The youngest eligible voters in Thursday’s general election were four years old when David Cameron became prime minister. They have known only Conservative prime ministers since then. This electoral cohort has also grown up in the long shadow of the global financial crisis that struck before they started school. Much of the political turbulence that has tracked their lives so far can be seen as ripples emanating from that economic cataclysm.
The surge in public borrowing and deficit spending required to stabilise the financial system became the pretext for budget austerity under Mr Cameron’s coalition government. The consequent corrosion of public services and withdrawal of economic safety nets fed disillusionment and cultivated resentments that would help tip the scales in favour of Brexit in 2016. The young person who votes for the first time today, and whose future opportunities were curtailed by that referendum, was only 10 when it was held.
The subsequent struggle to define what Brexit should mean in practice shook Britain’s democracy to its constitutional foundations. It took a supreme court ruling in 2019 to reverse Boris Johnson’s tyrannical caprice in suspending parliament when it wouldn’t yield to his will. His party interpreted its subsequent election victory as vindication of a reckless style of government. Mr Johnson issued himself a licence to act with impunity and, although he was defenestrated after three years, the ethos of unaccountability was passed on, together with a tenuous mandate, to Liz Truss and then Rishi Sunak.
Until the votes are counted there is no way to know for sure whether that era has come to an end. The uncertainty is itself something worth celebrating. Britain has been subjected to plenty of bad administration under the Conservatives, with outbreaks of contempt for democratic protocol and the rule of law against a backdrop of casual venality. But the possibility of achieving regime change at the ballot box has never seriously been in doubt. This should not be a remarkable observation and yet, in an age of global volatility and insurgent nationalism, the resilience of even well-established democracies cannot be taken for granted.
The Tories have tinkered with election law, setting perverse requirements for photo ID in ways that look like partisan voter suppression. Rules governing donations and online advertising are woefully out of date. Still, by international standards it is safe to describe the conduct of a British ballot as free. If it transpires that enough people want rid of the present government, that is what will happen.
Uncorrupt elections are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a healthy democracy. The ballot is a moment of engagement, a contract where the public hires its leaders. The right also to fire them is crucial, but stability in the intervening years requires patience on the part of the electorate, which in turn depends on trust in the decision-makers. It is that mechanism – belief in the effectiveness of politics – that is most urgently in need of repair.
The next government will face diverse challenges, but tackling them all in a manner that raises the reputation of democracy itself is an overarching duty. Whatever the result, polling day marks a potential new start. It is an opportunity to begin the task of restoring depleted confidence in the political process, and perhaps to embed that faith in a new generation.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
