such as workers in fossil fuel industries, might face higher costs than the rest of us seems unfair.
- voters are rarely willing to accept short-term harms in return for future benefits that seem distant and uncertain.

A solution to these problems may lie in compensating those who face heightened costs, for example by retraining workers in affected industries. But would these schemes overcome the political hurdles to implementing the needed long-term policies? In a world of deep distrust in political leaders, can voters be persuaded that so-called ‘just transition’ policies really will be fair?

We are joined this week by Dr Fergus Green, Lecturer in Political Theory and Public Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science and Dr Diane Bolet, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Political Behaviour in the Department of Government, University of Essex.

Mentioned in this episode:

• How to Get Coal Country to Vote for Climate Policy: The Effect of a ‘Just Transition Agreement’ on Spanish Election Results.   American Political Science Review.
• No New Fossil Fuel Projects: The Norm We Need. Science. View the article without a paywall.

Opinion polling is a staple of modern elections, captivating political enthusiasts with fluctuating numbers but also sparking controversy. Polls are sometimes criticized for inaccuracies, notably in the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election. Polling methods, including sampling and voter prediction, are hotly debated. The emergence of MRP polls, which accurately estimated results in the 2017 UK election, has added to the intrigue, despite producing widely varying predictions for the outcome of the current UK election. So what should we make of the polls? And how can we best interpret all the numbers to understand what’s really going on?

Our guest is Prof Ben Lauderdale. Ben is Professor of Political Science here at UCL, a former Senior Data Science Advisor to the polling firm YouGov, the original brain behind the development of MRP methods and general polling guru.

Citizens of privileged societies ought to regard and relate to citizens of disadvantaged societies as social equals, and patterns of cultural exchange play an important role in promoting these relationships. Historically, colonized peoples were often regarded as inferior based on perceived failures to produce cultural achievements, to the extent that unequal global cultural production and exchange persist, and the colonial pattern remains. We are delighted to be joined by Prof Alan Patten and Dr Shuk Ying Chan, who argue that the duty to relate to foreigners as equals implies that Global North countries should stop pressing for cultural trade concessions and instead favor the import of cultural goods from the Global South.
 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Shuk Ying Chan and Alan Patten. (2023) What’s Wrong with Neocolonialism: The Case of Unequal Trade in Cultural Goods. American Political Science Review.

For a state has the capacity to act it needs information on its citizens. You can’t tax someone or assess their eligibility for services if you don’t know who or where they are.

But states may be unable to require its citizens to provide information – it may have to rely on their wanting to do so. And that has potentially profound implications for how equitable state activities are – and therefore ultimately how the state develops and builds its legitimacy. 

We are joined this week by Dr Jeremy Bowles, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, expert in the political economy of development and the interaction of state-building processes with distributive politics.

Mentioned in this episode;

• Jeremy Bowles (2024) Identifying the Rich: Registration, Taxation, and Access to the State in Tanzania. American Political Science Review

Watch Lucy's inaugural lecture on Youtube: https://youtu.be/hfK8Qd85-xM

Mentioned in this episode:

• Barnes, L. and Hicks, T. (2022) ‘Are Policy Analogies Persuasive? The Household Budget Analogy and Public Support for Austerity’, British Journal of Political Science, 52(3), pp. 1296–1314.
• Barnes, L. (2021) ‘Taxing the Rich: Public Preferences and Public Understanding’, Journal of European Public Policy, 29(5), pp. 787–804.

However, the future commitment of Western governments and their citizens to continue financing Ukraine remains uncertain, potentially hinging on the outcome of the upcoming American presidential election in November.

Some propose an alternative solution to ease this financial strain: seizing Russia's frozen assets, valued at around $300 billion in Western countries. These assets, withheld since the conflict began, could be permanently confiscated and the proceeds allocated towards Ukraine's ongoing war efforts or post-war reconstruction.

Dr. Veronika Fikfak, an Associate Professor in International Law at UCL's Department of Political Science and an expert on the European Court of Human Rights, joins us to discuss the legal ins and outs of seizing Russian funds.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Dr Fikfak's talk delivered to the legal adivsors of the Council of Europe
• The Council of Europe

Further reading, from both sides of the argument:

• Confiscating sanctioned Russian state assets should be the last resort
• Confiscation of immobilized Russian state assets is moral and vital

Well Liz Truss is – for better or worse – not our guest on today’s podcast. But the person who is has thought a great deal about how – and by whom – fiscal rules should be set. 

That person is Stefano Merlo, Associate Lecturer in the Politics of Economic Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Stefano is also currently finishing off a PhD in Political Economy and Political Theory at John Stuart Mill College in the Free University of Amsterdam.
 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Stefano Merlo. 'A Republican Assessment of Independent Fiscal Institutions.' Journal of Politics
• Stefano Merlo. 'A republican fiscal constitution for the EMU.' Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy

Is there a way out of the current crisis for the NHS – and a way forwards for public health more broadly? How much should the state do to promote our health? And can a look  at the values that ought to underpin public health strategies tell us how to do better? 

This week we are joined by Albert Weale, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy here in UCL Department of Political Science, and James Wilson, Professor of Philosophy in UCL Department of Philosophy. He is also co-director of the UCL Health Humanities Centre.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Peter Littlejohns, David J. Hunter, Albert Weale, Jacqueline Johnson, Toslima Khatun. 2023 'Making Health Public: A Manifesto for a New Social Contract.'
• James Wilson. 2021 'Philosophy for Public Health and Public Policy: Beyond the Neglectful State.'
• James Wilson. 2023  ‘What makes a health system good? From cost-effectiveness analysis to ethical improvement in health systems.’ Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.

Well that is a question that the United States and its allies are thinking about very carefully at the moment.

One of the researchers whose work is shaping that process joins us today. She is Dr Kaleigh Heard. Kaleigh has advised multiple governments and NGOs around the world. She is also Lecturer in Human Rights here in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Kaleigh Heard. The Price of a Life: The Confluence of Strategy and Legitimacy in Civilian Harm Compensation. 

But what do protests actually achieve? Do they affect political debate and policy outcomes?

A new study sheds light on that, focusing on the impact of climate protests here in the UK on what MPs talk about – both in parliament itself and online.

One of the co-authors of that article is Tom Fleming, Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics, who joins us for this episode.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Barrie, C., Fleming, T. G., and Rowan, S. S. (2023) ‘Does Protest Influence Political Speech? Evidence from UK Climate Protest, 2017-2019’, British Journal of Political Science.

The story of this episode is fascinating in itself, but it also sheds new light on how disputes between states and international investors are resolved today. Those disputes rarely hit the headlines, however, that they can be incredibly important for all of us. 

How they’re resolved today is very different from in the 1980s, but the modern methods face severe criticism – not least from experts and campaigners who argue they can impede action on climate change and human rights. 

Lauge Poulsen joins us today. He is Professor of International Relations and Law here in the UCL Department of Political Science, is co-author of the study of the Russian case, and THE expert on disputes between states and investors. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Eileen Denza and Lauge Poulsen. 'Settling Russia's Imperial and Baltic Debts'. American Journal of International Law.

But what if the statement isn’t really an urge towards violence, nor a declaration of one’s intent to kill? Sometimes, when people make death threats, say to dictators, might that really be more of a political slogan or a form of critique? What if there is no intent behind the threat, and the target isn’t in danger? And ought online platforms care about such nuance when thinking about what to leave up and what to take down. 

We are joined by Jeffrey Howard, who is Associate Professor in Political Philosophy and Public Policy, and director of the Digital Speech Lab, and Sarah Fisher, a Research Fellow.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Jeffrey Howard and Sarah Fisher. Ambiguous Threats: ‘Death-to’ Statements and the Moderation of Online Speech-Acts. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (forthcoming)

More broadly, the European Union faces a challenge of how to create unity, and yet accommodate the significant political, social, and economic diversity of its member states. Can it accommodate this diversity? And can it do so without risking being unfair or undermining its own legitimacy? 

