Britain has accumulated government without accumulating democratic power. A citizen trying to discover who is responsible for a major decision can now encounter ministers, councils, combined authorities, mayors, regulators, agencies, commissioners and public-private partnerships—often with overlapping responsibilities and no obvious person whom an election can remove.
This is not simply a problem of having too much government. It is a problem of power becoming difficult to see and therefore difficult to control. The liberal answer is neither centralisation nor another wave of institutional invention, but to make the state smaller where possible, stronger where necessary, and democratic wherever public power is exercised. Ten Liberal Democrat policies could begin that process.
- Reform both Houses of Parliament simultaneously
A 300-member House of Commons should be elected by pure proportional representation, making it the chamber of political representation and government formation. A smaller Commons remains ample in a system with powerful devolved government, while allowing MPs and Parliament to be much better resourced. Alongside it should sit around 300 voting members of the Lords elected by first past the post in territorial constituencies, giving the second chamber a deliberately different mandate rooted in place. Appointed experts and others could remain as non-voting members.
- Give Parliament the institutional power to govern
A smaller Parliament should be a stronger one. Representative institutions need sufficient capacity to hold the executive and wider state to account. The libraries of both Houses should become formidable independent centres of research, quantitative analysis, legal scrutiny, policy evaluation and legislative expertise. MPs and peers should not depend overwhelmingly on ministers, Whitehall, lobbyists or outside organisations for the knowledge required to scrutinise government.
- Restore Parliament’s authority within the political constitution
Britain needs a renewed political constitution in which Parliament can hold its own against the executive, courts, agencies and other centres of public power. Judicial independence and the rule of law are indispensable, while political conflicts should ultimately be resolved through democratic institutions with the authority, expertise and capacity to perform that role.
- Give political parties a recognised constitutional role
Modern representative democracy cannot function without political parties, yet constitutionally we still treat them as private clubs. A proportional Commons would make their representative role still clearer. Parties should receive formal recognition alongside requirements for transparency, internal democracy and responsible governance. Healthy parties are essential intermediary institutions connecting citizens to government.
- Publicly fund democratic politics and political foundations
A modest system of state funding should reduce parties’ dependence on wealthy donors and opaque or foreign-linked money, while tighter rules constrain large contributions. Smaller British versions of Germany’s political foundations could support political education, policy development, civic participation and international democratic cooperation. Parties should again become civic and intellectual institutions, not merely election machines.
- Reconstruct English government around recognisable counties
England needs a uniform, intelligible system of democratic devolution built around places people already know. Existing counties should be the building blocks: some could govern alone, while others could combine where scale, geography and local democratic consent make that sensible. These governments should possess powers comparable in seriousness to Scotland and Wales, while appropriately local functions remain below them.
- Make democratic accountability the long-term defence against corruption
This territorial settlement is not merely tidier administration. Clear democratic responsibility is the strongest practical long-term defence against corruption and capture. When decisions are fragmented among agencies, partnerships, overlapping councils and bespoke authorities, accountability becomes theoretical. We can create regulators to supervise regulators, but no architecture of oversight substitutes for citizens knowing who made a decision and being able to throw them out.
- Apply subsidiarity all the way down
Power should presumptively belong at the lowest level capable of exercising it effectively. Strategic transport or major infrastructure may require large territorial government; other services belong with counties, towns or parishes; many choices should remain with families, communities, voluntary organisations and markets. Higher levels of government should have to justify taking power upwards rather than lower levels continually pleading to receive it back.
- Give England institutional expression
England does not need another large parliament or bureaucracy – power should be dispersed across England rather than concentrated in a new English centre. Yet a Council of England bringing together leaders of its territorial governments could provide expression alongside the other home nations where needed.
- Rationalise the administrative state
Agencies, regulators and arm’s-length bodies have important roles in providing technical expertise and administering policy at appropriate distance from ministers. But they should not become alternative centres of political authority. Political choices should ultimately belong to elected institutions. Democratic institutions decide; expert institutions inform and administer.
Conclusion: Redeeming Britain and its constitution of liberty
These reforms share one principle: public power should be visible, dispersed and contestable, while the institutions entrusted with it should be strong enough to perform their functions well. Where public power is necessary, citizens should be able to see it, understand it and ultimately remove those who exercise it. Britain has spent decades accumulating government. It is time to accumulate democratic power.
* James Dennison is a Liberal Democrat member, parish councillor in Waterbeach and Professor at the European University Institute.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Colin Milburn at Lord's in 1968: The first test innings I remember
Show Racism the Red Card
Greens split over 'Zionism is racism' policy
What do Britain's death-penalty cheerleaders have to say about Christa Pike?
nigel hunter
Jonathan Calder
Nick Baird
Rees Southern
Matt (Bristol)
10 Comments
Professor Dennison write, “England does not need another large parliament or bureaucracy”………………… and goes on continually refer to England.
