On Monday I had lunch with an American friend who was visiting London. I mentioned that later that day I was co-sponsoring an event in Parliament with Labour MP Clive Lewis on the subject of defending UK democracy.
Her expression changed immediately. “Please,” she said, “learn from us.”
She wasn’t talking about Donald Trump as an individual. She was talking about what has happened to the institutions of American democracy over the past few years, especially in the 18 months of Trump 2.0.
“We assumed the system would protect itself. We assumed there would always be enough guardrails. We assumed no one would really push it that far.” Then she paused. “Please don’t let our pain have been in vain.”
We need to look across the Atlantic, and pay heed. Because I fear we sometimes comfort ourselves with exactly the same assumptions. Britain, we tell ourselves, is different. Our institutions are older. Our democracy is stronger. Our traditions will protect us.
But democracies are not self-defending. They need rules and structures that don’t assume only good people acting in good faith, but can withstand bad actors willing to exploit every weakness they can find.
That was the central message of the Defensive Constitutional Reform report that was the basis of our panel discussion on Monday night. It argues that Britain has relied for too long on what Peter Hennessy famously called the “good chaps” theory of government: the comforting assumption that those who attain power will generally exercise it responsibly. In an era of disinformation, billionaire influence, hostile foreign interference and growing political polarisation, that assumption no longer looks sufficient.
Rebuilding trust in democracy
Last week, I argued that first-past-the-post is no longer simply unfair. It is becoming dangerous.
This week I want to ask a different question. If we agree our democracy needs strengthening, how should we go about it?
The answer matters because we are living through a profound crisis of confidence in politics itself. Too many people no longer believe their voice matters. Too many feel governments are imposed upon them rather than chosen by them. Too many look at Westminster and conclude that politics is something done by elites, for elites.
That loss of agency is fertile ground for cynicism. And cynicism is fertile ground for populism.
When people stop believing democracy can improve their lives, they become far more willing to gamble on those promising to tear the whole system down. That is why constitutional reform is no longer a geeky niche. It is about rebuilding faith in democracy itself.
Some people will read this as an argument about Reform UK. It isn’t. If Reform wins support, it deserves representation in Parliament, just as every other party does. Democracy means respecting the choices voters make, even when we disagree with them. Nor should proportional representation ever be justified because it delivers a preferred electoral outcome. A voting system should never be designed to keep one particular party out.
The argument is exactly the opposite. Our democracy should be designed so that no party, of any political persuasion, can acquire almost unlimited executive power on the support of little more than a third of voters. Power this concentrated is dangerous whoever happens to hold it.
A rare opportunity for democratic renewal
Which brings me to Andy Burnham.
If the Westminster speculation is correct, and the apparent next Prime Minister decides to seek his own electoral mandate with a General Election sooner rather than later, he will enjoy something that comes to very few political leaders: the opportunity to ask the country not merely to choose a government, but to renew the democratic settlement itself.
If he does call an early election, constitutional reform should be at the top of his agenda. Not because Labour would necessarily benefit from it. Quite the opposite. Every party should be prepared to give up the possibility of manufactured majorities in exchange for a system that commands greater legitimacy. That is the true test of democratic confidence.
I hope he resists the temptation simply to promise proportional representation through an Act of Parliament. There is a better way.
Power back to the people
His manifesto should commit to introducing proportional representation and to a wider programme of democratic renewal, but recognise that no single party should decide the shape of Britain’s constitution alone.
Within the first year of the new Parliament, he should establish an independent commission bringing together citizens, constitutional experts, local government, civil society and political parties. Its remit should be broader than electoral reform alone. It should examine proportional representation alongside House of Lords reform, stronger protections against foreign interference, tougher controls on political finance and dark money, safeguards against AI-enabled disinformation, the independence of the Electoral Commission, and stronger checks on executive power. These are exactly the kinds of vulnerabilities highlighted in the Defensive Constitutional Reform report.
Then, once that work is complete, the whole package should be put to the British people in a referendum.
