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:

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:

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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: