Monitor 91

Starmer's constitutional timidity

Keir Starmer at PMQs. — Keir Starmer at PMQs, (c) House of Commons.

Download a printable PDF

In this edition

Starmer's constitutional timidity

Starmer's constitutional timidity

The months since the last 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.

This edition of Monitor summarises these developments. The long-trailed Ethics and Integrity Commission was announced in July and created in October (see below), alongside changes to the business appointment rules (see below). 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 (see below) 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 (see below). 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 (see below). 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 (see below). 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 (see below). 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 (see below).

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 (see below), 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 (see below). But the ensuing election to replace her as Labour deputy leader (see below) 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 (see below) and the planned – but so far chaotic – creation of a new party by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana (see below).

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.

Back to top

The Modernisation Committee

In a press release on 6 August, then Leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell said that the Modernisation Committee – a cross-party committee established after the 2024 general election to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices – would be ‘setting out a whole host of ambitious recommendations in the autumn’. However, the government reshuffle in early September brought a change in leadership, with Powell replaced as Leader (and therefore as chair of the committee) by Alan Campbell. The transition has cast uncertainty over the committee’s direction and the status of the work promised under Powell’s tenure. As the Unit’s Tom Fleming and Hannah Kelly argued in a recent blogpost, Campbell might want to consider the work and effectiveness of the Modernisation Committee’s previous incarnation (which operated from 1997 to 2010) when deciding how to progress the work of his committee.

A statement released on 21 October confirmed that Campbell had been appointed as chair of the committee, but offered little detail about its plans. The committee first met under his chairmanship on 21 October, with future meetings now scheduled fortnightly – a less frequent rhythm than under Powell. Campbell is likely to bring a different perspective to the role, drawing on his recent experience as Chief Whip, a role in which MPs’ working practices and frustrations would be well known to him. In the October statement, he said that making parliament more accessible to disabled MPs and ‘exploring how Parliament can use time as effectively as possible’ are areas of interest to him. Constitution Unit research has shown that the chair’s approach significantly shaped the direction and effectiveness of the previous Modernisation Committee. Although Campbell noted the current committee’s status as a manifesto commitment during his first Business Questions, the state of its work remains unclear. For a committee that has achieved relatively little in its first year, the change in leadership could prove pivotal; but signs so far suggest that progress is more likely to slow down than accelerate.

Back to top

Procedure Committee reports

The House of Commons Procedure Committee has published two new reports. The first of these reviewed two recent developments in the House’s proxy voting scheme: a permanent widening to cover complications relating to pregnancy and extended absence for fertility treatment; and the renewal of its temporary use in cases of long-term illness and injury. The committee restated some ‘first principles’ for the scheme to avoid it being undermined in the future. It also recommended that the temporary arrangements for long-term illness and injury be extended to at least the end of the current parliament. The government’s response promised to bring forward the necessary motion for that extension ‘in due course’, and the committee has proposed revisiting this topic later in the parliament.

The committee’s other report concluded its inquiry into the status of independent MPs, which was prompted by the election of six such members at the 2024 general election, five of whom subsequently formed what they called a ‘technical group’. The committee highlighted bluntly that this concept is ‘unknown in our parliamentary democracy and has no status within the Standing Orders of the House of Commons’. It recommended against formally recognising such groups, but suggested MPs should be given a chance to debate the procedural rights of smaller parties. The government’s response encouraged the committee to seek this debate during time allocated to backbench business, rather than in government time. The committee also suggested that parliament’s website might be updated to help the public better understand that some MPs become independent after being elected on a party ticket, through a range of circumstances, and recommended a number of changes to Hansard and the parliamentary website.

Procedure Committee Chair Cat Smith. — Procedure Committee Chair Cat Smith, (c) House of Commons.

Back to top

The House of Lords and its treatment of legislation

By the end of October 2025, Keir Starmer’s government had been subjected to 100 defeats in the House of Lords. This is a high number, but broadly consistent with the Johnson and Sunak governments (in the 2021–22 session there were 128 defeats; in 2022–23 there were 125). The ‘Salisbury convention’ indicates that the Lords will not vote down government manifesto bills in their entirety, and in practice such behaviour is very unusual on any bill (whether signalled in the manifesto or not). But a number of recent defeats have focused on key planks of government policy, as broadcast in the 2024 Labour manifesto. As reported in Monitor 90, this included defeats on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to block the complete removal of hereditary peers (limiting action instead to permanently ending the hereditary peer by-elections). It also applied to several key measures in the government’s Employment Rights Bill, including policies to create ‘day one’ rights to sick pay and protection against unfair dismissal, require employers to offer fixed hours to those on ‘zero hours’ contracts, and loosen restrictions on trade union balloting and political funds. All defeats on both bills were readily overturned when they returned to the House of Commons, but the Lords quite surprisingly insisted for a third time on the changes to the Employment Rights Bill. There were also defeats on key elements of the Renters’ Rights Bill, on which the Lords did not insist when the Commons overturned them. Details of all of these and other defeats in this and previous sessions can be found on the Constitution Unit website.

This relative intransigence on the part of the Lords reflects its political make up where, notwithstanding Starmer’s appointment of numerous new peers, Labour remains significantly outnumbered by the Conservatives. At the end of October, there were 286 Conservative peers to 210 Labour in an 851-member chamber. These numbers will clearly shift when the hereditary peers finally depart at the end of the session, but this is not expected before May 2026. In the meantime, the risk is that such behaviour provokes the Prime Minister to strengthen his own numbers further, which can only serve to make the chamber even bigger. As reported in Monitor 90, the opportunity to limit the chamber’s size via the government’s current bill was unfortunately missed.

A separate question is what will happen to the high-profile Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (commonly referred to as the ‘assisted dying bill’). This is a private member’s bill, so not subject to the usual conventions, and with a timetable that is less predictable. The bill was highly contested in the Commons, but passed its third reading in June, and began its second reading in the Lords on 12 September. Various commentators, including Unit honorary researcher Daniel Gover, have explored its possible treatment by the Lords. Before beginning its formal Lords passage, the chamber’s Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had both reported critically on the bill, particularly with respect to the future powers that it would delegate to ministers. At the end of the second reading, its Lords sponsor Lord (Charlie) Falconer of Thoroton accepted that it should unusually be referred for further evidence-taking to a specially convened select committee, as advocated by the bill’s opponents. The committee published the evidence it received as a report on 11 November, and committee stage was ongoing as Monitor went to press.

In terms of prospects for the bill, since the Lords did not vote at second reading it is unknown how the balance of opinion lies in the chamber. But blocking attempts by the unelected second chamber would be controversial, as the principle of ‘assisted dying’ continues to have widespread public support. The Hansard Society has provided much useful commentary on the bill.

Back to top

Treaty scrutiny in Westminster

In September, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee published a report, Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster: Addressing the Accountability Gap. The committee has now existed for five years (having been created initially as a sub-committee of the European Union Committee before attaining full committee status in 2021). Its inquiry assessed the workings of the treaty scrutiny process, following a previous working practices report in 2021 as well as (among others) a 2024 House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report. The new report – and the topic more widely – was discussed at a Constitution Unit seminar in July.

In common with other reports on the subject, the committee concluded that the current process for treaty scrutiny – governed by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) – is inadequate. It emphasised the importance of full scrutiny for treaties themselves (and not just for their implementing legislation) and identified a ‘powerful case for specific legislative reforms’, including a requirement for proactive Commons approval of significant treaties.

