UCL Uncovering Politics

The State of the World

Episode Summary

This week we’re beginning a new series of the podcast by surveying some of the big issues in politics around the world today. We’ll be covering Ukraine, climate change, the health of democracy in the UK, and much more.

Episode Notes

The podcast has been on its summer break over the last few months, but politics certainly hasn’t stopped. The war in Ukraine has rumbled on. The global energy crisis, partly a result of the war, has forced policymakers to rethink how energy markets work. The energy crisis intersects with efforts to tackle the climate crisis, which have in some ways intensified in the wake of last year’s COP26 meeting in Glasgow. In the UK, Boris Johnson was forced out as Prime Minster and replaced by Liz Truss. And just days after Truss entered office, the death of Queen Elizabeth made headlines around the world.

To discuss these issues and more, we’re joined by a trio of top professors from the UCL Department of Political Science.

 

Episode Transcription

Season 7 Episode 1

The State of the World

 

7 October 2022

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

ukraine, russia, climate change, war, mobilisation, uk, countries, people, politics, support, surveys, public opinion, impacts, moment, meg, cop, world, behaviour, important, referendums

SPEAKERS

Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, Lisa Vanhala, Kristin Bakke

 

Alan Renwick  00:08

Hello this is UCL Uncovering Politics. This week we're beginning a new series of the podcast by surveying some of the big issues in politics around the world. Today, we'll be covering Ukraine, climate change, the health of democracy in the UK, and much more. Hello, my name is Alan Renwick and welcome to a brand new series of UCL Uncovering Politics, the podcast of the School of Public Policy, and Department of Political Science at University College London.  The podcast has been on summer break over the past few months, but politics certainly hasn't stopped. The war in Ukraine has rumbled on, the global energy crisis, partly a result of the war has forced policymakers to rethink how energy markets work. The energy crisis intersects with efforts to tackle the climate crisis, which have in some ways intensified in the wake of last year's COP 26 meeting in Glasgow. In the UK, Boris Johnson was forced out as prime minister and replaced by Liz Truss. And just days after Truss entered office, the death of Queen Elizabeth made headlines around the world. To discuss these issues and more we're joined by a trio of top professors from the UCL Department of Political Science. Kristin Bakke is Professor of Political Science and International Relations. She heads our Conflict and Change research cluster and among other things, She is currently an investigator on a collaborative research project exploring geopolitical orientations in Russia's near abroad. Lisa Vanhala is Professor of Political Science and works on the politics of climate change and the socio legal study of human rights and equality. She is currently leading a major research project examining the Politics of climate change, loss and damage. And Meg Russell is Professor of British and Comparative Politics and Director of the UCL Constitution Unit. She is leading the Unit's current project on constitutional principles, and the health of democracy. And her latest book 'The Parliamentary Battle Over Brexit' will be published by Oxford University Press in March next year.  Welcome Kristin, Lisa and Meg to UCL uncovering politics. And we'll start with some quick words on Ukraine, then climate politics, and then UK politics. And then we'll try to dig a bit deeper into some of the interconnections between these important topics. And I should say that we're recording this about a week ahead of the podcast release date. And given just how fast the political world seems to move on these days, it is, of course, entirely possible that things could look quite different by the time you're listening to this. So let's start with Ukraine and with Kristin. And so Kristin, listeners, I'm sure will be familiar with the broad path that the war has taken. But would you like to give us your analysis of where the war has got to now and where it might be heading in the in the coming period?

 

