A Vote to Diminish Parliamentary Sovereignty
Why Labour's constitutional changes will undermine our democracy
With just over two weeks to go until the UK General Election, it looks almost certain that Labour will form the next government - and potentially with a great whopping majority. When Rishi Sunak called the election, Labour were 20 points (or more) ahead in the polls. After almost four weeks of campaigning, the Conservatives have failed to make advances or narrow Labour’s lead. A recent YouGov poll even put Reform UK (a fledgling party led by Nigel Farage) ahead of the Conservatives by one percentage point. Under a first-past-the-post electoral system, this wouldn’t necessarily translate into a significant number of seats for Reform, but their presence will almost certainly damage the Conservatives chances of holding on to a significant number of marginal seats - including in the Red Wall constituencies in the Midlands and the North.
After fourteen years of Conservative government, many people - including lifelong Conservative members - have simply had enough. But while many of them will vote for Reform, others - especially those who are on the centre-left of the party - will instead vote Labour, as will a great many people who simply want ‘change’ (a word Labour has repeatedly used during this campaign). So while it is almost inevitable (though not completely certain) that Labour will form the next government, they will do so not because there is any real enthusiasm for Keir Starmer and Labour policies, but because voters want change and are disillusioned with the way things are run. We are, in essence, about to elect a government that few people have any real appetite for, which is an unprecedented situation to be in. Labour may get a landslide majority, but the enthusiasm that was there among the electorate in 1997 is nowhere to found.
Having said that - and accepting that the wooden persona of Starmer is a far cry from the charismatic figure of Blair - there are parallels in philosophy and outlook between the two men that are worth reflecting on. Both have roots in radically left wing movements. Blair was a Trotskyist and Starmer an advocate of ‘Pabloism’ (an equally radically left-wing movement, which Peter Hitchens explained at length a couple of years ago in an article for the Daily Mail). But rather than resorting to old methods of direct violence and destruction to implement radical change, they believe that huge change can be brought about by infiltrating existing institutions and changing them quietly from within.
During Blair’s time in government, many of the institutions that have been part of our nation’s constitution for centuries were changed beyond recognition or completely diminished in status. There are many examples, but here are three:
The devolution of power from Westminster to Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont. While in theory handing over powers to administrations within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to make decisions which directly affect them is a noble aim, in practice devolution has done a considerable amount of damage to the harmony between the individual nation states within the United Kingdom. In Scotland, for instance, it has long been the case that it has had its own church, education system, health system, heraldry etc., but it shared in common with the rest of the UK a Parliament that would serve - and represent - the interests of citizens across the United Kingdom. Devolution has ruptured that sense of commonality. And with this, devolved governments only ever ask for more of the same: more money and more power, which only exacerbates the problem that Blair thought he was going to resolve in the first place.
The proliferation of quangos, expert committees and independent decision makers. It might sound like a rather good idea for politicians to outsource decision making to ‘those who know best’, but, in reality, such groups often find themselves guided by the politics of those who have a vested interest yet are not accountable to the electorate. Michael Gove touched a nerve when he declared that “the people of this country have had enough of experts,” but in reality, the Conservatives - starting with the “heir to Blair”, David Cameron - have done nothing to halt the ever-expanding machinery of bureaucracy and the outsourcing of political decisions to ‘expert’ committees. Aristotle famously said that “the guest will judge better of a feast than the cook”, meaning that one ought to put faith in those who are not experts but have a good instinct for what they know is right and best. Surely, a true conservative would understand this way of thinking.
The Human Rights Act 1998. When the Human Rights Act was passed, the rights stipulated in European Convention of Human Rights were integrated into UK law. As a consequence, the UK is in hoc to this convention, regardless of what elected politicians, or the people of this country, think or believe. And while the concept of Human Rights is a noble one, the term has been abused to such an extent that it no longer refers to the protection of individual freedom and liberty (over the powers of the state) but the deification of minority (and ostensibly oppressed) groups. But by focusing on particular groups, how can the individual be protected? Only the state can legislate to ‘protect’ these groups, which often leads to the curbing of free expression and creation of new, privileged groups (DEI is its logical conclusion). The Equality Act 2010, introduced in the dying days of the last Labour government, has only exacerbated this problem, by insisting on protecting disadvantaged or oppressed groups. We might say it was well intentioned, but if the law is blind and universal, it is not in any of our interests to creative protected classes (or beliefs, for that matter).
