For much of the twentieth century, it was Labour – or at least its leadership – that were the constitutional conservatives. The Labour prime minister, Clement Attlee, argued the Party was “resolved to preserve the essential fabric of the British system of government”, mocked “paper constitutions” and praised the “method of parliamentary democracy and responsible government which the British people have, in the course of a long evolution, worked out in practice as suiting our particular conditions”. Radicals had argued that the constitution protected the interests of the wealthy, and that socialism would need constitutional reform to achieve its goals. Attlee rejected this, seeing the constitution as broadly neutral and finding that the levers it provided were sufficient to enable the post-war transformation of the economy and creation of the welfare state. As a result, the constitutional changes Labour carried out in the post-war period were piecemeal.
By contrast, the constitutional reformers of the post-war period were the Conservatives. In the early 1970s, Ted Heath’s government led the UK into the Common Market, suspended the Northern Ireland Parliament, and fundamentally reorganised local government (although arguably without full acknowledgement of the constitutional nature of these reforms). Only in the 1990s was Labour finally won over to constitutional reform. In office after 1997, New Labour began to ‘modernise’ the constitution – removing (most) hereditary peers, bringing in devolution and mayoral elections, creating the UK Supreme Court, and signing the Human Rights Act.
Barring a polling error of unprecedented scale, or a truly calamitous final week, Labour will win a large majority on 4th July. But will a Labour government follow the constitutional conservatism of Attlee (combined with economic and social radicalism, or not) or the ‘modernising’ constitutional reformism of Blair? And what are the salient constitutional issues in this election?
All the main parties have now published their manifestoes. What they say is important, not least because commitments made in them have a certain status. The Salisbury Doctrine sets out that the Lords should not vote down a government bill included in that party’s manifesto. This can be especially important for contentious constitutional questions and may be needed by any incoming Labour government given the Conservatives have a plurality of seats in the second chamber. The manifestoes raise various constitutional questions, but three stand out:
Will there be Lords reform?
For much of the twentieth century, Lords reform was not a priority for the main parties. In the 1930s Attlee had talked about the House of Lords being ‘anachronistic’ and standing for ‘class privilege’, but in office after 1945 radical reform was not a priority. The Conservative Prime Minister Anthony Eden wrote that the Lords was “on paper not a very defensible system, but the queer thing is that it works, on the whole”. The introduction of Life Peers under a Conservative government from 1958 changed the House, adding women and broadening the social make-up of the chamber, but by and large things carried on. By the time New Labour was elected nearly 40 years later, there was a sense change was needed and the party largely followed through on their manifesto commitment to “End the hereditary principle in the House of Lords” (although 92 hereditary peers survived the cull).
Judging by the manifestoes, the Lords seems less defensible today. The six largest ‘opposition’ parties are all now committed to change or abolition. Even Reform UK – who take a rather pick and choose approach to the institutions they are seeking to conserve – have pledged to “Replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber”. Labour’s manifesto states that the role of hereditary peers in the House is “indefensible” and pledges to remove them, while introducing a mandatory retirement age of 80 for Life Peers. In the longer run, they are committed to “replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations” (although this seems to fall short of a full commitment to enact the recommendations made in Gordon Brown’s 2022 report for the party).
For New Labour after 1997 the destructive aspect of Lords reform was easier than creating something new to replace it. One reason that democratic reforms have run aground is the concern that a democratically elected second chamber would have far greater legitimacy to challenge the Commons, potentially leading to legislative logjams. Whether a Starmer-led administration can confront these challenges and is prepared to spend the time and political capital on finding a solution remains to be seen.
Will the voting age be lowered?
It wasn’t until 1918 that the vote was granted to all men over 21 and women over 30. This was equalised at 21 in 1928 and dropped to 18 in 1969. Following 50 years of stability, the ‘voting age’ question is back. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, SNP and Plaid all support lowering it to 16, and it is already 16 for elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and in local elections in Wales and Scotland. Reform make no mention of this in their manifesto, though Nigel Farage is unsupportive, and the Conservatives are bluntly against. Changing the voting age is also unpopular in polls – a rarity for policies included in any manifesto. What explains this?
