[SCS0031]

Written evidence submitted by Alan Renwick, Professor of Democratic Politics and Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit, University College London

Speaker's Conference on the Security of Candidates, MPs and Elections

Introduction

1.       The UCL Constitution Unit conducts timely, rigorous, independent research into constitutional change and the reform of political institutions. Its work informs policy-makers in the UK and around the world.

2.       This evidence draws on our recent research examining public attitudes to democracy in the UK and considering how to tackle harmful patterns of political discourse.

The importance of the tenor of political discourse

3.       The purpose of this evidence submission is to urge the Conference to consider how the coarse and unforgiving nature of much of our political discourse may contribute to an environment in which outright abusive, threatening, and intimidatory behaviour is increasingly normalised. The submission therefore does not seek to answer questions about how to respond to specific threats: other providers of evidence will be better placed to do that. Rather, it highlights the importance of the broader context.

4.       The nature of the general political discourse cannot excuse abusive, threatening, or intimidatory behaviour. Such behaviour is unacceptable and damaging to democracy, and should be dealt with firmly. Nevertheless, political leaders – especially senior ministers, but also including all MPs and others with prominent voices in politics – have important responsibilities in setting the tone of political debate.

The state of political discourse

5.       The most prominent regular exchange in British politics takes place during Prime Minister’s Questions. In the week preceding this evidence submission, the Leader of the Opposition accused the government of ‘immoral surrender’, asked whether one minister’s actions might be explained by his being ‘funded by billionaire eco-zealots’, and suggested that ‘the Prime Minister does not know what is going on’. In response, the Prime Minister suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was ‘not fit to be Prime Minister’,  that she ‘does not even want to know what is going on’, and that ‘all she can do is student politics, and playing party politics’.[1] That exchange was entirely normal for PMQs.

6.       It is common to defend such discourse as part of the rough and tumble of ‘robust’ political debate. Yet this is the most high-profile moment in the regular political calendar, and it gives the impression that politics is a game of hurling insults. That may encourage in others a sense that it is acceptable for them to hurl insults – and worse – as well.

7.       In oral evidence to an Administration Committee inquiry in June 2023, the Constitution Unit’s Director, Professor Meg Russell, highlighted instances in which senior politicians had specifically talked down the institution of parliament. For example, she cited comments from former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox that parliament in 2019 was ‘dead’ and had ‘no moral right to sit’, and from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson that ‘if parliament were a school Ofsted would be shutting it down’.[2] Such comments hardly encourage members of the public to view politics or politicians positively.

8.       It is well known that public trust in politicians is very low. Constitution Unit research shows dissatisfaction with the discourse of politics to be an important part of that. When asked in 2021 and 2022 about what characteristics it was most important for politicians to have, survey respondents ranked honesty and owning up to mistakes top; yet when asked about which of 24 different aspects of democracy were going better or worse in the UK at the time, respondents put ‘politicians being honest’ bottom.[3]

Factors shaping political discourse

9.       Politicians themselves carry important responsibilities for addressing these problems and upholding norms of decency in political speech. The Constitution Unit’s recently published guide to MPs’ constitutional role notes that what MPs say in parliament, the media, and elsewhere ‘is key to shaping how members of the public think and talk about politics’. It adds: ‘MPs’ centrality and visibility mean that they have very important responsibilities for maintaining the quality of our national political debate. This applies to their work both inside and outside parliament.’[4] These are vital points.

10.   Yet politicians often feel they are responding to the incentive structures they face: those who use hyperbolic negative language presumably believe that it works for gaining attention, driving their message home, and thereby delivering on the objectives that brought them into politics. Research evidence on whether that belief is correct is in fact mixed.[5] Still, mere exhortations to politicians to play fair may not achieve much on their own. The features of the underlying system that generate politicians’ incentive structures should also be considered. Those incentive structures are generated by what attracts attention, popularity, and votes (or by what causes unpopularity and reduces votes for opponents).

Ways of addressing underlying factors

11.   Given the Conference’s specific focus, this may not be the place for detailed examination of possible responses to this wider challenge. But it would be desirable at least to consider some options, so the following paragraphs briefly highlight several. None of these would transform political discourse overnight, but they might nudge it in healthier directions.

12.   As Professor Russell pointed out in her 2023 evidence to the Administration Committee, the parliamentary authorities could do more to ensure that information about the good work done in both chambers is available and that public understanding of parliament’s functions is as widespread as possible. She made recommendations relating to parliament’s website and comms activities, and on how to extend the excellent education work that parliament already does.[6] Such measures could help to make it more likely that voters see politicians working constructively together, not just shouting across the aisle.

13.   Hyperbolic language is effective in part because it is more likely to be noticed by people who are largely disengaged from politics. Many people say they are disengaged at least in part because they do not know much about politics: attempting to follow what is going on is therefore very effortful for them.[7] Citizenship education in schools has the potential to play an important role in addressing that knowledge gap. Such education should also encourage critical thinking and openness to other viewpoints – including openness to the idea that someone with a different view is not necessarily malign or dishonest. The current curriculum review in England provides a vital opportunity to consider how the education system can enable young people to be effective democratic citizens.

14.   Public service media outlets should likewise be encouraged to develop their roles in fostering understanding of democratic politics and in countering unhealthy political discourse. The principles underpinning the BBC and other public service providers therefore need to be supported. Those providers, meanwhile, must be rigorous in maintaining political impartiality, but stop short of being impartial between truth and falsehood or between democracy and non-democracy.

15.   Innovative ways of fostering more deliberative styles of public conversation around complex public policy challenges are increasingly being explored, notably in the form of citizens’ assemblies. Such assemblies – groups of citizens selected using lottery to reflect the wider population, who gather to reflect on an issue, hear evidence, and make recommendations – are not designed to supplant parliament’s role. That is because decisions must always be made by elected representatives who are accountable to voters. But extensive evidence now shows that citizens’ assemblies can encourage thoughtful discussion and appreciation of complex policy trade-offs. If used effectively by parliament and government (which would require great care), they could contribute to a toning down of rhetoric.[8]

7 February 2025