Kristin Bakke  02:58

Yeah thank you, Alan. So things are developing really fast in this war there's much to talk about, but I thought there were three things we could focus on the continued Ukrainian mobilisation and resolve, mobilisation in Russia, and also these referendums that Russia have just conducted in Ukraine. So with respect to continued Ukrainian mobilisation and resolve, so from the very beginning of this war, what took many by surprise, though, perhaps it was not so much a surprise for longtime scholars of Ukrainian society and politics, was the massive rapid and fierce mobilisation of Ukrainians in defence of their homeland. And public opinion surveys show overwhelming support for the Ukrainian Government's warring which is to fight until all of the territory occupied by Russia, including Crimea, is retaken, with some variation based somehow close people are to to fighting and their sense of insecurity. There's also some evidence suggesting that people would be less willing to see territory in the Donbass and Crimea, but in general, the vast majority would reject any kind of territorial concessions. Now, if anything this resolve and this mobilisation in support of the war aims is likely to have been strengthened after the counter offensive success against Russian troops in the Kharkiv region earlier this month.  Now, this brings me down to to the second point on mobilisation in Russia. Now as a response to that Kharkiv counter-offensive Putin called for a partial mobilisation of 300,000 reservists in that, quote, 'special military operation'. And you know, as we have seen, this partial mobilisation has encouraged a new wave of counter mobilisation in Russia. And we're seeing daily reports of anti war and anti darft protests, an estimated 200,000 people have left the country. Now one of our colleagues in the department, the department here and Dr. Katrina Tertytchnaya, she's studied protests in Russia for years. And she emphasises that we, you know, we've seen small scale protests against the war from the immediate aftermath of the invasion spread across the country. And she's been she and her collaborators have been counting these protests and they counted over 300 anti-regime protests since February up to the summer. That's how far they've they've come. Now in this ongoing wave of protests that we're seeing now against the war and well, against the war slash against the draft, the police have is as it has, since the beginning brutally crackdown on protesters. So just between September 21st and 26th. So, you know, this past week or two in the past week, the police arrested over 2000, some say up to 2400 individuals. And altogether in the first seven months of the war, the police arrested over 17,000 protesters. Now one of the questions that many ask is why don't we see more protests or mobilisation of the scale that we saw in your Euromaidan in Ukraine in 2014? Or in Belarus in 2020? And sort of scholars that are of the, who are experts on Russian politics, including our colleague, Katrina, points, at least two important reasons. So one repression in Russia is extensive and combined with that the opposition lacks leadership. So for example, the Navalny campaign coordinators were either imprisoned like Navalny or forced into exile since 2021. Now, in terms of public opinion in Russia, this is really hard to assess at the moment, but based on several collective polling efforts, Dr. Tertytchnaya, she estimates that, she and colleagues, estimate that overall since August a majorities have supported the actions of Russian military forces in Ukraine. Around 75%. Right. So public support for the military actions in Ukraine have been high. We are now seeing a revival of protests and resistance against the regime. But a big question and I don't have an answer to that question is, you know, if Putin was forced out of power, would it be from more liberal forces? Or would that come from far right nationalists?  Now, the third sort of point to talk about and what's been going on lately in this war is the independence referendums. So in addition to the partial mobilisation, Putin's responce to the Kharkiv counter-offensive was to go ahead with annexation referendums in Luhansk and Donetsk in the east and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson,  in the south. And you know, we've all seen the pictures and reports of soldiers forcing people out to vote at gunpoint. And the referendum showed what everyone expected, right, of this highly flawed and illegitimate process, overwhelming support for annexation. Now, there will be some people in some parts, particularly in the parts that have been under Russian control since 2014, who are Russian oriented and would want to join Russia. But these referendums are not an accurate reflection of public opinion in these territories, they're, you know, they're not arranged under sort of free and fair circumstances. And data are from the Keivan National Institute of Sociology, based on surveys that have been conducted since 2014 onwards shows that the majority of people, you know, would not have voted to join Russia if these were, you know, conducted freely and fairly. Now, why hold these referendums? So these are not free and fair. And even, you know, when, slash if, Russia formally annexes these territories, you know, the territories are not going to be recognised as being part of Russia, by the international community. So there's a, you know, at least a couple of reasons, and I'm sure there are more, but there are a couple of reasons for why, you know, Russia is doing this. So Russia will use the referendum to justify that it's defending its own people, its own territory, and the audience here for you know, for those claims is primarily domestic. Right, within Russia. Another possible reason also directed at domestic politics is sort of to lock in anyone coming into power after Putin. And I think both of these reasons, and I'm sure there are others. And this is I think, uncharted, or not uncharted territory, that's not true. Russia held a referendum like this in 2014. But you don't really know the reasons for for this, you know, this referendum. But a consequence of these might be that it any kind of compromise would be harder. And it also might be a sign that Russia is prepared to fight on.

 

Alan Renwick  09:12

That's a really helpful introduction. Thank you. And so you pointed out there that the referendums clearly are not accurate reflections of public opinion in these areas. You pointed out also that it's very difficult to gauge public opinion at the moment in Russia, because, of course, it's such a situation of repression. You also referred to research on public opinion in Ukraine. And of course, there too there may be difficulties in gauging public opinion for other different reasons. That that it's a situation of conflict, of war. Can we rely on the information that we've got at the moment about public opinion in Ukraine?