The committee also called for non-legislative change. In particular, it said that the 21-day scrutiny period provided for by CRAG had proven to be extremely challenging in practice, allowing insufficient time for evidence-based scrutiny of major treaties; it recommended that, at a minimum, the government should by default accept requests for additional time. Various similar recommendations have been rejected by previous governments: the committee called on the Labour government to now ‘start a serious dialogue about reform of the treaty scrutiny process’.

Back to top

Work of the Intelligence and Security Committee

The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament met with Keir Starmer in July: the committee’s first meeting with a Prime Minister in more than 10 years. The committee, chaired by Lord Beamish (former Labour MP Kevan Jones), has a statutory remit to oversee the UK intelligence community. The committee has previously noted that its remit has failed to keep pace with changes in the handling of intelligence and security matters in Whitehall, and protested the Cabinet Office’s level of control over its resourcing (see Monitor 90). The press notice from the July meeting welcomed ‘very positive steps toward significant change’ on both these fronts, noting that Starmer had committed to working with the committee to ensure the appropriateness of its remit, and agreed to provide additional resources.

Back to top

Elections, referendums and democratic engagement.

Government proposals on electoral reform

In July, the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government published a policy paper – Restoring Trust in Our Democracy: Our Strategy for Modern and Secure Elections – setting out plans for reforms to the UK’s electoral institutions.

The proposals covered five principal areas. First, the paper confirmed the government’s intention to reduce the voting age to 16 for all elections where it remains at 18: elections to the House of Commons throughout the UK; and all other elections in England and Northern Ireland. It would also apply to police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, but these posts are now to be abolished before the next elections.

Second, it proposed steps towards more automated electoral registration. The government will seek powers to ‘actively test methods of automated registration’, and to make permanent changes without further primary legislation ‘where we are confident that they will have a positive impact on registration levels’.

Third, it set out several measures to ease the voting process. The range of forms of eligible voter ID will be extended. Digital forms of ID will be allowed, including a digital form of the existing paper-based Voter Authority Certificate. And, in Great Britain, departing from the current requirement for ID to be photographic, bank cards will be permissible. Changes are also planned to the postal voting system, designed to reduce the danger of voters not receiving their ballots in time.

Fourth, a series of proposals were made for tackling harassment and intimidation of candidates, campaigners, and election staff. Some protections that currently apply only to candidates and campaigners will be extended to officials. Hostility towards those involved in elections will be made an aggravating factor to be considered when courts pass sentences for intimidatory offences. A lingering requirement for candidates’ home addresses to be published in some circumstances will be removed. New guidance will be issued for the police, returning officers, and candidates, clarifying ‘the application of election, online safety and public order legislation’. Picking up a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections (see below), a code of conduct for candidates will be developed. Relatedly, bureaucracy will be reduced for electors who are registered anonymously to protect their security. The paper also reported that the government’s Defending Democracy Taskforce is conducting a wider review.

Finally, the paper set out measures to improve enforcement of political finance rules and to close loopholes that allow money from outside the UK to enter the system. Recipients of political donations will have to check that money comes from permissible sources. ‘Shell’ companies that have little real connection to the UK will be barred from making donations: the paper says, ‘we will require companies to have made sufficient UK (or Ireland) generated income in order to donate’. There will be greater transparency for donations to unincorporated associations. The Electoral Commission’s enforcement role will be extended, and the maximum fine it can levy raised from £20,000 to £500,000. Information sharing between regulators will be eased.

The paper stated that ministers intend to bring forward a bill on these matters ‘during this parliament’. The indications are that this will in fact be introduced in the coming weeks or months.

The reform proposals set out in the paper have been broadly welcomed, including by the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators. On the other hand, there have been widespread concerns about what the paper does not contain. One speaker at a Constitution Unit seminar held in October to discuss the report observed that ‘the sins of this policy paper are sins of omission, not sins of commission’. Five aspects have received particular attention.

First, the paper proposes not to repeal provision for the Strategy and Policy Statement (SPS) through which ministers can seek to guide the work of the Electoral Commission, but rather to draw up a new statement. Labour sharply criticised the SPS when it was introduced by the previous government through the Elections Act 2022, and experts widely agree that it violates the essential principle of Electoral Commission independence.

Second, many have argued that the paper’s proposals on political finance are too timid, and not commensurate with contemporary challenges to the functioning of basic democratic norms. Some – notably including Labour MP Phil Brickell – have argued for specific additional safeguards, such as a ban on cryptocurrency donations and greater investment in enforcement capacity. Others, such as Transparency International, have pressed the case for wider restrictions on ‘big money’ in politics, through donation caps and/or reductions in spending limits.

Third, some are pushing for measures to address electoral disinformation. A group of Labour MPs and others have proposed an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983 designed to strengthen existing rules.

Fourth, the paper says nothing about electoral law consolidation and simplification, which has been a consistent demand among those running elections. A report by the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) published days after the government’s paper continued to press the case (see next story).

Finally, many MPs – including Labour backbenchers – responded to the policy paper by calling for change to the Westminster electoral system itself, from First Past the Post towards a form of proportional representation. As reported in Monitor 90, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill – which was at report stage in the Commons as Monitor went to press – includes provision to restore the Supplementary Vote system (also a non-proportional system, but allowing voters to express first and second preferences) for electing mayors (and, unless they are abolished first, police and crime commissioners).

The Unit seminar on the policy paper mentioned above included rich contributions from the Electoral Commission’s Tom Hawthorn, Labour MP Cat Smith, Transparency International’s Rose Whiffen, and former Electoral Commissioner David Howarth. Unit Deputy Director Alan Renwick has also assessed the paper’s content in a post on the Unit’s blog.

Back to top

Reports on recent elections

Two reports on the conduct of recent elections were published in July. First, the Electoral Commission set out its analysis of the 2025 round of local elections. It found that they had been run ‘with no major problems’. Turnout, at 34%, was slightly lower than in most previous comparable elections. Public opinion research indicated that voters were broadly satisfied with the conduct of the elections, but majorities expressed concerns about low turnout, media bias, and misinformation. A survey of candidates found that 34% had ‘personally experienced inappropriate behaviour or harassment’.

Later in July, the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) reported on the 2024 general election. It found that, while the vote had gone smoothly, risks of system failure of some kind had been uncomfortably high. It said, ‘We are concerned that the fabric may not hold, potentially placing an election result in doubt.’ Some of its recommendations, such as on postal voting arrangements, resembled provisions in the government’s elections policy paper (see previous story). But many went further. The committee called on ministers to make a start on consolidating and simplifying electoral law, and to report annually on administrative readiness for elections. It proposed greater standardisation of election conduct across local authorities, including a single electoral register and ‘a single or integrated digital platform and system for electoral administration’. To address low turnout, it advocated ‘a complete overhaul of political education in the UK, particularly within England’, and for wider public engagement ‘to create the wider environment and culture for political education in schools to be successful’.

The government’s response to PACAC’s report rejected many of these proposals for further action. It contended that consolidation ‘would be the job of more than one Parliament’, and said ministers would focus on the reforms pledged in Labour’s manifesto. Producing a single electoral register ‘would be both technically and contractually complicated’. The response omitted any mention of the recommendations on political education.

Back to top

Proposals for a commission on electoral reform

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Fair Elections set out proposals in September for the creation of a ‘National Commission on Electoral Reform’. The APPG – which boasts of being the largest in parliament – argues for the replacement of First Past the Post with a form of proportional representation.

