The further those first years of the Blair government after 1997 recede into history the more exceptional they appear. Indeed, they were to become exceptional even for a Blair government.
There was a rush of constitutional reform. There was the Human Rights Act, which gave effect to the European Convention of Human Rights in domestic law. There was also a Freedom of Information Act, devolution for Scotland and Wales, the Good Friday Agreement and House of Lords reform. The investigatory powers of the police and the intelligence services were placed on a statutory basis, as was the independence of the Bank of England.
No other government, incoming or otherwise, has ever gone about so openly and enthusiastically an exercise in resetting the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.
Quite quickly, of course, the Blair government lost interest in constitutional reform, because of 9/11 and for other reasons. Freedom of information legislation was half-heartedly implemented, and exceptions were sought from human rights obligations. Seven statutes with “terrorism” in their short title were passed between 1998 and 2008. The Blair and then Brown governments went as openly and enthusiastically about resetting the structure of the state as before, but in an illiberal direction.
But still, those early years after 1997 were as impressive as they were unusual. Normally constitutional reform in the United Kingdom comes about either as a way out of a political crisis (1828-32 or 1910-23) or from governments that pretend not to be interested in constitutional reform.
It was the administration under Margaret Thatcher, for example, which put in place the most important practical statute for civil liberties, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, as well as setting up the modern select committee system and signing the Single European Act. Thatcher and her last lord chancellor, Lord Mackay, even took on the courts and then the absurd privileges of the legal profession in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. But few people would hail Thatcher—or many other premiers since the Second World War—for her record of constitutional reform.
The new Labour government of Keir Starmer is not following the first Labour government of Tony Blair. There is no giddy excitement of constitutional reform. The early period of this parliament with a massive Labour majority will not be used for pushing through fundamental changes to the configuration of the United Kingdom state. It instead will be used for other things.
The King’s speech told us there is some constitutional change coming, but it is at its most mild. The last few hereditary peers will finally leave the House of Lords. At the same time, the English bishops of one domination of the Christian church will not be removed from their automatic place, but made more representative in respect of gender.
Some regions may have some more powers granted to them by parliament, though it will still be Westminster which ultimately decides how much real power is licensed.
And that really is about it. No electoral reform. No drastic changes to the legislature or the judiciary or to the devolution settlements. This is probably the least amount of constitutional reform a government can get away with and still have it badged as constitutional reform. This is timid stuff.
Perhaps the Starmer government will be become more ambitious as the years of power come and go. But governments tend to become more illiberal over time, as ministers and their advisers become more executive-minded and see checks and balances as impediments to getting their way.
There also seems to be little chance of constitutional reform being imposed by events. The Scottish National Party is in no position to seek an independence referendum before the next general election. There also now seems little prospect of a border poll in Northern Ireland before the end of the decade. And we are not going to reverse Brexit at least for another political generation.
After all the tempests and mutinies of the last few years, the ship of state now faces what looks like a period of quiet steadiness. Maybe, as with Thatcher, there will be some constitutional reform without any attention being brought to it, but even that seems unlikely. There seems nothing on the horizon that will upturn Starmer’s boatload of “mission-driven” ministers. There is now to be a moment of calm, before the next constitutional storm.
