In this After Dark special, host Joshua Paisley speaks with Professor Steven Fielding, a political historian at the University of Nottingham, about the 2006 BBC drama The Amazing Mrs Pritchard. Written by Sally Wainwright (who would go on to create Happy Valley and Gentleman Jack), the six-part series imagined what would happen if an ordinary Yorkshire superstore manager won a landslide election and became Prime Minister—on a platform of moving Parliament to Bradford and asking the people what should go in the Queen's Speech.

The series aired in October 2006, just after Labour's 2005 victory on only 35% of the vote—when more people didn't vote at all than voted for Tony Blair. Professor Fielding explains how Ross Pritchard embodied the frustrations of that moment: the sense that left and right no longer meant anything, that Westminster was a bubble of middle-aged men speaking gobbledygook, and that politics could be simple if only someone honest would take charge. She promises never to lie, wins 54% of the vote, and forms a cabinet of women from all parties who somehow get along perfectly—a "benign feminist populist" who declares car-free Wednesdays and lets the people write government policy.

But as Fielding reveals, UKIP saw something else in Mrs Pritchard. They set up a fake BBC page claiming "we are the real Ros Pritchard"—recognising that her populism, however well-meaning, tapped into the same frustrations that would fuel Brexit, austerity anger, and Nigel Farage's rise. While The Thick of It offered no solutions beyond satire, at least Wainwright tried to imagine answers—even if they were naïve. The series ended on a cliffhanger about her husband's money laundering scandal, never to get its second season.

From Westminster bubbles to the danger of authenticity in an age of manufactured politicians, this episode asks whether we'd actually want the honest outsider we claim to crave—or whether Mrs Pritchard really was a feminist Donald Trump.

In this episode, host John Ault speaks with Chris Mullin, former Labour MP and author of A Very British Coup, about his 1982 novel that imagined what would happen if a radical socialist Prime Minister won a landslide—and the establishment decided to destroy him. Published when Tony Benn was in the ascendant and making the establishment nervous, Mullin created Harry Perkins: a Sheffield steel worker who wins power on promises to scrap nuclear weapons, leave NATO, and restore industries to public ownership.

The conversation explores the real-world inspirations behind the fiction—from Mountbatten's whispered coup talks against Harold Wilson to Cecil King's attempt to install a "businessman's government," and General Sir Walter Walker assembling a private army in the 1970s. Mullin reveals how American diplomats took him to lunch to discuss the "threat" of Michael Foot, how MI5 agents infiltrated CND (exactly as his novel predicted), and how the BBC continued vetting journalists in Room 101 even after being exposed.

When Channel 4 adapted the novel in 1988, Ray McAnally's brilliant portrayal made Harry Perkins briefly a cult figure—though the TV version ended with a car crash rather than Mullin's intended very British coup: no tanks in the streets, just gentlemen in clubs conspiring in Pall Mall. Mullin also discusses his sequel The Friends of Harry Perkins, his cameo as a vicar in the 2012 remake Secret State, and why today's Labour government is "no Harry Perkins"—trapped by tax pledges made to avoid falling into a Tory trap, running a country with a massive majority but only a third of the vote.

From fictional coups to real establishment conspiracies, this is the story of a novel that caught the zeitgeist and gave us a phrase that entered political vocabulary: "a very British coup."

In 1988, Channel 4 aired A Very British Coup, a political drama that imagined what would happen if a radical socialist Prime Minister won a landslide—and the establishment decided to destroy him. Adapted from Chris Mullin's novel, the series follows Harry Perkins, a working-class Labour leader who promises to scrap nuclear weapons, leave NATO, and restore industries to public ownership. But the intelligence services, civil service, press, and foreign allies conspire to bring him down.

In our forthcoming episode, we'll be joined by author Chris Mullin himself to discuss this BAFTA and Emmy-winning drama that remains one of the sharpest depictions of how unelected power can undermine democracy. What happens when the people vote for change and the system decides otherwise? Subscribe now so you don't miss it.