It proposed that the commission should be asked to identify criteria by which electoral systems should be assessed, evaluate options against these criteria, and thereby reach recommendations on ‘which voting system would best serve modern Britain?’. This commission would comprise three main elements: a Panel of Independent Commissioners – seven non-partisan individuals appointed by government ‘to reflect a variety of backgrounds, skillsets and life experiences from a range of communities, regions and nations of the UK’; an advisory expert panel; and a Voters’ Forum of 100 people representative of the electorate, who would deliberate and make recommendations. The commission would work for 12 months before producing a final report.

Back to top

The IPSA citizens’ forum on MPs’ pay and funding

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has held its first deliberative process, setting up a ‘Citizens’ Forum’ to consider the future of MPs’ pay and funding. IPSA is responsible for agreeing and administering the rules regarding MPs’ salaries, pensions, staffing, and allowances. In June, it announced that its next regular review of the system would be informed by a Citizens’ Forum comprising ‘a small representative group who will meet across four sessions in September to hear from expert speakers and discuss how IPSA should fund and pay MPs’.

The Sortition Foundation was commissioned to recruit 25 members of the public, designed to be broadly representative, following a mailshot to 10,000 UK households. Of these 25, 23 completed the process. The Forum itself was administered in partnership with the New Citizen Project, and participants took part in 18 hours of deliberation and learning. Experts contributing to the sessions included Constitution Unit Director Meg Russell, who presented alongside other academics on considerations for the future of the system. Other sessions covered the background to the system and its current working, with speakers including former politicians and officials. All of the presentations and briefing materials have been published on the IPSA website, alongside the Forum’s final report. The recommendations of the members were thoughtful and balanced, including the need for MPs to be well supported, including through skilled staff; for parliament to take advantages of technology; and for improvements to accountability and public participation. The Forum’s recommendations have been included as background in a general public consultation on the future of the system, issued by IPSA in October.

Back to top

Proposed changes to citizenship education

The UK government published the final report of its Curriculum and Assessment Review in early November. This project, commissioned last autumn, examined all aspects of the school curriculum in England. It will interest readers of Monitor given the role of education in nurturing knowledge, skills, and values that underpin healthy constitutional democracy.

The report placed democracy at the heart of the education system’s goals. It said the system should ‘ensure that young people are supported to flourish as informed and fulfilled individuals, as contributors to our democratic society, and as members of a better qualified workforce that builds economic prosperity’.

It also proposed that the place of Citizenship in the curriculum should be strengthened. This would become a compulsory subject in primary as well as secondary schools. The primary curriculum would include themes relating to democracy and government, law and rights, and media literacy, as well as financial literacy and climate. The secondary curriculum would be revised to reflect these changes, and would be ‘made more explicit and specific’. These changes come on top of the provision in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (currently awaiting its report stage in the House of Lords) to require all state schools in England to follow the national curriculum. At present, that is a requirement for local authority schools but not for academies, which over half of all pupils in England now attend.

In its response to the report, the government confirmed that it accepted these recommendations. Ministers intend to publish the revised national curriculum in spring 2027, with teaching beginning in September 2028.

The Association for Citizenship Teaching welcomed the proposals as ‘a major step forward’ in ensuring Citizenship is ‘taught consistently and well in every school’. It also renewed its call for further measures, including better guidance on impartiality, more training for ‘specialist Citizenship teachers’, and revisions to Ofsted inspections, to give Citizenship the same status as other subjects.

Back to top

Speaker's Conference on the Security of MPs, Candidates and Elections

The Speaker’s Conference on the Security of MPs, Candidates and Elections has published its second and final report (the first report, published in June, was covered in Monitor 90). The report focused on the drivers of abuse and intimidation of MPs, and potential solutions – drawing on evidence from, among others, including Unit Deputy Director Alan Renwick. Its recommendations spanned public understanding of the political system, the policing and prosecution of relevant crimes, and the role and responsibilities of the media. In particular, the report called for improved citizenship education and measures to increase political literacy, both in the classroom and beyond: it suggested that a first step might be for the government’s Defending Democracy Taskforce to run a ‘public health-style messaging campaign’ on the unacceptability of abuse of politicians. On policing and prosecution, the report argues that crimes involving the abuse and intimidation of politicians should be understood as ‘anti-democratic crimes’, meriting the creation of a specialist police unit, as well as measures to ensure consistency in CPS prosecuting decisions.

Beyond this, the report called for some changes to press regulation and encouraged both politicians and the press to engage more in long-form coverage, ‘particularly when considering complex matters’. It identified the need for more fundamental change in the case of social media, focusing on Meta and X, as the sites where most abuse has taken place, and concluded that the failure of both companies to address the larger underlying issues that drive abuse ‘demonstrates that they do not properly understand the damaging impact they are having on democracy in the UK’. On the basis that ‘[w]e have no faith that Meta and X will resolve these issues unless they are legally obliged to do so’, the Conference called for rigorous implementation of the Online Safety Act, and for further legislation if necessary.

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle and Speaker’s Conference member Rebecca Paul. — Speaker Lindsay Hoyle and Speaker’s Conference member Rebecca Paul, © House of Commons.

Back to top

Rayner resignation prompts government reshuffle

In August, it was reported that Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner may have failed to pay the correct amount of stamp duty (a tax paid as a result of purchasing land or property) when buying a flat earlier this year. In response, Rayner sought fresh legal advice, which told her that she had indeed paid less duty than was required. She then referred herself to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Laurie Magnus. On 5 September, Magnus wrote to the Prime Minister to report that Rayner had breached the Ministerial Code by failing to seek appropriate tax advice after the initial legal advice that she had received before purchasing the house had advised her to do so. Rayner then resigned from the government, and as deputy leader of the Labour Party.

Rayner’s resignation prompted a significant government reshuffle. David Lammy became the new Deputy Prime Minister, but was moved from the Foreign Office to become Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary. Yvette Cooper became Foreign Secretary, and was replaced by Shabana Mahmood as Home Secretary. Lucy Powell was sacked as Leader of the Commons, and replaced by Alan Campbell, whose position as Chief Whip was taken by outgoing Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.

Darren Jones had been named Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister just before Rayner’s resignation, a newly created position with responsibility for coordination and delivery of cross-government priorities. This was part of a larger reorganisation of the centre of government which included the appointment of a new Chief Economic Adviser, a new Executive Director of Communications in Number 10, and a new Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister – the civil servant responsible for running Starmer’s private office. When the reshuffle came, Jones was promoted to Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the most senior post in the Cabinet Office, and his predecessor Pat McFadden became Secretary of State in a slightly expanded Department for Work and Pensions.

The reshuffle saw half of the Cabinet changing jobs, although only two members returned to the backbenches. Notably, over a third of all ministers from the Commons are now drawn from the 2024 intake. And although three of the great offices of state – Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary – are held by women, there are now fewer women in the Cabinet and in the government overall. Various analyses suggested that the overall political effect of the reshuffle was to move the government towards the centre right of the party, and away from the centre left – of whom Angela Rayner had been seen as a key representative.

Scotland Secretary Douglas Alexander and Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds. — New Cabinet ministers Douglas Alexander and Emma Reynolds (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), by UK Government.

Back to top

New Ethics and Integrity Commission starts work

The Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) started operating on 13 October as the centrepiece of the government’s standards reforms, which also include changes to the business appointment rules (see the next story), and the Ministerial Code. The written ministerial statement by Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds set out the terms of reference and initial priorities of the EIC, which replaces the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), with CSPL chair Doug Chalmers becoming its chair.