Some will say this is too ambitious. I think the greater danger is too much timidity. One of the mistakes progressive governments have too often made is treating constitutional reform as something to think about after fixing the economy, the NHS or public services. Increasingly, I think the opposite is true. Without trusted democratic institutions, it becomes harder to sustain public consent for solving any of those challenges.
We still have time to learn from what has happened elsewhere. America shows us what can happen when democratic norms erode faster than democratic institutions can respond. Britain has the chance to act before that point arrives.
Andy Burnham could become the Prime Minister who simply inherited one of the most centralised political systems in the democratic world. Or he could become the Prime Minister who had the confidence to begin giving some of that power away.
For a Liberal, the choice is obvious. The purpose of winning power is not to keep it. It is to return it to the people.
* Roz Savage is the Liberal Democrat MP for South Cotswolds. She spoke in Westminster Hall on first-past-the-post on 24 June 2026, and is working on a paper for Compass with a working title of "Power Back to the People: The Future of Liberalism in the Twenty-First Century (2026)".
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Alexander Mackendrick and Sweet Smell of Success
Clear the gallery!
The first serving PM to receive the Legion of Honour?
Can Burnham win the endorsement of Number Ten's most important occupant?
Chloe
George Thomas
Matt (Bristol)
David S
Andrew Tampion
32 Comments
“Then, once that work is complete, the whole package should be put to the British people in a referendum.”
The rest of the plan sounds good, and some level of cross-party consensus on changes of this scope is definitely necessary, but this bit has a major flaw: you’re planning work to deal with major structural flaws in British democracy. You therefore need to fix those flaws before holding referenda – in the same way that you ideally need to fix them before holding any more elections, or the very flaws you’re trying to fix will be used specifically to stop you fixing them.
There’s especially a risk with a packaged referendum that one element of an otherwise good “package” might turn out to be unpopular (or easily criticised into being so), and so you end up getting none of them despite almost every single component having widespread support … and then also being scared off implementing any individual bit separately because “the people have spoken”.
Do the consultations, get sufficient cross-party consensus, then just implement it.
Thank you for a most relevant article.
Might it assist the UK to become more of a genuine democracty if state education enabled furture citizens to question authority and power continually and with analytic competence?
Might essentials for a reasonably effective democracy include a citizenry which has been enabled to question effectively and which receives reasonably accurate information and suggstions from the main stream media, not least the B. B. C.?
Might it be that recently and currently ou nation is more of an oligarchy with a democratic facade than a genuine democracy?
Ros, I was right with you until you used the word referendum.
Every time there is a referendum, the power of MPs to make the decisions they were elected to make is weakened. The UK is a parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy. If Mr Burnham were to have an election and to win it on the basis of a commitment to PR, then under our constitution he would have a mandate to introduce it. There would be no need for a referendum. Indeed, one sure fire way of making sure it isn’t implemented is the have a referendum precisely because of the point CIM makes above.
It is time our party decided never to have any referenda ever again and to oppose any proposed referendum. “Referendums are the tools of dictators and demagogues ” Who said that? Why, Mrs Thatcher, in one of the few statements she made that I ever agreed with.
In a parliamentary democracy, the way forward would be to commit to make the changes to our democratic system and then have a further election under the new one. This would, finally, elect a parliament truly representative of the view of voters.
So, Ros, and all our other MPs, stop calling for referenda. They’re not democratic, they are always capable of manipulation and voters rarely, if ever, answer the question being asked.
I agree with the comments so far except for the calls to delay Electoral Reform until yet another General Election. The Voters have already spoken in favour of the principle of Fair Votes in dozens of Polls, let The Politicians do their job of sorting the details.
The last Government established the principle of changing Voting systems without putting it in any Manifesto, if it was good enough for them to reduce Democracy with no support from other Parties then Labour can expand Democracy with almost Universal backing.
Lets not create more excuses for not changing, lets seize the day.
@Mick Taylor
“ So, Ros, and all our other MPs, stop calling for referenda. They’re not democratic, they are always capable of manipulation and voters rarely, if ever, answer the question being asked”
Respectfully, I disagree with you on this. I believe that ultimate power should lie with voters rather than the people they elect, so would prefer that major constitutional issues should be decided by single issue referenda.
