During this most recent general election campaign, two phrases have found their way into the public imagination: ‘Elective Dictatorship’ and ‘Supermajority’.
When the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, coined the phrase ‘Elective Dictatorship’ during his Dimbleby Lecture in October 1976, he was not being critical of large government majorities. What Hailsham was concerned about was the ability of whoever commanded the House of Commons to control the apparatus of the state.
As for the term ‘Supermajority’, this is of no relevance to the political system in the UK. In fact, ‘Supermajority’ is a term that applies in the context of the federal system in the US and refers to a two-thirds majority in Congress. Such a majority is needed for specific pieces of legislation to pass Congress and is rarely achieved except through cross-party negotiations.
“… the scale of Labour’s win is huge and the loss for the Conservatives is the worst in the history of that party. “
Yes, the scale of Labour’s win is huge and the loss for the Conservatives is the worst in the history of that party. But new Prime Minister (‘PM’) Sir Keir Starmer would have the same power if he had a 70-seat majority instead of what looks like a majority of 170 seats.
Starmer, like all his predecessors, will still be held to account in the Commons by backbench MPs and chairs of Select Committees. The House of Lords will still be the revising Chamber scrutinising and amending legislation. ‘Sir Humphreys’ across Whitehall will still be saying, ‘a brave idea Minister’ when presented with draft items of policy. And ultimately the Crown will be there to ‘be consulted, to encourage and to warn’. None of these constitutional checks and balances are changed by the size of the Labour majority.
Moreover, changes that were introduced by Sir Tony Blair, Starmer’s (last but one) Labour predecessor as PM, particularly the establishment of the Supreme Court, could act as a further brake on the power of the PM. After all, the then President of that Court, Lady Hale was not aiming at PM Boris Johnson when she ruled against his Prorogation of Parliament in 2019. What concerned her was the misuse of the prerogative powers of the Crown.
“… some lawyers are already gearing up for action regarding the proposed imposition of VAT on school fees…”
Ironically for Labour, given their championing of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’), some lawyers are already gearing up for action regarding the proposed imposition of VAT on school fees on the grounds that such could breach Article 2 of the First Protocol of that very Convention – the right to education and the freedom of parents to choose what is best for their children.
And, as for rumours of a wealth tax, no doubt our new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, will be aware that on 6 June, the Supreme Court in the Netherlands ruled that the country’s wealth tax went against the ECHR because it forced savers and investors to pay tax on income they had not earned. The Dutch government is now on the hook to repay billions of euros to taxpayers.
“… there must be a majority in the House of Commons, and consequently there is by necessity, an ‘Elective Dictatorship’…”
For the government of the UK to function, there must be a majority in the House of Commons, and consequently there is, by necessity, an ‘Elective Dictatorship’, albeit tempered by constitutional checks and balances. And as for a ‘Supermajority’ – it is a concept that does not even exist in the UK constitution.
We will, therefore, continue to ‘keep calm and carry on’ as well as urging our clients to talk with their wealth planners to ensure that they are well placed to adapt to whatever comes their way.