Addressing these big questions is Professor Richard Bellamy, Professor of Political Science here at in the Department of Political Science and a Senior Fellow at the Hertie School in Berlin. He has recently co-authored a book on the subject, called Flexible Europe: Differentiated Integration, Fairness, and Democracy.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Richard Bellamy. Flexible Europe: Differentiated Integration, Fairness, and Democracy. 

Yet recent years have seen a backlash against such advances. Self-styled ‘family values’ movements have campaigned against the so-called ‘gay lobby’ or ‘gender ideology’ in many countries, often claiming threats not just to the family, but to the nation as a whole. In the UK and elsewhere, a backlash against trans rights has been especially prominent. 

We are joined by Phillip Ayoub, Professor of International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science. As well as marking LGBT+ History Month, this is a special inaugural episode for Prof Ayoub touching on his career journey and research influences. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Phillip M. Ayoub and Kristina Stoeckl. The Global Fight Against LGBTI Rights: How Transnational Conservative Networks Target Sexual and Gender Minorities
• Phillip Ayoub. When States Come Out. Europe's Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility

We take a good hard look at how – and how effectively – parliaments question prime ministers.

We are joined by Dr Ruxandra Serban, Associate Lecturer in Democratic and Authoritarian Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Her research focusess directly on parliamentary questioning processes.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Ruxandra Serban. Conflictual behaviour in legislatures: Exploring and explaining adversarial remarks in oral questions to prime ministers. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations.
• Ruxandra Serban. Is confrontational questioning bad for parliaments and democratic politics? The Constitution Unit Blog.

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-future
• Conor Kelly and Alan Renwick, Perspectives on the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement 

Professor Marc Esteve is one of the leading experts on exactly that issue. We have recorded this special episode of our podcast to coincide with his inaugural lecture as Professor of Public Management here in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Assessing the Effects of User Accountability in Contracting Out, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
• Determinants Of Network Outcomes: The Impact Of Management Strategies. Public Administration.
• The Political Hourglass: Opportunistic Behavior in Local Government Policy Decisions. International Public Management Journal

You can watch Marc's inaugural lecture on our YouTube channel, where it will be uploaded in January 2023.

So are Russian leaders just being inconsistent? Or is there more going on? 

Dr Kalina Zhekova, Lecturer in Political Science here in the UCL Department of Political Science, joins us for this week's episode. A specialist in Russian approaches to military intervention and state sovereignty, Kalina’s latest paper looks at elite-level Russian discourse during the 2014 Ukraine crisis. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Kalina Zhekova (2023) The West in Russian Discourses of Sovereignty During the 2014 Ukraine Crisis: Between ‘Compatriot Protection’ and ‘Non-Interference’. Europe-Asia Studies.

We are discussing one particular ongoing example of historical research in political science - at prisoner-of-war camps in the UK in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. 

We are joined by:

Zeynep Bulutgil,Professor in International Relations. Regular listeners may remember in episode we did with her back in 2022 on the origins of the secular state.

Sam Erkiletian, a final-year PhD student who’s just about to submit his dissertation on patterns of socialization in groups of combatants.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Bulutgil, H. Zeynep, The Origins of Secular Institutions: Ideas, Timing, and Organization.

She also examines the ways that civil society organisations engage with the law to shape policy and social change both around climate change and around equality and human rights, including in her award-winning first monograph, Making Rights a Reality? Disability Rights Activists and Legal Mobilization.

Lisa joins us this week to talk about a comparative politics of climate change loss and damage.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Lisa Vanhala, Cecilie Hestbaek. Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in UNFCCC Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics.
• Lisa Vanhala, Angelica Johansson, Frances Butler. Deploying an Ethnographic Sensibility to Understand Climate Change Governance: Hanging Out, Around, In, and Back. Global Environmental Politics.
• Lisa Vanhala. COP28: a year on from climate change funding breakthrough, poor countries eye disappointment at Dubai summit. The Conversation.
• Lisa's Inaugural Lecture.

And that has prompted a great deal of philosophical debate over when speech acts are successfully performed, and whether that depends on the effects on the audience. This might sound like an esoteric matter, but philosophers think that thinking about how – and when- speech does things has implications for what we should think of pornography, and for when people really consent to sex. 

Our guest today is Dr Sarah Fisher, a Research Fellow here in the department of political science on a cross-disciplinary project on the ethics of content moderation on social media and the future of free speech online, funded by UKRI. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Sarah A. Fisher, Kathryn B. Francis & Leo Townsend (2023) An empirical investigation of intuitions about uptake, Inquiry, DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2023.2220359
• Langton, Rae. “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 22, no. 4, 1993, pp. 293–330. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265469

Some references suggested by Sarah for further reading: 

• Townsend, L. and Townsend, D.L. (2020). Consultation, Consent, and the Silencing of Indigenous Communities. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37: 781-798. DOI: 10.1111/japp.12438
• Townsend, L. and Lupin, D. (2021). Representation and Epistemic Violence. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 29(4): 577-594. DOI: 10.1080/09672559.2021.1997398
• Francis, K. B., Beaman, P., & Hansen, N. (2019). Stakes, scales, and skepticism. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy. DOI: 10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.016

The book – called IMF Lending: Partisanship, Punishment, and Protest – has two authors, and we are joined by both of them.

- Dr Rod Abouharb is Associate Professor in International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science.

- Dr Bernhard Reinsberg is Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Glasgow and also a Research Associate in Political Economy at the Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge.

Mentioned in this episode:

• IMF Lending: Partisanship, Punishment, and Protest

Our Migration Research Cluster is seeking to coordinate and promote evidence based work on the politics of migration and migration policy. To mark the Migration cluster’s foundation, we are joined by three of its members. 

Dr Alex Hartman is Associate Professor in Qualitative Research Methods. Her research focuses on the political economy of institutions in fragile states, with one strand looking particularly at the politics of forced displacement.

Dr Moritz Marbach is Associate Professor in Data Science & Public Policy. He is particularly interested in how policies regulating migration affect migrants, voters and politicians.

And Dr Judith Spirig is Lecturer in Political Science. Among other things, she examines the determinants and the consequences of anti-immigrant attitudes.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Immigration and inequality: the role of politics and policies. Dominic Hangartner and Judith Spirig.

Post-pandemic, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and on the edges of a recession, there is a greater desire to understand the government’s fiscal position and policies. In order to understand exactly what’s going on, a degree of fiscal transparency – which refers to the publication of information on how governments raise, spend, and manage public resources – is needed.  

We are joined by Dr Mike Seiferling, Assistant Professor in Public Finance here in the Department of Political Science at UCL and an expert (and former economist) at the IMF. Mike discusses the cost of non-transparency, and the importance of citizen engagement and civil society organizations in promoting fiscal transparency and accountability in government asset management.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Seiferling, M. and Tareq, S.  ‘Hiding the Losses: Fiscal Transparency and the Performance of Government Portfolios of Financial Assets’
• Hameed, Farhan, Fiscal Transparency and Economic Outcomes (December 2005). IMF Working Paper No. 05/225, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=888094

This puzzle centres on the broader idea known to social scientists as the ‘collective action problem’, that people often struggle to work together to achieve a common goal, leading to suboptimal outcomes. This has long been explored by scholars and is ever-present in our lives: in explanations, for example, of low voter turnout, depletion of natural resources, and foot-dragging in action to tackle climate change.

Yet collective action problems can be overcome under certain conditions – think of successful strike actions or civil rights protests, or the effective management of some local shared resources. And political scientists are naturally keen to understand what these conditions are, seeking answers by analysing group dynamics in different settings.  

To explore these questions, we are joined by Dr Adam Harris, Associate Professor in Development Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science, and also an Associated Researcher with the Centre for Social Change at the University of Johannesburg. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Making Demands on Government: Theorizing Determinants of Backyard Residents’ Collective Action in Cape Town, South Africa. African Studies Review

Mentioned in this episode:

• On Taking Offence. Emily McTernan.

Beneath this surface, serious issues are at stake, around economic and climate policies, relations between the United States and China, the future stance of the US towards the war in Ukraine, and women’s rights and abortion after Roe v. Wade was overturned. And there are major questions to ask about the health of US democracy itself. 