 

Kristin Bakke  09:49

Now, it's very important, of course, to try to get a sense of public opinion in Ukraine at the moment, certainly with respect to questions about the war, support for possible war outcomes. I mean, this is you know, being fought in the name of the Ukrainian people. And as I said earlier surveys at the moment show overwhelming support for the Ukrainian Government's position. You know, there's some variation but you know, overwhelming support. There are, of course, you know, challenges related to doing public opinion surveys in Ukraine at the moment. Our survey 2019, like most surveys in Ukraine, were done done face to face, which at the moment, that's really challenging for safety and ethical reasons. There are certain parts in Ukraine where you can do it. But there are other parts where you can not do face to face surveys at the moment, you know, in areas of fighting, in areas not controlled by the government. Most surveys that are being done at the moment now are done on the phone on Ukrainian mobile networks, rather than face to face. Now, one important challenge, which is absolutely central for our ability to draw conclusions about the Ukrainian population overall is you know how representative the sample is? So because the last census in Ukraine was in 2001, this was also a challenge prior to the war, but one that experienced polling companies like Keiv has developed methods to overcome. But you know, since the war, many millions have been displaced, and a small percentage of population now also live in territories that due to the war are entirely out of reach for pollsters. Now, Volodymyr Paniotto  who's the Keiv's General Director and probably the most experienced pollster in Ukraine, he's recently given presentations and talked about, you know, the challenges and the strategies for overcoming them. And he's relatively confident that Keiv's data that they're conducting at the moment with via phone surveys is representative of 95 to 97% of the population living on the territory of Ukraine that the government controls. So but that is not Crimea and Donbass where they haven't been able to do surveys since 2014. Now on the areas of the Donbass controlled by Russia since 2014, and Crimea, we did surveys there in 2019/20. But when we were doing those surveys, we have to hire Russian survey company to do it the Levada-Center, because these were you know not controlled by the Ukrainian government. And that, of course, we can't do at the moment due to, you know, to sanctions on working with Russian companies. So we have no way of assessing what the you know, I mean, I think it would also be incredibly difficult to do a survey there now. You know, with respect to you know, would people answer, or respond, you know, anyone calling them up at the moment. Anyway, so for anyone who's interested in sort of reading about these challenges, and also how experienced pollsters try to overcome them, I would recommend taking a look at the website of the Keivan National Institute of Sociology, who really, you know, for a long time, you know, thought about how to do this, and you and are running, you know, regular surveys at the moment in Ukraine

 

Alan Renwick  12:47

Great, we could talk about this for much, much longer, Kristen, but we'd better move on. And we will come back to Ukraine and the implications of the current situation in Ukraine. But Lisa, let's turn to the climate crisis. And I guess, again, a very broad first question for you what's been happening on the climate change front in recent recent months that listeners should be aware of?

 

Lisa Vanhala  13:07

Yeah, really delighted to be here talking to you today, Alan, and it's a good question. And it's been quite a busy year on the climate front. A couple different things come to mind. One is the weather. Right? There's been a lot of weather this year. Right? If we think back to July, you know, we experienced that unprecedented heatwave and recent science has shown that climate change made that particular weather event 10 times more likely. The Pakistan floods last month has kind of devastated about a third of the country. 16 million children affected by those floods. Again, recent event attribution analysis has shown that climate change has played a significant event in in kind of causing both the 60 day weather event leading up to then the five day weather event and the science has really moved on to help us understand kind of the the likelihood that climate change has played a role in that. And what we heard there was the climate change Minister Sherry Rehman speaking very vocally about the fact that Pakistan has contributed very little to greenhouse gas emissions historically and present day, and yet is very much bearing the brunt of the impacts of this. And, and that's gotten a lot of attention around the world. And it's going to be particularly important because Pakistan is currently chairing the group of 77 developing countries and China in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So the UN Climate Change regimes negotiation. So Pakistan is playing a particularly important role there this year. And so we expect that to get a lot of attention at the forthcoming negotiations.  Most recently, Storm Fiona even in Canada was kind of sweeping homes into the sea. So this is, you know, we're feeling these impacts of climate change today. This isn't something that's happening in the future, and only in the future, it is something that's very present and alive and starting to play. These storms are kind of starting to to. To thrust themselves onto the political agenda, you could say. I think the second thing that's happened this year is we had the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So this is the group of hundreds of scientists that come together to look at the best available science that we have on all aspects of climate change. Kind of where we're headed, what the impacts of climate change are going to be what we can do to try and reduce vulnerability to those impacts, how much we can understand whether certain impacts are caused by climate change or not. Right, they all come together every four or five years. It's a long kind of process and pulling that science together. But some of those reports were put out earlier this year. And, and it's really impressive to see how much the science has grown. And it's really given us a very clear understanding, not just that climate change is manmade, but that humans are now the main drivers of climate change. We also got a lot more understanding about the kind of potential impacts and the likelihood of those impacts kind of coming now and in the future. But also, I think, one thing that I found quite hopeful was new science on assessing how to adapt to the these impacts of climate change Right and getting a better understanding of what is it that's exacerbating social vulnerability to these impacts? I think the third thing that's happened most recently was at the UN General Assembly in September, there was a lot of talk about climate change. You heard Antonio Guterres, Executive Secretary calling for developed countries to establish a tax on the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies and to channel that funding towards those feeling the brunt of the energy crisis. But also those experiencing climate change loss and damage. You also had, for the first time a nation pledging money towards climate change, loss and damage. So Denmark pledged $13 million dollars on loss and damage. And this has been a really sticky issue in the negotiations over the last 10 years. Yeah, and important, important developments there at the General Assembly. So a lot a lot going on, and more to come, I think in this six weeks leading up to COP 27 in Sharm el Sheikh in November.

