Slipping Through Our Fingers: How democracy is being eroded

There comes a moment when you realise that something has gone seriously wrong. The list of constitutional changes under this Labour government can no longer be counted on one hand. Is democracy slipping through our fingers?

First there is the abolition of trial by jury for all but the most serious cases such as rape, murder, aggravated burglary, blackmail, people trafficking, grievous bodily harm and the most serious drug offences. The government will introduce new “swift courts” where cases that likely carry a sentence of three years or less will be heard by a lone judge.

Jury trials are ancient, rooted in Anglo-Saxon practice, shaped by Norman law, and enshrined in Magna Carta. They are a vital check on power, making the state answerable to ordinary people. The Free Speech Union has pointed out that juries are often the last protection against politically motivated prosecutions, particularly for speech. If you were dragged into court over a rude limerick on X, would you rather be judged by a jury of peers or in a “swift court” by a single judge, possibly captured by ideology or political fashion? I know what I would choose.

At the same time, this government is rolling out Digital ID and facial recognition. On the surface it is supposed to be about convenience, efficiency and safety. In reality, it is about monitoring, control, centralisation. Once your identity is digitised, tracked, and tied to access to work, services, and movement, your freedom ceases to be inherent. These technologies are perniciously deceptive because they disguise surveillance as modernisation.

These changes signal something fundamental: the state does not trust us to judge our peers, and increasingly it does not trust us to live freely.

Meanwhile, council and mayoral elections are being postponed. Every day without a vote is a day the people cannot speak. Accountability is postponed.

Alongside this, hereditary peers are being removed from the House of Lords. This government believes that hereditary principle in lawmaking is out of step with modern Britain. Now, whatever your views on hereditary peers, it’s obvious that what we’ll get instead is the creation of more appointed and compliant peers. This is not about improving democracy but consolidating power.

In further profound changes, touching life and death, Labour pushed through the decriminalisation of abortion to term and is still trying to force through the assisted dying bill. Both represent monumental ethical shifts and demanded national mandate and debate.

The Guardian reported that while in opposition, the party planned to introduce assisted dying through a private member’s bill, a tactic that would allow “heavy influence” while avoiding full democratic debate. When a government uses procedural loopholes to make life-and-death decisions without public mandate, it behaves not as a servant of the people but as a manager of them. We are not granted the right to judge moral questions for ourselves.

Stating the obvious here, these changes point to a deeply anti-democratic and technocratic approach to governance. We should not be surprised as Keir Starmer did once quip that he prefers Davos to Westminster. He prefers the company of global technocrats to the messy, inconvenient and honest reality of democratic debate. Frankly, he does not deserve the honour of Westminster if he holds it in such contempt.

This government is demolitionist in nature. It is dismantling the frameworks that make democracy possible while clinging to power. There are echoes of Tony Blair’s government, which also reshaped constitutional norms under the guise of modernisation. Institutions are being re-engineered to centralise authority, reduce scrutiny, and limit the role of ordinary citizens. The analogy to authoritarian regimes is uncomfortable but unavoidable. Not in the form of jackboots or censorship of newspapers, but in the form of bureaucratic control, legal sleight of hand, and the erosion of consent.

By the next general election, what will remain? Jury trials will be exceptions, not norms. Identity, movement, and access will be mediated through digital systems controlled by the state. Local democracy will have been postponed, reorganised, and centralised. The House of Lords will be more obedient, more professionalised, more distant. Life-and-death decisions will increasingly be treated as technical legislative questions rather than matters for moral scrutiny or democratic debate. Power will be concentrated, freedom will become conditional, and the everyday citizen will be increasingly peripheral. The system may look like democracy, but it will feel very different in practice.