So, it’s high time we had one of our occasional reviews of the state of US politics. Joining us this week are the Co-Directors of the UCL Centre on US Politics:

- Dr Julie Norman, Associate Professor (Teaching) in Politics and International Relations,

- and Dr Thomas Gift, Associate Professor in Political Science, both in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• CUSP - the UCL Centre on US Politics.

Dr Shuk Ying Chan, Assistant Professor in Political Theory in the Department of Political Science at UCL, whose book in progress examines decolonisation as an unfinished project of global justice;

Dr Desiree Lim, Catherine Shultz Rein Early Career Professor and Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Penn State, whose monograph “Immigration and Social Equality” is forthcoming at OUP;

and Dr Chong-Ming Lim, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Nanyang Technological University, whose published work examines, amongst other topics, uncivil political resistance, including the vandalising of commemorations.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Vandalizing Tainted Commemorations. Chong-Ming Lim.
• Transforming problematic commemorations through vandalism. Chong-Ming Lim.
• Immigration and Social Equality. Desiree Lim.
• Black Skin, White Masks. Frantz Fanon.
• The Wretched of the Earth. Frantz Fanon.

Over his career, Albert has published 20 books and more than 150 articles and book chapters on a diverse and impressive array of topics, from the politics of pollution, political legitimacy in the European Union and healthcare, to social contract theory and democracy. He has held faculty positions at Newcastle, York, UEA, Essex and, of course, for more than a decade, here at UCL.

The event held in his honour had an impressive 28 speakers, discussing the prospects for practical public reason, priority setting in healthcare and the best form of social contract theory, and motivating our tackling of climate change, among many other issues. It highlighted the sheer range, depth and importance of the contributions that he has made to the field, both as a political theorist and, above all, as perhaps the leading scholar of the intersection between political theory and public policy.

In this episode we’re exploring some of these contributions, looking back on a long and successful career.

The research, which will shortly be published in an article in the journal World Politics, has been carried out in Russia – a country where public attitudes towards those in power are clearly of great interest at the moment. It also has implications for other autocracies. And it might at least raise questions in democracies too – not least as the UK government’s powers relating to protests are increased.

We are delighted that Dr Katerina Tertytchnaya, Associate Professor in Comparative Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science, joins us to discuss this research. 

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.

Richard is Professor of Political Science at UCL. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and, this academic year, is also Visiting Professor of Ethics and Public Policy at the Hertie School, Berlin.

Richard recently released a new paper, ‘Political Constitutionalism and Referendums: The Case of Brexit’, published in Social & Legal Studies, and a paper entitled ‘Political constitutionalism and populism’ in the Journal of Law and Society.

But new work by Dr Samer Anabtawi, Lecturer in Comparative Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science, suggests that we shouldn’t be so sure. Through detailed research in Lebanon and Tunisia, this work finds that democracy is neither a sufficient condition for rights advancement, nor – perhaps more surprisingly – a necessary one. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• ‘Snatching Legal Victory: LGBTQ Rights Activism and Contestation in the Arab World’ Arab Law Quarterly

One important area in which Ukraine has managed to stay ahead of Russia is in military technology.

A new report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change examines the role of military technology in the Russia–Ukraine war, and considers the lessons that can be learnt from it. 

One of the authors, Dr Melanie Garson, Associate Professor in International Conflict Resolution & International Security here in the UCL Department of Political Science, and also Acting Director of Geopolitics and Cyber Policy Lead at the Tony Blair Institute, joins us today to discuss intelligent warfare, military technology and AI.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Software and Hard War: Building Intelligent Power for Artificially Intelligent Warfare (Nov 2022) Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

Charles has just published a new book, Defeating the Dictators: How Democracy Can Prevail in the Age of the Strongman, in which he argues that democracies that are struggling with low public trust and poor performance might have a thing or two to learn about effective governance from the world’s more successful autocracies – most notably Singapore, but also others. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Chales Dunst. Defeating the Dictators: How Democracy Can Prevail in the Age of the Strongman

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

Though there are problems – the institutions of power-sharing government established through the Agreement are currently suspended, and pockets of paramilitary violence remain – the settlement reached a quarter of a century ago has been strikingly successful in its central aim: conflict has not returned; and contestation over Northern Ireland’s constitutional future is now conducted solely by political means. People in Northern Ireland have lived in much greater freedom and security as a result. For most people, life has got much better.

Nevertheless, 30 years of conflict were always going to leave lasting legacies that would take time to heal. And research conducted in part here in UCL is exploring those legacies and comparing them with patterns found in other post-conflict societies around the world. 

This week we are joined by Professor Kristin Bakke and Dr Kit Rickard.

Mentioned in this episode:

• The past, Brexit, and the future in Northern Ireland: a quasi-experiment
• ‘Ten pound touts’: post-conflict trust and the legacy of counterinsurgency in Northern Ireland

Now, there are clearly questions to ask about whether such ideas are morally defensible, but it’s also important to ask whether they work on their own terms. And new research carried out here at UCL casts important doubt on that. We are joined by one of the co-authors of that research, Dr Moritz Marbach, Associate Professor in Data Science & Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Jeremy Ferwerda, Moritz Marbach and Dominik Hangartner, ‘Do Immigrants Move to Welfare? Subnational Evidence from Switzerland’

Marc is currently the inaugural director of the UCL policy lab, set up to break down the barriers between academic researchers and broader society. His career to date has included stints in academia at Cambridge, Oxford and Macquaire, being the Chief Speechwriter of the Labour Party, writing major speeches for Ed Milliband, the CEO of the New Economics Foundation, and the Director of the Sydney Policy Lab.

Marc has some big ideas about politics and political reform. Two particularly attractive and compelling facets of Marc's work, found especially in two of his books, Out of the Ordinary and Demanding Democracy, are his optimism about the prospects for a better politics, and his vision of putting citizens at the heart of change and progress. His work offers us a faith in ordinary people, and in the possibility of a non-utopian kind of ordinary hope – and these are ideas that we discuss in this episode.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Prof Stears' Inaugural lecture.
• Out of the Ordinary How Everyday Life Inspired a Nation and How It Can Again. Marc Stears.
• Progressives, Pluralists and the Problem of the State. Ideologies of Reform in the United States and Britain, 1909-1926. Marc Stears.
• Demanding Democracy. Marc Stears.

This court has long been contentious in some circles in the UK. The Conservative Party’s election manifesto in 2015 pledged to ‘break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK’. In the last year, the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has repeatedly expressed her view that the UK should leave the Court’s jurisdiction.

So what should we make of these arguments? What is the European Court of Human Rights, how does it function, and what does it do?

Joining us to discuss these questions is Dr Veronika Fikfak, Associate Professor in International Law here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Veronika leads an ongoing research project called Human Rights Nudge. She also serves as a judge ad hoc at the European Court of Human Rights and has recently published an article examining the Court’s practices in relation to settling cases before they reach a formal court hearing.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Veronika Fikfak. Against settlement before the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law

We’re focusing this week on the European Court of Justice. Joining us is Dr Michal Ovádek, Lecturer in European Institutions, Politics and Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

Michal has recently published an article on a 2018 European Court of Justice ruling concerning the pay of Portuguese judges. That might seem a little obscure. But it turns out that the case had important real-world impacts, and also tells us a lot about how the court operates.

Mentioned in this episode:

• "The making of landmark rulings in the European Union: the case of national judicial independence." Michal Ovádek. Journal of European Public Policy 

But dig a little deeper and things are not always as they seem. Take an example from almost three years ago. A bright moment for many people in the first Covid lockdown was the weekly ‘clap for carers’, instigated to praise and give thanks to NHS workers and others who were on the frontline of the battle against the disease. But the weekly claps went sour. Many of the intended recipients of the praise came to resent them.

So what was going on here? What makes praise sometimes inappropriate or wrong?

These are some of the questions at the heart of the research of Hannah McHugh, a political philosopher currently completing her PhD in the UCL Department of Political Science. Long-time podcast listeners may remember that Hannah joined us last year to explore another aspect of her work: the role of blame in politics. We are delighted that Hannah joins us again, this time to discuss the role of praise.