 

Alan Renwick  17:08

What has been happening with the COP process, and people will remember, Alok Sharma has tears at the end of COP 26. And that sense that things had been achieved, but not enough had been achieved. And there was a need for real progress over the next 12 months at that stage. Have they been making progress?

 

Lisa Vanhala  17:25

Yeah, I think we can, you know, if we look back to COP 26, I think we could call it incremental progress there. Also highlighting very much the need for further progress. So at the close of that particular COP, Alok Sharma concluded that though the goal of keeping temperatures to 1.5 degrees is alive, he noted its pulse is weak. Right? And at that point, one of the kind of major kind of gaps, I suppose was this kind of where and how much we need to be reducing emissions and how much we're countries are actually doing. And the UN has calculated that the kind of plans that have been put forward by countries in terms of how much they're going to reduce emissions, currently put the world on track for 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century. Right. So that's better than the 4 degrees trajectory the world was on before the Paris Agreement was struck. But it's still extremely, extremely dangerous, right? This means like the loss of entire nations, this means the loss of kind of coastal cities and communities, much worse extreme weather events. And so there's still a lot of work to do that. And so that's going to be one of the major things on the agenda for Sharm el Sheikh is really kind of seeing whether countries kind of further enhance their efforts to to meet reductions targets that need to be met. I think another major issue at COP 26 was about finance, right? So in 2009, developed countries promised to provide $100 billion dollars a year by 2020, to those countries that are kind of struggling with climate change, impact impacts, and also and also to support climate efforts in developing countries. And at the conclusion of the Glasgow COP, it was noted that with deep regret, developed countries had failed to meet that goal, right, about 80 billion a year was bad. And so there was a lot of disappointment there. And climate finance continues to be one of those most most kind of contentious things.

 

Alan Renwick  19:18

And what's been the impact of the Ukraine crisis and the energy crisis over the last 12 months, or well, I guess, six months, eight months or so.

 

Lisa Vanhala  19:27

So this is really I think, one of the most pressing challenges that the world faces today, right? And particularly facing European leaders. How do you sever your dependence on Russian energy while also accelerating the fight against the climate crisis? Right, in some ways, there's really a tension there of like, what is it that we're going to do and and we have seen in some European countries are kind of turning away from from climate policy. I think there are really three main challenges here, right one is reducing energy dependence on Russia, right. Which would then allow member states to embargo imports of Russian oil and possibly gas. The second is kind of building new partnerships with third countries to enhance European energy security for the longer term. And then the third issue in the EU at least, is really kind of how do you bring the European Green Deal? Right, which is, you know, really fantastic package of measures. How do you implement that? How do you bring that to life? Right. And so, the Ukraine crisis has affected the possibility of all of those things. And it's kind of shifting, I suppose the kind of geopolitical incentives for addressing these problems. And some member countries believe that a turn to clean and renewable sources isn't going to be enough to reduce energy prices quickly enough, right. So some countries like Austria, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic, have recently extended the life of their coal fired power plants. Germany's exploring the possibility of building liquefied natural gas import terminals to replace Russian gas pipelines. France is currently considering plans to construct 14 new nuclear power plants, right. So this is what, this isn't really what we want to see when when thinking about kind of the urgency of the climate crisis. But on the other hand, you could see this is kind of the geopolitical push that the EU has needed to accelerate its transition away from dependence on fossil fuels, right. And so some within the EU certainly see this as an opportunity to focus minds on the climate challenge in the medium term, and to accept as inevitable what might otherwise have been daunting political costs. And this is what we've heard from the EU in recent communications. So I think it's all very much still kind of to be decided and looking at kind of where we're headed, where we're headed in the current context. But yeah, it'll it'll be interesting to see as well what happens at COP 26, given the geopolitical pressures of the Russia/Ukraine conflict, but also disagreements between China and the US over Taiwan, which has really shaped the climate landscape as well.

