When we see injustice in the world, our instinct is often to look for someone to blame. We might point to a corrupt official, an unjust law, or individuals acting with harmful intent. But some of the most persistent and damaging injustices of our time, including climate change, homelessness, systemic racism and gender inequality, do not have a single perpetrator. These are what philosopher Iris Marion Young described as structural injustices. They are not caused by individual malice, but by the ordinary functioning of our social, political and economic systems.

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

Most of us want our politicians to tell the truth. In fact, research from UCL and beyond confirms that honesty is consistently ranked as one of the top values citizens expect from their elected representatives.

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.

Today, we’re diving into the complex and often contentious world of religious schools. Are they a threat to social cohesion and tolerance, or are they simply an expression of parental rights and freedom of religion? Some argue that religious schools may indoctrinate children or isolate communities, while others insist parents should be free to raise their children in accordance with their deepest values — including their faith.

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.

In recent years, populism has gained remarkable traction across the globe. If you see populists as leaders who stoke division and who peddle simplistic solutions that, for all their superficial appeal, cannot succeed – then the rise of populists is an unqualified bad. 

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

International organisations have become major players in global affairs, with the European Union standing out as especially powerful. But the EU’s decision-making processes often attract sharp criticism: requiring agreement among many states can cause paralysis, while overriding individual states raises concerns about sovereignty. This episode explores a new study that revisits how the EU has historically grappled with this tension, focusing on two pivotal moments—the Luxembourg Compromise of 1966 and the Paris Summit of 1974. The findings challenge long-held assumptions about the (in)effectiveness of decision making in the EU, and offer fresh insights into how the EU really works.

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.

Join us to celebrate the achievements of Prof. Cathy Elliott. Recorded one day after her inaugural lecture, marking a significant milestone in her distinguished career, Cathy talks about her wild approach to education.

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

Politics in the UK has been in turmoil in recent years—Brexit, Covid, movements for independence in Scotland and Northern Ireland, rule-breaking Prime Ministers, and now the shockwaves from Donald Trump’s return to the White House. These pressures have tested the UK’s political system, raising serious questions about whether constitutional reforms are needed.

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.

Echo chambers are a growing concern in today’s social and political landscape, reinforcing existing beliefs and fostering distrust. Some argue that civility isn’t owed to those entrenched in these environments, while others suggest that moderate incivility is justified in response to problematic views. But what if there’s a better way?

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.

Polarisation is a defining feature of contemporary politics, raising concerns among many observers. People on the left and right—liberals and conservatives—often seem to inhabit entirely different worlds, holding fundamentally distinct perspectives on reality and morality. But what underpins these divisions? Are they rooted in deep-seated moral intuitions that we are born with or develop in childhood? Or do they stem from our present circumstances and the media landscape that shapes our understanding of the world?

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 

While one in five people in the UK is disabled, the proportion of disabled individuals among elected representatives is significantly lower. Despite broader discussions on inclusive politics, disability remains an often-overlooked aspect of the conversation. For many people working in this area, addressing such challenges isn’t just about fairness; it’s also about ensuring that disabled citizens have their voices heard in political decision-making.

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.