I don’t think there is any great enthusiasm out there for a referendum on electoral reform , I’d expect the turnout would be low.
Irrespective of the polls in favour, the vast majority of voters don’t have electoral reform on their minds.
Word on the doorstep:”It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always wins”
@ Mick,
I’m not sure we need to take any advice from the late Mrs Thatcher – either on the wisdom of referendums or anything else.
“Every time there is a referendum, the power of MPs to make the decisions they were elected to make is weakened. ”
I don’t see why. If Parliamentarians can decide on difficult to change constitutional matters without a referendum then surely can do the same with one. They are still the ones making the call.
Of course, it’s the Brexit vote which has led to some Lib Dems taking this same position. However, if you are concerned about keeping power with Parliament you’d also have to be concerned that the signing of the EU Treaties such as at Maastricht and at Lisbon was always going to diminish the power of Parliament.
If we’d had a referendum on either of these, Brexit could well have been avoided. Surely the EU couldn’t have chucked us out because the people said no!
For those who are fans of referendums, I strongly recommend listening to this BBC podcast:
” The Referendum simply forced people to pick a side. And the minute you pick a side, you enter the world of tribalism.”
I agree with the premise of this article, as previously noted we need to put beyond Parliament the undemocratic aspects of our constitution, most notable ones are: Henry VIII powers/clauses and Executive Orders. We probably also need to legislate to ban political parties from receiving monies from non-UK resident taxpayers, with any such monies being received being forfeited and given to the National Lottery for distribution to third-sector organisations helping disadvantaged communities, rather than returned…
Roz, I agree with much of your article. You are right that First Past the Post is no longer just unfair; it is weakening trust in our democracy by giving governments huge power on the support of only a minority of voters. I also agree that constitutional reform should never be about helping or hindering one party. It should be about building institutions that are fair, resilient and trusted, whoever wins power.
Last month, Lib Dem Voice published my three-part series, A Federal Britain, which builds on many of the same principles. I argue that proportional representation is the essential first step, but not the last. Fair votes alone still leave Britain as one of the most centralised democracies in the developed world. That is why I also propose federalism and fiscal federalism, so that political power, financial responsibility and democratic accountability are aligned. People should know who makes decisions, who raises the money and who is responsible for the results.
I also think you are right to highlight threats that I did not cover in depth, including foreign interference, dark money, AI-enabled disinformation, Electoral Commission independence and stronger checks on executive power. These should be part of any programme of democratic renewal.
To me, the difference between our approaches is one of scope, not principle. Your article strengthens democracy’s guardrails. A Federal Britain seeks to redesign the wider constitutional settlement so that power is permanently closer to the people.
@ Roland,
” The Referendum simply forced people to pick a side. And the minute you pick a side, you enter the world of tribalism.”
You can say the same thing about politics generally. Labour vs Tory was always the big divide. It’s less so now than it used to be – particularly over the Brexit issue. The Labour Heartlands have always been euro-sceptical, and usually not at all on the question of immigration. Now we have a choice to support either the parties of the far right, if we think this is the main issue, or vote for a supposed more progressive centrist liberal type if we think it isn’t.
It’s not an easy choice for many but at least in 2017 most of us could happily go back to voting Labour after voting leave in the 2016 referendum.
See no reason for a voting reform referendum if post-election it can be legislated for by a parliamentary majority of MPs from parties all of which had made a clear election manifesto commitment that this was their intention
I was a Poll Clerk at the Brexit Referendum. It was in a “safe” seat. I lost count of the number of people who said they’d never voted before because their vote “didnt normally count” or similar comments. I’m not therefore necessarily advocating referenda but definitely recommending a more representative electoral system.
Burnham won’t fully concede electoral reform and won’t commit to a system before an election. He will make vague and nice noises.