 

Alan Renwick  21:52

Yes, we will return to those themes. But let's bring Meg before we do so, and it's been an extraordinary summer in British politics. We've had the ousting of one Prime Minister, the election of another, the death of a monarch after 70 years on the throne, and most recently, the unbelievable spectacle of a government induced financial crisis. And whatever happens, of course, between when we're recording this and when the episode actually goes out. So what do you think we should focus on Meg, in terms of the state of politics and democracy in the UK at the moment?

 

Meg Russell  22:24

Well, that's a terribly big, that's a terribly big question. Yes, I mean, obviously, we had that, the summer in itself was tumultuous with Johnson being forced out in July. He was forced out due to mass resignations by his ministers over his behaviour. There had previously been an attempt to topple him in a vote of no confidence within his parliamentary party, which had narrowly failed, but then he didn't last much longer than that. He had to say he was going. We then had the Conservative leadership contest over the summer to entertain us all. And then we had that incredible week, the week of the fifth of September, on Monday, we had a wew Conservative Party leader. On Tuesday, we had a new prime minister. On Wednesday, we had a new cabinet. And on Thursday, the Queen died and bringing to the bring it to the end of 70 year reign, and then the full ministerial lineup hadn't even been appointed. At that point. I don't know whether you want to talk at all about the monarchy, you know, as a whole big subject in its own right. But basically politics ground to a halt. Liz Truss had arrived on this kind of reforming agenda, but found herself going to all of the various services of commemoration for the Queen and politics didn't get going again until after the funeral on the 19th of September. That was the Monday, and then on a Friday, we had the so called mini budget, with all of these tax cutting measures and the removal of the, they had already pre-announced the removal of the limits on bankers, bonuses, and also the package to support people through the cost of living crisis. So, and that then sent markets plummeting, et cetera, as we'll probably come come back to. If we look at this through the eyes of sort of the constitution and democracy, ultimately, that is what brought Johnson down. I mean, his his premiership was marked right from the very start by constitutional controversies. So in autumn 2019 his prorogation of Parliament that was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. That was all over Brexit. There were other other controversies over Brexit, where he threatened not to comply with an Act of Parliament. He threatened not to leave Downing Street as Prime Minister if the Commons voted no confidence in him. And then we had the general election, giving him a large majority. And we were immediately into COVID time. And the pandemic brought controversies of its own. Controversies about Parliament being cut out of decision making about some really important regulations for lockdown, and parliamentarians themselves actually being excluded from taking part in Parliament. But you know, that wasn't all. We also had controversies about his treatment of the civil service, his treatment of regulators, his appointments to the House of Lords. There were two successive holders of the post of Prime Minister's Independent Adviser on Ethics who resigned over his behaviour. And then towards the end, we had the party gate scandal, so called party gate scandal, regarding parties in Downing Street where him and his staff were breaking his own lockdown regulations, which then spilled into allegations that he had misled Parliament over his behaviour. And that's very serious because it's a breach of the ministerial code. And he was referred to the Common's Privileges Committee for investigation. That nearly brought him down. But the thing that ultimately brought him down was more allegations about how he had lied to his ministers about the behaviour, inappropriate behaviour by one of his whips. So Johnson's premiership was all about constitutional propriety and breaking conventions, and trashing institutions and so on. So you would have thought that the leadership contest that followed would have been dominated by those issues, but partly because of the cost of living crisis, and I think partly because of sort of controversy about how to deal with Johnson and his legacy, those issues were not as dominant as you would have expected them to be. Even though when people called for his resignation, an awful lot of the ministerial resignation letters refer to questions of propriety. And Johnson tried to sort of cling on to power led to him being accused of being Trumpian. So there was sort of talk of this being a sign of democratic backsliding in the UK. But during the, during the leadership contest, the focus was very much on other things. And insofar as it touched on issues of constitutional propriety, the signs from Liz Truss were not particularly good. So she refused to commit to a reappointing an ethics adviser, she seemed to hint that the privileges committee into Boris Johnson should be halted. And then there was one moment when she did a major U-turn on policy, it was about regional public sector pay. But in doing so, she accused the media of having misrepresented her policy, which was just patently untrue, you know, she was blaming somebody else, for her mistake. And of course, her rival who was the former Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, accused her of fantasy economics. And she also rubbished that, and this all had a very sort of post-truth ring about it. And that's how we get to the mini-budget. You know, she's tested out her economic ideas now. I think that in itself sits within a kind of framework of concerns about governmental structures and propriety and checks and balances on decision making. Because one of the first acts in government was to sack the Permanent Secretary. The most the most senior official at the Treasury. Who had put in 30 years service, I don't think he'd done anything particularly wrong. He had helped Gordon Brown see us through the financial crisis of 2008, and 2009, and he'd helped Rishi Sunak see us through the pandemic. And nobody particularly thought any of that was bad behaviour, but she thought that he was too much of a supporter of economic orthodoxy. And so he was summarily sacked even during the mourning period for the Queen, and then they refused to take the usual advice from the Office of Budget Responsibility on their plans. There was very little opportunity for MPs to scrutinise and discuss the plans. Yet subsequently, the pound sank, the Bank of England had to step in to buy government bonds, there have been talks about increased interest rates, which may well have happened by the time this goes to air. And the former Governor of the Bank of England has accused the government of undercutting institutions, including working across the Bank of England and ignoring the Office of Budget Responsibility. So I think what we see is a sort of a repetition of some of the behaviour that we saw before. I think, this financial crisis, it's obviously about financial policy, which is not really my thing. But I think it demonstrates the purpose of checks and balances in our political institutions, and how if you avoid scrutiny, and shun the advice of independent experts, there's nothing to stop you presenting policy, which is going to be catastrophic, and you can find yourself in real trouble. So here we are, with the financial crisis, I think there is a risk that it sort of drives people away from thinking about constitutional matters, which are very, very important. But actually, I see the two as being inextricably linked, you know, a lack of consideration for the proper means of making policy and for you know, independent experts and checks and balances can take you to a very difficult place. 

