Democracy depends not just on rules, but on confidence that those rules are enforced without fear or favour.
Tom Brake is CEO of Unlock Democracy
Jack Straw has cause to be unhappy. This Labour government seems intent on consigning some of his best work in office to the dustbin of history. As Tony Blair’s first Home Secretary, Straw oversaw changes to the way elections are run that remain to this day. Among them was a new, independent democratic watchdog: the Electoral Commission.
Tasked with regulating political finance and overseeing elections, it was designed to operate at arm’s length from ministers, beyond the reach of party politics. For good reason: it would plainly be unacceptable if the police officers “assessing” allegations that Reform UK and Nigel Farage election spending rules were required to follow a set of priorities written by a Labour minister – or a Reform minister for that matter. Even if the outcome was entirely lawful, it would not be trusted.
Democracy depends not just on rules, but on confidence that those rules are enforced without fear or favour. We uphold criminal justice by keeping ministers out of operational policing for exactly that reason. Yet the same logic is now being set aside when it comes to the policing of elections by the Electoral Commission.
Changes made by the Conservatives mean the government can now dictate the strategic priorities of the Commission. Having ministers set a Strategy and Policy Statement for the Commission sits uneasily with international democratic standards, which stress that election regulators must be independent of government. It also sits uneasily with public opinion at home, with 7 in 10 voters telling Survation the Commission should operate free from government influence.
Labour understands this. In opposition numerous frontbench spokespeople made clear the party’s view that it is not for any government to dictate the priorities of the elections regulator. This even carried over into government, albeit briefly. Lord Wajid Khan, then a Labour minister, told peers that the independence of the Electoral Commission was “vital for public confidence”, observing that “the existence of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission is inconsistent with the commission’s role as an independent regulator.”
Now, however, Labour says it intends to designate a new Strategy and Policy Statement for the Commission, in part to reflect the government’s priorities.
Ministers should need no reminding of the parlous state of public trust in this country. In the summer, Labour outlined its plans for the forthcoming elections bill under the title “restoring trust in our democracy”. The Electoral Commission’s own polling shows that public confidence in how elections are run and regulated cannot be taken for granted. In that context, even the perception of political interference is corrosive.
Removing ministerial direction from the Electoral Commission does not require complex reform or years of stakeholder consultation. Nor would most MPs need their arms twisting. Opposition parties and backbench Labour MPs are already urging the government to do the right thing. All that’s required is a clear decision from ministers to restore the settlement Parliament approved a quarter of a century ago.
Standing at the despatch box in January 2000, Jack Straw told MPs that the new Electoral Commission would need to be “as independent of the government of the day as our constitutional arrangements allow”. Specifically, he argued, “it must be answerable directly to Parliament and not to ministers.”
The parallels with today are obvious: a first-term Labour government, with a whopping majority, that recognises the need to modernise the architecture of our democracy. Then, ministers chose to relinquish oversight of elections in the name of democracy and public trust. Twenty-five years on, it’s a legacy Labour must uphold.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.