One of the most important questions in politics is a simple one: do those in power trust people to make decisions for themselves? Not to always decide wisely, not to always choose outcomes that ministers like, but to choose at all.
Increasingly, this Labour government appears to answer that question with a quiet but unmistakable no. Across justice, democracy, local government, policing, and even its own internal party processes, a consistent pattern is emerging: when local choice becomes inconvenient or risky, it is removed. That should worry anyone who cares about liberal democracy.
Let’s start with the justice system. Proposals to curtail the right to a trial by jury in significant categories of cases are often presented as pragmatic reforms, designed to ease backlogs or improve efficiency. But jury trial is not a procedural luxury – it is one of the most profound expressions of public participation in the administration of justice. It embeds the principle that the state does not sit in judgement alone; it must persuade ordinary citizens beyond reasonable doubt.
When that right is narrowed for the sake of administrative convenience, the public is not being protected – it is being excluded.
Then there is democracy itself. The postponement or cancellation of local elections, not in response to an emergency but to anticipated political difficulty, is not neutral “reform.” It is disenfranchisement.
When governments become nervous about what voters might say, they too often stop asking the question. A confident government does not fear the ballot box. A government that manages democracy to avoid embarrassment has already begun to misunderstand its purpose.
Local government reform follows the same logic. The abolition of Borough and District Councils in favour of larger, more remote authorities is repeatedly justified on the grounds of efficiency and scale. Of course local government can and should be improved but there is a difference between reforming institutions and hollowing them out. Smaller councils mean accountability. Mega-authorities mean distance. They reduce the number of elected representatives, weaken the connection between decision-makers and communities, and concentrate power upwards. What is gained in tidiness is lost in democratic texture.
Policing reform points in a similar direction. The mooted abolition of local police forces in favour of large regional structures-set to be announced today-may look attractive on organisational charts, but policing depends on consent.
That consent is built through local legitimacy, local knowledge, and visible accountability. Regional mega-forces risk turning policing into something done to communities rather than with them. Again, control replaces trust.
And then there is the episode that brought this pattern into sharp focus: the decision to prevent local Labour members in Gorton and Denton from even having the option of selecting Andy Burnham as their parliamentary candidate.
This is not about personalities or factional loyalties. Burnham is not a revolutionary figure. He represents a recognisable, mainstream tradition within Labour politics, yet local members were denied the opportunity to debate, decide, accept or reject his candidacy. The choice was simply removed.
That matters, not because any individual “deserves” selection, but because it reveals an instinct. Decisions are being centralised mot because local members cannot be trusted to choose competently but because they might choose differently. Democracy is tolerated only so long as it produces the “right” answer.
Viewed individually, each of these developments might be defended as technocratic adjustment. Taken together, they reveal something deeper: a governing philosophy that prefers managed outcomes to open processes, and control to consent.
Liberalism is not naive. It accepts that people will sometimes choose badly. It recognises that democratic decision-making is messy, unpredictable, and often frustrating. But it insists that the answer to that messiness is persuasion, accountability, and engagement – not pre-emotion.
When governments begin removing decisions because they fear the outcome, they are not demonstrating strength. They are revealing insecurity. And insecurity in power has never been a good companion to liberty.
Labour once rightly criticised centralisation, stitch-ups, and the hollowing-out of local democracy. In government, it now risks replicating those same failures – not out of malice, but out of mistrust. A party that truly believes in its values welcomes debate, tolerates dissent, and trusts communities to shape their own futures.
A government that wages a quiet war on local choice may find, in time, that it has also eroded the very legitimacy it depends upon.
Liberal democracy does not die with a bang. It narrows, gradually and politely, as choices are managed away.
We should notice when that happens – and we should say so.
Too Little, Too Late: Why the Conservatives Can’t Reclaim the Centre
The recent interventions from former Conservative West Midlands Mayor Andy Street and former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson, urging the Conservatives to tack back towards the political centre, are revealing – and overdue.
They are right about one thing: the Conservative Party’s lurch to the hard Right has been electorally disastrous for them. But the idea that a few late-stage course corrections can now convince voters that the party has rediscovered moderation stretches credibility to breaking point. This is not a brief deviation; it has been a decade-long transformation.
Some voters may yet be tempted to believe the Conservatives are “coming back to their senses” given a handful of (some might think) right-wing headbangers peel off to Reform. Optics matter in politics, and the exit of the loudest, arguably most extreme Tory figures could create the illusion of renewal. But substance matters more.
The real test is this: would Kemi Badenoch genuinely welcome back figures such as Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Chris Patten, Dominic Grieve, or Penny Mordaunt-and accept the liberal, internationalist, pro-institutions politics that they represent? Few believe she would. And that is why this hoped-for attempted repositioning feels cosmetic rather than real.