In this special episode, host Lily Russell-Jones explores one of the government's most controversial electoral reforms: lowering the voting age to 16. With Scotland and Wales already allowing younger voters in some elections, is this a positive step for democracy or a risky experiment?

Eddie Barnes from the John Smith Centre at Glasgow University shares polling that reveals young people themselves are divided—48% support getting the vote, but 32% disagree and 20% aren't sure. The most common word 16-year-olds use to describe politics? "Confusing." Two-thirds say they don't feel prepared by schools to vote, and three-quarters of those unlikely to vote cite not knowing enough about politics as their reason.

Psychologist Dr. Lynette Thompson explains the neuroscience: while 16-year-olds are cognitively capable of voting and there's little biological difference between 16 and 18, the adolescent brain's prefrontal cortex won't fully develop until the mid-20s. She distinguishes between "hot cognition" (impulsive decisions) and "cold cognition" (considered decisions like voting), but warns about social pressure, identity formation, and how 16-year-olds struggle more with fake news and are more influenced by peer pressure when forming political opinions.

Finally, 17-year-old Alex Nurton from the UK Youth Parliament argues passionately that young people deserve a voice on issues like climate change that will affect their future far more than older voters. He calls for mandatory political education across the UK, pointing out that nothing fundamentally changes when you turn 18—yet policies consistently ignore 16 and 17-year-olds.

From brain development to ballot boxes, this episode examines whether giving young people the vote will strengthen democracy or whether we're asking them to make decisions they're not yet equipped for.

In this episode, Ethan Reuter speaks with historian Taym Saleh about the 1924 general election—the autumn showdown that cemented Britain's two-party system and buried the Liberal Party as a national force. After three elections in just 23 months, Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives swept to a crushing 200-seat majority while Herbert Asquith lost his seat and the Liberals collapsed from 155 MPs to a mere 40.

The conversation explores how Britain's first Labour government, formed almost by accident after Baldwin's disastrous 1923 tariff gamble, became trapped between proving its respectability and surviving without a majority. Saleh explains how Ramsay MacDonald's attempts to normalize relations with Soviet Russia and his handling of the Campbell Case—when prosecution was dropped against a communist journalist who urged soldiers not to fire on striking workers—fueled Conservative warnings about socialist subversion and constitutional threats.

Then came the Zinoviev Letter: a forged document, supposedly from a senior Soviet official instructing British communists to infiltrate Labour, published by the Daily Mail days before the election. Though historians now know it was fabricated, likely by Russian émigrés in Berlin, it crystallized the campaign's fundamental question: was socialism un-British?

But the real story isn't about dirty tricks—it's about how Baldwin's mastery of radio broadcasting, his soothing constitutional rhetoric, and his genius for understanding what voters wanted transformed Conservative politics. While the Liberals produced innovative proto-Keynesian economics, they fielded only 300 candidates. Labour lost power but won clarity: they were now the sole progressive force. This is the election that killed three-party politics and established the socialism versus anti-socialism dividing line that would define British politics for generations.

In this special episode recorded on location in The Hague, Joshua interviews Harry Bush about Democracy Volunteers' seventh observation mission to the Netherlands. Harry explains how Dutch elections work differently from the UK—the entire country acts as a single 150-seat constituency using proportional representation, with voters choosing both a party and a candidate from lists of up to 80 names. This creates ballot papers so massive that counting them used to take hours just to unfold, leading five municipalities to trial smaller designs.

The conversation examines two key electoral integrity challenges: proxy voting, where 10% of Dutch votes are cast by someone else (voters can carry up to two additional polling cards on election day), and accessibility, which varies widely because voters can use any polling station in their municipality rather than being assigned to one. Despite these issues, Dutch elections achieve 80% turnout and demonstrate strong civic engagement, offering valuable lessons for democracies worldwide.

In this episode, Ethan Reuter speaks with historian Taym Saleh about the 1906 general election—the winter showdown that delivered the last great Liberal landslide and set the stage for the welfare state. After riding jingoistic euphoria to victory in 1900, the Conservative-Unionist coalition collapsed spectacularly, reduced from a 150-seat majority to a miserable rump of just 157 MPs.