One could add to this list the separation of powers and the creation of a Supreme Court, or the independence of the Bank of England (outsourcing the responsibility of setting interest rates), but I will save these for another time. The key point is that many of these legislative changes have uprooted our constitution, detaching it from historical precedent, and one senses that the problems these changes have introduced will only worsen under a future Labour Government. Starmer has spoken in recent times about introducing an “Office for Value for Money to ensure all taxpayers’ money is spent wisely” and a “Covid Corruption Commissioner, equipped with the powers they need to chase down those who have ripped off the taxpayer, take them to court, and claw back every penny of taxpayer’s money that they can.” (As if we need even more committees and experts to interfere in the political process at taxpayers’ expense.)
One would be perfectly justified in saying that the Conservatives are as much to blame as Labour, but on the grounds of inertia rather than action. What have they done to curb this trend? The issue of pan-European and international institutions circumventing our political process may be important but what about the willful attempt to outsource power to those we do not elect at home? Democracy in the true sense accepts that not every decision is a rational one and that people vote in accordance with what they think is right. Many who voted Brexit, for instance, did so not because it would have a negative impact on growth, trade and makes us all poorer; they did so primarily because they wanted to restore sovereignty to our nation. Rather than have decisions made in Brussels by unaccountable bureaucrats, they should be made by those we elect to Westminster.
52% of those who voted in the 2016 Referendum did so in spite of the experts telling them to do otherwise. While the mainstream media and Establishment often attributed their reasons for voting in that way to ignorance, jingoism or little-Englanderism, we can say with confidence that the prejudices of the Establishment amount to a complacent and aloof arrogance on the behalf of those who think they know better than the little man and woman. But while we have left the European Union and “taken back control” to a certain extent, one has to ask how much power has been returned to parliament. There is a sense that it is the aloof types (the ‘experts’) who are still calling the shots.
Look at the power handed over to SAGE (the scientific advisory committee) during the COVID Pandemic. I am not doubting the expertise of those on the committee, but sometimes experts can be wrong (as Neil Ferguson demonstrated with his modelling) and the science (I am suspicious of anyone who places the definite article in front of ‘science’) is not something to handed down like a tablet of stone but something that is open to be questioned and challenged. It is the job of government to weigh up issues of public health with the consequences for the economy, schooling, workplace productivity and social relations. A government should not simply sleepwalk into agreeing with what they are told by the experts, who are focused on a single issue.
It is not simply the question of expertise here but received wisdom in general. The OBR, who claim to offer completely independent, neutral and sensible guidance on econometrics, are often in hoc to the interests of the City, where there is a consensus that cannot be broken by governments. But governments, surely, are not there to passively accept received wisdom? Are they not there to set the agenda? When civil servants try to frustrate the process of implementing government policy, it is incumbent on the government to say that it is not their job to do so. And when the College of Policing continue to offer guidance on non-crime hate incidents, despite at least two home secretaries demanding that they stop, the government much question whether such a professional body is fit for purpose.
There is a growing sense that the machinery of parliamentary sovereignty is breaking down. And with the prospect of a future Labour government - with more devolution to the regions (away from Westminster), the creation of a Race Equality Act (which is totally unnecessary and will only do more to divide our nation along racial lines) and the concept of “social rights” (a concept which is so vague, it is bound to be abused by opportunists) - the problems I have identified will only be entrenched further. Starmer has already committed to staying in the ECHR, but with the advancement of “social rights”, lawyers at home will be granted further powers to frustrate the political process if a policy is not in accordance with this rather vague, abstract principle.
Politicians may not always make the right decisions, but if we are to accept the premise of a democracy, where members of the voting public choose a particular candidate for a constituency or a councillor for the local area based on a set of promises or a manifesto, then we have to accept they ought to be able to make decisions. We may not vote for them or agree with their policies but democracy depends upon loser’s consent and accepting the fact they have been given a mandate by their constituents.
By all means, hold our politicians accountable - this is part and parcel of a democracy. The electorate can express their right to free expression and elected officials can hold their fellow representatives to account through rigorous debate and questioning. But this is slowly being ebbed away because so much decision making has been outsourced elsewhere. Experts are important, but they advise, not dictate. A relentless pursuit of reason is fundamentally anti-democratic, precisely because it ignores the fact that not all politics are inherently rational. As we have seen during this General Election campaign - and in the televised debates - politicians appeal to our emotions and instincts as much as, if not more than, reason.
If only we could all recognise that a great many of the decisions which affect our everyday lives are not made by those we elect, and their appealing to our emotions and feelings is going to do little to change that. Elections are full of promises that are seldom delivered, but if any of the parties are serious about delivering on their promises, then they should assure that they have the power to make decisions in the first place. When Starmer waxes lyrical about ‘change’, perhaps he ought to look at those who are really calling the shots.