Could it happen here? Could a populist leader be elected in the United Kingdom and sweep away institutions, norms and accountability in the way Donald Trump has behaved in his first 100 days as president?
Are there checks and balances to prevent a wholesale assault of the sort that Trump, Musk and Vance have mounted in the United States? Or have we complacently relied on an unwritten constitution and “good chap theory” to muddle through?
Tom Clark and Alan Rusbridger look at ten areas of British life which could face radical disruption.
Flood the House of Lords
What? The threat of “flooding” parliament’s upper chamber with a single party’s placemen lurks latent in the constitution. During the protracted People’s Budget crisis of 1909-11, Herbert Asquith used it to force reactionary Lords to blink—but it has never actually been followed through. An authoritarian government could try.
Why? To duck opportunities for scrutiny by the Lords and subvert its pesky potential to force delays—which can be fatal for rushed legislation.
How? Trample shamelessly on the “good chaps” convention, the chamber’s only serious “flood defence”. Currently, an appointment commission puts forward worthies to the cross-benches and checks all nominees for propriety. But it has no veto on individual partisan picks—even its character checks have been overridden—and still less on the House’s total size or balance of political forces. Prime ministers have always allowed their opponents a share of nominations, in part to protect their own side when the pendulum swung back against them. But a hard-right populist may not share those scruples.
How difficult? Frighteningly easy. Assuming that shame isn’t a barrier, only the king and public opinion would stand in their way. The king would likely feel obliged to do the prime minister’s bidding, even as the PM broke free of restrictive precedents, and it would take a naked powergrab of astonishing proportions to rouse voters to care.
How likely? A mini-flood 4/5; an unmissable deluge 2/5
Control universities
What? If universities are citadels of liberal thought, Trump is giving populists worldwide a lesson in how to storm them. His administration bullied Columbia into accepting restrictions on campus protests by threatening to withhold federal funds, and is engaged in a feud with Harvard over more audacious demands, including an end to all diversity programmes.
Why? Crushing “woke ideologies” and restoring more “traditional” teachings of history and culture is an ambition of the populist right worldwide. Brexiteers have particular scores to settle after a referendum in which they’d “had enough of experts” and university towns went staunchly Remain.
How? The obvious channels are research funding and student finance. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 nods at the “Haldane principle” of academics settling research priorities, but also allows ministers to add or omit research councils from the funding framework, meaning they could make trouble even without passing new statutes. Student loans are only available for “officially recognised” higher education institutions and courses, and populists could tinker with the criteria, extending support to vocational training while withdrawing it from “ideological” or “elite” study. Restricting tax breaks and restricting student visas could further curb universities’ incomes and independence.
How difficult? UK universities could be easier to strongarm than the wealthier American ones. Even the richest have total endowments worth a fraction of those of places like Harvard.
How likely? 4/5
Control (and defund) the BBC
What? There’s been a campaign to defund and delegitimise the BBC by figures on the right for many years. Until now politicians have held back just enough to weaken, but not destroy, it.
Why? The BBC is too reasonable and fact-based. The Steve Bannon playbook demands that you “flood the zone with shit” so no one knows what to believe. Such a move would please the Murdochs and Rothermeres of the world too.
How? Announce that the government is going to scrap the licence fee, and set up a quick “review body” (packed with people guaranteed to arrive at the “right” conclusion) that would recommend some form of subscription service. Replace the BBC chair with a politically friendly figure. (Dominic Cummings? Arron Banks?) The chair would appoint a new director general (Robbie Gibb?) then stuff the board with stooges.
How difficult? Pretty easy. The BBC has an obscure governance system that relies on renewals of the licence fee and, periodically, of a royal charter. The government already appoints five of the BBC’s directors—and the board itself appoints the remaining five.
How likely? 4/5
Defund the opposition
What? Donations to Labour from the unions have been controversial since the Osborne judgment banned them in 1909. A Liberal government legalised them in 1913, then the Tories made members “opt-in” rather than “opt-out” for a time. Ballots were required to legitimate donations after the 1980s. But the Tories have never banned them outright.
Why? Going after the opposition’s money and organisation is a natural way for a populist power-grabber to cement control. The official opposition is almost bound to be Labour—if Reform is in power, the Tories will either be with them in coalition or reduced by them to a rump—and when Labour is far from power, union money and muscle has always sustained it.
How? A populist government could legislate to restrict unions’ political funds to general campaigning, thereby banning party donations. It could also restrict union levies so that individual members must once again “opt-in” to contribute to political donations. How difficult? Easy, as few politicians outside of Labour would object and most of the media would support an attack on “union barons”. Industrial action is possible, but workers are unlikely to endure the hardship of long strikes for a political party.
How likely? 4/5
Abolish overseas aid
What? Scrap the £9bn annual foreign aid budget that will remain in 2027 after cuts by recent governments have bitten.
Why? To save money and soften the arithmetic for taxes and public services. And to run a populist campaign insisting “charity begins at home”.
How? The bipartisan commitment—shared by Blair, Brown and Cameron—to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on foreign aid was “enshrined” in the supposedly protective International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. But this paper protection proved worthless as first Boris Johnson and then Keir Starmer slashed it to 0.5 and then 0.3 per cent. The legal duty to “explain” cuts to the Commons would hardly inhibit Farage from finishing the job.