The EIC will not investigate specific complaints. It will carry on the work of CSPL in promoting the Nolan principles of public life, and undertaking inquiries into specific areas of concern. Its new functions include responsibility to report annually to the Prime Minister on the overall health of public standards, and to lead work in the public sector on developing codes of ethical conduct. This has been given greater importance by publication of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill (see below) which requires all public bodies to adopt a code of conduct to promote ethical behaviour, candour, transparency and frankness.

The ministerial statement added that ‘the EIC will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice’. This task goes far beyond the resources of CSPL, which had a secretariat of just five people. There was no indication in the government’s announcement about how much the EIC’s budget and secretariat will need to expand. The government has recognised that its membership needs strengthening, with a campaign launched to recruit three further independent members.

A more fundamental question is whether the EIC should be underpinned by statute, as former Unit Director Robert Hazell and former Commissioner for Public Appointments Peter Riddell have argued. The present government, like its predecessors, has been reluctant to place constitutional regulators on a statutory footing. The vulnerability of this lack of formal legal backing was shown in 2022 when Boris Johnson and Liz Truss considered abolishing the post of Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests (as the position was called at the time). Formalising the regulators in statute was proposed in Lord (David) Anderson of Ipswich’s Public Service (Ethics, Integrity and Independence) Bill 2025, but 10 months after being introduced, it has yet to have a second reading and is very unlikely to make it onto the statute book.

A final feature of the written statement was a change to the Ministerial Code to require the Cabinet Office to advise the Prime Minister before any decision is taken to set up a public inquiry and its terms of reference are agreed. This is to ensure that decisions are ‘well judged and proportionate, and that inquiries focus on finding the right answers and help effect change’. This reflects frustration among ministers about the rising number of inquiries, their often sprawling remits, and the time and costs taken to complete them. In October the Covid-19 inquiry surpassed the Bloody Sunday inquiry to become the most expensive in British history, with costs of £192 million so far.

Back to top

Changes to the Business Appointment Rules

In changes announced alongside the establishment of the new Ethics and Integrity Commission (see previous story) the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) has been abolished. The Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards has replaced it in overseeing the rules for ministers, and the Civil Service Commission has taken responsibility for doing so for senior civil servants and special advisers. The Independent Adviser and the Civil Service Commission have both sensibly streamlined their application of the rules, dividing appointments into Level 1 applications (unpaid work, academic positions, occasional journalism) which do not pose significant risk, and Level 2 (paid employment and consultancy) where the risk of a conflict of interest is greater.

Sanctions for those who ignore the rules remain weak, with the only sanction for former ministers that they may be asked by the Prime Minister to repay the severance payment they received on leaving office. Potentially they could refuse. The weakness of what is effectively a system of voluntary compliance was underlined yet again by serial offender Boris Johnson brushing aside inquiries into his claims about paid business interests after he left office. The intention is to see how the new system beds down, but more may have to be done to deter and punish serious breaches of the rules, which would require legislation.

Back to top

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill – to implement Labour’s manifesto commitment to a ‘Hillsborough Law’ – was introduced to parliament in September. Its introduction had been promised in time for the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster on 15 April 2025, but this deadline was missed.

The bill has a number of functions intended to improve public sector accountability – informed not only by the Hillsborough disaster but also by recent public sector controversies such as the Post Office Horizon scandal. The core policy proposed in the manifesto was a duty of candour for public authorities and officials; the bill requires them to cooperate fully with inquiries or investigations, and creates new offences of failing to comply with the duty of candour, and of misleading the public. Those with ‘relevant public responsibilities’, such as private sector providers contracting directly to a public authority, are also expected to be covered by the requirements. In relation to inquests, the bill extends legal aid to family members of the deceased in situations where a public authority is named as an ‘interested person’.

More broadly seeking to embed high standards across the public sector, the bill requires public authorities to adopt and publish codes of conduct based on the Nolan Principles. The new Ethics and Integrity Commission (see above) has been tasked with advising public authorities on the development of such codes, which must include sanctions for breaches, and mechanisms for reporting and whistleblowing. The bill also creates two statutory offences, of breaching the duty to prevent death or serious injury, and seriously improper conduct. These replace the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office. The Law Commission had previously advised that the misconduct offence was insufficiently clear, and should be replaced by statutory offences covering ‘breach of duty’ and ‘corruption in public office’.

The bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons on 3 November with no objections.

Back to top

Public appointments

The UK’s public appointments system allows for pre-appointment hearings for various roles, typically the chairs, or other key office-holders, of public bodies with a regulatory or similar remit, or where both the reality and perception of independence from government are crucial. Pre-appointment scrutiny is undertaken by a relevant select committee, generally in the form of a hearing with the government’s preferred candidate. Their conclusions are not binding on the government.

In July, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Women and Equalities Committee together held a pre-appointment hearing for the proposed new chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Mary-Ann Stephenson. The committees declined to endorse the appointment, recognising her academic credibility, but raising doubts about her breadth of expertise and ability to rebuild trust in the organisation. The Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, decided to proceed with the appointment despite these reservations, and Stephenson will take over from the outgoing chair, Baroness (Kishwer) Falkner of Margravine, in December.

The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has also held two hearings, endorsing both candidates. Former Electoral Commission Chief Executive Claire Bassett has been appointed as Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists, succeeding Harry Rich in September. Paula Sussex has been appointed as the new Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman; the post had previously been filled on an interim basis since April 2024. A recruitment process in the last parliament foundered after the Sunak government failed to put forward the panel’s preferred candidate to the Commons for approval (see Monitor 87), instead proposing a temporary ‘acting’ appointment.

Pre-appointment hearings have the potential to be viewed as a formality, but the examination by MPs of the government’s preferred candidate for the role of Independent Football Regulator, David Kogan, led to the discovery of significant flaws in the recruitment process. During his pre-appointment hearing in May, Kogan told the DCMS select committee that he had made donations to the 2020 leadership campaigns of both Keir Starmer and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy. A subsequent investigation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, William Shawcross, concluded that the Governance Code on Public Appointments had been breached three times. The breaches were that Nandy was wrong not to declare an interest because of the donations; the potential conflict of interest should have been discussed with Kogan at his interview; and Kogan’s political activity (donations to the Labour Party and its candidates) should have been publicly disclosed. These findings did not affect Kogan’s appointment, as he started the role before the Commissioner’s report was released. Nandy and Starmer both subsequently made public apologies.

Back to top

Speaking engagement rules for civil servants

In recent months the government has introduced, and partly rowed back on, controversial new guidance for civil servants on speaking at public events. A document issued in June banned civil servants from speaking at events likely to be attended by the media, or involving question and answer sessions. The move was strongly criticised by the Institute for Government, which argued that it would reduce transparency, and limit fruitful discussion between civil servants and their stakeholders; various former senior civil servants also voiced serious reservations. The Institute’s Director was joined by other senior figures, including Unit Director Meg Russell, in a letter to the Times protesting the changes.

The government subsequently confirmed that the guidance had been ‘clarified’ to ensure that civil servants can continue to speak publicly and ‘take part in stakeholder engagement and sector engagement activity’, and that if media outlets are likely to be present, that ‘further approvals may be needed, subject to the judgement of departments on the nature of the activity’.

Back to top

Prince Andrew stripped of titles

Prince Andrew (as he then was) stepped down as a working royal in November 2019, due to his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and allegations – which he has denied – that he had sex with the then 17-year old Virginia Giuffre, who said she had been trafficked by Epstein.

In October this year, it was reported that Andrew had maintained his relationship with Epstein later than 2010, contrary to statements made during a Newsnight interview in 2019. Shortly afterwards, Buckingham Palace issued a statement in which Andrew announced that he would no longer use his ‘title or the honours which have been conferred’, such as Duke of York.