This is because he needs Lib Dems and Greens to play nice to his MPs but he needs power over them and if he concedes, say, STV, he loses a hold over them and they’ll just ask for other things. Also these things are less likely to coincide and his chances of negotiating a viable pact that would be acceptable to him on policy terms lessen.
He wants the largest number of Labour MPs he can get away with at the next election. Therefore he will not concede reform until after it, and will hope he can create a situation where his party is seen as the leader of the ‘progressive alliance’ and benefits from tactical voting under FPTP.
If that happens he can hope to name his terms on reform and push for a compromise between his principles and his best interests that gives the minimum away to the principles and vested interests of his negotiating partners.
No longer a case of ”It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always wins”
mor a case of ”whoever who you vote for, the bond market always wins!”
As an addendum to my post above, I expect Burnham to declare prior to the next election he will commit to implementing the result of a commission on electoral reform (which will either start deliberating in this term, or just after the election) and put behind-the-scenes pressure on parties he wants to do a deal with and want to do a deal with him to keep out Farage and the Tories – like the Lib Dems – to put in their manifesto that they will back said commission, participate in it, and implement the result. If the ‘progressive alliance’ (not my preferred concept) wins enough seats to shackle together a coalition, that gives a mandate without needing a referendum, and leaves the actual system vague and influenceable by the Labour leadership.
If this happens as I say, I expect much Lib Dem angst, as he’ll have skewered you on his hook and you won’t know which way to turn.
However many British voters have voted in referenda, none have voted for or against having one. They have never been asked who should decide who frames the question in a referendum. There is more scope for having two General Elections in a year than parliament pushing a single policy decision onto the voters regardless of consequences.
@ Peter Martin
“I’m not sure we need to take any advice from the late Mrs Thatcher – either on the wisdom of referendums or anything else.”
Would you take advice from Clement Atlee who saw referenda as “a device for despots and dictators” and “alien to all our traditions”?
Having watched various parties tie themselves in knots over referenda over the last several decades as a way to avoid actually having to make a decision I’ve concluded representative democracy is a better way.
Having a referendum before a FPTP General Election is dangerous. If the self-serving Conservatives should win a majority, we can say goodbye to electoral reform, except for abolishing the Supplementary Vote for mayors again.
Problem. Electoral Reform and Referendum represent us talking to ourselves, not the public are
concerned about.
I am very glad to see this article, as I have been hoping that our Lib Dem MPs will find a way to help get Andy Burnham to move on proportional representation should he become MP. And I agree with almost all of it – except for the role of the commission and the need for a referendum.
A better way round the question of legitimacy, in my view, would be to create a Citizens’ Assembly (or something like it), with a real cross-section of the population so people can recognise people like themselves in it, to review the problem and come up with a recommendation. Not a binding decision, but a good enough steer for a government to put before parliament if it wishes to do so.
1/2
The advantages of this approach are: (1) the Citizens’ Assembly (or its alternative) can consider all the points that the commission would look at – indeed, it could be briefed by the members and experts of the commission; (2) the wider public would know that the members of the Citizens’ Assembly had looked at the problem and, crucially, had time to consider the matter and discuss it with others, just as they might if they were sitting as a jury; and (3) this recommendation would not come directly from some panel of experts, which is the just sort of thing that many people can be easily persuaded does not speak for them.
A weakness is managing the recommendation so that it does not become an obligation. We still have, and I would say we still want to keep, a representative democracy. So the choice really needs to be that of parliament.
However, if done right, this process could deal with a number of constitutional issues that are badly needed as an upgrade to our politics.
Here’s hoping! 2/2
Here’s something to be learnt from Brexit:
For Parliament to vote to have a referendum isn’t just a vote to schedule and set up an election.
A vote to have a referendum is a vote to enable the *worst possible result* of that referendum. If that result is not palatable, then the referendum should not be held. MPs are elected to govern; not to spin the wheel and hope for the best.
@Tristan
What did Clement Attlee have in mind at the time?
I think we’d all agree that we shouldn’t have referendums on matters which
can easily be reversed by the next Parliament. Recent examples would be the two child cap on benefits, or whether the rail operators should be nationalised.
