Write for us!
A “New Magna Carta” was one of Ed Davey’s brand-new announcements at his speech to the Spring Conference on Sunday (15 March 2026).
Let’s set aside the obvious question of how this has suddenly appeared as a new LibDem policy proposal without any consultation with the membership, and what this means for internal party democracy. After all, few Liberal Democrats would disagree with the principle of a written constitution. And it is certainly consistent with liberal values.
But was what Ed was proposing really a good idea?
I’m going to say no. It looks to me like he has taken what is potentially a good idea and thoroughly wrecked it.
Let’s check exactly what he said:
So today, I want to call for something bold. Something that this moment demands and this party is uniquely placed to champion.
A new Magna Carta for modern Britain.
Not a literal rewriting of an 800-year-old document – but a renewed national commitment, enshrined in law, to the values that have always made Britain worth defending. The rule of law, with the courts always independent of political interference. A commitment to universal human rights, that cannot be ripped up at the whim of a populist like Farage. Trial by jury. Yes, still a fundamental right that we hold dear. A democracy that is transparent, accountable, and resistant to the authoritarian creep we see in other countries. And resistant to authoritarian creeps like Donald Trump.
And it should go much further than the old Magna Carta, to enshrine the rights we have asserted over generations since. A free press. Genuinely free. Freedom of expression. And yes, that means on social media too. The proud British and Liberal commitment to universal healthcare, free at the point of use – something else Farage wants to scrap.
And while we’re at it, let’s go further – to not just defend our democracy but strengthen it for the future: Protecting our democracy from foreign interference – whether that’s Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Chinese spies or Elon Musk. And yes, Conference, giving everyone equal power and an equal voice, through proportional representation.
A new Magna Carta for modern Britain. A written constitution to protect our rights and freedoms. To defend our country from Farage and Reform.
To hold the powerful to account and give everyone real power.
Friends, Magna Carta was not given to the people of this country. They fought for it. And if we want to keep what it stands for, we will have to fight for it again.
Our party will always be up for that fight.
Great sounding words. Unfortunately, they are historically misleading, and give a flawed justification for what would become an incoherent constitution.
First up, let’s fix the history:
The people of this country did not fight for Magna Carta. It was fought for by barons. Far from being an enlightened step towards liberalism, it was essentially a peace treaty ending what amounted to a civil war among the nobility, transferring some powers from the King to the barons. Serfs remained serfs with few rights. And almost as soon as he had signed it, King John asked the Pope to cancel it, and the civil war resumed.
Even the famous clause stating that no “free man” could be imprisoned or punished except by the lawful judgment of his equals applied only to a small minority of the population. Perhaps 10–20% of people in England at the time were legally “free men” (The term ‘man’ applied to women here, although in practice their legal rights often operated through husbands or male relatives).
Any “new Magna Carta” had better be very different from that.
What about the rationale?
Here lies a deeper problem.
Ed suggests that a constitution is needed to ensure a democracy that is “transparent, accountable, and resistant to the authoritarian creep we see in other countries”. In other words, a written constitution is there in order to protect us from leaders like Trump or parties like Reform.
Unfortunately, the existence of a written constitution is no guarantee against democratic backsliding. The United States already has one of the strongest written constitutions in the world – and at best, that has only slightly slowed down Trump’s undermining of democracy and rule of law. Hungary also had a written constitutional framework when Viktor Orbán and Fidesz dismantled much of its liberal democratic system.
A well-designed constitution can certainly help to protect democracy. But it cannot be a substitute for a democratic culture, political norms, and an engaged electorate.
There are good reasons to support a written constitution for the UK. It could clarify the basis on which the country is governed, define and protect basic rights, and establish clear limits on executive power. But what Ed Davey appears to be proposing is something rather different. And this is where we see the biggest problem:
The Bad Constitutional Design
Ed is not proposing a constitutional framework for how the UK should be governed. Instead, he appears to be proposing a constitution that permanently locks into the UK a set of current Liberal Democrat policy preferences.
Take proportional representation. Many of us would strongly support the adoption of a proportional electoral system. But the specific system a country uses should be the subject of democratic debate and periodic reform as circumstances change and improved models emerge. Freezing one particular system into a rigid constitutional settlement turns a political choice into a permanent constraint.
Or consider the claim that a constitution should defend the country from Farage and Reform. However strongly we oppose Reform’s politics, that is not how democracy works. Political parties are defeated through argument, elections, and persuasion, not by designing constitutional structures aimed at excluding them.
Then there is the proposal that a constitution should entrench universal healthcare free at the point of use. Universal healthcare has been an extraordinary achievement: It’s made all our lives better, and no liberal would oppose it. But whether healthcare should be universal, how it should be organised, and how broadly its scope should extend, are political questions. They concern public policy, not the constitutional rules that determine how a country governs itself.
In short, what Ed is proposing confuses two very different things: a constitution that semi-permanently defines our framework of government, and a political programme that reflects the LibDem’s priorities in 2026.
In Summary
History offers a warning about how difficult it can be to correct mistakes when you write a constitution. The United States Constitution, drafted in 1787, was designed as the most modern and enlightened framework of government its authors could devise. And it included safeguards to ensure stability by ensuring it could only be amended through a broad consensus – which is just what you’d expect. And guess what! Two hundred and thirty-nine years later, the result is an archaic framework that has been overtaken by over 200 years of evolving political thought and is arguably now in large parts inappropriate for the modern World – but is almost impossible to change.
That is the danger of trying to embed contemporary political preferences into constitutional law. Constitutions are deliberately difficult to modify. If they are too closely tied to the ideas of a particular moment, future generations will find themselves trapped inside an obsolete framework.
The UK does need a written constitution. But if we are going to create one, it should focus on the fundamental rules of government, the protection of those rights for which there is a strong established consensus, and the balance of power between institutions.
None of this means that constitutional reform is a bad idea. The United Kingdom’s unwritten constitution leaves enormous power in the hands of any administration that commands a House of Commons majority. Recent years – and in particular, a certain B. Johnson’s administration – have shown how easily long-standing conventions can be stretched or discarded when they become politically inconvenient. But a written constitution should be there to define the limits of executive power, the fundamental rules of government, the balance of power between institutions, and the core liberties citizens should expect.
A constitution should not attempt to freeze the policy preferences of 2025 into constitutional stone. To attempt to do so is not only illiberal – it’s undemocratic.