Additional allegations quickly emerged, including that Andrew had encouraged his police protection officer to investigate Giuffre. Public pressure continued to build and on 30 October the King issued his own statement, in which he confirmed that he had initiated ‘a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew’. The statement also said that Andrew’s lease of the Royal Lodge at Windsor had been terminated and that he would henceforth be known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. It was reported that the government and wider royal family were consulted ahead of the announcement.

The King then confirmed via Letters Patent that Mountbatten-Windsor ‘shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of “Royal Highness” and the titular dignity of “Prince”’. Charles also issued a royal warrant to the Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, to strike his brother from the roll of the peerage. The government has since confirmed that legislation would be required to formally remove the peerages. There is precedent for this: the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 led to three German descendants of Queen Victoria who were officers in the German army during World War I being stripped of their British titles. Parliament could also legislate to remove Andrew from the line of succession (he is technically still capable of becoming King if this is not done, even if that is incredibly unlikely), and from the list of Counsellors of State (senior royals able to deputise for the King if he is ill or absent). The government will want to avoid legislation if it possibly can. Most of the changes could be achieved through a short bill, with a quick passage – the Counsellors of State Act 2022 (which added Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the list of Counsellors) passed all of its Commons stages in a single day. But altering the line of succession would be much more complex, requiring the agreement of the 14 other realms where King Charles is also head of state. Former Unit Director Robert Hazell analysed the options for further action in a post on the Unit’s blog.

Back to top

New Archbishop of Canterbury

The identity of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury was confirmed on 3 October when the government announced that the King had approved the nomination of the Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally. She will be the first woman to perform the role since its creation.

The appointment process was set in motion by the resignation of Justin Welby in November 2024, when an independent review concluded that he had failed to take adequate action after becoming aware of prolific child abuse perpetrated by a church youth worker (see Monitor 88). Unusually, the appointment process – which was undertaken by the Crown Nominations Commission – included a public consultation.

Sarah Mullally. — Sarah Mullally, © House of Commons.

The next stage of the appointment process is an Election by the College of Canons of Canterbury Cathedral, which will take place before Christmas. Mullally will remain in post as Bishop of London until her Confirmation of Election at St Paul’s Cathedral on 28 January 2026, at which she will legally become the Archbishop of Canterbury. After that, she will be formally installed at an enthronement ceremony at Canterbury Cathedral on Wednesday 25 March, the Feast of the Annunciation.

Back to top

Courts, human rights and the rule of law.

The UK and the ECHR

In June, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch instructed Shadow Attorney General Lord (David) Wolfson of Tredegar to provide a legal analysis of the effect of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) on UK policymaking, and how the government could withdraw from the ECHR (see Monitor 90). Right-wing think tank the Prosperity Institute published its own review in September (co-authored by former Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman). It called for the UK to leave the ECHR, which it described as a ‘sword against sovereignty’. Policy Exchange produced a report specifically on the question of how the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement would be affected by any decision to withdraw. It argued that withdrawal would not breach the Agreement – a conclusion firmly rebutted by the Attorney General, Lord (Richard) Hermer, during an evidence session before the House of Lords Constitution Committee, and previously by various experts in evidence to the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Wolfson’s report was published on 2 October. It examined the effect of the ECHR in five public policy areas: immigration, the prosecution of members of the armed forces, the allocation of housing and benefits, justice policy (including the right to protest), and infrastructure projects. It also considered how leaving would affect the operation of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the Windsor Framework Agreement. It reviewed the alternatives to withdrawal, such as seeking reform of the ECHR or amending the Human Rights Act 1998. Finally, it considered the mechanics of how to withdraw (known as ‘denunciation’). The Conservative Party confirmed just two days after the report was published that it would seek to withdraw from the ECHR if it won the next election.

Leaving the ECHR was already one of Reform’s flagship policies. In October, party leader Nigel Farage secured a debate in the House of Commons to propose the introduction of a 10-minute rule bill to effect withdrawal. Such bills almost never become law, and so the effect of the debate and the vote that followed, defeating Farage’s plan, was largely symbolic. Labour MPs mostly abstained, although 63 of them joined the Liberal Democrats, SNP and others in voting against him. All Conservatives who took part voted with Reform.

It seems inconceivable that a Starmer-led government would seek to leave the ECHR. The current Labour policy is as outlined by then Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood in June (see Monitor 90), and repeated in evidence to the Constitution Committee in September: to engage in a conversation with other member states about reform of the ECHR, combined with legislation to ‘clarify’ how it affects the interpretation of immigration rules. Detailed plans were announced as Monitor went to press. In an interview with the BBC, the Council of Europe’s Secretary-General, Alain Berset, said that he was ‘absolutely ready, and really open to engage in all political discussions, to see what we need to discuss, maybe to change or to adapt.’

The Unit co-sponsored a discussion on the future of the ECHR in November, which is available to watch on YouTube.

Back to top

Labour Party deputy leadership election

Angela Rayner’s resignation from the government (see above) was accompanied by her resignation as Labour Party deputy leader. This created an unexpected vacancy for the party (rather than the government) to fill. Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) put in place an unusually rapid process, with high barriers for entry. Nominations opened on 9 September (four days after Rayner resigned) and closed just two days later. In this time candidates needed to gather nominations from 80 Labour MPs (20% of the total) to enter the next stage. Only two candidates – Bridget Phillipson and Lucy Powell – passed this considerable hurdle. Following further gathering of nominations from local parties and trade unions, an all-member ballot opened on 8 October and closed 15 days later – thereby allowing hustings to take place at the Labour Party conference.

While both candidates had served in Keir Starmer’s Cabinet, and were seen as loyalists, the September reshuffle had seen Lucy Powell axed from her job as Leader of the House of Commons, while Bridget Phillipson had remained Education Secretary. Powell thus quickly came to be seen as the ‘outsider’ candidate, and emphasised her ability to speak freely and perform the role full-time during the campaign. Her relatively mild criticisms of how the government was performing were seized upon by her opponents, and she began to be presented as some kind of danger. This may ultimately have encouraged some members to support her, and she won the ballot by 54% to 46%, on a turnout of just 16.6%.

From the outset it was clear that the victor would not be appointed Deputy Prime Minister, as David Lammy had been given that post in September. Powell will serve by default from outside the Cabinet, and it remains to be seen what levels of access, resources and profile she will be able to attain.

Back to top

Green Party leadership

On 5 May, Zack Polanski, the Green Party’s deputy leader, announced that he would stand for leader, challenging MPs Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay, who were expected to seek re-election at the end of their term as co-leaders. Denyer stated later that week that she would not be seeking another leadership term. MP Ellie Chowns announced a few days later that she would join the contest as Ramsay’s running mate.

Polanski described himself as an ‘eco populist’ and argued that having a single ‘figurehead’ would help the party connect to the public more effectively. Chowns and Ramsay argued it was crucial that the leadership be held by people with seats in parliament. They positioned themselves as continuity candidates who would build on the electoral success of Ramsay’s time as co-leader, during which the party secured four MPs at the 2024 general election, its best ever result in a national contest.

On 2 September, Polanski was announced as the winner, having secured more than 84% of the vote. As he is not an MP, the parliamentary party then unanimously selected his defeated rival Chowns to lead it in the Commons. She will represent the party at Prime Minister’s Questions and other formal Commons proceedings.

