As Labour travels to Liverpool this weekend, one issue which will attract attention is the extent to which Sir Keir Starmer spells out his vision on constitutional reform, if the party wins a majority at the next election.
The Blair administration introduced a variety of ambitious constitutional innovations in its first term, including devolution, Lords reform, the Human Rights Act and freedom of information. Gordon Brown also envisaged change, launching a significant (albeit unfinished) review into the governance of Britain when he took over as Prime Minister in 2007.
As we enter what might be the final Labour conference before the next general election, it is far from clear how radical Starmer wishes to be.
Initially, it appeared that Starmer might take a similar approach. In 2020, he established a Commission, overseen by Brown, to report on plans to settle the future of the Union and consider further reforms to the UK constitution. The Commission reported in December 2022 and set out 40 recommendations for change, principally focused on devolution, localism and reform of the House of Lords.
Yet Starmer has been fairly cautious in how he has approached these issues. His approach to Brexit is somewhat opaque and wider constitutional revolution may not be on the agenda. As we enter what might be the final Labour conference before the next general election, it is far from clear how radical he wishes to be: the only issues which appear to be on the table are the House of Lords and limited electoral reform.
The former issue will apparently be subject to a consultation, but with a clear preference for an elected second chamber which would be representative of the UK’s nations and regions. Starmer claims this would help to ‘restore the trust of the public’ in our system of Government.
In terms of electoral reform, recent headlines also suggest that Labour would introduce votes at 16, although a plan to grant the franchise to EU nationals resident in the UK does not appear to have been included in the final draft of the party’s national policy forum. It is suggested that Starmer is not a keen supporter of proportional representation.
The UK’s constitution is unusually flexible, as it provides no opportunity for a single government to entrench its constitutional values in law. Moreover, there are no specific legal requirements on a government which wishes to amend earlier constitutional legislation, provided that it does so clearly enough on the face of any new laws. As the Duchess of Omnium put it in Anthony Trollope’s novel, The Prime Minister: ‘Anything is constitutional or anything is unconstitutional, just as you chose to look at it.’ Or, as John Griffith put it so pithily, the constitution ‘is no more and no less than what happens’.
However, given the cost of living crisis and the implosion of the SNP, it would hardly be surprising if Starmer does not focus too much attention on the question of constitutional modernisation at conference. It is an issue that provokes great excitement amongst only a small number of voters. A recent report by the Institute for Government advocating constitutional renewal provoked only limited political interest. Despite renewed concerns about sleaze in parliament and Brexit, there is no obvious constitutional moment to justify substantial new reforms which do not have cross-party support in Parliament.
While caution may be wise, Starmer should also be careful that any reforms that he does propose do not look like partisan political fixes. The last constitutional innovations introduced in this fashion – the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and a weak version of English votes for English laws – were met with suspicion and did not have a happy fate.
While caution may be wise, Starmer should also be careful that any reforms that he does propose do not look like partisan political fixes.
It would be naïve to think that every constitutional innovation should be the result of public consultation, citizens assemblies and bipartisan co-operation; however, reform based mainly on self-interest is no way to tackle important issues. Unfortunately, votes at 16 has the appearance of political calculation, given the likely views of younger voters. Lords reform also gives the impression of a plan to try to fix the problems of the devolution settlement while achieving party political advantage. As such, it has the potential to be a double-edged sword.
Labour has a clear and legitimate worry that as the third largest group in the Lords (behind both the Conservatives and the Cross-benchers) it might struggle to get its legislative programme through unscathed. The creation of large numbers of new Peers is clearly problematic, given the fact that the Lords is already unwieldy and the risk that Starmer would face charges of hypocrisy if he simply ennobled a swathe of party supporters.
Yet radical reform of the House of Lords risks turning into a complex quagmire and it poses as many questions as it would answer. Notably, the Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, (a former Labour MP) has expressed reservations about the idea of an elected second chamber. His Lords counterpart, the Lord Speaker Lord McFall (another canny Labour operator) has noted that previous experience indicates small incremental changes have far been more successful than proposals for radical transformation, and has warned that any extensive reforms should enjoy ‘both consensus and legitimacy’. The current model may be unloved, but it does bring expertise to bear and has been useful in reviewing and revising some of the more egregious bills which emerge from the Commons.
At a time when there are so many other intense conflicts in our political system, sweeping reorganisation of the House of Lords also has the risk of being a needless distraction which could easily take up a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time. Wiser heads might counsel changes to remove the more indefensible aspects of the current system, including the hereditary peers and Lords Spiritual, while granting the House of Lords Appointments Commission more powers to ensure that clearly unsuitable candidates are not waived through by politicians.
We shall have to wait to see whether Starmer deigns to elucidate his plans in Liverpool. The recent Brown Commission review appeared to suggest that constitutional innovation could address profound problems and unleash growth and prosperity for the entire country. In truth, this seems highly unlikely. But it would be unfortunate if – having championed the idea of restoring trust in politics – Starmer’s proposals came to be seen as both polarizing and politically partisan.
Comments