Today the Constitution Unit publishes a wide-ranging new report. The Constitutional Landscape: Options for Reform briefly summarises 31 areas of constitutional policy, describing the current state of affairs and the options for reform. In this post Lisa James, one of the report’s authors, explores its contents.
Continue readingTag Archives: Labour
Labour and the constitution: an uneven start for Starmer
Today the Unit published Monitor 88, providing an analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Alan Renwick and Meg Russell, which also serves as the issue’s lead article, reviews the new government’s early months, highlighting positive first steps, but also many opportunities for quick wins not taken. It highlights some positive action by the new government, like the publication of a revised Ministerial Code, a speech by the new Attorney General on the rule of law and small steps on parliamentary and electoral reform, as well as some less positive behaviour and inaction, such as failing to further strengthen of standards in public life, rushing legislation and not making further progress with parliamentary and electoral reform.
Continue readingGovernment standards: the need for reform
Before the election, Labour promised to make broad changes to the standards regime. Yet two months after the election, progress on many aspects of their plans has been slow, and the new government has already been accused of ‘cronyism’ and other ethical missteps. Peter Riddell argues that urgent action to create new safeguards (including legislation) is required, and that ministers cannot brush aside criticism on the grounds that their intentions are good.
The government is in danger of missing an opportunity to strengthen standards in public life. After more than 10 weeks in office, there have been little more than vague statements about future good intentions, and self-inflicted and unnecessary problems such as over a series of appointments of political allies to the civil service.
Before the election, Labour promised a fresh approach to standards, focusing on creating a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, giving the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests full powers to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct, and tighter enforcement of rules on post-Whitehall employment. This was part of a broader constitutional reform package that included planned changes to the ways in which parliament operates, and the devolution settlement. Before and during the campaign, there was widespread debate about how to rebuild trust in public institutions, notably the seven point plan for early action jointly unveiled on 24 June by the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government and the UK Governance Project (a commission chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve).
The initial signs from the new government were promising: on his first day in office Keir Starmer met Laurie Magnus, the Independent Adviser, to demonstrate his commitment to high standards for ministers. But, since then, there has been nothing apart from non-committal parliamentary answers. A revised Ministerial Code normally appears very early in a new parliament and an agreed draft was ready soon after the election, but it is apparently stuck somewhere in the system. That affects the announcement about the Independent Adviser’s role.
Continue readingStarmer’s challenges and early steps towards constitutional renewal
Today, the Unit published Monitor 87, providing analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Meg Russell and Alan Renwick also serves as the issue’s lead article. It discusses the Labour landslide at the general election and the new-look House of Commons; the constitutional changes we can expect from the new government (such as House of Lords reform, measures on standards, and increased devolution in England); and unexpected changes in political leadership in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It also warns that aspects of the election campaign show that the divisive politics plaguing the UK has not gone away. And it commits the Unit to work hard to inform the new government, new opposition parties and wider public about the constitutional challenges ahead.
Since the last edition of Monitor was published four months ago, the face of UK politics has radically changed. Most obviously, a general election was unexpectedly called, and the dramatic results delivered a Labour landslide and therefore a change of government. Former Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer is now the UK’s Prime Minister, while former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is (at least for now) Leader of the Opposition. The Shadow Cabinet has very largely become the Cabinet, while many members of Sunak’s government lost their seats, as did former Prime Minister Liz Truss.
The Labour manifesto (analysed alongside others on the Unit blog) promised various constitutional changes, some of which were reflected in the King’s speech given on 17 July. The government promises reform of the House of Lords, with a first session bill to remove the hereditary peers; it is committed to reforming appointments and shrinking the size of the chamber, before turning to larger-scale reform. It also promises quick action on changes to the territorial constitution, with a new Council of the Nations and Regions, and further devolution within England. The speech reiterated plans to act on the integrity of elections and encourage participation – the manifesto pledged to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and improve electoral registration. As for the manifesto commitment to create a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, legislation on the detail of this is expected later – the Unit published a report on the options in March. Beyond legislation, the government has committed to creating a new House of Commons Modernisation Committee – a topic on which the Unit likewise issued a report, in June.
Continue readingElection 2024: the performance of the electoral system
The general election has raised many questions about the functioning of the UK’s electoral system. In this post, Alan Renwick focuses on two main areas: the First Past the Post rules that form the core of that system; and the quality of democratic discourse during the campaign. The election result illustrates the arguments both for and against First Past the Post; change in this area is unlikely. But, he argues, the need to improve democratic discourse is more pressing than ever.
The 2024 general election having concluded, we can begin to assess how the voting system performed. On one level, the electoral process was a resounding success. Nowhere did the system collapse. Nowhere are the results contested. Losing candidates up and down the country accepted their fates – often, though sadly not always, with good grace. As outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in his concession speech on election night, ‘Today, power will change hands in a peaceful and orderly manner, with good will on all sides. That is something that should give us all confidence in our country’s stability and future.’
Other aspects of electoral administration will take longer to gather evidence on. There were numerous reports during the campaign of voters not receiving their postal ballots on time, and some councils took emergency measures in response. The Electoral Commission will now collect thorough evidence on the extent of the problems, and may recommend reforms. This is no trifling matter: over a fifth of voters now cast their ballots by post, and they need to be able to participate with confidence. Similarly, the impact of new voter ID rules will also need careful examination.
This blogpost focuses on two other aspects of the election process: the performance of the core of the voting system itself; and the nature of political discourse during the campaign.
Continue reading