Back to top

Your Party set to hold first conference

July saw the announcement of a new party on the left of British politics, known for the time being as ‘Your Party’. Principally associated with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former Labour (now independent) MP Zarah Sultana, the party has experienced some early teething problems, above and beyond the usual challenges facing new and smaller parties.

Sultana announced in early July that she was quitting Labour (having already had the whip suspended) to co-lead the foundation of a new party with Corbyn. But that announcement appeared to come before Corbyn was ready to confirm his precise role in any new party, and it was several weeks before they issued a joint statement inviting supporters to sign up. They then had an acrimonious public row in September after Sultana unilaterally launched a new membership portal: Corbyn claimed it was unauthorised, and she criticised a ‘sexist boys’ club’ within the organisation. After a further membership launch, the party has registered with the Electoral Commission and published a series of draft founding documents, including a proposed constitution, set of standing orders and organisational strategy. The party also arranged a series of regional assemblies to debate these documents, building up to a founding conference on 29 and 30 November. However, before it could take place Adnan Hussain announced that he was leaving the party, saying that he was ‘deeply troubled by the way certain figures within the steering process, particularly Muslim men, have been spoken about and treated.’

Back to top

England

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which was presented to parliament just before the last issue of Monitor went to press, commenced its report stage in the Commons on 24 November.

The bill includes only minimal additional powers for English metro-mayors. Its main impact will be to standardise and clarify the powers available to each type of ‘strategic authority’. Unexpectedly, it also includes provisions to bring an end to the committee system in local authorities in England (in which councillors are divided into politically balanced committees that make the decisions), and to prevent the creation of any new local authority elected mayoralties. Any areas that do not already have elected mayors will therefore be required to use the leader and cabinet system, in which the councillors elect a leader (usually the head of the largest party) and that person then appoints a cabinet in which individual councillors are given specific policy responsibilities.

The November Budget will have significant impacts on the funding of local government in England. It is likely to contain initial indications of the outcome of the government’s consultation on a ‘fair funding review’, which will change the allocation of grant funding to local government, in line with a new assessment of needs. Initial plans for this review were published in June (see Monitor 90). Some modelling has suggested that certain authorities, particularly London boroughs, might lose out considerably compared to current grant levels. Details of the 2026 business rates revaluation are likely to be published alongside the Budget, and will also impact on local government finances in the medium term.

The government’s process of restructuring local government in two-tier areas to a unitary pattern has continued. Final proposals from Norfolk & Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire & the Solent, and Sussex, were submitted in September. These four areas will hold inaugural mayoral elections in May 2026. Elections for two further new mayoralties, Cheshire & Warrington, and Cumbria, were postponed to May 2027 at local request. Final proposals from all other two-tier areas are due on 28 November.

Ministers published proposals in November to strengthen the standards system for local councillors and mayors. There would be a mandatory code of conduct and new powers to suspend councillors found guilty of misconduct. The legislation required to make the changes ‘will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows’.

Ministers also announced in November that they intend to abolish police and crime commissioners (PCCs). The role was created in 2012 and was intended to provide local accountability for decisions about policing priorities; but PCCs’ public visibility has remained low. The government said that scrapping the posts would ‘cut the cost of unnecessary bureaucracy’ and free up resources for ‘neighbourhood policing’. PCCs’ responsibilities ‘will be absorbed by regional mayors wherever possible’ and by ‘elected council leaders’ in other areas. It is intended that the change will take effect in 2028, when the current officeholders’ terms end. The plans will be set out in further detail in a forthcoming white paper on police reform.

Back to top

Northern Ireland

Politically, the waters are getting choppier in Northern Ireland. A DUP minister has intervened in court against a Sinn Féin minister over whether there should be Irish language signage in a railway station, leading the judge hearing the case to suggest that the Executive risks being seen as a ‘laughing stock’. Sinn Féin and Alliance Party MLAs backed a motion of no confidence against Paul Givan, a DUP minister, although he cannot be removed from office without the consent of his party, which has made clear he will remain in post. More conflict looms over funding for a Gaelic football stadium in West Belfast, a long running issue with a strong political charge.

Criticism that the Executive is not delivering has intensified. The Northern Ireland think tank Pivotal recently compiled a comprehensive assessment suggesting that the Executive had failed to take action in line with its verbal commitments. Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly reacted sharply, saying it was ‘nonsense to say things haven’t been delivered’; but many commentators disagreed with her.

Meanwhile, the debate in London over the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; see above) has strong Northern Ireland implications: the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement required the British government to incorporate the Convention into Northern Ireland law. Reform leader Nigel Farage said in August that if he became Prime Minister, he would renegotiate the Agreement, in pursuit of his plan to withdraw from the ECHR. Then the Conservatives announced that they also supported pulling out, having received advice from the Shadow Attorney General, Lord (David) Wolfson of Tredegar, that doing so would not breach legal obligations regarding the Agreement if certain restrictions were imposed on the devolved institutions.

Wolfson’s conclusion is not universally accepted. Nationalists, as well as centre-ground parties and the Irish government, would all be likely to regard withdrawal from the ECHR by a future government as a fundamental breach of the Agreement, and there would be no realistic prospect of renegotiation. The 1998 settlement would, at minimum, be seriously shaken.

The British and Irish governments announced a new approach to legacy issues, following the intense controversy created by the Conservative government passing legislation to end prosecutions, inquests and civil cases about many Troubles issues. But the acquittal of Soldier F, a member of the Parachute Regiment involved in Bloody Sunday 53 years ago, stirred old tensions: comment from some of the parties was distinctly unrestrained.

Despite this, Irish unification remains a firm topic of discussion, with a stream of recent books, podcasts and other contributions to the debate. Former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has urged the Irish government to take a leadership role in preparing for unification, and the nationalist SDLP has proposed the creation of a ministry for a ‘new Ireland’ for that purpose. Alliance called on Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn to clarify when he would feel obliged to call a poll on unification. The current Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, has cautioned that there would not be a poll this decade.

Back to top

Scotland

Scottish politics has seen an increase in support for Reform with some recent polling placing it second to the SNP in Scotland. This could change Holyrood’s composition markedly. The party appears to attract support mainly from former Conservative voters and some also from Labour, but fewer from the SNP. Whether the opinion polling will be borne out in an election six months away, given that the party has yet to select many of its candidates – and has no leader in Scotland – remains to be seen.

A major challenge for the Scottish government continues to be balancing the books. After a series of one-year settlements, Finance Minister Shona Robison will likely set out what should be three-year spending plans soon, but must wait for the UK Budget statement, which will occur just after Monitor is published. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s increasingly anxious warnings about current spending commitments show the difficulties she will face, particularly in a pre-election period. Even the Scottish government's own medium-term financial strategy suggests funding gaps of nearly £5 billion a year by 2029 and it has been criticised for being overly optimistic on revenue spending.

First Minister John Swinney continues to seek to bring stability back to his party and government. Under his leadership, constitutional politics had not often been discussed as a priority until the unexpected publication of a government paper on independence immediately before the SNP’s party conference in October. It contained little new policy, repeating, for example, the SNP's plan to create a new Scottish currency, with Scotland expected to use sterling on an informal basis until that is established. It confirmed there would be a hard border between an independent Scotland and England. On public spending and taxation, the paper noted that Scottish taxes at present were enough to cover the Scottish Parliament's expenditure and welfare spend. Other costs such as the armed forces or debt repayment were ignored.

