Don't Vote Labour (Part 9)
Voting Franchise Meddling; Citizens' Assemblies; Assisted Dying; Abortion
Votes for 16-17 year olds and EU nationals
Labour have pledged to let 16-17 year olds vote. This was proposed in May 2023 by the shadow business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, and confirmed in an NEC document that September. Also floated by Reynolds was the idea of letting settled-status EU nationals vote. Starmer had already pledged this in his leadership campaign (although clearly this now means very little!).
Sixteen and seventeen year olds can vote in Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections, and also were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum. I oppose this, because I don't feel they are mature enough and are open to manipulation. To extend the practice to a UK General Election would certainly be a step too far. The floor at eighteen seems fair, and some even want it put back to 21 as it was in 1970. I would personally support making everything eighteen - from age of consent to driving and voting - so there is no inconsistency. Politically engaged young people may not realise this, but two years is not that long to wait and will go by in a flash.
EU nationals with the correct residency arrangements can already vote in local elections and those for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments (in English local elections the rules will soon be changed). I do not believe they should be allowed to vote at all, but to allow them to vote in UK general elections would be even more ridiculous. It would call into question the very concept of citizenship. Irish and certain Commonwealth citizens can vote in all our elections, but for the Irish this is reciprocated and it helps preserve the Good Friday Agreement. We also have a lot of historical kinship with Ireland and the Commonwealth countries, which we do not with continental Europe.
People who support foreign nationals getting the vote say that if people pay or have paid tax in a country, then they have the right to cast a ballot. However, it is not merely a question of tax. Plenty of British people do not pay income tax because they are under the threshold, or unemployed, or unable to work. Yet they are still British, with roots in this country and a stake in its future. Foreign nationals without British citizenship are not. They can choose to leave, and should not be able to affect the political course of this nation.
The EU nationals idea seems to have been shelved after the highly negative reaction it provoked, and it is not included in the NEC document. Both concepts are clearly an attempt by Labour to secure voters that are likely to support them. Up to two million 16-17 year olds would be put into the franchise, while 3.4 million EU nationals have settled status in the UK. These are numbers that are enough to swing an election. The EU citizens idea makes one suspicious about the prospect of a second Brexit referendum, which of course Labour were pushing in the past.
Citizens’ assemblies
Sue Gray got into a mess in February because of remarks she made in an interview for Starmer's biography. She announced a policy that Labour would create so-called 'citizens’ assemblies'. These would be used by the government to devolve decisions - such as planning and constitutional reform - to panels of the general public.
This is an idea that's been floated before. The wet Tory leadership candidate, Rory Stewart, wanted the terms of Brexit decided by such a thing. The eco nutter lobby routinely suggest them. Indeed, that was the demand of the JSO protestor who threw glitter at Keir Starmer during his conference speech. Gray was apparently enamoured by citizen assemblies because they were used to help legalise gay marriage and abortion in Ireland. When queried on Gray's remarks, shadow health secretary Wes Streeting suggested the assemblies could decide the issue of assisted dying, which Labour have since pledged a referendum on (and which Starmer personally wants to legalise).
As a fan of direct democracy, I should be enthused by the idea of such panels. However, like many I doubt how impartial they would be, especially under the current Labour Party. They would likely be selected on political grounds and leaned on by the government and councils, used as a way to rubberstamp their will. They would also be a perfect way to dodge criticism towards unpopular polices such as putting up ugly tower blocks, migrant centres or nuclear power stations.
When Gray's comments surfaced, there was an adverse reaction, even from some Labour party figures. As the policy was torn to shreds on Twitter, Labour HQ hurried to assert it was not an official policy. An unnamed NEC member said it was a 'stupid idea'. Gray's rival for back seat control of the party, Peter Mandelson, dismissed it as a low priority for voters.
But it does not seem - as it was painted - that Gray had gone rogue. The Starmer biography states Starmer's team have been trying to work out how to use citizen's assemblies. It also cites Gordon Brown's 'Commission on the UK's Future' recommending them. Brown wanted them used for deciding how to replace the House of Lords, and Starmer accepted this (although has recently reneged on the pledge to abolish the Lords). It also mentions Labour-run Camden Council attempted to discuss knife crime solutions in such an assembly, but abandoned the scheme. More broadly Labour had been suggesting bringing power 'back to local people' for a while - although needless to say it has been vague and unconvincing.
This was, then, a genuine policy and the negative response to it made them deny it. If Gray was jumping the gun, it raises questions about her discipline and her political judgement. Her appointment was mired in controversy, and it seems her continued presence will be.