Writing from north of the Border, in a constituency well over sixty miles wide, could I gently point out to him that there is more to the UK than just that bit named England, (and especially to that bit known as ‘Middle England). We would also do well to avoid the enormous parliamentary constituencies that he suggests if we are to have a democracy on a human scale.
“ Give England institutional expression”
Just ‘institutional expression’? Unless it is viewed as acceptable that criminal laws in England, for example, are decided by a parliament that also has representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it does need an elected body to legislate on England-wide issues.
Thanks Jana. My instinct would be to approach this from the other direction: rather than create a new English Parliament to exercise the powers currently exercised for England at Westminster, devolve much of that power further down.
As I suggest in the piece, England’s new territorial governments should have powers comparable in seriousness to Scotland and Wales. That could include areas currently treated as England-wide policy, while appropriately local functions would sit still further down.
There would inevitably remain some genuinely England-wide matters, and we’d need a democratic mechanism for those. But I’d start from the principle that England deserves as much democratic self-government as Scotland and Wales without assuming that English self-government requires another centralised English state.
In other words, I’d rather solve the English question by giving more power to England’s places than by creating another Westminster.
Thanks David. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the UK begins and ends with England — rather, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have substantial and clearly identifiable democratic institutions, while England has accumulated a much messier collection of tiers and bespoke arrangements. My proposal is specifically about addressing that English problem through much stronger devolution.
On Commons constituencies, 300 MPs would mean constituencies roughly twice their present population, but they needn’t become enormous geographically. I’d also favour using counties as the building blocks for parliamentary boundaries and thus placing limits on their geographical extent in sparsely populated areas and aligning them with local govt for better clarity and thus accountability.
That is also why the 300 figure has to be understood as part of the whole package: far more political responsibility exercised by powerful devolved governments, a much better-resourced Commons, and a second chamber providing additional territorial representation. The aim isn’t to make representation more remote, but to move much more of it closer to people while making national representation more effective.
We should start by asking “What powers should the state (at any level) be exercising and at what level can they be taken democratically by a body covering all the stake-holders and as few others as possible.
We should then look at how in the real world, you can create authorities that best fit those criteria without too many layers and accepting where necessary a milenium of historical baggage.
I would add one principal. If a body execises a power, it must exercise it equally over it’s entire area. That means that some powers would would need to be exercised by sub-sets of one authority (e.g. an England and Wales Grand Committee of Parliament from which MPs from Scotland and NI are excluded) or joint committees with representatives from several (e.g. a Trent Basin Water Board)
300 MPs is not enough if ministers will mainly be MPs as now
“……England’s new territorial governments should have powers comparable in seriousness to Scotland and Wales. ”
Has anyone asked the electorate if they want England to be divided up this way? Unless there is any real evidence that the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland deliver better services than are delivered at the moment in England, it’s unlikely you’ll get an affirmative answer.
Is the Welsh NHS any better than the English NHS? Or their education systems? The Scottish Education system is generally considered to have worsened since their devolution. Maybe it hasn’t, but if the perception is to the contrary you won’t have the electorate on board.
LibDems claim to formulate their policies on the basis of evidence. Do you do this when it comes to the devolution of government?
The current set up of counties isn’t going to work for large scale devolution of power. The 1974 compromises have left places like here in Greater Manchester cut off from large chunks of its hinterland such as Glossop, Macclesfield and Rossendale. In the case of Glossop they share a NHS Trust with us in Tameside and have all main transport links in our direction. As much as identifiable counties would be nice it might be time to detach them from any real political units an revert them back to pre 1974 for ceremonial use.
What your up against is voter apathy. So many only turn out to vote in a GE . Mayoral election turnouts hover around 30%. That’s on a par with pcc’s and in the past EU elections. You’d be naive to think voters are clamouring for change. Peter has a point , Scotland’s once great educational system is a shadow of it’s former self. Without the rest of the UK underwriting it’s spending commitments – Scotland would be bankrupt.
Tim, I’m not convinced that 300 is too few – that is 150 MPs in a govt (at least) none of whom would have constituency duties. As well as elected (and non-elected, non-voting) Lords if need be.
Peter Davies, I entirely agree on that subsidiarity principle.
Peter Martin, I do think England shouldn’t be simply carved up and should have some institutional expression. But it clearly would be too large within the UK to be a sub-national unit exercising large amounts of government.
James Lloyd, I entire agree on the deficiencies of the current county set up but we need some form of recognisability, at least for use as building blocks.
Chloe, yes a lot of this would be too decrease apathy through genuine contestation and accountability to voters who understand the system!