At the party conference, Swinney won a key policy vote, with the party affirming his preferred position on independence. This is that success in the 2026 elections should be taken as a mandate for his government to argue for a further referendum, rather than as a justification for more radical action, such as attempting to hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster. Starmer’s newly appointed Scotland Secretary, Douglas Alexander, responded by stating that whether to hold a referendum is a matter for the UK government, which was elected in 2024 on a manifesto that stated opposition to another vote on independence. Opinion polling, even when supportive of independence, confirms that there is little public appetite for a referendum in the next five years.

Back to top

Wales

After a difficult period for the UK Labour government, Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan again distanced herself from her Westminster colleagues in a BBC interview at the start of the current Senedd term, speaking once more of the ‘red Welsh way’ (see Monitor 90) and of Welsh Labour’s alignment with Welsh values. Labour’s position in Wales is precarious. A mid-September opinion poll of Senedd voting intentions put Plaid Cymru on 30% and Reform on 29%, with Labour trailing on 14%. The Conservatives were at 11%, and the Liberal Democrats and Greens each on 6%. These figures suggest next May’s Senedd election is highly unlikely to return any party with an overall majority, but Morgan has so far refused to be drawn on the prospect of serving in a coalition government with Plaid.

The evidence of the polling was confirmed by the result of a Senedd by-election in October in the former Labour stronghold of Caerphilly. The contest became a two-horse race between Plaid and Reform, in which the former won on 47%, beating Reform on 36%. Labour trailed in third on just 11%, while the Conservative vote collapsed to 2%.

As a result of Labour’s loss in Caerphilly, the Welsh government can no longer avoid defeat in the Senedd by persuading the single Liberal Democrat MS to vote with it. The most crucial forthcoming business is the Welsh budget. On 14 October, the Welsh government published its outline tax and spending plans for the next financial year. Ostensibly a neutral budget that will increase departmental spending in line with inflation, there will remain around £231 million of unallocated spending. Labour has expressed the hope that it can work with other parties to agree how this should be used before the budget is finalised in January, but those discussions will be framed by the fact that there will be a Senedd election in May. Somewhat surprisingly, the Welsh government’s first meeting on the budget was with the Conservative Party, which has offered support if Land Transaction Tax is abolished (a move that would cost approximately £200 million).

If there is no budget deal, the Senedd itself will be adversely affected. In late September, the Senedd Commission published a draft budget that proposed a 21% increase in spending to meet the extra running costs of the Senedd when its membership expands from 60 to 96 members after the next election. If the Welsh government cannot secure agreement for its draft budget, the Senedd’s default budget will be 95% of the 2025/6 budget, an outcome that could not properly sustain enlargement.

There has been little evidence of the Westminster government dealing sympathetically with the Welsh government’s devolution aspirations, with UK justice minister Lord (James) Timpson describing justice devolution as ‘not a priority’. The Welsh Finance Minister, Mark Drakeford, also called on his UK colleagues to ‘come to the table’ and discuss the creation of a sovereign wealth fund using profits from the Crown Estate in Wales. Devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales was debated and rejected in parliament earlier this year, (see Monitor 89), and the UK government remains opposed to such a policy. A formal role for the Welsh government in the appointment of the Chair of S4C, recommended by a Senedd Committee, was also rejected by UK ministers. More positively, following the Cunliffe review of the water industry, there will be a further step for water devolution with a separate Welsh regulator due to replace Ofwat in Wales.

The UK government’s plan to scrap police and crime commissioners (see above) will apply in Wales as well as in England. Announcing the move, ministers said they would ‘work with the Welsh Government to ensure these arrangements reflect the unique circumstances of Wales’.

Back to top

People on the move

Angela Rayner resigned as Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State of Housing, Communities and Local Government in September (see above). She also resigned as deputy leader of the Labour Party. The subsequent party election was won by former Leader of the Commons Lucy Powell.

Rayner’s resignation prompted a ministerial reshuffle. Steve Reed took over her departmental brief, while David Lammy replaced her as Deputy Prime Minister. Lammy also succeeded Shabana Mahmood as Justice Secretary, after she was appointed Home Secretary. Lucy Powell was removed as Leader of the House of Commons and replaced by Alan Campbell, who thereby also became chair of the Commons Modernisation Committee. Jonathan Reynolds took over from Campbell as Chief Whip. Douglas Alexander was promoted from his Minister of State role to Scotland Secretary, and predecessor Ian Murray moved to a more junior role as Minister of State in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Shortly before Rayner's resignation, Darren Jones left his role as a senior minister at the Treasury to take on the newly created job of Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. In the reshuffle, Pat McFadden was made Work and Pensions Secretary, and Jones was promoted to replace him as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Below Cabinet level, Ellie Reeves replaced Solicitor General Lucy Rigby after the latter was given a junior post at the Treasury. Reeves’ roles of party chair and Minister of State in the Cabinet Office were given to former Treasury minister Anna Turley. Douglas Alexander’s promotion means he has left his role at the Cabinet Office. Security Minister Dan Jarvis has been given a Cabinet Office position with responsibilities connected to his Home Office brief. In the Wales Office, Nia Griffiths left the government and was replaced as a junior minister by Anna McMorrin. Assistant Whip Claire Hughes also joined the department as a junior minister.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has seen significant change, both before and after the reshuffle. Rushanara Ali resigned as Minister for Homelessness and Democracy in August. Samantha Dixon was then given responsibility for elections policy in the September reshuffle, during which Jim McMahon, who had been Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, returned to the backbenches. Alison McGovern replaced McMahon as Minister of State, with responsibility for local government finance, and Miatta Fahnbulleh joined the department as the minister responsible for his English devolution brief (see above).

Darren Tierney left his role as Director General of the Propriety and Constitution Group in the Cabinet Office in August. He is now the Permanent Secretary at the Office for National Statistics.

In September, Dan York-Smith replaced Nin Pandit as Principal Private Secretary, the civil servant responsible for running the Prime Minister’s private office.

Kemi Badenoch undertook a mini reshuffle of the Conservative frontbench in July. James Cleverly joined the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. Cleverly’s predecessor, Kevin Hollinrake, was moved to become party chair, replacing co-chairs Nigel Huddleston and Lord (Dominic) Johnson of Lainston. Lord Johnson returned to the backbenches, and Huddleston was named Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary after Stuart Andrew was moved to serve as Shadow Health Secretary.

The Liberal Democrats have also made changes to their frontbench. Sarah Olney was replaced as spokesperson for Cabinet Office matters by Lisa Smart. Bobby Dean was named as shadow Leader of the Commons, with predecessor Marie Goldman taking on responsibility for equalities policy. Josh Babarinde stepped down as justice spokesperson, with Jess Brown-Fuller appointed to replace him. Zoe Franklin joined the frontbench as local government spokesperson, taking over from Vikki Slade, who returned to the backbenches. Former Transport spokesperson Paul Kohler took over the Northern Ireland brief after Al Pinkerton was moved to become spokesperson for Europe.

Lord (Jeremy) Purvis of Tweed was elected as the new Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, following the departure of Lord (Richard) Newby.

Lord (David) Hope of Craighead was appointed to chair a House of Lords committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (see above).

Zack Polanski was elected leader of the Green Party on 2 September, succeeding Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer (see above). Green MPs then selected Ellie Chowns to serve as their leader in parliament, as Polanski is not an MP. Mothin Ali and Rachel Millward were elected to serve jointly as deputy leaders.

The Scottish Greens have also elected new leaders: Ross Greer and Gillian Mackay took office as co-leaders of the party on 29 August, with Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater stepping down.

Jamie Hepburn resigned as minister for parliamentary business in the Scottish government on 19 September. Graeme Dey was then appointed as minister for parliamentary business and for veterans.

