All Policy Exchange publications are free to download in .pdf format. You can also purchase hard copies of the majority of our reports – check each individual report page for details.
McDonnellomics: How Labour’s economic agenda would transform the UK is the most thorough examination so far of the Shadow Chancellor’s policy approach and inspiration, rooted in a 1970s Bennite socialist political tradition. Based on a wide-ranging analysis of Labour’s published plans, academic papers and interviews, it finds that McDonnellomics would represent the biggest shift in UK economic policy since the advent of Thatcherism. Even after a short period under a Labour government with John McDonnell as Chancellor, the paper concludes, the British economy would be less resistant to shocks, with a more concentrated and volatile tax base, less flexible labour market and lower investor confidence.
Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, if the government loses a vote of no confidence (VONC), there are 14 days in which either the incumbent government or a new government appointed by the Queen may attempt to win a vote of confidence. Otherwise, the Act requires the dissolution of Parliament and an early election.
In this new paper for Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, Professor Martin Loughlin of the LSE outlines the failings he perceives in the Supreme Court’s recent prorogation judgment. The paper is framed as the judgment on appeal by an imaginary higher court, which helps to isolate and highlight the Supreme Court’s missteps, central amongst which is its inattention the significance of the Crown in our constitutional scheme and its history. The paper opens with an introduction summarising where and why the Supreme Court went wrong.
In his first speech as Prime Minister on domestic policy, Boris Johnson said that his Government will, “emphasise the need, the duty, to build beautiful homes that people actually want to live in, and being sensitive to local concerns.”
As the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission enters its second phase – a final report is due by the end of the year – we are publishing this essay collection to provide new and practical ideas for building more beautiful homes and places. The collection brings together thinkers from law, finance, energy and environment, architecture, property, planning and housing.
The parliamentary authorities have taken the view that because the Supreme Court has quashed the prorogation of Parliament, everything else done by the Royal Commission in the morning of 10 September has been quashed as well. Accordingly, both the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker have indicated that Royal Assent for the Restoration and Renewal Bill would need to be signified again. This paper argues that the Speakers have wrongly understood the Supreme Court’s judgment in this respect.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Miller/Cherry  UKSC 41 holds that Parliamentary sovereignty needs to be judicially protected against the power of the Government to prorogue Parliament. But the Judgment itself undercuts the genuine sovereignty of Parliament by evading a statutory prohibition – art. 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 – on judicial questioning of proceedings in Parliament.This was wholly unjustified by law.
This paper addresses the question of whether the Supreme Court should rule that the Government’s advice to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. It argues that the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament is not subject to judicial control. Proroguing Parliament does not flout parliamentary sovereignty; the exercise of the prerogative should be challenged by political action not litigation.
With the rhetoric inside the House of Commons ratcheted up to fever pitch this week, it is hardly surprising that protest outside Parliament became equally as chaotic and disruptive.
The policy of Her Majesty’s Government is to leave on 31 October and not to apply for an extension; the House of Commons does not support this policy, which is the central policy of this Government, but the House has nonetheless held back from formally withdrawing its confidence in the Government
IPSO’s Guidance for Reporting on Islam and Muslims