For we Liberal Democrats, the task is clear. We must not wait for the Conservatives to fail at reclaiming the centre-we must occupy it decisively, confidently, and permanently, squeezing out all rivals and making our liberal, democratic politics the natural home for moderate Britain once again.
In praise of… North Cotswolds Lib Dems
Credit where it’s due: North Cotswolds Liberal Democrats delivered one of the standout results from last week’s Council by-elections by taking a start from the Green Party in the Rissingtons ward – putting a break on the momentum of Zack Polanski’s Greens at a key moment.
Polanski’s leadership has seen increased visibility and membership for the Greens in recent months, surpassing our party in membership figures. But, by winning this seat, Lib Dems in the North Cotswolds not only flipped a council ward’s representation, they demonstrated that strong local Liberal Democrat campaigning still resonates with voters – especially those looking for solid, pragmatic representation rather than protest politics.
It was a smart, strategic victory: decisive, focused, and a reminder that in many parts of the country the Lib Dems remain the credible, centre-ground alternative.
Well played.
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The street in Australia named after my great great grandfather
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
Roland
David Warren
Peter Chambers
Carl Pierce
Martin Eggleston
17 Comments
The creation of these vast unitary councils in recent years is appalling. I live in North Yorkshire. There are towns under this council that are more than 100 miles apart by road. Why would a councillor at one end of this area care about any problems in places he may have been to only rarely, if ever?
There is no sign of the efficiency savings we were promised – all we are getting is higher council tax and more cuts to services.
“Liberalism is not naive. It accepts that people will sometimes choose badly. It recognises that democratic decision-making is messy, unpredictable, and often frustrating. But it insists that the answer to that messiness is persuasion, accountability, and engagement – not pre-emotion.”
Exactly. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Great article, Mathew!
Regarding the chances of the Tories returning to the centre ground, it is a distinct possibility. I understand that David Gauke is involved in this new project, Amber Rudd was on TV at lunchtime talking it up and of course some moderates never left (Tugendhat, Green, Atkins, Nokes). Every time someone like Braverman leaves it inevitably moves their centre of gravity a tad. We live in interesting times.
What is really bizarre is that they think rural councils need to cover half a million people while London and Metropolitan districts can be a fraction of that (and their residents think some of those are too big).
I was a councillor on a (unitary) metropolitan district council for 22 years, one of the most rural of the mets. Our wards had around 8000 electors. Quite frankly, size wasn’t the biggest problem. The real issue is the gradual leaching away of power and the inability to decide a whole with of local issues as these were taken away by successive governments. These included FE, schools, council houses and the almost complete fettering of planning. This is before council revenues were cut below the bone by Tory and now Labour. Size is no guarantee of efficiency, but lack of power and cash is terminal
It is interesting that Ann Black, a long-time member of Labour’s NEC, decided to announce that she was not planning to stand for re-election to the NEC later this year. She is one of the CLP members who champion local members’ involvement in selection processes. Is it a coincidence that her recent decision timed with the blocking of Andy Burnham as a candidate for the Gorton & Denton by-election, and by implication that No.10 would impose a new single ‘best choice’ candidate on the constituency, thereby eliminating any local selection from a short list of several candidates, including Andy?
If that turns out to be the case, my hope for democracy is that Labour lose the seat.
Thanks Mathew for a good article. Re the Conservatives, it depends whether Kemi Badenoch gets replaced or completely transformed. Another sign of Labour’s illiberal approach under Starmer is his unwillingness to even consider a PR voting system. As Ed Davey said when challenged on this regarding the risk of Reform UK benefitting, the way to meet that challenge is through open debate in which people feel they can have a say.
Chris Cory 26th Jan ’26 – 5:20pm…..Regarding the chances of the Tories returning to the centre ground, it is a distinct possibility.
Two months ago Kemi Badenoch announced a “Radical Borders Plan” targeting the removal of 750,000 illegal immigrants over five years….
That sounds more ‘Trump/Farage far right’ than ‘centre’ to me..’ If she goes ‘centre’ after that promise it’ll be the “greatest comeback since Lazarus”
@expats. Indeed. But you assume that Kemi has a long tenure in her job. If a left leaning coalition can prevail at the next election then she will be gone, possibly Cleverly takes over……
There are a number of possible scenarios in which KB doesn’t even make it to the next election. Events, my boy, events.
@Chris Cory 28th Jan ’26 – 9:10am
CC, In today’s Guardian…”Centrist ideas no longer wanted in Conservative party, says Kemi Badenoch
Party leader tells MPs that one-nation Tories doubting her rightward direction ‘need to get out of the way”..
I think she is making the same mistake that we made in 2010.. Aping another party’s values (in this case Reform’s) usually means that the voters will buy the ‘original’ rather than the ‘ersatz’ version..
Still, “Never interrupt your enemy when he (she) is making a mistake”’.
…the Conservative Party’s lurch to the hard Right has been electorally disastrous for them.
