https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj-2026-823665
"The results of the 2026 local government elections in Great Britain, held in
May, confirm the collapse of the old political order. Reform, a populist
radical right party led by Nigel Farage, emerged as a clear victor, alongside
the Greens on the populist left. Although these results might not translate
directly into success at the next general election, it would be imprudent to
dismiss the possibility that a populist party could enter government. In the
case of right wing populism, characterised above all by hostility to expertise
and evidence, this would have serious implications for public health. The World
Economic Forum's
2026 Global Risks Report identifies societal polarisation as
one of the world's top 10 threats. A failure to prepare for a political
environment in which expertise itself is contested would amount to gross
negligence. At stake is not only policy direction, but the status of expertise
itself in public life.
Government in the UK has traditionally rested on what Peter Hennessy termed the
“good chaps” theory, which assumes that well intentioned actors govern in the
public interest. This assumption was exposed as fragile when past UK prime
minister Boris Johnson unlawfully prorogued Parliament, and pandemic
procurement scandals showed private interests overriding public ones. Reform
supporters propose dismantling remaining guardrails, many of which exist to
protect the independence of scientific and professional expertise. The central
risk lies not only in specific policies but in hostility to expertise itself,
combined with policy incoherence, creating space for unaccountable and harmful
action.
We do not need to speculate about what this might mean. The second Trump
administration offers a warning. In the US, institutions safeguarding health
were politicised, scientific agencies were weakened, and expert advice was
sidelined or replaced by ideological appointees. The result has been measurable
harms, including the resurgence of diseases that are preventable with vaccines
and reduced support for people most at risk.
Although the UK context differs to the US, Reform's leaders have signalled
admiration for the US approach. Meanwhile, many UK science, health, and
environmental public bodies are vulnerable to political attack. The UK also
lacks a written constitution, which would enable citizens to hold the
government directly to account. Appeals to the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) are likely to cease if Reform leaves the ECHR, as it has repeatedly
stated it intends to do; protections under the
Equality Rights Act might also
fall if it is repealed, as Reform has proposed. Ministers often exercise
considerable control over public bodies that provide expertise, by determining
who leads them, how they are funded, and what they can say. We have proposed
measures to reduce these risks, including placing institutions on a statutory
footing, making them directly accountable to parliament rather than via
ministers, and securing more stable funding. Given what might lie ahead, these
reforms are urgently needed."
Via Violet Blue’s
Threat Model - Pandemic Roundup: June 11, 2026
https://www.patreon.com/violetblue/posts/pandemic-roundup-160784505
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