W. H. Riker coined the term ‘heresthetics’ to explain how politicians manipulate the rules of the game to win. In recent parliaments, legislation around voter ID and changes to the eligibility of voters who live abroad, were widely thought to favour the Conservative party enacting them. For pragmatists, the policy on voting age might also be seen in this vein. In the mid-twentieth century, according to the political scientist Peter Pulzer in a well-known quote, class was “the basis of British party politics; all else is embellishment and detail.” Yet one of the most striking features of British politics in recent decades is the weakening of class-based voting, and the emergence of a new demographic divide. The 2017 and 2019 general elections saw unprecedented divisions between younger and older voters, with those over 50 voting overwhelmingly for the Conservative Party, while the under-35s voted in large numbers for Labour. Lowering the voting age therefore becomes a means of shoring up the electoral prospects of left of centre parties.
There are also good principled arguments for lowering the voting age. It would align voting with many other rights that are granted at 16 that mark the start of adulthood – including the age of consent, the right to leave school and claim benefits, and to join the armed forces. There is also good evidence that granting the vote to younger people establishes the practice of voting earlier which once established carries on through the rest of their lives.
What will the relationship between Westminster, Europe, the devolved parliaments and local government be?
For much of the twentieth century, the Westminster Model made the UK arguably the most centralised state in Western Europe, with power residing largely in London. This centralisation was increasingly eroded from the 1970s onwards, with membership of the European Union, the ‘hollowing out’ of the state after privatisation and ‘contracting out’, and devolution all taking power from the centre.
In international politics, the spectre of the European Union still looms large for all parties. The Conservatives and Reform are unsurprisingly critical – focusing on removal of extant EU legislation and ‘red tape’. (The idea that it was the Tories who were the pro-European party for much of the post-war period seems almost unimaginable.) Labour discuss ‘resetting the relationship’ and better partnership, whilst being clear that there will be “no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement”. The Liberal Democrats would rejoin the Single Market in the short term. Plaid, SNP and the Greens would rejoin the European Union.
There is greater consensus on devolution of power within England. Both Labour and the Conservatives propose to devolve power to more areas in England. Labour focuses on the “transfer power out of Westminster, and into our communities, with landmark devolution legislation to take back control” – including greater local powers over transport, skills, housing, and employment support, through metro-mayors and combined authorities. (The Liberal Democrats have more radical and long-standing plans including the introduction of “a written constitution for a federal United Kingdom”, while the nationalist parties argue for the right to hold independence referendums.)
Finding answers
Traditionally, the resolution of these questions might be defined by the positions of government and opposition, but this may be less the case in coming years. The likelihood of a large Labour majority – and with it the possible weakening of the disciplining effect of tight parliamentary arithmetic – means divisions within the Labour Party might be the most significant issue. On contentious questions the real opposition might come from Labour’s own backbenches.
Constitutional change, as previous governments have found, takes time and political capital. There would clearly be reform under a Starmer government, but how far it would go is unclear. The removal of the hereditary peers has more support than any solution on the powers and make-up of a revised second chamber. Even the removal of older peers, set out in the manifesto, could run aground – would reformers accept a system where some of Boris Johnson’s younger, more political Lords appointees remain, but older experts, such as Robert Winston, the leading embryologist, are forced to retire? Labour candidates for election have largely kept discussion of the UK’s relationship with the EU outside of the campaign. Opinion in the Labour Party ranges from rejoining to a better functioning model along the current lines. Starmer will continue to walk a tightrope on this issue. Other issues may be easier. Voting age reform might not be particularly popular around the country but is likely to have support in the Commons.
Going into the election, commentators disagree on the constitutional radicalism of Labour’s proposals. Writing in the left-wing Morning Star, the Labour Peer Pauline Bryan argued there was “no full-blooded constitutional change on offer”, while Jamie Weir in the right-leaning Critic foresees “looming constitutional vandalism”, which will “complete the Blairite destruction of Britain’s unique constitution”. Labour’s manifesto is fairly cautious on constitutional issues – as you’d expect from a party 20 points ahead in the polls – but stands somewhere between the constitutional conservatism of Attlee and the modernisation of Blair. What happens in office remains to be seen.
Simon Griffiths.
Simon is a Reader in British Politics at Goldsmiths, University of London where he was, until recently, Head of Department. His work is focused on the relationships between ideologies, party politics and public policy.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.