Left. The Conservative Party has long “talked right and governed left.” There’s nothing remotely “Right” about their record in government…
‘Reform is pushing the Tories towards the Left – and electoral annihilation’ [January 2026]:
https://archive.is/qvojx
As some (small c) conservatives (and those who can play one on YouTube) defect to Reform, most remaining Conservative MPs are what Allison Pearson notably described as “One Nation “centrists” – aka supercilious, semi-skimmed Lib Dems who make Tony Blair look like Margaret Thatcher.”
James Johnson (co-founder of J.L. Partners) offers a pollster’s perspective…
‘The centre cannot hold seats’ [January 2026]:
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-centre-cannot-hold-seats/
@ Jeff ‘The Conservative Party has long “talked right and governed left.” ‘
That’s an interesting and very unusual notion, Jeff. The last time I can remember any ‘governed left’ was when Prime Minister Harold Macmillan talked about ‘Winds of Change’ in 1960.
Perhaps you could give us some facts to back up your opinion ?
The fact that right wing policies like austerity and Brexit have led to higher debt, higher taxes, and higher immigration isn’t proof that the various Tory administrations 2010-2024 were secretly left wing. It’s proof that the right are operating with a fundamentally false picture of the world.
@Andrew M: I think that’s a misreading of causes. Firstly, the immediate aim of austerity was to reduce the deficit not the debt, and it succeeded in doing that. A lower deficit simply means the debt is increasing more slowly, not that it is falling. And until 2020 that plan was working, although the Brexit vote threw a bit of spanner in it after 2016. Of course the Covid then totally derailed those plans: The much higher debt and higher taxes today are largely the result of Covid, not of austerity.
As for immigration: Yes it rose sharply after 2021 due to various causes, but there is no sane explanation that can attribute that mostly to Brexit. The rise in immigration appears to have been partly the result of some Government decisions on visa rules and partly the result of external events unrelated to Brexit.
The higher debt, taxes and immigration are rather proof that events can always derail any Government plans!
David Raw 30th Jan ’26 – 7:04pm:
That’s an interesting and very unusual notion, Jeff.
[…]
Perhaps you could give us some facts to back up your opinion ?
It’s not merely my opinion, hence the quotation marks. Putting the phrase into a search engine shows it’s been used extensively by political commentators and by Kemi Badenoch herself to describe recent Conservative governments…
https://www.google.com/search?q=“talked+right+and+governed+left”
‘”Sunshine Or Storm”: Kemi Badenoch Asks Tories To Take A Punt On A Straight-Talking Poker Player’ [September 2024]:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/who-is-kemi-badenoch
– Simon Robinson
The austerity programme from 2010 onwards failed by its own metrics. Prioritising deficit reduction over growth and productivity investment contributed to the UK’s debt-to-GDP ratio rising sharply between 2010 and 2020. Simon Wren-Lewis, Professor of economics at Oxford, is a good place to start to if you want to understand why the austerity policies of 2010 onwards proved to be counter-productive.
Brexiteers attributed high immigration to FoM, when the primary driver was demographic reality. An ageing population required more workers to sustain public services and economic output. The actual outcome of ending free movement was to replace European workers (typically younger, often childless, and more transient) by non-European workers who tend to be older, more likely to bring families, and more likely to settle permanently. Brexit didn’t reduce immigration; it changed its composition in ways that may actually increase long-term demand on services.
The left opposed pretty much everything the Tory governments did between 2010 and 2024. The notion that these governments “talked right but governed left”, which I believe comes from Kemi Badenoch, represents a retreat from the painful reality of right wing policy failure into comforting fantasy.
@Andrew: I’m not disputing that austerity had damaging effects. I’m challenging your specific claim that it led to higher debt and higher taxes. Up to around 2016, austerity reduced the deficit and therefore resulted in lower debt than would otherwise have occurred. After that, Osborne was gone and the Tories’ fiscal policy reflected other priorities.
On Brexit and immigration: before 2016, most EU migrants under freedom of movement were here because it was easy to come, and were working in ordinary office, retail and hospitality etc. roles. Those jobs would not have qualified for non-EU work visas after Brexit. Some EU migrants were in recognised shortage occupations, and employers would have sponsored non-EU workers for those roles, but that was a minority.
Removing roughly 200k per year of net EU migration and replacing only a small subset with sponsored non-EU workers cannot explain a rise in overall net migration, even allowing for possible speculative additional dependants. The arithmetic simply doesn’t work.
The 2022–23 spike in net migration has well-documented, non-Brexit explanations: pent up demand post-Covid, the Ukraine and Hong Kong crises, and deliberate policy choices by the Government to expand work and study visas. Net migration has since fallen back to pre-Brexit levels, consistent with those being exceptional, time-limited factors. On the other hand there is no causal mechanism linking Brexit itself to that temporary surge.