UCL Uncovering Politics

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.