This article analyses the importance of arguments developed since 1997 by influential right-wing commentators concerning Englishness and the United Kingdom. Drawing on historical, cultural and political themes, public intellectuals and commentators of the right have variously addressed the constitutional structure of the UK, the politics of devolved government in Wales and Scotland, and the emergence of a more salient contemporary English sensibility. This article offers case studies of the arguments of Simon Heffer, Peter Hitchens and Roger Scruton, all of whom have made controversial high-profile interventions on questions of national identity, culture and history. Drawing on original interviews with these as well as other key figures, the article addresses three central questions. First, what are the detailed arguments offered by Heffer, Hitchens and Scruton in relation to Englishness and the UK? Second, what does detailed consideration of these arguments reveal about the evolution of the politics of contemporary conservatism in relation to the Union? And, third, what kinds of opportunity currently exist for intellectuals and commentators on the fringes of mainstream politics to influence the terms of debate on these issues?

This article asks what international evidence suggests about the likelihood of major reform of the system used to elect the British House of Commons. It identifies four paths that have generated major electoral reform or come close to doing so in established democracies in recent decades and examines how likely each is to lead to reform in the UK. It argues that, on this evidence, reform in the UK is unlikely but not impossible.

‘The Governance of Britain’ agenda represents Gordon Brown's attempt to respond to long-standing criticisms regarding the way in which Labour governments have since 1997 approached the topic of constitutional reform and democratic renewal. The central argument of this article is that the Labour Party remains afflicted by constitutional anomie and these recent documents, combined with the behaviour of politicians, have done little in response. This article is of methodological importance because it assesses the cumulative impact of recent reforms through the application of Lijphart's framework and reflects on the utility of this tool. It is of conceptual importance because the results of the systematic analysis add further weight to the accusation of constitutional anomie while also allowing the development of a new conceptual tool – bi-constitutionality – which offers a way of understanding long-standing debates. The article is of normative importance because it avoids the descriptive-prescriptive approach to constitutional literature that has dominated British political studies, and it is relevant for comparative politics because it replicates and takes forward a methodology that has been applied around the world. In doing so it provides a critical case of executive politics and statecraft vis-à-vis constitutional reform.

Although conventional wisdom sees Switzerland as oppositionless, in December 2007 its biggest party, the Swiss People's Party (SVP), declared itself in ‘opposition’. It implied this was something dramatic but implementation was hesitant, degenerating into personalized attacks on the minister elected over its party leader. This led to splits in the party and the strategy petered out, with the SVP returning to collegial government, consensus having proved too strong. Although political science has recently neglected opposition, the SVP's understanding of the concept was distant from most ideas of ‘opposition politics’, notably Anglo-Saxon practices. The experiment is therefore best understood as a rhetorical flourish, arising out of the SVP's powerful, but unusual, populism. Though unsuccessful, it shows Swiss politics are changing and the populist challenge remains.

Despite growing recognition that authoritarianism can be far more durable than transition theorists previously expected, transition theory assumptions continue to constrain attempts to understand authoritarian regimes. In particular, alternative avenues of political participation to opposition political parties and electoral contests are under examined. Singapore's authoritarian regime involves a range of such innovative institutional and ideological initiatives, one of the most significant being the Nominated Members of Parliament scheme. This promotes notions of representation different from democratic parliamentary representation that are not without appeal to targeted, emerging social forces. Singapore's political economy dynamics contribute to this responsiveness by obstructing independent power bases.