Mentioned in this episode:

• I'm not your inspiration, thank you very much. Stella Young. TEDxSydney

First, twitter has been taken over by Elon Musk, who has slashed staff numbers, allowed previously barred users – not least, Donald Trump – to return, and pledged a new era of free speech and less regulation. Some claim that as a result, Twitter has seen a deluge of disinformation and hate speech.

In the UK, meanwhile, the Online Safety Bill is making its way through parliament. This was originally intended in part to protect democracy against disinformation. But these provisions have now largely been stripped out, weakening the protections it will provide.

This week we are joined by Dr Jeff Howard, Associate Professor in Political Theory here in the UCL Department of Political Science, an expert in free speech and on the ethics of online speech.

That party is the True and Fair Party. And its leader is Gina Miller. 

Meanwhile, the response to the Covid-19 pandemic  and the vulnerabilities in the energy and food supply chains exposed by the war in Ukraine reveal, some think, state failure to plan ahead and make provision, just in case. 

One person who has thought long and hard about what functions the state should exercise, and how it ought to perform them, is Albert Weale, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Longstanding listeners to UCL Uncovering Politics may remember an episode we did with him a couple of years ago on his major book Modern Social Contract Theory, which explored the principles that should guide decisions on the role of the state. 

Albert is now building on that foundation to develop a new approach to thinking about the role of the state, which he calls the ‘precautionary state’ – one that moves from ‘just in time’ systems, to a ‘just in case’ approach, with ample provision of public goods.


Mentioned in this episode:

• Modern Social Contract Theory. Albert Weale. Oxford University Press.

This week we’re focusing on a new study of the impact of war upon rates of infant mortality. The study is by Rod Abouharb, Associate Professor of International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Abouharb, M.R. 'War and infant mortality rates.' Journal of Human Rights.

This week Alan Renwick is joined by Meg Russell, Director of the UCL Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science. Meg is the leading expert on the House of Lords and on second chambers more broadly, having conducted research on the subject for more than two decades.

Meg gives us a primer on the House of Lords and helps answer the questions: does it need reform? What is the best way of doing it?

Associated reading:

• The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Meg Russell
• The problem(s) of House of Lords appointments. Meg Russell

This week we are joined by one of our newest colleagues at the UCL Department of Political Science: Phillip Ayoub, Professor of International Relations.

Mentioned in this episode:

• When States Come Out. Europe's Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility. Cambridge University Press.

The government of the country where such human rights violations take place often comes under intense criticism and is pressured into creating processes of enquiry or passing legislation. And yet, often, little seems to change on the ground, and victims of human rights violations are rarely, if ever, are satisfied with the outcome. This begs the question: what is the point of these international calls for justice, if justice is rarely forthcoming?  

A new book dealing with these questions and the contradictions in the international human rights order was released this year. Its author is Dr Kate Cronin-Furman, Associate Professor in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Hypocrisy and Human Rights: Resisting Accountability for Mass Atrocities. Cornell University Press.

Boris Johnson’s premiership was dogged – and ultimately ended – by allegations that he was serially dishonest and tolerated bullying and other misconduct from his inner circle. Liz Truss sidelined independent sources of expertise and presided over catastrophic policy failure. And Rishi Sunak – though he entered Downing Street promising integrity, professionalism, and accountability – appointed a Home Secretary who only six days previously had left government for breaching the Ministerial Code, installed two other ministers against whom there are allegations of bullying, and (at the time of recording) yet to appoint an Ethics Adviser.

So how can we ensure high standards of behaviour from our politicians? Can we rely simply on political accountability, and the disciplining role of the ballot box? Or do advisers, regulators, and perhaps even judges need also to play a role?

This week our host Professor Alan Renwick is joined by two real experts:

Professor Robert Hazell, who founded the UCL Constitution Unit in 1995 and remained its Director until 2015. 

Sir Peter Riddell, Honorary Professor in the UCL Department of Political Science, ex- Political Editor of the Financial Times and Chief Political Commentator at the Times, Director and Chief Executive of the Institute for Government between 2012 and 2016, and Commissioner for Public Appointments from 2016 until 2021.

Related reading:

• Parliament’s watchdogs, Robert Hazell, Marcial Boo and Zachariah Pullar, UCL Constitution Unit report.
• Constitutional standards matter: the new Prime Minister must not forget that voters care about the honesty and integrity of their leaders, Peter Riddell, UCL Constitution Unit Blog.

One notable dimension of the war has been the intervention of major tech companies, including Facebook, Google, and SpaceX. Through multiple rapid responses they have successfully inhibited Russia’s information warfare strategy. These steps include a targeted digital blockade of Russia and ensuring Ukraine’s internet infrastructure is protected from online and offline attacks. 

A new report published by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change analyses what the tech companies have done, explores implications for power and democracy, and makes recommendations for how states and tech companies should change their approach.

This week we are joined by one of the authors, Dr Melanie Garson. Melanie is both Cyber Policy Lead and acting director of the Internet Policy Unit at theTony Blair Institute for Global Change and Associate Professor in Conflict Resolution & International Security in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode

• Melanie Garson and Pete Furlong. Disrupters and Defenders: What the Ukraine War Has Taught Us About the Power of Global Tech Companies

A COP taking place in Africa underlines many of the pressing issues that delegates will face. How can justice be achieved for those countries that are least responsible for CO2 levels, but often the most damaged by climate change? And how can such a large-scale event, bringing people together from around the world, be run without in itself creating more environmental damage? 

This week we are joined by Dr Simon Chin-Yee, Lecturer in International Development in the UCL Department of Political Science and Professor Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science in the UCL Department of Geography. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Jonathan Barnsley, Jhénelle A Williams and Simon Chin-Yee et al. Location location location: A carbon footprint calculator for transparent travel to COP27. 
• Jhénelle Williams, Simon Chin-Yee and Mark Maslin et al. Africa and Climate Justice at COP27 and beyond: impacts and solutions through an interdisciplinary lens.

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 Affairs
• Russel, M. and James, L., 'The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit'. Oxford University Press

A new book examining these discourses and their role in British economic and political debate, called Robots and Immigrants: Who Is Stealing Jobs?, was published last month by Bristol University Press. It’s by Dr Kostas Maronitis, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Leeds Trinity University, and Dr Denny Pencheva, Lecturer in European Politics and Public Policy at UCL.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Maronitis, K., & Pencheva, D. (2022). Robots and Immigrants: Who is stealing jobs? Bristol University Press.

To consider how public administration can be run well, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Marc Esteve, Professor of International Public Management in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Bel, G., M. Esteve., J.G. Garrido., & J.L. Zafra-Gómez., 'The costs of corporatization: Analysing the effects of forms of governance', Public Administration
• Lee, S., & M. Esteve., 'What drives the perceived legitimacy of collaborative governance? An experimental study', Public Management Review

To discuss these issues and more, we’re joined by a trio of top professors from the UCL Department of Political Science.

• Kristin Bakke is Professor of Political Science and International Relations. She heads our Conflict and Change research cluster, and, among other things, she is currently an investigator on a collaborative research project exploring geopolitical orientations in Russia’s near abroad.
• Lisa Vanhala is Professor of Political Science and works on the politics of climate change and the socio-legal study of human rights and equality. She is currently leading a major research project examining the politics of climate change loss and damage.
• Meg Russell is Professor of British and Comparative Politics and Director of the UCL Constitution Unit. She is leading the Unit’s current project on Constitutional Principles and the Health of Democracy. And her latest book, The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit, will be published by Oxford University Press in March next year.

Well some intriguing new research focuses on the role of blame. Political theorists have often been dubious of the merits of blame, seeing it as backward-looking and unduly negative. But Hannah McHugh, a PhD student in the UCL Department of Political Science, argues that blame is due for something of a rehabilitation. 

To discuss this proposition, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Hannah and Dr Avia Pasternak, Associate Professor in Political Theory in the Department.

Mentioned in this episode:

• H. McHugh., 'For a Backward-Looking Account of Political Responsibility: Rescuing the Role of Blame and Praise', Unpublished PhD chapter
• A. Pasternak., Responsible Citizens, Irresponsible States: Should Citizens Pay for Their States' Wrongdoings? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021)
• 'The Ethics of Violent Protest', UCL Uncovering Politics, May 2021

Yet the 2010 Equality Act was designed to protect disabled people from ‘discrimination or disadvantage’ in work by placing a legal responsibility on employers to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to accommodate their disabled workers' needs. 

