Starmer’s constitutional timidity

By Meg Russell and Alan Renwick, on 25 November 2025

Monitor 91, published today, provides an analysis of constitutional events over the last four months, a period in which the government has announced numerous electoral reforms, created a new standards body, introduced a bill to increase public accountability, and continued progress on legislation to enhance devolution in England. However, in this post, which replicates the lead article from today’s new issue of Monitor, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick argue that many of the reforms fail to go far enough. They say that the government could be seeking to lead, and to set the tone on constitutional standards, but changes instead feel timid and reluctant in the face of serious threats.

The months since the July issue of Monitor was published have seen progress in several areas of constitutional policy from Keir Starmer’s Labour government – often acting on pledges in the party’s 2024 manifesto. Many of these developments are welcome. However, the proposed steps are mostly small, where bigger and bolder ones often seem necessary. Starmer’s government could be seeking to lead, and to set the tone on constitutional standards, in an environment of growing concern about the health of democracy. Instead, changes feel timid and reluctant in the face of serious threats.

The current edition of Monitor summarises these developments. The long-trailed Ethics and Integrity Commission was announced in July and created in October, alongside changes to the business appointment rules. Both changes clarify the standards framework and extend the scope of regulatory bodies; but neither is underpinned by statute, leaving both vulnerable should future politicians seek to flout – or even dismantle – the system. There are also proposed new measures to strengthen standards in local government. But various other calls for regulatory strengthening remain unmet. Most glaring is the failure to use the government’s legislation on Lords reform to shore up the House of Lords Appointments Commission, or to put any limits on the number of peers that can be appointed (as discussed in the last issue of Monitor). That retains a dubious freedom for Starmer himself, but also for any future prime minister less inclined to respect reasonable constitutional norms.

The government’s proposals on elections, published in July, follow a similar pattern. There are sensible plans to encourage participation, and address intimidation of candidates, and it is welcome that the proposals to reduce the voting age to 16 have been separately accompanied by commitments to enhance citizenship education in schools. But the plans on political finance are limited, and the government surprisingly is not proposing to give up setting a ‘strategy and policy statement’ for the Electoral Commission (as introduced by Boris Johnson’s government), which has been widely criticised for compromising the regulator’s independence. These problems were discussed at a Unit seminar in October, where speakers encouraged parliamentarians to beef up the proposals.

Government plans for further devolution in England are also progressing through parliament. In September, a bill (the so-called ‘Hillsborough law’) was introduced which seeks to enforce a stricter ‘duty of candour’ on public servants, and place greater emphasis on the ‘Nolan principles’ of standards in public life. These are again positive developments.

But in some areas progress risks going backwards. Guidance was unexpectedly issued in June placing restrictions on civil servants speaking at public events; while this was softened in October following expressions of concern, the row-back was incomplete. More substantively, despite Starmer’s professional background as a lawyer and his initial stance on entering government, defence of rule of law principles, and in particular of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has often been muted, with the political weather instead made by the Conservatives, and Reform.

In November, President Donald Trump intervened directly in UK public affairs, by threatening the BBC with a lawsuit over the doctoring of clips of his speech on 6 January 2021: an editorial misjudgement that helped trigger the dramatic resignations of the BBC’s Director-General and Head of News. Starmer defended the BBC, saying, ‘In an age of disinformation, the argument for an impartial British news service is stronger than ever.’ As Monitor went to press, however, it was unclear how much damage this core institution in the UK’s democratic fabric, and contributor of trusted and high-quality information around the world, might suffer.

Much of the recent debate has been influenced by the fact that Reform is riding high in the polls, and getting significant media attention. This peaked in advance of the Welsh Senedd by-election in Caerphilly, where the party was beaten into second place by Plaid Cymru, with Labour trailing on 11%. There is much nervousness in Labour ranks about the upcoming May elections, not just to the Senedd but also the Scottish Parliament and many English councils. This includes internal disagreement over whether to respond to Reform by turning to the left, or to the right. A rightward shift was detected in the reshuffle which followed Angela Rayner’s resignation from the Cabinet. But the ensuing election to replace her as Labour deputy leader was won by Lucy Powell, who insisted that the party should not seek to ‘out-Reform reform’. Threats to Labour’s left also mounted, with the election of new Green Party leader Zack Polanski and the planned – but so far chaotic – creation of a new party by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana.

All around the world, there are fears about the threat from populists to the core institutions and fabric of liberal democracy. This is currently most visible in the US under President Donald Trump. There the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offered hope to many, but also raised others’ fears that undeliverable promises and left-wing populism could fuel polarisation and ultimately benefit Trump. The difficulties of effective governance in current times were also starkly on show in France, as chronic cabinet instability continued.

Here at the Unit, meanwhile, we have recently updated and reissued our set of briefings on constitutional principles and the health of democracy, spanning among other things the role of the media, the civil service, parliament, the rule of law, the risks of backsliding and the importance of checks and balances. In such tense political times, these principles seem more essential than ever.

Monitor 91 is available on our website and in PDF format. All previous issues of Monitor are also available to download. You can sign up to receive each edition of Monitor in your inbox through our mailing list.

About the authors