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)".