As we watch Donald Trump knock down the checks and balances built into the US constitution to constrain the powers of executive Presidents, with the acquiescence of the Republican Party, we need to think hard – and campaign about – the absence of similar checks within our own system of government. Britain’s unwritten constitution has rested, as Peter Hennessy famously said, on the ‘good chaps’ theory of constitutional behaviour: that no political leader who won a majority in the House of Commons would ever behave in an ungentlemanly fashion. Across Europe as well as in the USA we’re now learning that populist leaders are not gentlemen. So we must be out there making the case against unlimited populist government and for reforms to strengthen constitutional liberal democracy.
Reform of our over-centralised political institutions is at last creeping from the realm of political nerds into the field of active discussion. That’s partly because of a rising awareness that the outcome of the next election could become a constitutional crisis – either a Commons without any party large enough to form a government on its own or with only one coalition partner, or a party with a majority of seats elected on less than a third of those voting. It’s partly because we face a crisis of public distrust in national politics, with surveys showing much higher levels here than in comparable European democracies. And it’s partly that Britain is evidently suffering from an over-centralised state, in which the Prime Minister now struggles to with so many issues at once that long-term thinking is impossible.
Asked to contribute the other week to a discussion at the annual conference of the Institute for Government (the leading think tank on Whitehall, central government and public services), Andy Burnham argued that ‘we need to reform Westminster to bring about the reform of Whitehall.’. Our first-past-the-post electoral system, he went on, builds in a two-party system that rests on staged confrontation between government and its institutionalised opposition. The Whips’ control of government business and the majority party’s MPs stifles critical and constructive debate and inhibits cross-party cooperation. The Financial Times published a letter last Friday on similar lines. A list of City leaders set out ‘the economic case for coalition government’, arguing that ‘the see-saw of policies’ which accompanies the constant shuffling of ministers in this ‘era of politics as a blood sport’ deters investment and damages business confidence. The FT followed up with a full-page weekend article by Andy Haldane declaring that ‘the public has lost faith in the political system’ and asking ‘Has Britain become ungovernable?’
Nigel Farage and Reform tell us that Britain is broken. That’s an exaggeration; but our political system IS broken. Labour holds office with a massive Commons majority that rests on 33.7% of those who voted on a 60% turnout – little more than 20% of the electorate. It’s possible that Reform could win a majority of seats in 2029 on less than that – raising some fundamental questions about legitimacy. Starmer as prime minister is overwhelmed by the competing demands of international crises and domestic problems that crowd into No.10; yet the Cabinet, with over 30 ministers attending, is too large for effective discussion. The Commons spends little time examining the major dilemmas that face policy-makers. Absurdly, it now meets for fewer hours than the Lords, which does most of the detailed scrutiny of government bills. And the government is pushing through another reorganisation of local government in England which will shrink further the links between ordinary voters and elected representatives.
Concern with the quality and resilience of Britain’s political institutions will only grow as the USA descends further into chaos and the polls here show Reform as the largest party but with less than 30% of voter support. The chaos of single-party government since 2015 has fuelled public mistrust of politics and politicians. The damage that Brexit has inflicted on the UK economy is the legacy of Farage and Johnson’s populist campaigns. It’s open to us to defend and promote constitutional, liberal democracy. We began, after all, as the party of Reform against aristocratic privilege. We must now spell out why careful, collaborative, multi-level government that educates citizens in the hard choices that governments have to face is the most effective answer to the cynical and wealthy promoters of autocratic populism. We represent the political opposite to Trump and Farage, and we should proudly call what we are defending ‘Liberal Democracy’.
* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Peter Martin
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
9 Comments
Might it help if the Liberal Democrat Party were to skilfully and volubly reject society damaging and undemocratic Neoliberalism/Austerity?
In these turbulent times, what are the political and societal benefits of precisely managed timidity?
I agree fully with what you say except that I don’t believe there would be a constitutional crisis were Reform to win the next election with a majority of MPs on less than a third of the popular vote. As you point out, Starmer is Prime Minister because Labour won a huge majority of MPs with just 33.7% of the vote, and just 20% of the electorate – that did not provoke a constitutional crisis so winning a majority on slightly less than this is not, in itself, a massive crisis. That said, I think a Reform government – by its actions – may well result in one – or more – constitutional crisis, such as if it decided to legislate to abolish the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Senedd. We live in dangerous times.
It wasn’t that long ago that a post on here demanded that the party should make electoral change a red line in any coalition agreement. You’d have the potential of 13% of the vote demanding such a significant change in the electoral system—a system that is not high on the public’s concerns and never has been. Legitimacy comes from winning under the current system, and any change to that system should be the same. Britain is still suffering the effects of the last coalition government, where principles were abandoned on the altar of a ministerial briefcase and government Jaguar.
I would agree with Joan’s point with the only caveat. My view is that there are also many, many more ways for Reform to create absolute chaos than just the the two mentioned. A political crisis could arise quite quickly, possibly local or international. After all total incompetence is their middle name.
Greg Hyde: the Labour Party’s official policy is to be in favour of electoral reform.Ythe Greens are also in favour- and so, until recently, has been Reform…
I think the critical issue is more the lack of a written constitution that promotes equality of voice and protects fundamental rights. As a consequence our highest priority ought to be PR and constitutional change including Local Government subsidiarity and House of Lords. However, I grapple with how this could ever gain a majority of the public’s attention and priority even though it sets the temperature of many of our issues.
We need to be defending an IMPROVED Liberal Democracy because Reform UK (and some Conservatives) are convincing people including some young people, that currently ‘Liberal Democracy’ has let them down. I once heard someone say that people like dictators as long as they do what the person speaking wants.
This is about electoral reform, House of Lords reform, decentralisation to more effective local government and a written constitution but although there is growing recognition of these matters together with environmental issues, they can only be part of our campaigning. People want to know first where we stand on cost of living (in a credible way), a fairer tax sytem, improved productivity and the relationship between producing our own goods versus better trade. It is part of the underlying aim of Reform UK to attack democracy that supports Liberalism and/or Socialism. WE have to show that economically as well as socially, Reform UK will reduce our quality of life.
I think we’re all in favour of ‘liberal democracy’ in the broadest sense of the term. The perceived threat is in the rise of the far right and the threat from dictators like Putin. I was tempted to add Trump in that too!
The threat from Putin is probably exaggerated for political purposes. The Russian population is about 145 million. Russian GDP is approx $2.54 trillion or about the same as Italy’s. The population of the EU is 450 million. The GDP is $22.5 trillion. Add in the populations and GDPs of non EU European countries and it’s obvious that the Russians should have more to worry about from us than we have of them.
The rise of the far right is more of a symptom than a cause of our troubles. We, including our former partners in the EU, haven’t managed our own financial affairs at all well in recent decades. We all, in the immediate post war period, used to agree that it was important to have full employment, free health and education for all. We all used to agree that the state had a an important role to play in the economy and that we shouldn’t rely on the markets to always deliver the best outcomes.
Not any longer. We are reaping what we’ve sowed.
At the current rate of defections from the Tories how long will it take for them to shrink below the size of the 72 LibDem parliamentary party which then becomes the official Opposition? Even if it may seem unlikely, have Ed and the Party leadership put any thought into this possibility may actually happen before the next GE?