Open Britain’s Criticisms of Labour’s Manifesto Plans for Democracy

‘Update: 14/06/2024

20 days to go – There’s only one issue today!

Only one issue today, but it’s a big one and it deserves to have the whole email to itself.

We’ve now had 24 hours to go over Labour’s manifesto, unveiled on Thursday, three weeks out from the coming general election. In all likelihood, this document will define the legislative agenda of the next UK government. So what’s in it?

Well, you can read the document here and decide for yourself what you think. As an apolitical organisation, OB is careful never to endorse any political party. We always urge you to make your own mind up and exercise your democratic right to support or reject what’s on offer.

But we don’t flinch from criticising parties when they undermine our democratic rights and institutions. And we won’t flinch from praising them if and when they take steps genuinely intended to defend, strengthen or renew our democracy.

So, here’s what we think of Labour’s manifesto.

Overall, Starmer seems to understand the public’s discontent with Sunak’s Conservatives. He (heavily) emphasises “change”, “restoring hope”, “stopping the chaos”, and “turning the page”. That is very welcome.

But when you get into the detail, things are a little less clear.

We assessed Starmer’s plans for democratic reform against the proposals set out in our Democracy Goals report, and in our new mini-manifesto for democracy. In dong so, we drew everything back to this fundamental question: “On the basis of these plans, will Labour deliver a stronger, fairer and more representative political system before it’s too late?”

According to the manifesto, Labour have plans to:

• Establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure probity in government;
• Support an immediate ban on MPs taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles;
• Review and update post-government employment rules to end abuses seen under the Conservatives;
• Introduce legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords;
• Require peers to retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach 80 years of age;
• Consult on replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations;
• Give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections (IN OUR MANIFESTO);
• Improve voter registration and address “inconsistencies” in voter ID rules;
• Protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties (IN OUR MANIFESTO – though more clarification needed).

So, the answer to our exam question is: Yes and no. We’re glad to see two of our mini-manifesto proposals in Labour’s document. And we’re encouraged that there is some acknowledgement of the need to address issues such as Lords Reform, Voter ID and ethics/standards in governmnet. But it’s clear there is still much work to be done to persuade them to carry out ALL the reforms that are so desperately needed. For example, there is no mention of fixing our broken press. Or of repealing recent legislative attacks on our civil liberties, such as the right to protest.  Failure to address these two fundamental issues perpetuates an environment in which the far-right can flourish. Any sensible government committed to defending democracy would grasp those issues as a matter of urgency. Lastly, we note with disappointment, if not surprise, that there is no mention of any plan to adopt Proportional Representation. (But we’re already working with partners across the democracy sector to change that.) All in all, this manifesto is a clear indication that the government-in-waiting is alive to the need to fix our democracy and willing to do so, at least in part. That represents a very welcome change from the current situation. OB’s job now is to push them to complete the job so that our political system is not vulnerable to subversion by demagogues and strongmen who we know are waiting for their opportunity to strike.

All the very best, The Open Britain Team

And finally, for a bit of fun, why not take our quiz to find out how much election news you’ve absorbed this week:

QUICK QUIZ‘

Okay, Starmer is not going to announce any plans to fix the press, as like Blair he’s relying on it to promote him. His interviews and articles were first published in right-wing rags, if you recall. There are problems with this strategy, as the Depress and the Heil will continue to attack him no matter what. The only politico who realised that they’d given Murdoch too much power, and that he effectively decided who was going to be Prime Minister through his newspapers’ propaganda was John Major. And that was only after Murdoch had dumped him for Blair.

As for our rights to march and protest, Starmer’s not going to reinstate these because he’s been aiming his campaign at disillusioned Tory voters. And no matter how disillusioned they are, they still don’t want leftie protesters like Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and now the protests against the genocide in Gaza causing a nuisance. And so he’ll keep these fundamental attacks on democracy in place to appease them.

As for ministers and MPs getting second jobs, I can remember a similar scandal back in the 90s about former civil servants getting jobs with industry as soon as they retired or left their posts. The French, commenting on the scandal, compared official attitudes across the Channel with ours. We were calling it ‘sleaze’ while they called it ‘corruption’. They had laws, I believe, which made it illegal for any civil servant to take up a job advising industry for five years after they’d left office. As the reason industry wanted to recruit them was to help them immediately, this obviously made them unattractive as new recruits to the board. We need to act with similar firmness here.

And I notice that there’s no mention of some of the really anti-democratic policies that have been introduced by the Tories like secret courts. These are courts where, if it is deemed national security is at risk, the proceedings are held in secret, the identity of the witnesses are withheld and the defendant or their lawyer may not know what the evidence against them is. Whatever happened to this issue?

Tags: Civil Service, Daily Mail, Demonstrations, Extinction Rebellion, Gaza, Genocide, House of Lords, Just Stop Oil, Keir Starmer, Labour Party, Manifestoes, Open Britain, Parliamentary Commissions, Political Donations, Proportional Representation, Protests, Rishi Sunak, Rupert Murdoch, Second Jobs, Secret Courts, The Express, tony blair, Voter ID Laws, Voting Age