Reclaiming Power: Can Reform UK Tackle Britain’s Deep State?

In the annals of British political history, the tenure of Mary Elizabeth Truss, albeit brief, has engendered a plethora of discourse. Ascending to the premiership in September 2022, her incumbency was truncated to a mere 49 days, rendering it the most ephemeral in the chronicles of the United Kingdom. This precipitous cessation has incited deliberations: was her downfall a consequence of intrinsic policy failures, or was it precipitated by the clandestine machinations of an entrenched "deep state"? Upon reading Liz Truss's book, Ten Years to Save the West, one cannot help but observe her conspicuous avoidance of any self-recrimination. That said, the work presents a series of cogent arguments and critiques that merit serious consideration.

The "Deep State" Allegation

In her post-premiership reflections, Truss has promulgated the notion that her reformative endeavours were systematically undermined by an insidious "deep state." This term, though nebulous, alludes to a consortium of non-elected officials and institutions purportedly wielding disproportionate influence over the polity, ostensibly subverting the democratic mandate. Truss's assertions resonate with the rhetoric of U.S. President elect, Donald Trump, who frequently decried the American "swamp" as a bastion of bureaucratic inertia and subterfuge. She infact believes the UK "swamp" or "blob" is a much bigger problem than that of the U.S.

Critics, however, have derided Truss's claims as conspiratorial. Her invocation of the "deep state" has been met with scepticism, with detractors positing that her political demise was self-inflicted, stemming from ill-conceived fiscal policies rather than external sabotage. Notably, during her address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2024, Truss contended that her tax-cutting agenda was "sabotaged" by the "administrative state and the deep state," a proclamation that elicited both approbation and opprobrium.?

Quangos: The Unseen Leviathans of Governance

Central to Truss's critique is the proliferation of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, colloquially termed quangos. These entities, operating at arm's length from ministerial oversight, have burgeoned over the decades, eliciting concerns regarding democratic accountability. The TaxPayers' Alliance elucidates that there are approximately 1,162 quangos in the UK, collectively expending ￡64 billion annually, equating to ￡2,550 per household. This fiscal magnitude underscores the profound impact these bodies exert on public policy and resource allocation.?

The composition of quango leadership has also been a focal point of contention. Truss and her adherents aver that these organisations are predominantly staffed by individuals with leftist proclivities, ostensibly bereft of substantial representation from the business or economic sectors. This ideological homogeneity, they argue, engenders a proclivity towards interventionist policies antithetical to free-market principles.

The Human Rights Act: A Bastion or a Barrier?

Truss's reformative zeal encompassed a reassessment of the Human Rights Act (HRA), legislation that enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. Critics of the HRA posit that it unduly fetters governmental sovereignty, enabling judicial overreach and impeding legislative efficacy. The Law Society, however, contends that the HRA has been instrumental in safeguarding civil liberties, cautioning against precipitous reforms that might erode fundamental rights.

The 0.7% Aid Target: Altruism Amidst Austerity

Another contentious issue pertains to the UK's commitment to allocate 0.7% of its Gross National Income (GNI) to official development assistance (ODA). Instituted as a statutory obligation in 2015, this target has been lauded as a testament to the UK's dedication to global development. However, in the wake of economic exigencies, the government announced a reduction to 0.5% in 2021, citing fiscal constraints. This retrenchment has ignited debates over the balance between international obligations and domestic priorities, especially when juxtaposed with austerity measures affecting vulnerable populations within the UK.

Devolution of Power: A Double-Edged Sword

The devolution of authority to institutions such as the Bank of England and the judiciary has been heralded as a means to depoliticise decision-making and enhance institutional integrity. Gordon Brown's 1997 decision to grant the Bank of England operational independence in setting monetary policy is often cited as a paradigmatic example. However, Truss contends that such devolution has engendered a democratic deficit, with unelected bodies exercising substantial influence sans commensurate accountability.

The judiciary's independence, exemplified by the Judicial Appointments Commission's role in selecting judges, is perceived by some as insulating the legal system from partisan politics. Conversely, critics argue that this insulation has culminated in a judiciary that is unresponsive to the democratic will, potentially obstructing legislative initiatives endorsed by the electorate.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Democratic Accountability

In light of these concerns, Truss advocates for a reclamation of powers devolved to quangos and other non-elected institutions, reinstating them under parliamentary purview. Such a re-centralisation, she argues, would enhance democratic accountability, ensuring that policy decisions reflect the electorate's mandate.

However, this proposition is fraught with complexities. The dissolution of quangos and the reabsorption of their functions into government departments would necessitate a comprehensive restructuring of the administrative apparatus. Moreover, the expertise and specialisation that quangos ostensibly provide might be attenuated, potentially compromising the efficacy of public service delivery.

Conclusion

The narrative of Liz Truss's premiership and her subsequent reflections illuminate a perennial tension within democratic governance: the equilibrium between elected authority and bureaucratic administration. While the proliferation of quangos and the devolution of power to non-elected bodies aim to enhance efficiency and impartiality, they also raise salient questions about democratic legitimacy and accountability.

This is the very challenge that the Reform UK party, under the leadership of Nigel Farage, will inevitably confront as it seeks to upend the status quo. Farage’s rhetoric has long championed the reclamation of national sovereignty and the dismantling of entrenched bureaucracies. However, tackling the entrenched “deep state” apparatus will prove a Herculean task. The path ahead for Reform UK is fraught with institutional resistance, political inertia, and the risk of alienating those who benefit from the current system. If Reform UK is to succeed, it will require not only a clear mandate but an unyielding resolve to dismantle the layers of power that have insulated unelected bodies from democratic accountability. The stakes are high, and the road will undoubtedly be arduous