The conversation explores how Joseph Chamberlain's crusade for tariff reform and imperial preference tore the Conservatives apart. His two loaves of bread—one slightly smaller under protection—couldn't compete with Liberal warnings of the "dear loaf," horse meat sausages, and the hungry forties. Saleh explains how Prime Minister Balfour found himself trapped, unable to resolve his party's civil war without triggering an outright split, while the Liberals united around free trade, cheap bread, and opposition to "Chinese slavery" in South African mines.

But the 1906 landslide contained the seeds of future upheaval. The Gladstone-MacDonald pact gave Labour its crucial breathing space, winning 29 seats that would grow to dominance after the First World War. The Irish Parliamentary Party's 83 seats positioned them as kingmakers for future crises. And the Liberal government's ambitious reforms—old age pensions, national insurance, the foundations of the welfare state—would trigger a constitutional crisis with the Conservative-dominated House of Lords, culminating in the 1911 Parliament Act that neutered the upper chamber forever. This is the election that killed Conservative dominance, launched the welfare state, and set Britain on course for the tumultuous politics of the early twentieth century.

Lily Russell-Jones is an award-winning journalist and former senior money reporter for The Times and The Sunday Times. She has written hundreds of articles for the paper including news stories, features, investigations and columns. She was a regular guest on Times Radio and The Story, The Times’ in-house podcast. She has also featured on BBC Radio 4, BBC London and Newscast.

She won Headline Money’s Rising Star of the Year award in 2023 and was Fintech Journalist of the Year 2022 and 2023. Before joining The Times in 2022 she was a reporter for City A.M., a London based financial newspaper, where she co-hosted a podcast about fintech news. She has a longstanding interest in politics, having worked for a backbench MP as a parliamentary assistant. She also has a master’s in International Relations from The London School of Economics.

In this episode, Ethan Reuter speaks with David Redvaldsen of the University of Agder in Norway about the 1929 general election—Britain's first truly universal suffrage election. After the 1928 Representation of the People Act finally granted women the vote on equal terms with men, millions of young women, the so-called flappers, went to the polls for the first time alongside a fully enfranchised working class.

The conversation explores how this three-party contest became a battle of economic visions amid rising unemployment. Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives offered "Safety First"—no experiments, no risks. Lloyd George's revitalised Liberals promoted bold Keynesian proposals to conquer unemployment through public works and borrowing. Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party positioned itself as a respectable alternative, though without the flashy policies of their rivals.

Despite Lloyd George's war chest, charisma, and imaginative proposals, the Liberals won just 59 seats while Labour became the largest party for the first time—though without a majority. Dr. Redvaldsen explains how this apparent Labour triumph became a poisoned chalice when the Great Depression struck months later, leading to the devastating split of 1931 and the end of the Liberals as a major force. From broccoli jokes to the collapse of three-party politics, this is the election that shaped Britain's two-party system—and destroyed the party that tried hardest to win it.

In this episode, Ethan Reuter speaks with David Redvaldsen of the University of Agder in Norway about the 1929 general election—Britain's first truly universal suffrage election. After the 1928 Representation of the People Act finally granted women the vote on equal terms with men, millions of young women, the so-called flappers, went to the polls for the first time alongside a fully enfranchised working class.

The conversation explores how this three-party contest became a battle of economic visions amid rising unemployment. Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives offered "Safety First"—no experiments, no risks. Lloyd George's revitalised Liberals promoted bold Keynesian proposals to conquer unemployment through public works and borrowing. Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party positioned itself as a respectable alternative, though without the flashy policies of their rivals.

Despite Lloyd George's war chest, charisma, and imaginative proposals, the Liberals won just 59 seats while Labour became the largest party for the first time—though without a majority. Dr. Redvaldsen explains how this apparent Labour triumph became a poisoned chalice when the Great Depression struck months later, leading to the devastating split of 1931 and the end of the Liberals as a major force. From broccoli jokes to the collapse of three-party politics, this is the election that shaped Britain's two-party system—and destroyed the party that tried hardest to win it.