Sarah Mullally was nominated to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury (see above). She will succeed Justin Welby, who resigned in January (see Monitor 88).

Juliet May was appointed Chair of the Sentencing Council in October, following the death of Lord Justice Davis in July. Lord Justice Edis was appointed as Vice Chairman in August.

Harry Rich has retired as the independent statutory Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists. Claire Bassett, former Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission, succeeded him on 23 September.

Claire Keatinge was made Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. Predecessor Judena Leslie stepped down in 2021, but the vacancy was only filled in August of this year, when Keatinge commenced her five-year term.

The BBC's director general, Tim Davie, resigned in November, as did Head of News Deborah Turness.

Back to top

New briefings on constitutional principles and the health of democracy

The Constitution Unit has revised and updated its popular briefing series, and has added three new topics. The new briefings – on free and fair elections, the territorial constitution, and politics in Northern Ireland – join the updated series, which covers topics including checks and balances, the role of the media in democracy, and the role of citizens’ assemblies. Each briefing explains a key constitutional topic in three to four pages, addressing the principles underpinning it, and its operation in the UK. The full set of 18 briefings can be found on the Unit’s website.

Back to top

Meg Russell gives evidence on elections in the House of Commons

On 22 October, Unit Director Meg Russell gave oral evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee, for its inquiry on Elections within the House of Commons. The inquiry is covering a range of electoral processes (e.g. for Deputy Speakers), and had earlier received joint written evidence from Meg Russell, Alan Renwick and Tom Fleming. The oral evidence session focused primarily on elections of select committee chairs – an innovation introduced in 2010 following recommendations from the ‘Wright committee’, to which Meg had been a specialist adviser. The session was wide-ranging, covering functioning of the electoral system, benefits of elected chairs, and concerns about the increased levels of campaigning during the 2024 chair elections. Meg and other witnesses Dr Marc Geddes (Edinburgh University) and Dr Stephen Bates (Birmingham University) also emphasised how elections for select committee members, which take place inside the political parties, have proved to be less transparent than the Wright Committee intended, and the House of Commons agreed. All suggested a need for action in this area.

Back to top

New honorary and associate staff

The Constitution Unit has welcomed several new contributors to its team of honorary and associate staff. One person we were recently sorry to lose from the UCL full-time staff was Dr Ruxandra Serban – an excellent contributor to the Unit during her time teaching in the Department of Political Science. We are delighted that Ruxandra, whose PhD was previously supervised by Meg Russell and Alan Renwick, rejoins us with honorary status. Others added to our list include Professor Erin Delaney, who heads the new Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism based on the UCL Law Faculty, former Unit staff members Michela Palese (now at the Electoral Commission) and Conor Kelly (now at the University of Oxford), and practitioners and former practitioners with whom we regularly collaborate, such as Polly Curtis (Chief Executive of the think tank Demos) and Doreen Grove (Head of Open Government in the Scottish government).

Back to top

Research volunteer

The Unit recently said goodbye to research volunteer Carlotta Denkmann. We thank her for her valuable contribution to the Unit’s work during her time with us.

Back to top

Unit events recently made available

To be notified of upcoming events, subscribe to the Unit’s mailing list. Videos of Unit events are usually published on YouTube.

Votes at 16: is citizenship education up to scratch?

Hattie Andrews, founder of The Politics Project, Emma Connolly, Research Fellow in the Department of Political Science at UCL, Hans Svennevig, Subject Leader for the Citizenship PGCE at UCL Institute of Education.

Chair: Professor Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.

Recorded on 20 November.

The Future of the ECHR in Europe and the UK

Professor Colm O’Conneide, Professor of Constitutional and Human Rights, UCL, Professor Alice Donald, Professor in Human Rights Law, Middlesex University London, Professor Jens Elo Peters Rytter, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Copenhagen, Robert Spano, former President of the European Court of Human Rights.

Chair: Professor Veronika Fikfak, Professor of Human Rights and International Law, UCL.

Recorded on 7 November.

Do the government’s electoral reforms go far enough?

Tom Hawthorn, Head of Policy at the Electoral Commission, Professor David Howarth, Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Cambridge, Cat Smith, MP for Lancaster and Wyre, Rose Whiffen, Senior Research Officer, Transparency International UK.

Chair: Professor Alan Renwick.

Recorded on 24 October.

How should the UK’s parliaments scrutinise international agreements?

Clare Adamson, Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, Lord (Peter) Goldsmith KC, Chair of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee, Arabella Lang, Head of Public Law at the Law Society.

Chair: Lisa James, Senior Research Fellow, Constitution Unit.

Recorded on 24 September.

Back to top

Unit in the news

Constitution Unit opinion polling on House of Lords reform was cited by Tom Brake in a politics.co.uk article (2 July), Ian Dunt on his Striking 13 Substack (8 July) and Left Foot Forward (18 July). Rowan Hall also discussed the polling on Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4 (4 July).

Robert Hazell’s co-authored 2011 report on ministers outside parliament was cited by the Guardian in relation to plans put forward by Nigel Farage (3 July).

Alan Renwick’s analysis on the Unit blog of how the switch to First Past the Post affected the results in mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections in 2024 was mentioned by the Guardian in response to news that the voting system would be changed back to Supplementary Vote (10 July).

Meg Russell’s 2005 book Building New Labour was cited in the Conversation (11 July).

Meg Russell co-signed a letter to the Times on government guidance on when and how civil servants can speak at public events (14 July).

Alan Renwick was mentioned by Polly Toynbee in an article about abandoning First Past the Post for general elections in the Guardian (22 July).

Hannah Kelly was interviewed by the New Civil Engineer about parliamentary privilege (12 August).

Meg Russell was interviewed by Steve Holden on LBC about government plans to introduce a compulsory retirement age and participation requirement in the House of Lords (26 August).

Ruxandra Serban was interviewed on the Parliament Matters podcast about Prime Minister’s Questions (29 August).

Alan Renwick was quoted in a Trouw article about the fitness of the UK electoral system now that the country seems to have moved past two-party politics (25 September).

The Unit’s Democracy in the UK after Brexit survey findings were cited in an article for The House magazine about the relationship between MPs and their constituents (25 September).

Alan Renwick was interviewed by David Runciman on the Past Present Future podcast about referendums (5 October).

Robert Hazell was cited by the AFP (21 October) and the Financial Times (25 October) about Prince Andrew giving up his titles.

Meg Russell’s oral evidence to the Procedure Committee about select committee chair and member elections was discussed on the Parliament Matters podcast (24 October).

Robert Hazell was cited by the AFP (21 October), Financial Times (25 and 31 October), Sydney Morning Herald (1 November), Wall Street Journal (7 November) and Le Monde (14 November) about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor losing his titles.

Comments made by Cat Smith MP at a Constitution Unit event about the elections white paper were picked up in the Byline Times (31 October).

Veronika Fikfak discussed the government's new asylum and returns policy paper on 5 Live (18 November).

Back to top

Select committee appearances

Meg Russell gave evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee on election processes within the House of Commons (22 October).

Back to top

Unit publications

Tom Fleming and Hannah Kelly, ‘The House of Commons Modernisation Committee: Revisiting Past Experience’ (Parliamentary Affairs, September).

Various Unit and external authors, new and updated set of 18 briefings on constitutional principles and the health of democracy.

Back to top

Contributors to Monitor 91

Dave Busfield-Birch, Tom Fleming, Jim Gallagher, Robert Hazell, Rowan Hall, Lisa James, Hannah Kelly, Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, Mark Sandford, Paul Silk and Alan Whysall.