How difficult? Dramatic cuts would be easy, with backbench resistance to cuts so far petering out after polls found them popular. Keeping a very small aid budget so the UK could contribute something towards some global emergencies would be electorally wise, and would allow government to publicly offer a little something to “good” foreigners that “bad” foreigners could be very publicly denied.
How likely? Further deep cuts 5/5; outright abolition 2/5
Empower the Lord Chancellor to appoint judges
What? The independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which has run things since 2006, aims at a more “diverse” bench. It could be claimed that scrapping it and putting the Lord Chancellor back in charge would be “restoring” the English tradition.
Why? To seize control of who gets to be a new judge. “Restoring” powers sounds reassuring, but the Lord Chancellor has changed. Historically, this ministerial post was always filled by an experienced lawyer, who consulted the judiciary on new picks. Since 2006, it’s been an extra title for whichever politician happens to be justice secretary—including non-lawyers such as Liz Truss. A Reform hack could handpick Farageist judges.
How? Amend the Constitutional Reform Act 2005
How difficult? Doable with a large Commons majority. The Lords would resist, but by reintroducing the legislation in a second session it could be enacted under the Parliament Act.
How likely? 4/5
Replace the Supreme Court with judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor
What? The UK’s top court has been in populists’ sights since two controversial Brexit judgments, including one ruling Boris Johnson’s proroguing of parliament “unlawful, void and of no effect”. It has only existed since 2009, replacing the old committee of “law lords”. A new judicial committee could be sold as a return to tradition.
Why? To secure the sort of influence an American president enjoys over the US Supreme Court’s make-up—ideally without any US-style need for Senate confirmation of nominations.
How? Amend the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
How difficult? Directly confronting the top court would be a much more dramatic assault on the rule of law than gradually altering the appointment of new judges. The media, the current courts and even the markets could make it difficult. But it’s not impossible with a large Commons majority, plus a suitably packed House of Lords.
How likely? 2/5
Scrap the commissioner for public appointments
What? Set up during “sleaze scandals” in the 1990s, the commissioner is a watchdog of the processes by which ministers pick people for top jobs. The assumption is that there should be open competition and independent shortlisting of “appointable” names before ministers make their final pick.
Why? Any power-grabbing government wants freedom of patronage, especially over politically sensitive jobs such as the chairs of the BBC and the broadcast regulator, Ofcom. Reform will have clocked that Johnson’s well-briefed hopes of packing two veteran Beeb-bashers—Charles Moore and Paul Dacre—into these roles ran aground, partly due to a process that deemed Dacre “unappointable”. Axing the commissioner and his protocols would give a prime minister a freer hand.
How? The government writes the protocol (“governance code”) itself under an “order in council”, which also sets out the duties of the commissioner and specifies the public bodies covered by the system. By writing a different order in council, it could ditch the commissioner, and rewrite or even do away with the governance code.
How difficult? Almost no effort required. Public outrage is the only obstacle, but a skilful populist might redirect it at the £300,000 or so that it costs annually to run the commissioner’s office and pay his “honorarium” and other costs.
How likely? 4/5
Repeal the Human Rights Act and leave the European Convention
What? The postwar European Convention protects basic rights, such as to life, liberty of expression and free association. It was enshrined in UK law by the 1998 Human Rights Act. Policies and regulations have to comply with the Act, and judges must do what they can to interpret statutes to respect rights too. A special court at Strasbourg remains as a backstop.
Why? Populist impulses—from rounding-up migrants to locking up terror suspects without proper process—are vulnerable to human rights challenges. Mainstream Conservatives such as David Cameron and authoritarian Labour home secretaries have often kicked against the 1998 Act, but none has come up with a plan to repeal or replace it, because it becomes incoherent—until you’re willing to follow Putin out of the European Convention itself. Dominic Cummings is one populist thinker who fancies a referendum on that as a Brexit rematch.
How? For all the detailed protections in the Human Rights Act, it can be repealed by a simple parliamentary majority in the same way as any other law. The convention is a treaty that the government could ordinarily just quit, although the precedent of Brexit suggests separate parliamentary approval would be required.
How difficult? The Lords is an obstacle, but—as always—one that could be overcome. Undermining the Good Friday Agreement (which human rights underpin) should be a concern, as similar fears didn’t deter Brexit ultras from toying with a hard Irish border. As for public opinion, after so many “respectable” Tories have paved the way, it’s hard to imagine much of a blowback.
How likely? 5/5
Mass deportations
What? Ever since Farage and Ukip released that notorious “Breaking Point” poster in 2016 showing a queue of Syrian refugees, it has been clear that the populist right could go beyond the migration “crackdowns” of established parties, perhaps particularly with Muslims.
Why? Suspicion of migrants is always close to the hearts of the flag-waving right. Exceptionally high recent immigration, housing shortages and “clash of civilisation” anxieties have combined to widen the electoral opportunities.
How? With the Human Rights Act abolished determined ministers could throw huge resources, perhaps including the army, into immigration enforcement and expel very large numbers who don’t have leave to remain. To go further, they could widen the scope of existing powers to strip established citizenship from individuals where the Home Secretary deems that doing so is “conducive to the public good”.
How difficult? Crackdowns on undocumented migrants are only limited by scruples and resources. Stripping citizenship used to be much harder, but the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act’s “public good” test opened a crack which subsequent governments have widened to cover organised crime. Ministers could issue new policy to widen it further, perhaps setting “culture war” tests.
How likely? 3/5