 

Alan Renwick  29:29

That's an amazing summary. Thank you so much. And it is the problem here that those in power are not giving proper consideration to use the words you just used there, to checks and balances? Or is it just that the UK is majoritarian political system doesn't have enough checks and balances? Do we need a change in kind of behaviour and culture within our political system? Or do we need to change of the political system?

 

Meg Russell  29:54

I think that's a really interesting question. And it's one that lots of people are asking in the UK. And I don't think that the UK system is perfect. You know, arguably, there are things that should be strengthened. You know, I'm very much a supporter of the strengthening of Parliament's and you know, the way that Parliament was sidelined during the COVID crisis, the way it was sidelined during Brexit, I think there are procedural changes that should be made in Parliament to give MPs more control of their own institution, for example, because it's too controlled by government. But I think it's a mistake to think that this is something about the structure of the UK constitution, because I think that some of the things we're seeing are echoed in other countries around the world Where, you know, most other places around the world have codified written constitutions, which are, you know, notably, supposed to be harder to change. And yet we've seen the undermining of legislatures, the undermining of judges, threats to opposition parties, undermining of independent media, in countries, you know, numerous countries around the world, this, this concept of democratic backsliding, whereby elected leaders seek to undermine and weaken the institutions that potentially constrain them and should be constraining them. And as I say, ensure that you make good sensible policy. It's not a UK phenomenon. And therefore, I think it is a cultural phenomenon. And it's not one that's that is unique to the UK by any means.

 

Alan Renwick  31:14

Great, thank you, Meg. Let's now start to explore some of the cross cutting themes across these three areas that we've been looking at. So we've introduced all sorts of thoughts here in relation to Ukraine, in relation to climate change, and in relation to the state of democracy in the UK, but not just the UK. I think one important cross cutting theme across all of these issues is the economy, and the impact of the economy, on public attitudes as well. Let's just think a little bit about this in relation to each of these topics. And Kristin, Putin I guess is calculating that by harming the European economy, essentially, he will gradually erode the willingness of publics in Europe and elsewhere in the West, to support Ukraine, to accept sacrifices in order to support Ukraine. Is he is he making the right calculation there?

 

Kristin Bakke  32:06

The public opinion in the West has generally been in favour of sanctions on Russia and, you know, favoured support, military support for Ukraine. There is variation across countries. And you know, this autumn and winter will certainly be a test with, you know, the rising energy prices and costs of living. And you're right that, you know, Putin is, this is what he's betting on, that that is going to sort of work to erode support for the war effort. I think adding to that, we know that as wars go on, however brutal they are, over time, they tend to disappear from the front pages, you know, other things take priority, and as a result, you know, they, they don't disappear, but it's gonna go to the back and not the front of people's minds. So there is a very real possibility that Ukraine will take back seated domestic concerns. And there's some survey evidence, not that much, but some suggesting that in UK, for example, the cost of living crisis is affecting people's support for sanctions. But at the same time, there is also survey evidence suggesting that, you know, people do link their economic problems, so energy prices, to the war. So that's one thing. So they're linking the two, right, so it's in people's self interest that this war is not going to go on, or it's certainly in their self interest that this war is not going to be won by Russia. This is also a war where the, you know, the aggressor is a major nuclear power on Europe's doorstep. So avoiding that Russia wins this war is in European's and of the West self interest from an economic perspective, but also from a security perspective. So I think for that reason, this war might, you know will will remain, or I think will. Yeah, it's likely to remain a priority for publics in the West. And I think it's the same reasons that will help preserve Western unity in response to it.