So why is this discrimination still occurring? Is the Equality Act still fit for purpose? And what can be done to improve the situation?

To discuss these questions and the launch of their new report, Uncovering Politics is joined by two members of the UCL Department of Political Science: Dr Sarabajaya Kumar, Lecturer in Voluntary Sector Policy and Leadership; and Dr Colin Provost, Associate Professor of Public Policy.

Mentioned in this episode:

• S. Kumar., & C. Provost., Ableism and the Labour Market (The Association of Disabled Professionals: 2022)

Some of the debates about economic policy relate to questions of fundamental values: how much weight should we place, for example, on the size of the cake or on its distribution?

But other debates focus on questions of fact. Would lowering taxes today fuel inflation? Did austerity a decade ago protect the public finances by bringing spending closer to tax receipts, or harm them by shrinking the economy and thereby diminishing the tax take?

So, if fundamental questions at the heart of politics are, at least in principle, answerable by experts, that raises the question of what the relationship between elected politicians and expert economists should be. The Bank of England was given independent control over monetary policy 25 years ago. So should other areas of economic policy get similar technocratic treatment? Or does political control matter?

To discuss these issues, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Anna Killick, Research Fellow in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• A. Killick., Politicians and Economic Experts: The Limits of Technocracy (Newcastle: Agenda Publishing, 2022)

So, what role does public opinion play in autocracies? Can we accurately measure public opinion in such settings? And what does the evidence suggest about the state of public opinion in Russia today?

To answer these questions, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Katerina Tertytchnaya, Lecturer in Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

Mentioned this episode:

• N. Buckley, K.L. Marquardt, O.J. Reuter, & K. Tertytchnaya., 'Endogenous Popularity: How Perceptions of Support Affect the Popularity of Authoritarian Regimes', Varieties of Democracy Institute 
• N. Buckley, K.L. Marquardt, O.J. Reuter, & K. Tertytchnaya., 'How popular is Putin, really?', Washington Post

The publication is a book called Out of the Ordinary: How Everyday Life Inspired a Nation and How It Can Again. This book examines the political thought of a group of writers and artists in mid-20th-century Britain, centred around Dylan Thomas, George Orwell, and J.B. Priestley. Their ideas, it argues, offer a vision for how to overcome the polarisation and alienation of our politics today.

The institution is the UCL Policy Lab, which was launched earlier this week, and which seeks to bring together UCL’s top political scientists and economists with policymakers and others in order, we hope, to foster positive change.

Professor Marc Stears, the author of Out of the Ordinary and the inaugural Director of the UCL Policy Lab, joins Uncovering Politics this week.

Mentioned this week:

• M. Stears., Out of the Ordinary: How Everyday Life Inspired a Nation and How It Can Again (London: Belknap Press, 2021)
• The UCL Policy Lab

And displacement also has profound effects: on the people involved most directly; but also on the dynamics of conflict and of politics more broadly. 

To discuss population displacement, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by two students from the Department of Political Science: Sigrid Weber and Pasan Jayasinghe. Sigrid and Pasan are currently researching population displacement for their PhDs, in Iraq and Sri Lanka respectively.

Mentioned in this episode:

• S. Weber., 'Controlling a Moving World: Territorial Control, Displacement and the Spread of Civilian Targeting in Iraq', Unpublished PhD chapter
• P. Jayasinghe., 'A History of Resettlement and Electoral Administration in Sri Lanka', Unpublished PhD chapter

Students of politics are therefore conducting a wealth of research to understand what’s happening and what could be done better. But is that research actually doing any good? Is it contributing to better outcomes?

To explore this topic, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Fergus Green, Lecturer in Political Theory and Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• F. Green., & I. Robeyns., 'On the Merits and Limits of Nationalising the Fossil Fuel Industry', Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements
• F. Green., & E. Brandstedt., 'Engaged Climate Ethics', The Journal of Political Philosophy
• Fergus and Ingrid will be speaking about their paper tonight (Thursday 19 May), at Foyles on Charing Cross Road, London. You can get a free ticket to this event here.

So can power-sharing be restored? If so, how? And how might Northern Ireland move beyond repeated collapses of devolved government and find a more stable political footing? 

To explore these questions, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Alan Whysall, Honorary Senior Research Associate at the UCL Constitution Unit, and by Dr Etain Tannam, Associate Professor of International Peace Studies at Trinity College Dublin. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• A. Whysall., 'Northern Ireland's Political Future - Challenges After the Assembly Elections: A Discussion Paper', Constitution Unit
• A. Whysall., 'Northern Ireland's political future: challenges after the Assembly elections', Constitution Unit Blog
• C.J. Kelly., & E. Tannam., 'The Belfast/Good Friday agreement's three strands have not outlived their usefulness', Constitution Unit Blog

One long-standing idea is that some electoral systems may be better than others in enabling fairer representation. A new article co-authored by Dr Eleanor Woodhouse, Lecturer in Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science, explores this idea.

Mentioned in this episode:

• P. Profeta., & E. Woodhouse., 'Electoral Rules, Women's Representation and the Qualification of Politicians', Comparative Political Studies

Democracies are famously short-termist. Politicians who want to be re-elected don’t like imposing short-term costs on voters.

So: can we design democracies better to foster longer time horizons? 

To answer this question, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Jared Finnegan, Lecturer in Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Jared J. Finnegan., 'Institutions, Climate Change, and the Foundations of Long-Term Policymaking', Comparative Political Studies

So what explains variation in institutional secularism? Why did some state secularize centuries ago, while others underwent a secular shift more recently, and yet others remain religious to this day?

This is one of the key questions about political development, but it has gone relatively under-studied.

A new book, however, changes that. Called The Origins of Secular Institutions, it takes a sweeping view of political development across half a millennium and several continents. It combines statistical analysis with exploration of deep historical narratives. And it tells a new story about how the development of printing, the extent of censorship, and the timing of the emergence of secular movements have shaped the nature of politics around the world today.

We are delighted to be joined by the author of this book, Dr Zeynep Bulutgil, who is Associate Professor in International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• The Origins of Secular Institutions: Ideas, Timing, and Organization (Oxford University Press)

Courage can take many forms. So we ask what exactly it is, and what roles it can play – in times of conflict and in the context of peaceful democracy.

But first, we’ll focus in on one kind of clearly courageous action in politics – the action of local peace communities in conflict-ridden societies. We’ll consider what these local peace communities are, where they can be found, and when they succeed.

To explore courage and peace communities, we are joined by two PhD students here in the UCL Department of Political Science. 

• Dušan Rebolj studies political theory and is a member of the Political Theory research cluster. His dissertation project applies the tools of political theory to the topic of political – especially democratic – courage.
• Jennifer Hodge is a student of international relations who belongs to the Conflict and Change research cluster. She has created a new dataset on peace movements around the world and is using it to analyse their dynamics.

‘British compassion’ – the rapporteur said – ‘has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited and often callous approach apparently designed to impose a rigid order on the lives of those least capable of coping, and elevate the goal of enforcing blind compliance over a genuine concern to improve the well-being of those at the lowest economic levels of British society.’

In his book, Tom argues that, over the past 30 years, the UK’s welfare policies – meaning policies that provide relief from unemployment, poverty, and disability – have shifted from relative generosity to sometimes extreme meanness. He analyses why the change has occurred, arguing that much of the responsibility lies in the discourse of politicians and the media – most particularly, the choices about such discourse made by the Labour Party under Tony Blair in the 1990s.

The book combines cutting-edge political science, careful historical reconstruction and, in its final pages, an exploration of the options for better welfare policies in the future. It’s rich in meticulous research. But it is also passionate and committed, issuing a rallying cry to politicians – especially those on the left – to do better. 

And Tom’s book is our subject on this episode of UCL Uncovering Politics. We are joined by the author himself. Dr Tom O’Grady is Associate Professor in Quantitative Political Science at the UCL Department of Political Science. 

