Alarming stories that Labour leaders are wanting to reform the European Convention

June 2025

Alarming reports have emerged over the past few days that the current government is considering some kind of revision to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Figures such as the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Attorney General Lord Hermer have made speeches suggesting disquiet concerning aspects of the Convention. In particular it is article 3: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

This story has history and the statements by politicians are more than usually disingenuous. To understand the story and the reasons for this recent slew of statements it is necessary to look at causes and why there is a clamour among politicians, some of the public and the media for change.

Stage 1 – the media

Much of the pressure has come from sections of the media so it is necessary to look at what is going on there. Newspaper readership has declined precipitately. Between 2000 and 2010, the decline was 65% and in the following decade up to 2020 a further 55%. Add in rising costs and declining advertising, and there is something of a crisis in the newsrooms. In this climate, it is cheaper to break into the emails, phones, bank accounts and even houses of the rich and famous, politicians and footballers to achieve a juicy front page, than to carry on the normal business of journalism.

Then came the hacking exposures and the Leveson enquiry which exposed the depth and extent of the hacking and criminal activity. It included senior police officers in the Metropolitan police in particular who sold information to the newspapers. This changed the dynamic of the industry and the notion of privacy was an anathema to their business models.

Over the last two decades there have been hundreds of stories alleging that criminals were not getting their just deserts because of their human rights either because of the ECHR or the domestic Human Rights Act. It was a ‘criminal’s charter’ they alleged. Photos of wanted criminals could not be circulated because of their human rights (they can), police could not evict an armed man until they provided him with a McDonalds hamburger because of his human rights (they could but it was normal practice to accede to requests to cool the situation). Abu Qatada was seriously misreported in the tussle over his deportation to Jordan.

Sadly, positive stories about the acts were almost entirely missing. The Daily Mail used the act to defend its journalist’s rights to protects their sources but strangely forgot to mention this to its readers.

Stage 2 – the politicians

Then the politicians began to join in perhaps sensing from the newspaper coverage that they were onto a popular winner. After all, if the voters were reading a never ending litany of stories about the evils of the human rights laws and Europe meddling in our affairs, it was a gift. It soon became part of the Conservative manifestos to abolish the act or later reform it. It became tangled up with the Brexit crusade and it is possible that many thought that coming out of Europe would mean that the ECHR would also be history. There was the famous cat story by Theresa May which was almost complete nonsense.

There was meant to be a Leveson part II to look at the unlawful conduct between the media and police but there were allegations that in return for a softer ride from the press, Keir Starmer agreed not to set it up. These allegations are denied. There are no plans for a part II.

Stage 3 – the boat people

As the means to arrive into the UK as a refugee or an asylum seeker diminished so the numbers who took to the boats to cross the Channel rose. This became a matter of massive political importance and the Reform party made huge progress with its promises to stop it. Media stories of asylum seekers being installed in hotels are constant. Despite boat crossings being only a small part of those coming to the UK, they loom large in the public imagination and politicians on the right have taken note of this.

The problem is that the government has obligations under the ECHR and other agreements, to treat asylum seekers in a proper way. Demands to simply ‘send them back’ are difficult to do particularly as ‘back’ can mean a county riven by war or where they can face dire consequences. But in simplistic terms human rights are standing in the way, as Mahmood says: ‘voters say international law stop them achieving the changes they want to see.‘

Stage 4 – the Reform party

Along came Reform and quickly began to made inroads into the political landscape. The overturning of a massive Labour majority of 14,700 in Runcorn and Helsby by Reform has shaken them badly. Reform has simple answers to matters like immigration which appeal to many and which has defeated both the Conservatives and now Labour. They would pick up boats in the Channel and return them to France. Asylum seekers would be processed off shore. These and other policies quick fix policies appeal to many and saying that they are difficult or impossible to do because of our international obligations carry little weight with many voters. They are even inflammatory particularly with those who have a deep distaste for anything European.

Stage 5 – today

So the Labour government is feeling under pressure. It has not ‘solved’ the Channel crossings problem. It has lost popularity for a variety of reasons quite apart from the discussion here. Reform is making great strides and even ahead in some polls with suggestions that Nigel Farage becoming a future prime minister was not the joke it might once have been. The Home Office remains dysfunctional and would take years to reform even under competent leadership. The party is becoming desperate to be able to counter the tide of dissatisfaction present in large parts of the kingdom particularly in the red wall seats.

So this brings into where we started and speeches about trying to reform elements of ECHR. The sadness is that they cannot. It would take years to carry through any reform in Strasbourg with little likelihood of success. If the government were to resile from either or both articles 3 and 8 would it solve its problems? Again sadly, no. The opposition to human rights laws and agreements have little to do with the people at the bottom of society so to speak. Almost no part of their speeches are about the victims of injustice which human rights are about.

As we have argued, it is sections of the media who have over decades created myths and disinformation about the workings of the laws. It is their business models which are under threat not the fate of asylum seekers. Why else would the Murdoch press spend over £1 billion in keeping the facts of its intrusion and criminality out of the courts? It is an irony – almost a supreme irony – that the much prized sovereignty that people apparently so desperately want is not in fact available to them. The Judiciary are all too happy to allow these hugely expensive legal actions to go ahead and thus subvert justice and free speech. There is no justice in any meaningful sense of the word. The rich and powerful can ‘buy’ silence by paying large sums into court that no one can afford to match.

These speeches appear to be preparing the ground at present in an attempt to match the rhetoric of Reform politicians. Instead of a proper concern for justice, establishing a Leveson II enquiry into the criminality of some of the media and their friends in the police, or tackling the rampant injustice of the defamation laws which serve to protect the rich from proper enquiry, our politicians seek to curry favour and favourable headlines in those very media outlets which have distorted the public’s attitudes to the laws which in truth protect them. The sadness is that the three politicians saying this stuff are experienced human rights lawyers who know it to be a distortion of the truth. A truly bizarre state of affairs.