We probably shouldn’t have had a referendum on AV on this basis in 2011. Although it could be argued it was a constitutional matter, it was only a reallatively minor tweak which the electorate wasn’t too excited about one way or another.
If we are taking advice, we could perhaps listen to Tony Benn who made the very valid point that each Parliament shouldn’t give away powers and so deny policy options to the next Parliament. If we do then there’s a need for a referendum to ensure there is public support.
On this basis we should have had referendums on the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties. This would have avoided all the Brexit problems years later.
@ Tristan,
I’ve looked up why Attlee was talking about a referendum. I couldn’t imagine why there would be any major constitutional issues requiring one at the time. He was responding to Churchill’s suggestion that the wartime coalition should be extended beyond its agreed term and suggested having a public vote to decide.
I can’t see why there would be any need under those circumstances. Either the political leaders of the time would agree to extend it or they wouldn’t.
Attlee obvious judged that an election then , in 1945, would suit him just fine and naturally argued against the ide. Whether he would be also been against the referendums which have subsequently been held is a matter for conjecture.
The folly that was Brexit should make everyone very, VERY reluctant to contemplate referendums..
What could be simpler than a ‘Yes/No’ question? In fact, the last ten years have been spend in arguing what the ‘No’ vote actually meant..
Please read the article carefully – Roz doesn’t just say the referendum should be on PR, but on a whole package of issues of which PR is one.
However, I wonder if that in itself lacks ambition? Much of the political problems faced by the UK are structural – our “flexible” approach to our “constitution” means that, in theory, a decision for change taken by one government can be changed immediately by a new one (as happened twice with the voting systems for Mayors.)
So why not go the whole hog, and finally develop a written constitution? Codify things like the Scottish Parliament, the NHS and the voting system, and make the constitution difficult, but not impossible, to change (one of the big disadvantages of the US constitution is that it was designed to be changed by 13 states, not 50.)
A subsequent referendum on the constitution could be on the document as a whole, or a series of referenda on elements of it (for example, the monarchy, the voting system, membership of the EU.)
Doing that would take a full-on commission, could involve people from all political parties and none. As demonstrated in Scotland in 2014, voters do engage with referenda when they see and understand the potential effect to them.
Referenda are always a bad idea. They divide people, friends, families and communities who then blame each other for ever, and are increasingly often fought on misinformation and misrepresentation. Representative democracy reduces this by politicians taking the blame.
Instructive that the debate is not really about what Roz proposes, with which there is broad agreement, but just with the suggestion that a referendum would be the best way of making the final decision.
So let’s develop Roz’s proposals and leave the decision process until later. And Im of the school that referendums are not the best way of making decisions in the UK’s Parliamentary democracy, but maybe Im scarred by the UK referendums Ive seen
“The folly that was Brexit should make everyone very, VERY reluctant to contemplate referendums.”
I’ve seen a few more comments, on LDV, making the same point recently.
So what you, and others, are in effect saying, is that you don’t have any philosophical objections in principle but you are against them because you don’t trust the electorate to give the “right answers” !
eter Martin 8th Jul ’26 – 6:06pm..“The folly that was Brexit should make everyone very, VERY reluctant to contemplate referendums.”…
So what you, and others, are in effect saying, is that you don’t have any philosophical objections in principle but you are against them because you don’t trust the electorate to give the “right answers” !
Not at all.. What I am saying is that the question was a ‘simple’ LEAVE/REMAIN (YES/NO) choice.. However, Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Davis et al were all offering different LEAVE promises.. ‘Hard’ Brexit, ‘Soft’ Brexit, etc..
How did a Yes/No answer cover all the promises? As the old adage says, “The devil is in the detail’..
Quoting expats:
“However, Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Davis et al were all offering different LEAVE promises.. ‘Hard’ Brexit, ‘Soft’ Brexit, etc..
How did a Yes/No answer cover all the promises?”
Quite. A referendum either needs to have simple choices to which Yes/No replies are valid responses or it needs to be mulitple choice to cover all the possible options clearly.