And we are delighted to say that we’re also joined by Garry Lemon, Director of Policy, External Affairs, and Research at the Trussell Trust, which supports over 1,200 food banks – helping people facing poverty across the UK.

Mentioned in this episode 

• The Transformation of British Welfare Policy, Politics, Discourse, and Public Opinion.

The evidence from must countries is that social trust has been falling in recent decades. But the countries of Scandinavia have bucked that trend. Indeed, in Denmark, the survey evidence suggests that social trust has risen since 1979 by 30 percentage points.

So what’s going on? What factors shape social trust? What can policymakers do to promote social trust? And has Covid shifted any of the long-term trends?

Host Professor Alan Renwick is joined by Professor Peter Thisted Dinesen, Professor of Political Science in the Departments of Political Science of both UCL and the University of Copenhagen. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Danish Exceptionalism: Explaining the Unique Increase in Social Trust Over the Past 30 Years
• Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: Evidence from the Micro-Context

But what about Argentine perspectives on the war? Why did the then Argentine government invade the islands? How was the conflict perceived in Argentina at the time, and how is it seen today? In understanding the thinking of Argentina’s rulers in 1982, can we gain insights into the calculations of authoritarian leaders who might be contemplating military action today – not least, of course, President Vladimir Putin of Russia?

Host Professor Jennifer Hudson is joined by Dr Luis Schenoni, Lecturer in International Relations. His research explores the determinants of international conflict and its effects on the dynamics of state formation, particularly in Latin America. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• Was the Malvinas/Falklands a Diversionary War? A Prospect-Theory Reinterpretation of Argentina’s Decline

These and many other questions are explored by a new centre within the UCL Department of Political Science called the UCL Centre for the Pedagogy of Politics. And we are delighted to be joined by two of its founders and Co-Directors in this episode.

• Dr Cathy Elliott is Associate Professor (Teaching) in Qualitative Methods and the Politics of Nature in the UCL Department of Political Science, as well as our Graduate Tutor.
• And Dr J-P Salter is Lecturer (Teaching) in Public Policy – again, in the UCL Department of Political Science – and also our Deputy Director of Education

Mentioned in this episode:

• Poverty at the UCL Art Museum: Situated Learning in a World of Images
• UCL Centre for the Pedagogy of Politics twitter account

Our colleague Dr Dan Honig, who is Associate Professor of Public Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science, argues that we have tended to get the balance wrong, with too much top-down control and not enough freedom on the ground. In two books – one of them published in 2018 by Oxford University Press and the other on its way – Dan sets out the case for a new approach.

And his work is making waves not just in academia. At the end of 2021 he was announced by Apolitical as one of its hundred most influential academics in government in the world. 

Mentioned in this article:

• Navigation by Judgment. Why and When Top-Down Management of Foreign Aid Doesn't Work
• Dr Dan Honig is named as one of 100 most influential academics in government by Apolitical

But what does it actually mean to take offence? How does feeling offended fit in alongside all the other emotions that our social interactions might invoke, such as anger, indignation, or contempt? Is taking offence really such a bad thing – or might it, at least in some circumstances, actually have positive value?

Well the person who has thought about such questions more deeply than anyone else is Dr Emily McTernan, Associate Professor in Political Theory in the UCL Department of Political Science. Emily is currently finishing a book to be published by Oxford University Press called On Taking Offence, and last year a version of the first chapter was published in article form in one of the top political philosophy journals.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Taking offense: An emotion reconsidered
• Why taking offence is good: small acts of resistance

Ethnic and other forms of communal voting are found in many parts of the world – think, for example, of very different voting patterns between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. But ethnic voting is often thought particularly to be a feature of politics in many African countries.

And such voting is also often seen as rather problematic for healthy democracy, because it can shield those in power from accountability if they govern poorly.

Well a new study published last year sheds fresh light on ethnic voting in Africa. It focuses particularly on the fact that increasingly many marriages in many African countries now cross ethnic lines. And it explores the impact of such marriages on voting. One of its authors is Dr Adam Harris, Associate Professor in Development Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science and an expert on the politics of sub-Saharan Africa and he joins us for this episode.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Electoral Preferences Among Multiethnic Voters in Africa

But controversies over government contracting are far from new. Debates about the merits – or otherwise – of the contracting out of public services and of public–private partnerships have been running for decades. And scandals over nepotism and revolving doors between the public and private sectors have been familiar for a lot longer than that. On the other hand, of course, many would say that close cooperation between governments and private sector suppliers has brought innumerable benefits.

We are joined today by Dr Eleanor Woodhouse who is a Lecturer in Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science and an expert in, among other things, public–private partnerships. In 2021, she published (with colleagues) a book with Cambridge University Press, called Partnership Communities: Public–Private Partnerships and Non-Market Infrastructure Development Around the World.

We are also joined by Alice Moore who is a PhD student in the UCL Department of Political Science. Her research investigates the role of trust and relationships in the delivery of outsourced public services and the effects on competition for public contracts and on the quality of the services provided. She’s also a Research Officer at the Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation at the London School of Economics.

In a democracy, we expect policymakers to be responsive to public opinion in answering such questions. But what do the public actually want? Indeed, to what extent do most of us even have meaningful preferences that take account of unavoidable trade-offs between different priorities?

Such questions have long challenged political scientists. But a new paper just published by three colleagues here in the UCL Department of Political Science offers a new approach to measuring such preferences, and some intriguing answers on what people want.

Those colleagues are Lucy Barnes, Jack Blumenau, and Ben Lauderdale. And we are delighted to be joined by Dr Lucy Barnes, Associate Professor in Comparative Politics and our Deputy Head of Department, and Ben Lauderdale, Professor of Political Science and Head of Department in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode: Measuring Attitudes toward Public Spending Using a Multivariate Tax Summary Experiment

Online Public Shaming (OPS) is a form of norm enforcement that involves collectively imposing reputational costs on a person for having a certain kind of moral character. OPS actions aim to disqualify her from public discussion and certain normal human relations. In the article, the authors argue that this constitutes an informal collective punishment that it is presumptively wrong to impose (or seek to impose) on others. OPS functions as a form of ostracism that fails to show equal basic respect to its targets. Additionally, in seeking to mobilise unconstrained collective power with potentially serious punitive consequences, OPS is incompatible with due process values.

In this episode, host Professor Jennifer Hudson is joined by Saladin, Associate Professor of Human Rights and Political Theory here in the Department of Political Science to explore online public shaming, its consequences, the ethics, and more.

In many ways, the 1998 Agreement is a model peace settlement. Power-sharing government sputters, but survives. Everyday lives have been transformed. Violence between the communities has almost ended. Yet many legacies of the past live on. Today, we are focusing on one of those – namely, violence within communities, and, in particular, punishment attacks meted out by paramilitary groups against people whom they accuse of criminal or anti-social behaviour.

What explains the persistence of such attacks? And does that carry lessons for peace-building processes elsewhere? Two colleagues at the Department have just published a study exploring just these questions and they join us for this episode...

Kristin Bakke is Professor of Political Science and International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science and leads our Conflict and Change research cluster. She is also affiliated with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo. And she will be a familiar voice to regular podcast listeners. Kit Rickard, meanwhile, is a PhD student in the department, as well as a Research Associate and Teaching Assistant and again a member of the Conflict and Change research cluster. He is just about to submit his doctoral thesis on how external states affect civil wars.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Legacies of Wartime Order: Punishment Attacks and Social Control in Northern Ireland

We have three leading experts on these matters here at UCL, and they join me now. 

• Jared Finnegan is Lecturer in Public Policy. Before joining UCL he was a Postdoctoral Fellow at UC Berkeley and Princeton University. His research investigates how governments, voters, and business understand and address long-term societal challenges, particularly climate change
• Fergus Green is Lecturer in Political Theory and Public Policy. His research normative analysis of public policy and on processes of political change, especially concerning climate change and decarbonisation.
• Lisa Vanhala is Professor of Political Science and the Principal Investigator of the ERC funded Climate Change Loss and Damage research project.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen argues that her former employer persistently puts profit above prevention of harm. Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg himself argues that greater regulation of internet companies is needed – that rules for what is and isn’t allowed should be made through democratic means. And the UK – among other countries – is in the process of preparing legislation with just that goal.

