A country ruled by lawyers and HR managers will be culturally dessicated and politically sclerotic
It is one of history’s ironies that the House of Commons voted to slash trials by jury on the same day as the House of Lords voted finally to expel the last remaining hereditary peers from Parliament.
It was the hereditary barons of England who forced King John to agree that “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers…” The barons have gone, and so have our ancient liberties, and both on the same day. Only the bishops still sit in that ancient council, heirs of Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury who led the barons against the king in 1215. They are unlikely to be removed right now because no Labour leader with any sense would remove 26 cast-iron supporters from the upper house.
There is something more than historical timing that links these two decisions. They both reflect the belief that the only people trusted to make decisions are those who have been properly credentialled and have been authorised by people like us. If you want to know who the “us” is, look at who dominates the Labour Party, the Civil Service, the National Trust, the Church of England, and every other institution of note. A world run for and by a managerial legalistic caste, in which it is impossible to rise, or even survive, if you do not submit to their marks of authority, mediated by speaking the right language, submitting to the right training, earning the right credentials. Deep mediocrity calls to deep mediocrity, and proof of it only comes with a certificate.
Nothing outrages this caste more than authority which comes from elsewhere wielded by people outside their control, and nothing exemplifies this more than a jury. Selected at random, their authority coming precisely because they do not know the law (and until very recently lawyers could not serve on juries). They are the voice of common sense, the “man on the Clapham omnibus” sitting in judgment, and they could not be more hostile to the spirit of the age.
This whole reform is a consequence of having Keir Starmer — the Lanyard Made Flesh — sitting in Number 10. Of course the man who once headed the Crown Prosecution Service believes only lawyers should be involved in judging crime; of course he doesn’t trust any old widow, tramp, salesman, student, business woman, or golf club gardener to try a person for their liberty. How could he? He has been trained and has the certificates for it, they have not. Law is something done to people not by people.
At the other end of the spectrum come the hereditary peers. They, too, are untainted by credentials. They have not been appointed by a Prime Minister or verified by an appointments commission. And before you suggest that MPs stand outside this system by virtue of having been elected, I would invite you to ask how candidates even get on the list to be considered for a seat by a major party. They have had to convince the middle management of their party that they will behave in the manner expected by their particular gatekeepers and (as the depressing number of Labour MPs voting to abolish our ancient rights show) broadly they do as they are told. But peers there by right of inheritance? They are immune. They have no certificate to prove their worth, they have been approved by no committee, they are a glitch in a world obsessed by process. They too must go.
But these credential-administrators are killing Britain. They think that everything is solved by a course, a training session, and a risk assessment. They tie down every spark of ingenuity or independence of spirit. They care for diversity of every sort — except, of course, diversity of thought.
And they hate it when unauthorised, uncredentialled people are able to get on and do things. A whole host of smaller charities, like scout groups and small parishes with income of under £100,000 will soon have to register with the Charity Commission (with all the tiresome paperwork and regulation that comes with it) or close down.
Mandatory courses are imposed even when the authority to impose them is dubious. Members of both Houses of Parliament are now subjected to an increasing number of mandatory training courses — an affront to our principle that those whom the King or the People have sent to Parliament must be free to go about their business unimpeded — as a vehicle to impose managerial authority over a supposedly sovereign parliament. If you are an ordinary member of the congregation delegated to be on the panel to select your new vicar you now have to attend mandatory unconscious bias training.
Maybe this will prove to be the managers’ moment of overreach
All of these are ways of imposing the authority of the managerial caste — from the expulsion of those they cannot control from the Crown Courts and the High Court of Parliament to the micromanaging of every appointment and every charity, this is rule by lanyards for lanyards. And it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter that those left in Parliament — appointed life peers and MPs elected in 2024 — are so manifestly unsuited to public administration (or even public speaking). It doesn’t matter that increased bureaucracy has killed so much of the voluntary sector. Outcome doesn’t matter; only process matters.
But maybe this will prove to be the managers’ moment of overreach. Maybe the country will realise it is more absurd to accept rule by lawyers and HR managers than the mixed constitution we had before — with its balance of interests and its various different sources of authority — and will choose to throw down the clipboard and tear up the credentials and put our trust back in people once more.
