Advertise on podcast: UCL Uncovering Politics

In this episode, host Alan Renwick explores the principles of democracy and how political institutions might be organised to deliver more effectively on democratic values. Our guest is Claudia Landwehr, Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, who recently visited UCL to work on a book addressing these fundamental questions. Mentioned in this episode: Democracy for Real People: Institutional Design for Equal Deliberative Responsiveness by Claudia Landwehr and Armin Schäfer. Forthcoming.

In this episode of UCL Uncovering Politics, our new co-host Dr Julia de Romémont explores how elected policymakers approach decisions about public service delivery, and whether their preferences reflect the public interest or their own electoral incentives. Previous research suggests that financial pressures can encourage greater private-sector involvement, while policymakers are more likely to claim credit for services when the government’s role in delivery is clear. But what drives individual policymakers’ preferences when choosing between different delivery arrangements? Julia is joined by Dr Eleanor Woodhouse, Associate Professor in Public Policy in UCL’s Department of Political Science, to discuss a survey experiment with local policymakers in the United States. The study examines how different models of service delivery, public, private and public–private partnerships, shape policymakers’ expectations of service performance and their ability to claim credit. Mentioned in this episode: Policymakers' Preferences Over Public–Private Modes of Service Delivery and Credit-Claiming: Experimental Evidence, by Eleanor Woodhouse, Paolo Belardinelli and Nathan Lee.

In democratic countries, foreign policy is often assumed to be shaped, at least in part, by public preferences. But that raises an important question: do policymakers have an accurate understanding of public opinion? Research on domestic policy suggests that political elites can significantly misjudge what the public thinks, despite the abundance of polling and other sources of information available to them. But until recently, we have known much less about whether the same problem applies to foreign policy. In this episode, we explore new research examining both American public opinion on foreign policy and policymakers’ perceptions of that opinion. The findings offer new insights into the relationship between citizens and political elites — and into how misunderstandings about public preferences might shape foreign policy decisions. Joining us is Dr Jonathan Monten, Associate Professor in Political Science at the UCL Department of Political Science and co-author of the study. Mentioned in this episode: Kertzer JD, Busby J, Monten J, Tama J, Kafura C. Elite Misperceptions in Foreign Policy. British Journal of Political Science.

Six prime ministers, a Brexit referendum, and an (unlawful) prorogation of parliament — it has been an extraordinary decade to lead the UCL Constitution Unit. Meg Russell steps back from that role and joins host Emily McTernan to reflect on a career spanning nearly three decades, from advising Robin Cook as Leader of the House of Commons to shaping parliamentary reform from the outside. Along the way, they discuss what this turbulent period reveals about the fragility of British democracy, the erosion of constitutional norms, and who is ultimately responsible for protecting our political system. Mentioned in this episode: Meg Russell's valedictory lecture

Parading — when members of the unionist community march to commemorate historical events such as the 1690 Battle of the Boyne — is one of the most visible expressions of Northern Ireland's deep social divisions. But does it actually inflame tensions between communities? A new study examines parading as a "contentious ritual", using survey data, interviews, and participant observation to find out. The results offer fresh insight into identity, conflict, and inter-group relations in a divided society. Joining host Alan Renwick are three of the article's authors: Kristin Bakke, Kit Rickard, and Giovanni Hollenweger. Mentioned in this episode: Contentious Rituals and Intergroup Relations: Parading in Northern Ireland by Kit Rickard, Giovanni Hollenweger, Sigrid Weber, and Kristin M. Bakke, British Journal of Political Science.

Good policy depends on evidence, but the statistical methods behind the best research are complex and few policy-makers can master them in depth. So how do we equip people to engage critically with research without being trained statisticians? A new module on UCL's Masters programmes tackles exactly this, teaching students to think rigorously about what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from research - from measurement and causal inference to the gap between credibility and real-world meaningfulness. Host Alan Renwick is joined by the module's creator, Dr Julia de Romémont, Lecturer in Quantitative Research Methods and Political Science at the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode: 'Evidence and Policy' Module