So what exactly are the problems that the current wild west of the worldwide web gives rise to? What principles should guide any new legislation? And where do those principles take us in terms of concrete policy?

In this episode we are joined by two leading experts on these matters here at UCL. Dr Jeff Howard is Associate Professor of Political Theory in the UCL Department of Political Science. Regular listeners to the podcast will already be familiar with his work on regulating dangerous political speech. He is currently writing a book on the ethical limits of free speech. And he was recently awarded a highly prestigious UK Research & Innovation Future Leaders Fellowship to lead a major new multidisciplinary project on the governance of online speech. Dr Melanie Garson is Lecturer in International Conflict Resolution & International Security in the UCL Department of Political Science. She is also the Internet Policy Lead for Europe, Israel, and the Middle East in the Technology and Public Policy Department of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, where she focuses on cybersecurity policy as well as the intersection of technology and foreign policy.

Analysis of what politicians say – and, indeed, of what others say, but we’re focusing today on politicians – is a tool that many political scientists use to explore a whole range of different aspects of politics. Many approaches are used in doing so. And these include increasingly sophisticated techniques for analysing vast bodies of speech systematically. 

We’re showcasing the work of some of our PhD students here on the podcast at the moment and this week our host Professor Alan Renwick welcomes Lotte Hargrave, who is looking at whether female and male MPs speak differently from each other and and Markus Kollberg, who is examining how parliamentarians use populist rhetoric.

Among academics, campaigners, environmentalists and policymakers, COP26 is seen as a critical event: it's the moment at which countries must set out more ambitious goals for climate action five years on from the Paris Agreement. It also comes on the back of even more severe extreme weather events, evidence of rising global CO2 emissions, and continued biodiversity loss.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries committed to bring forward national plans setting out how much they would reduce their emissions - known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or ‘NDCs’. They agreed that every five years they would come back with an updated plan that would reflect their highest possible ambition at that time. 

For this episode, host Professor Jennifer Hudson is joined by Lisa Vanhala, Professor of Political Science and the Principal Investigator of the ERC funded Climate Change Loss and Damage research project, Dr Elisa Calliari, Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Political Science, and Anjelica Johannson, PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Climate Change Loss and Damage ERC project

• Think of hunger striking suffragettes in early-twentieth-century Britain.
• Think of the dirty protest among republican prisoners in Belfast in the late 1970s, and then the hunger strikes there in 1981.
• Indeed, just two weeks ago on this podcast we were discussing Alex Navalny, Russian opposition leader, who remains influential despite being behind bars.
• Prison protests may be invisible to the outside world, but they can nevertheless resonate widely.

And in this episode, we're exploring another case – the case of Palestinian prisoners – in particular, of Palestinians who are in prison in jails in Israel. We are joined by Dr Julie Norman, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science, whose book, The Palestinian Prisoners Movement: Disobedience and Resistance, came out over the summer, and Dr Carl Gibson, Assistant Professor in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham. 

Mentioned in this episode:

• IAS Book Launch: The Palestinian Prisoners Movement by Julie M. Norman. 25th October 17.30-18.30
• The Palestinian Prisoners Movement: Disobedience and Resistance
• Understanding Nonviolence. 
• The Second Palestinian Intifada

This paper focusses on some important questions around covid. How do emotions and particularly anxiety, shape or influence voters preferences? How does anxiety resulting from this unforeseen external force, covid, or manufactured for political gain, influence democratic politics and elections? Are voters inherently risk averse during periods of uncertainty? And how did covid induce a flight to safety among voters?

Joining host Professor Jennifer Hudson is Dan Honig, Associate Professor of Public Policy here at the Department of Political Science who has been exploring all of these questions and more.

So who is Alexei Navalny? What does his current predicament say about the state of Russian politics? And what chance is there that he – or anyone else – might be able to lead Russia towards a more democratic future?

Our host Professor Alan Renwick is joined by one of the new book’s authors Dr Ben Noble, Associate Professor in Russian Politics at UCL’s School of Slavonic and East European Studies, and Dr Katerina Tertychnaya, Lecturer in Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science and expert on Russian politics, who is now leading a major research project on ‘Non-Violent Repression in Electoral Autocracies’.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Navalny: Putin's Nemesis, Russia's Future? Jan Matti Dollbaum, Morvan Lallouet, and Ben Noble
  • Hurst publishers: use the code NAVALNY25 for 25% discount.
  • For those buying the in United States: use the code ADISTA5 for 30% discount.
  • Amazon

That question is particularly salient here in the UK just at the moment. As we have discussed on several episodes of this podcast over the year, the current government under Boris Johnson has been widely criticized for undermining Britain’s longstanding tradition of civil service neutrality by pushing some senior officials out and bringing in others it thinks better attuned to its agenda. Government ministers counter, however, that a nominally neutral civil service in fact betrays the prejudices of the establishment, and that a democratically elected government should not be fettered by unelected bureaucrats.

Similar questions arise in countries around the world. Indeed, by guest today has conducted research in dozens of countries aimed at answering these and related questions. That guest is Christian Schuster, who is Professor of Public Management here in the UCL Department of Political Science.

Our guest today has been exploring these and many other related questions for decades. Adam Swift is Professor of Political Theory here in the UCL Department of Political Science. His books and papers include

• Educational Goods: Values, Evidence and Decision-Making, written with Harry Brighouse, Helen F. Ladd, and Susanna Loeb
• Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships, with Harry Brighouse
• How Not To Be A Hypocrite: School Choice for the Morally Perplexed Parent.
• How to Regulate Faith Schools
• How Not to Defend Private Schools
• Pandemic as Political Theory

He starts with the basic principles of political theory. And from these he draws out key implications for policy-makers and for parents.

In this episode we’re going to focus on Northern Ireland. If there were a referendum on the constitutional question there, how would it best be designed and conducted? Who would get to vote? What would the question on the ballot paper be? Would there need to be a referendum in the Republic of Ireland as well? Who would work out designs for a united Ireland? Would they do so before a referendum, or only afterwards, in the event that the vote went in favour of unification?

It turns out that many of these questions haven’t previously been answered. Indeed, many haven’t been thought about very much. A landmark agreement was reached in 1998 between the British and Irish governments and most of the political parties in Northern Ireland – an agreement known variously as either the Belfast Agreement or the Good Friday Agreement. That brought an end to a quarter century of violent conflict in Northern Ireland and led to the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the current arrangements for power-sharing government. It also included some provisions for a possible future referendum. But it left many questions unanswered.

Well now a Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland has published a major report that seeks to fill that gap. Comprising twelve academics from six universities, including UCL, the group – which is impartial as to whether there should be a referendum or what the outcome should be if there is one – has looked into all the questions I just raised, and many more. It finds that referendums on this topic may be required in the coming years, but would carry significant risks. Conducting them well would be vitally important. And careful thought is needed as to what that would mean. 

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Katy Hayward 

Dr David Kenny 

Dr Etain Tannam

Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland (report)

The UK, famously, has no such capital C Constitution – no codified rulebook. And the courts here in the UK can’t (at least formally) strike down laws on the basis that they contravene higher law.

So what kind of constitution do we have? Well, it’s often said that, in contrast to the legal constitutions found in many other countries, the UK has a political constitution – a constitution whose norms are enforced in the realm of politics rather than in the realm of law.

But many think that the UK’s political constitution is today under threat, with potentially serious consequences for the polity’s ability to serve all those who live within it.

So today we ask the question, ‘Does the UK still have a political constitution?’ And to do so, we’re joined by one of the leading experts on constitutional theory, Professor Richard Bellamy. Richard, who is Professor of Political Science here in the UCL Department of Political Science, is the author of ten monographs – the most relevant of which to our conversation today is Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy, published by Cambridge University Press.

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Richard Bellamy

So can such violent protests ever be justified? Much public and political opinion says no. Here in the UK, even last year’s toppling of the inanimate statue of a seventeenth-century slave trader was condemned across much of the political spectrum.

