Cross-party MPs and peers are mounting pressure on Keir Starmer to restore the Electoral Commission’s full independence by stripping ministers of powers to direct the elections watchdog, setting up a likely confrontation over an elections bill due early next year.
In a letter coordinated through a cross‑party anti‑corruption group, parliamentarians warn that the body overseeing the conduct and financing of elections must not be subject to strategic direction by the same politicians it regulates. They are urging the Labour government to reverse provisions first introduced under Boris Johnson that allow ministers to issue a “strategy and policy statement” to the Commission.
Labour strongly opposed those powers in opposition, arguing they threatened the regulator’s autonomy. But since taking office, the government has signalled it intends to use them, saying it will designate its own updated strategy and policy statement to reflect “the government’s priorities for elections” and the Commission’s expanded workload.
Phil Brickell, the Labour MP for Bolton West and chair of the all‑party group on anti‑corruption, said allowing the Johnson‑era powers to stand would sit uneasily with Starmer’s promise to “restore public trust” in politics. He has warned that keeping what critics describe as a mechanism to “neuter” the watchdog risks leaving the UK behind international standards on electoral integrity at a time when ministers are seeking to project global leadership on anti‑corruption.
The government is expected to publish an elections bill in early 2026 that will include lowering the voting age to 16 and tightening rules on political donations, including closing loopholes linked to foreign‑sourced money. However, campaigners and several MPs say draft plans do not include reinstating the Commission’s full independence, with ministers retaining the power to set its strategic priorities.
Opposition parties have indicated they will attempt to rewrite that element of the legislation as it passes through parliament. Peers are expected to play a leading role, with some of those who fought the same provisions in 2022 signalling they will again seek to remove ministerial direction powers and restate statutory independence for the Commission.
Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson, framed the dispute as a test of the UK’s resilience against democratic backsliding. She has pointed to the Trump era in the United States as an example of how leaders can “rip up the rules” to shield themselves, arguing that leaving any UK government with leverage over the elections regulator risks inviting similar tactics from future administrations.
Smart has also linked the row to concerns over Reform UK and its leader Nigel Farage, suggesting he would be keen to emulate that playbook. Citing the sentencing on Friday of Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK Wales leader and ex‑Brexit Party MEP, for accepting bribes to deliver pro‑Russian messages, she said recent events underlined the need for an elections watchdog entirely insulated from political pressure.
Ellie Chowns, the Green MP for North Herefordshire, said public trust in institutions was fundamental to the legitimacy of election results. Restoring the Commission’s full independence, she argued, would improve transparency and reassure voters that electoral rules are enforced in the public interest rather than for any party’s advantage.
Fresh polling for the campaign group Unlock Democracy suggests broad public backing for that stance. Around 70% of voters believe the Electoral Commission should operate free from political or governmental influence, according to the survey. Support for independence was reported to be particularly strong among likely Reform UK supporters, at roughly three‑quarters, challenging any assumption that anti‑establishment voters favour a politicised regulator.
Tom Brake, the former Liberal Democrat MP who now heads Unlock Democracy, has described Labour’s position as a “volte‑face”, noting that the last Labour government deliberately created the Commission as an independent body under the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. He said no government should “meddle” with the elections regulator and urged Starmer to remove the ministerial powers from the statute book.
Concerns about the current framework were amplified in September by a report from Spotlight on Corruption, Democracy in Danger, which concluded that the UK is now in breach of eight international standards on electoral body independence. The report said the introduction of the strategy and policy statement power had pushed Britain from among the global leaders on electoral autonomy to a mid‑table ranking, roughly alongside countries such as Ghana, Nepal and Croatia and well behind comparable democracies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.
The same study noted that all relevant constitutional watchdogs had opposed giving ministers strategic control over the Commission, including two parliamentary committees, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Its former chair, Lord Evans of Weardale, has likened the power to “giving a toddler a gun”, warning it could be exploited by a future government intent on bending election rules in its favour.
Ministers insist the Electoral Commission remains “operationally independent”, stressing that it continues to make its own enforcement and regulatory decisions and is accountable to parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. They argue that the ability to set broad strategic priorities ensures democratic accountability for how elections are run.
With the elections bill expected within months, the dispute over the Commission’s status is set to become an early test of Starmer’s pledge to clean up standards in public life. Any move by Labour to retain powers it once condemned is likely to face stiff resistance in the Lords, and potentially from some of its own backbenchers, as campaigners seek to use the legislation to re‑entrench the principle that those who referee UK elections should be free from political direction.