Social media has a content problem. Some posts incite violence or hatred; others spread misinformation or promote self-harm. The instinctive response is removal, but is that always the right tool? A new paper argues that platforms should often demote rather than remove problematic content, reducing its visibility rather than taking it down entirely. Drawing on international human rights law, it sets out a framework for when demotion is justified, when removal goes too far, and what transparency obligations platforms owe their users. The argument has implications for everything from climate misinformation to eating disorder content to the regulation of use of social media by under 16s. Joining host Emily McTernan is Jeff Howard, Professor of Political Philosophy and Public Policy at the UCL Department of Political Science and the founding Director of the Digital Speech Lab. Mentioned in this episode: Remove or Reduce: Demoting Content Moderation and Human Rights by Jeff Howard and Beatriz Kira, published in Law and Philosophy. The Machine Stops: Should We All Quit Social Media? UCL Uncovering Politics S17E06 with Rob Simpson

Courts are supposed to treat like cases alike. But research consistently finds that judges' backgrounds and beliefs can influence their decisions. Most research focuses on courts where individual votes are public, but what about in systems where only a collective judgment is published? A new study uses innovative statistical analysis of Swiss court data to shed light on exactly this problem, with implications for how judicial institutions everywhere should be designed. Joining host Alan Renwick are two of the study's authors, both from the UCL Department of Political Science: Ben Lauderdale, Professor of Political Science, and Judith Spirig, Associate Professor of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode: Inferring Individual Preferences from Group Decisions: Judicial Preference Variation and Aggregation on Collegial Courts by Dominik Hangartner, Benjamin E. Lauderdale, and Judith Spirig.

Transparency is seen as a hallmark of democracy, yet some authoritarian states have real open government policies too. Why? New research suggests a striking answer: transparency may help non-democratic regimes maintain stability, by steering citizens towards official channels and away from protest. Joining host Alan Renwick is Dr Handi Li, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the UCL Department of Political Science, whose research tests this idea in China and finds clear supporting evidence Mentioned in this episode: Transparency for Authoritarian Stability: Open Government Information and Contention with Institutions in China by Handi Li, World Politics (forthcoming).

Most people see action on climate change as essential. But powerful lobbies continue to push the other way. Understanding what drives corporate opposition to climate policy therefore matters enormously. New research examines one underexplored factor: company ownership structures. Are publicly listed firms more likely to oppose climate action than privately held ones? Does it matter how concentrated a company's ownership is, or how short-term its investors' horizons are? And what are the implications for governments trying to advance climate policy? Joining host Alan Renwick to discuss the findings is Jared Finnegan, Lecturer in Public Policy at the UCL Department of Political Science and one of the study's co-authors. Mentioned in this episode: Fighting the Future: Short-Term Investors and Business Opposition to Climate Policy by Jared J. Finnegan and Jonas Meckling, British Journal of Political Science.

In parts of the Global South, political elites have framed LGBTQ rights as a foreign, colonial agenda. So should advocates abandon universal rights language in favour of arguments rooted in local traditions and anti-colonial sentiment? A new study tests exactly this question using survey evidence from Zimbabwe — and finds clear support for the local approach. Host Alan Renwick is joined by the study's authors, Phillip Ayoub and Adam Harris, both Professors in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode: Rooting Equality: Testing the Effectiveness of Activist Frames Combating Homophobia in Zimbabwe by Phillip M. Ayoub and Adam S. Harris, British Journal of Political Science.

By 2030, more than a million people are expected to be living with dementia in the UK. It is among the most feared conditions — and yet a new book challenges the dominant tragedy narrative surrounding it, proposing instead a vision of social justice and equality for those living with the condition. What does it mean to treat someone with dementia as a social equal? How should care be reformed to better secure that equality? And what are the practical changes — in policy and in everyday life — that could make a real difference? Joining host Emily McTernan is Dr. Matilda Carter, Lecturer in Applied Ethics at the University of Leeds, to discuss her new book published by Cambridge University Press. Mentioned in this episode: Relating to People Living with Dementia as Equals: Towards Social Justice in Dementia Care by Matilda Carter (Cambridge University Press, 2025).

No woman has ever served as President of the United States. Only two women have ever been nominated as candidates for that office by one of the two main parties. So what is causing this persistent barrier, and how might it be overcome? 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.

Constitutional reform is a recurring theme in UK politics. Debates regularly surface about changing the electoral system, reforming the House of Lords, or redefining the role of the courts. These conversations often focus on the traditional institutions of the state: government, parliament and the judiciary. 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

Much contemporary debate centres on the respective roles of judges and politicians. Should constitutions empower courts to decide questions about human rights, or should such matters be settled by elected representatives? And should the core rules of democracy be shielded from manipulation by those in power? 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.