 

Alan Renwick  33:53

And Meg I guess, we tend to think that economic troubles lead to public support for populism and strong rulers. And populism is closely tied to the sort of democratic backsliding that you were talking about earlier. So we might be concerned that if we're going into a period of greater economic problems and recession, not just in the UK, but around the world, and that's going to spur a rise in populist sentiments, and perhaps the recent Italian elections fit into that mould. On the other hand, you could kind of say that well, the populists have been shown to be wrong, at least in the UK with the economic crisis that we seem to be in just at the moment. So you could see a turn to technocracy and a belief that, well, perhaps we need to put the experts in charge. Or maybe even we could see what I think you and I would probably hope for, which would be a sort of acknowledgment that actually we need liberal democracy. That actually we need to think about these things carefully and deliberate about them and have checks and balances as you were discussing earlier. Where do you see public opinion as going in the UK and being pushed by economic developments?

 

Meg Russell  35:05

Let me let me say two things. First, I think, cards on the table, I would see Boris Johnson as a populist. But it's very interesting, I think that he was very, very hard line on the Ukraine war. So joining up to what Kristin was saying, you know, you could find yourself in a situation where public opinion in the UK was turning against support for Ukraine because of the problems that it's causing with energy supplies and energy prices. But actually, Boris Johnson was very, very robustly on the side of Ukraine. He did nothing to stoke those kinds of sentiments. But undoubtedly, we are left with a very big problem with the, you know, the cost of living crisis. And now, you know, rising interest rates and pressures on on the pound. But I think it's more likely to go the second of the two ways that you indicate. You're quite right that at times of economic difficulty, and we are undoubtedly entering times of economic difficulty, people often turn to extreme parties. But I think in the UK, it's sort of 'extreme' is a strong word, but it's sort of the the right-wing of the Conservative Party, which has got us into this situation. There are many, many moderate people in the Conservative Party or former members of the Conservative Party on the day we're recording a former Conservative MP has announced that he's going to be voting Labour at the next election. So I think it's the people at the right-end of the spectrum who have ideologically gone for these tax cuts, which Kier Starmer, the opposition leader has been quite successfully able to paint, as have many other people, painted as primarily helping the rich. And so at a time when many people are struggling, the biggest benefits from this budget are the highest earners and the wealthiest people, those those changes may even be have been reversed, perhaps by the by the time this, this goes out. But I think what that does is it encourages public opinion towards the centre. I mean, as I said, you know, the the freezing out of experts, and surprise, surprise, if you don't listen to economists, the markets don't react well to what you're doing. So this is not something to do with just some sort of cosy metropolitan elites who are telling you to follow economic orthodoxy. If you don't follow what the markets expect, then the markets have the power to punish you. And I suspect that that will drive people who are very worried about their mortgages, as well as about their energy bills, to support something a bit more centrist and boring and conventional.

 

Alan Renwick  37:37

And I'm wondering if there's any source of optimism, similar kinds of optimism on the climate front? We've tended to assume that economic downturns are bad times for climate action. But we're, we seem to be I mean, I'm not an expert on this, but we seem to be getting into a world where action on the economy and action on climate actually aligned to a much greater degree than was the case in the past. So can we actually be hopeful that maybe these economic problems will lead to positive climate change? Change on climate, I should say, yeah, it's,

 

Lisa Vanhala  38:10

I wouldn't want to necessarily make a causal claim. But I'm, for the first time studying climate, I'm feeling, I am feeling a little bit hopeful. And it's exactly as you say, you know, in Paris, seven years ago, 195 countries came together and agreed to shift the way the global economy works, right? That that wasn't going to be an easy, easy thing to do. And it's not easy, and kind of we're failing on all kinds of fronts. But but that that's pretty amazing in a lot of ways. And what we're seeing is governments kind of doing their best in a lot, a lot of them and a lot of ways a lot, a lot of them are not, but but also a lot of interesting kind of action by non-state actors. So one of the things to come out of Glasgow last year was the launch of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. And this is a group of organisations responsible for financial assets worth $130 trillion dollars, coming together as a kind of forum for leading financial institutions to accelerate the transition to a net zero global economy. Right. That's, that's kind of an amazing amount of power and wealth. So it'll be interesting to see what kind of happens in the next few weeks on what they kind of report, talking about the measures that they're taking and best practice ahead of COP. And then thinking more locally, like, you know, thinking about the Labour Party Conference, right, which had the strapline of a kind of 'fairer, greener future'. You know, it's all about green growth for this country. And so, the discourse is kind of changing from the UN level to party politics, we're seeing more and more climate action on the streets, kind of public awareness is really there. Last year, a survey by the Office of National Statistics before COP 26 suggested that 75% of adults in Britain said they were worried about the impact of climate change. Right so we have levels of public aware So we've you know, are really...

