International Day of Democracy

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions.

To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too.

Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country.

On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires,

“the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.

Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within.

At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%.

Britain is not a nation that suppresses free speech or free assembly, as Saturday’s march so obviously indicates. We are not a country whose elites prevent new parties from forming to represent the people—just ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Words are at their most potent when used in political debate, and those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than most in how they wield them.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to Orwellian thought. Did he notice that on Saturday, Elon Musk was wearing a T-shirt that said, “What would Orwell think?”, and does he agree that anyone with a passing knowledge of George Orwell’s work knows exactly what George Orwell would think of Elon Musk and his actions over the weekend?

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group.

As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday:

“The left is the party of murder.”

I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly.

Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate.

It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution. 

Democracy is about respecting freedom of speech and a free media, but not weaponising and fetishising them to enable and amplify hatred through the incitement of violence and intimidation, and hon. Members across the House know all too much about that. A healthy democracy requires education so that citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, how the system works and the ways in which they can engage with it. It also means highlighting how the ordinary workings of democratic politics should, can and will improve people’s lives.

I end by returning to my argument about nourishment. Just as we take care of our bodies, a healthy democracy requires sustenance and care, a diet of trust and honesty, and regular exercise in civic participation and open debate. It must be protected from the cancer of political violence, and our population must be empowered to identify and challenge snake oil salesmen, wherever they lurk.

Failure to tend to our democracy will leave it malnourished and brittle, vulnerable to the corrosion of cynicism, apathy and all that flows from the unholy, abusive and manipulative dance between angry voters and powerful political actors who exploit grievance and stoke cynicism for their own gain, dressing it up as speaking for the people. That tactic is as old as the hills. It is as old as the Greek city states, and the history of nations is littered with disasters arising from the apathy of those who failed to protect democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing grieved me as much, and probably grieved others in this House and further afield, as those awful remarks that were almost rejoicing in Charlie Kirk’s murder. I find it almost inconceivable to comprehend that, especially when a wife and children, and many others, are grieving.

It cannot be overestimated how loved and well respected Charlie was, especially among the young people of this generation. I have some seven staff who work with me, and there are four young ones among them. Those four are in their 20s, and they were genuinely devastated by the news—they said they felt grief and loss. That tells me that the impact of the murder of Charlie Kirk went far beyond America and across this great nation as well. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has tabled an early-day motion on the murder, and I have tabled one as well.

Those in my constituency from older age groups have also outlined how they are equally as shocked and saddened. Charlie spread the word of God, the word of family, faith and freedom, and the importance of conservative politics today. I do not care what someone’s political aspirations or religious views are—they are not important. The fact is that no individual on this Earth deserves to have their life ripped away from them.

[Lizzi Collinge]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the murder of Charlie Kirk was an appalling act. No one should ever feel threatened by violence; no one should ever be killed for their beliefs or their actions. However much we disagree with the horrendous nature of his death, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the statements made by Charlie Kirk in life meant that other people felt that their freedom was being threatened, and that they were not safe to speak out?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree that we have the right to freedom of speech, and it is very important to have that. Charlie Kirk took full value of his right to speak. Tommy Robinson, whom I disagree with very much, has a right to speak as well.

What we need to be careful about in life is this. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) about how when I am on recess I spend at least two half days on the doors, just to keep in touch with people and understand what they are thinking. The issue of immigration is massive. Now, I may not agree with all the things that are said about immigration—I have my own point of view—but I understand that many people worry about immigration. Those are not the people who are going out to wreck and smash; they are ordinary, middle-class, churchgoing people who have concerns. There are many concerns that people have. We should be careful with our words. I try to be careful with my words in this House, and I hope that others do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate.

We rightly talk about a lack of trust in politics, and there is one key element as to why that is: the first-past-the-post voting system. I found a beautiful quote the other day from Elie Wiesel:

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”

We can see that indifference in the lack of participation in even general elections. Left unchanged, the first-past-the-post system will continue to erode public trust, produce unfair and unrepresentative outcomes, and undermine the stability of our democracy. A majority of the voting public support a change to the voting system. What I and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are calling for is a national commission on electoral reform, so that all options can be examined independently and impartially.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I have views on what a new electoral system should have. It needs to be more proportionate, but it needs to take into account other things as well. I believe in constituency MPs. I believe in each MP’s representing a defined geographical area. However, the guidelines at the last boundary review, which had very tight numbers, have left us with some slightly odd constituencies.

My constituency crosses the county boundaries of Lancashire and Westmorland, and it includes the Yorkshire Dales national park. I have three planning authorities, which is great fun. Although it is great for me to walk through the Yorkshire dales to see a red squirrel in Cowgill, I can see why people in Dentdale do not feel particularly connected to people in Morecambe, which is an hour’s drive away, so I think the Boundary Commission needs a bit more flexibility. I also think that any voting system should allow voters to rank their preferences, so they can say, “That person is my favourite. That person is also acceptable, as is that person.” They should also be able to not rank people if they definitely do not wish them to be elected. Some of my colleagues have spoken about the action that the Labour Government are taking on political donations, which I welcome.

We cannot talk about the deficits in our democracy without talking about young people. We have a lovely history of older people bemoaning the youth of today; I found a brilliant social media thread with examples that go back to Plato. We have to stop berating young people for not engaging and do the work ourselves. I know that some people are on TikTok—that is not really for me. I do not think disengagement comes from the lack of me lip-synching along to pop songs. It comes from young people not being listened to and their concerns not being addressed.

We are taking some steps. The Labour Government are giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, which is fantastic. If people start voting young, they keep voting. I know people who are older than me who have not voted just because they do not know how it works. They literally do not know how to physically go and vote, which is a real shame. More foundational changes also need to be made. If elections hinge on certain constituencies or certain voting blocs, then policies and campaigns will cater to them at the expense of other groups. Whenever I see young people, I tell them to vote. I say, “If you vote, you’ll get policies that work for you.”

This week, the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections published suggested terms of reference for a national commission on electoral reform. This is a clear proposal for the Government to set up a national commission that could independently ask the big questions about our democracy. How do we build an electoral system that represents all voices fairly? How do we inspire public trust? How can we ensure that every vote, every voice and every citizen counts? It is only by answering these questions that we can protect our democracy, strengthen our democratic institutions and show that every voter matters.