But one of our colleagues here at the UCL Department of Political Science argues differently. Dr Avia Pasternak, who is Associate Professor in Political Theory here, argues that, sometimes, violent protests are morally justified.

Political Rioting: A Moral Assessment

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Avia Pasternak

In particular, her new study – recently published in the Journal of Politics and co-authored with Robert Blair from Brown University and Christopher Blattman from the University of Chicago – looks at ways of resolving land disputes in Liberia. It’s fair to say that the results are mixed. And they help us think both about the kinds of policy mechanisms that might be effective—both in Liberia and elsewhere—and about how we can measure that effectiveness so that we can seek to identify the best policies for the future.

Article: Engineering Informal Institutions: Long-Run Impacts of Alternative Dispute Resolution on Violence and Property Rights in Liberia

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Alexandra Hartman

Has Biden been sleepy Joe? Has he pursued the path of moderation and coalition-building that has characterized so much of his long career? Or has he turned out much more of a radical than many expected? What role is being performed by Vice President Harris? How, meanwhile, have Republicans responded to their defeat? And just want is Donald Trump up to now that he is out of office and banned from Twitter?

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson

Dr Thomas Gift

Dr Colin Provost

Dr Julie Norman

Questions such as these have prompted a new research project recently launched by UCL’s Constitution Unit, called Democracy in the UK after Brexit. Led by Dr Alan Renwick, working alongside Professors Meg Russell and Ben Lauderdale, the project will explore how people in the UK conceive of democracy and what kinds of democratic arrangement they prefer. 

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson

Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Albert Weale

Professor Meg Russell

So what would a just response to the climate challenge look like? How close have past rounds of negotiation come to that? And how are things looking for the COP26 climate summit taking place in Glasgow in November?

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Simon Chin-Yee 

Dr Lauren Gifford 

Dr Jessica Omukuti 

In reality, in most states, the executive in fact plays a much bigger role than that. It not only executes the will of the legislature, but also shapes the policy agenda, develops legislative proposals, and conducts a great deal of foreign policy. 

And on some matters the executive can act without the consent of the legislature – even, in some cases, against its explicit opposition. Here in the UK, such powers are called prerogative powers, and they have been pretty controversial in recent years – relating, for example, to the government’s ability to suspend sittings of parliament. And they raised eyebrows in the United States too, when, on his first day in office, President Biden reversed a whole series of Trump-era policies just by signing a set of executive orders.

So what such prerogative powers exist? How do they work? And, in the context of modern democracy, should they be subject to greater constraints?

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Robert Hazell

How has the relationship between business and the EU evolved over time? How does it vary from sector to sector? And what does it all mean for policy outcomes? A new book sheds much fresh light. Called Business Lobbying in the European Union, the book is co-authored by UCL’s very own David Coen, along with Alexander Katsaitis from the London School of Economics and Matia Vannoni from King's College London. 

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor David Coen

Business Lobbying in the European Union

So what are the global governance structures through which the world is attempting to address this challenge? Are they delivering, or do they need reform? 

Well three of the leading experts on these questions – David Coen, Julia Kreienkamp, and Tom Pegram – are based at the UCL Department of Political Science and have just written a book on the subject. It’s called Global Climate Governance and it’s published now by Cambridge University Press. And two of those authors join my now to discuss the findings.

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson
Julia Kreienkamp
Dr Tom Pegram

Global Climate Governance
Policy brief 

So how do the countries that refugees and asylum-seekers flee to respond? And what determines the degree to which these countries adopt an open or a closed approach?

Well two of our colleagues here in the UCL Department of Political Science are seeking answers to such questions in their research. 

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson

Dr Anna Oltman 

Dr Judith Spirig 

It’s been around for several decades, but now one of our colleagues here at UCL has applied it to a setting that we might not think its natural home: the world of punishment. Dr Helen Brown Coverdale argues that looking at our practices of punishment through the lens of care gives us a new and valuable perspective on them.

So what would it mean to approach punishment through an ethic of care? And what counterarguments might there be to taking such an approach?

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Helen Brown Coverdale 

Caring and the Prison in Philosophy, Policy and Practice: Under Lock and Key

That raises big questions about how speech online should be regulated. And if it should be regulated more, who should set and enforce the rules: the state, or the social media companies themselves?

Such events were cast in yet starker relief by events earlier this month in the United States. Is it right that Donald Trump was banned from Twitter? And that Parler – the alternative to Twitter that became popular on the far right – has been squeezed from the internet by service providers?

We explore all of this and more with Dr Jeffrey Howard, Associate Professor of Political Theory, New Generation Thinker, and Leverhulme Trust Research fellow.

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Jeffrey Howard

Jeff’s 2019 article ‘Dangerous Speech’ has been awarded the Fred Berger Memorial Prize by the American Philosophical Association for the best article published on the philosophy of law in the last two years.

So what are the repercussions of the last few weeks – and indeed the last four years – likely to be? And what will the presidency of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris bring?

We explored such questions in November when the votes were still being counted. But so much has happened since then that we thought, in this inauguration week, we should reconvene our US politics expert panel and scan the horizon once again.

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson

Dr Colin Provost

Dr Julie Norman

Dr Thomas Gift

What is the role of contentious politics in the political process as a whole? And how has the pandemic changed contentious politics around the world? Has the heightening of inequalities increased people’s willingness to protest? Or have social distancing measured stifled popular voice? Indeed, have those in power in some countries used the pandemic as a pretext for suppressing free speech and other civil liberties?

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Kristin M Bakke

Dr Katerina Tertytchnaya

Dr Nils Metternich

Despite this, there’s a whole lot of other stuff that the EU is also up to. It has just agreed its budget for the next few years. It is responding to the challenge of Covid-19 and seeking to address the global climate emergency. It’s navigating its way through a rapidly changing world, with China on the rise and the United States about to reset its course under President Biden. It faces internal challenges too, not least from the erosion of democracy and the rule of law in – especially – Hungary and Poland. Therefore, in this episode we take a good hard look at the European Union.

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Valentina Amuso

Dr Chris Wratil

Dr Nick Wright

That is perhaps the most fundamental question of politics, and it’s a question that is addressed in a magisterial new book published earlier this year by our colleague here in the UCL Department of Political Science, Professor Albert Weale. The book is called Modern Social Contract Theory and across over 400 pages it traces the development of and variants in what has become the dominant approach in contemporary political theory to answering the question of how to make collective decisions. And that approach—the clue is in the title!—is called social contract theory.

Albert joins Alan in this episode to discuss what social contract theory is, what it implies for collective decision-making, and how the theory continues to develop today.

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Albert Weale

Modern Social Contract Theory

But what does it mean to decolonise universities? Why is doing so said to be necessary? What are the counterarguments, and what should we make of them? And what does decolonising universities mean in practice.

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson

Dr Cathy Elliott

Subhadra Das

Caroline Bressey

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson

Dr Kate Cronin-Furman

‘The things they carry: Victims’ documentation of forced disappearance in Colombia and Sri Lanka’

But is more information for voters always unambiguously a good thing? Recent research by one of our colleagues suggests not. That research is by Dr Inken von Borzyskowski, who is Lecturer in Global Policy and International Relations here at UCL, working with Patrick Kuhn from Durham University. Inken and Patrick find that, in places where electoral violence is a real possibility, having more information may actually have some serious negative side effects. And their analysis also offers a cautionary tale for the methods of political research.

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Inken von Borzyskowski

Dr Adam Harris

Host: Professor Jennifer Hudson

Dr Colin Provost

Dr Julie Norman

Dr Thomas Gift

Questions such as these were cast into sharp light by the vote for Brexit in 2016. Did leavers and remainers have different understandings of the economy and was this what drove their decision?

A fascinating new study by Dr Anna Killick seeks to answer such queries and she joins us to look at how people view the economy.

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Anna Killick

Anna's book ‘Rigged: understanding of "the economy" in Brexit Britain’ is available through Manchester University Press for those who want to delve deeper into her research of the divisions in how people on low and high incomes viewed the economy.

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Robert Hazell

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Dr Lucy Barnes

Host: Dr Alan Renwick

Professor Meg Russell

Professor Richard Bellamy

Professor Jeff King