 

Alan Renwick  38:16

And this is not just the UK is it?

 

Lisa Vanhala  38:33

Yeah, that's right. I think a YouGov poll in September 2022, ahead of the UN General Assembly, suggested that climate change is the most important challenge facing the world for many, many people across the 22 countries that were surveyed there. So this is something that has kind of, is persisting at the top of the political agenda at the moment. And so yeah, I think there's some room for optimism.

 

Alan Renwick  40:25

Great. So public opinion is important in all of these issues. Geopolitics is very important as well, of course. And just before we close, I wonder, we started to explore a little bit the effects of the Ukraine conflict on climate politics in the short term. And, Lisa, you were hinting at the fact that there are long term considerations here around, you know, what if the world is becoming a more fragmented world with, you know, Russia and the West, at loggerheads, at the very least. Ootentially, China, if China decides to action in Taiwan, becoming a pariah state from the perspective of the West as well. So, you know, if we're moving towards a more multipolar world, again, I guess, then potentially, could it be the case that climate action becomes harder to coordinate? Or are we rather maybe moving in a different direction? Kristen, what do you think about where the geopolitical situation, the geopolitical structure is moving?

 

Kristin Bakke  41:26

I think you lay out two very, two plausible, or possible options, and I don't know which one of these it is wherever we're going to go. I mean, I I think we're going towards a more multipolar world more polarisation, but I'm not sure that that prevents some collaboration when it comes to efforts to tackle climate change.

 

Lisa Vanhala  41:50

Yeah, it's an interesting question. I, you know, Russia has never been at the heart or a driver of major climate action at the global level, right, they've kind of been a quiet player or obstructist. Generally historically. And so again, I feel relatively hopeful that despite these kinds of geopolitical tensions, that progress can be made. And it feels really important that particularly those countries that have benefited most from these historic greenhouse gas emissions, begin to lean into this idea of taking responsibility for that in whatever form that might take. And, you know, we are starting to see that, I you know, I'm I'm kind of in conversations with civil servants and policymakers in kind of small, middle power type countries that are really starting to pay attention to, you know, this agenda, particularly of loss and damage and are not waiting for agreement on that they're, they're going ahead and kind of pledging money in Glasgow. We saw Scotland we saw a province in Belgium committing money. You know, Denmark earlier this year that I mentioned. And so there is something about, you know, collaboration, particularly at the global level is imperative. But it's not the only way of taking action. And so while coordination and cooperation is really the best way of getting things done as a geopolitical level, it's not the only way. And there's something about leaders playing a role and taking responsibility in both mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and also offering support to those countries that are bearing the brunt of those impacts already.

 

Alan Renwick  43:17

Great. I'm afraid we're gonna have to leave it there. It's been a fascinating conversation. Thank you so much, Lisa, Kristen, and Meg, we've attempted to cover a huge amount. We've opened up all sorts of questions, we haven't managed to answer them all. But we've drawn on your expertise in all sorts of interesting ways. Of course, listeners have the advantage over us of knowing what's happened in the week between when we speak and when, when they're listening. So who knows what has happened during that period, but I hope we've nevertheless, given some interesting food for thought there. If you'd like to hear more on these topics, Kristin, Lisa and Meg have all appeared on previous episodes of UCL Uncovering Politics, where we have explored other aspects of their research, and you can find all of those episodes on our website. This has been the first episode of UCL Uncovering Politics for the new academic year, we're looking forward to another season exploring the UCL research that informs current political debates on topics such as automation in the labour market, the power of global tech companies, and how sexist attitudes shape voting behaviour. Next week, we're exploring the role of private companies and nonprofit organisations in planning and delivering public services. What are the costs and benefits? And what does the public think? Remember to make sure you don't miss out on that or other future episodes of UCL Uncovering Politics, all you need to do is subscribe. You can do so on Apple, Google Podcasts, or whatever podcast provider you use.  I'm Alan Renwick. This episode was researched by Conor Kelly and produced by Eleanor Kingwell-Banham, our theme music is written and performed by John Mann. This has been UCL Uncovering Politics. Thank you for listening.