In the wake of the Brexit referendum, not a few people chided the Liberal Democrats over their name. With the party committed to nullifying the outcome after voters made the ‘wrong’ choice, was ‘democrats’ a misnomer?
While Britain’s traditional third party remains committed to rejoining the EU ‘as a longer term objective’, nobody can now question its enthusiasm for democracy. If anything, the Lib Dems’ manifesto is a little too enthused about soliciting input from the public.
Like a reincarnated Alexander Hamilton, Ed Davey’s manifesto outlines a complete overhaul of the country’s political structures. Not content with binding our Westminster system to a ‘written constitution’, it commits the Lib Dems to federalising the four nations.
It’s a task that might reasonably occupy the entire length of one parliament. But the Lib Dems are not content to leave it at that – their manifesto reads like the bucket list of every political dork who’s ever committed themselves to campaigning for a party with scarce hope of ministerial office.
As with every small party which has ever felt snubbed by first-past-the-post, the Lib Dems back a system of proportional representation for electing MPs and councillors. Even the House of Lords will be handed an unspecified ‘democratic mandate’, although how this will tally with the existing mandate of the Commons isn’t addressed.
The party also want to widen the franchise to include 16- and 17-year-olds. Voter ID, which has scandalised progressive opinion by asking voters to show the same documents they might need when buying a pint, will of course be scrapped to ‘strengthen democratic rights and participation’.
Democratic participation will also be strengthened for EU citizens with settled status and anyone who has lived in the UK for five years and has the right to stay permanently: they will be allowed to stand and vote in general elections and future UK referendums. Similar rights will be extended to Brits abroad, who will be able to vote for MPs in new overseas constituencies.
The democratic fun does not end there. Under a Davey government, prepare for both local and national citizens’ assemblies to be established, ensuring ‘that the public are fully engaged in finding solutions to the greatest challenges we face’, including climate change and ‘the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms by the state’.
The only idea that appears not to have been floated is Aussie-style mandatory voting, complete with democracy sausages. Perhaps the vibe was too carnivorous.
To be fair to the Lib Dems, and despite the suddenly plausible notion that Davey could be leader of the opposition by July, outlandish ideas are what third parties are for. Taken individually, even the radical proposals of codifying the constitution or introducing a federal structure of government have their merits.
But honestly, are there any signs that what British voters crave is more democracy?
Turnout for the elections we have is already embarrassingly low. Recent elections for metropolitan mayors, introduced in a bid to emulate the relative glamour of city leaders in the US, saw less than a third of voters turn up in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and Liverpool.
Even the general election, widely anticipated by the public in principle, is expected to see a muted response. Political scientist John Curtice has pointed to Labour’s large polling lead, lack of charisma among party leaders, and small gap between Labour and Conservative policies as contributing factors in reducing turnout.
Those who do turn up to vote will be chiefly motivated by the cost-of-living crisis, according to YouGov polling, followed by health and the general economy. Even Britain’s relationship with the EU, ultimately an argument about political structure, is only a top three issue for 8% of the electorate.
This is something that the Lib Dems do recognise. Davey’s manifesto foreword points to ‘sky-high energy bills, food prices and housing costs’, as well as problems in the NHS. Much of the document speaks to these everyday concerns people have about their quality of life, which will take much of the next decade to address.
The party’s radical agenda for political reform does not fit with this, whether in terms of time or in giving voters what they want. While most politicos can endlessly pontificate on the pros and cons of the D’Hondt method, how they would carve up a federal UK, or the merits of citizens’ assemblies, most people don’t care.
The fact that our next prime minister has the charisma of an accountant is confirmation that people have had their fill of politics for now. Far from being a recipe for democratic inclusion, the Lib Dem’s plan would be a top-down imposition on a country that wants politicians to fix our problems without bothering us about it.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