Assisted dying
As touched on above, Keir Starmer personally supports legalising assisted dying and has pledged a referendum on it. His biography explains how the issue has been an interest of his since his CPS days, when he decided not to prosecute a couple who had taken their disabled son to be euthanised in Switzerland. It's always a controversial topic and in recent years assisted dying has gained more prominence owing to it being legalised in Justin Trudeau's Canada in 2021. Disturbing stories abound of perfectly healthy elderly people, depressed teenagers or soldiers with PTSD booking a state-assisted suicide. There are concerns about coercion from third parties, the state's duty of medical care being compromised, and whether the safeguards preventing abuse are sufficient. It's even feared there is a eugenics component to the concept, and it is a way of disposing of 'burdens' on the state as occurred under the Nazis and elsewhere.
UK citizens have been travelling to Canada, Switzerland or the Netherlands for the 'treatment', and a Dutch girl was euthanised in Holland because she had mental health issues, rather than anything physical. Clearly such a thing must not be allowed.
I personally believe that assisted dying should be permitted only for the terminally ill, or people whose day-to-day lives cannot be led without terrible physical pain. Everything else must be treated through the existing methods, with a view to preserving life. There must be the most rigid safeguards on such a process. A referendum would be the best way to decide on such an issue, because that is a true democratic test. I can certainly understand the concerns, though, and if the Canada model is to be emulated, there are real moral problems with that. Therefore the issue must be considered when appraising the dangers of a Labour government.
Abortion
Another such issue is abortion. There has been a push by progressives across the Western world to extend the time limits on terminations closer and closer to birth, and also to decriminalise any breaking of the current limits. In the UK the limit is currently 24 weeks (or 6 months) for socioeconomic reasons. For medical reasons it is unlimited. A 'medical' abortion, namely one using pills, is limited to 10 weeks (or 2.5 months). 'Surgical' abortion can be done up to 23 weeks and six days. Birth is usually at 36 weeks. The UK’s limits are very liberal compared to many countries.
There is also a push to not require two doctors to sign off on an abortion because it causes 'delays'. This is a gravely serious procedure for which the system needs to be sure, and there must be a fail-safe. If that means taking more time, so be it.
Within Labour, pro-abortionist in chief is Stella Creasy, for whom the cause is something of a crusade. Clearly she has many fellow travellers in the party, people who see abortion as a human right and a vehicle of female empowerment - rather than a sometimes necessary evil that should only be a last resort. She also pushed the new legislation for protest exclusion zones around abortion centres, where even silent prayer is banned and results in arrest. You may agree with this, but when it was passed, Creasy and the equally unhinged Rupa Huq posted a TikTok of them dancing ecstatically to 'Hangin' on a Prayer' by Bon Jovi. This was not treating a serious subject with the reverence it deserved.
Speaking for myself, I am quite liberal on the abortion matter in the sense there are circumstances where an abortion needs to happen. This obviously includes the medical reasons, to save the mother or if the foetus is found to have catastrophic health problems that will make the child's life unbearable. The pregnancy being the product of rape and incest are other valid reasons. I also reluctantly recognise the economic argument, or if a woman is simply not psychologically equipped to be a mother. These are dreadful reasons to terminate a life, but I believe a woman needs that option. We can disagree on that, but the point is the current rules provide such an option to terminate, until six of the nine months have passed and the foetus is deemed a fully viable human being. There is absolutely no need to extend the time limit, or to decriminalise abortions performed after that window. You cannot decriminalise what many believe amounts to murder, or at least killing.
In June 2023 a women named Carla Foster was jailed for two years for taking termination pills when 32 to 34 weeks (8 to 8.5 months) pregnant, resulting in the still-born birth of her baby. Creasy and other feminists leapt to her defence, painting her as the victim or even some kind of heroine. Not so. She had ended a life outside of the law, and deserved everything coming to her. Alas this was later appealed and downgraded to a 14 month suspended sentence, so she walked free. It was alleged she had lied to obtain the pills by phone, a system put in place during the Covid lockdown. Nobody was prosecuted or even disciplined for prescribing the pills. If they knowingly prescribed them to an 8 month pregnant women, they should also be prosecuted and jail would be a suitable punishment upon conviction.
New Labour moderation might well act as a brake on Creasy-type ideologues and prevent any more radical abortion laws. Blairites know many ordinary voters will be opposed to such 'reforms', and this may be the only reason preventing them from pushing the envelope. But as with other policy areas, relying on the good judgement of Labour is a massive risk - and one we must remember in the voting booth.