My colleague Doug Stokes recently published an excellent essay in this illustrious journal on one of the greatest challenges facing the nation – a failure by politicians to take on the blob. 

Doug ably distils several of the problems that have become new political rallying cries, and his proposal for a Constitutional Reform Act would certainly be a step in the right direction. But for such legislation to truly work, we need legislators to champion, enact, and – crucially – keep watch over our political and constitutional settlements.  

This burden is that of an eternal gardener, who must forever tend to his plants and root out the weeds. You can cut the administrative state with legislation. But become complacent and it will grow back again. 

Such complacency grows in absence of a philosophical rudder. How many of the political causes that the last government purported to campaign on can be met with the challenge: yes, but you were in charge for the past fourteen years?

Who failed to repeal Blair’s Equality Act? Who on the backbenches kept silent as Theresa May’s Net Zero statutory instrument sailed through Parliament? Who has routinely failed to get immigration numbers down, despite continuously promising to do so?

A recent example was the announcement during the election campaign that the party would introduce a migration cap but outsource the decision on numbers to the Migration Advisory Committee. If even then – at a time of heightened political debate, discussing an issue that the public view as one of their greatest priorities – they could not commit to decisive action, how can their MPs be expected to safeguard our constitutional order? 

And that only touches on the big contentious political issues of the day. A lack of courage in Parliament leads to the constant sprouting of weedlings. How can MPs demand that every issue under the sun be subject to some sort of inquiry or warrant a legislative response? Who can resist writing a yellow letter with a portcullis letterhead to some business because they don’t like a decision taken by a CEO? Who will stand up and say that a Bill named after the victim of a genuine tragedy should nevertheless be opposed on the grounds that it makes for poor legislation?

These smaller transgressions are myriad and pose the greatest challenge to conservative Parliamentarians. For entertaining them gives credence to the argument that the state can and should be involved in every aspect of public and private life. Whenever MPs sanction the regulation of food adverts on TV and public transport, or consider the establishment of a football quango to run the Premier League into the ground, they enable the growth of the blob by permitting new territory to become ensnared by regulation and oversight. 

This problem has been compounded by the rise of the MP as “super-councillor”, (superbly covered in this magazine), an issue that is admittedly cross-party. But it is far more ideologically damaging for conservatives. Many on the left relish the idea of the state becoming involved in every aspect of life, and that an MP should indeed be organising local job fairs. But there are many issues which constituents will write in about that – on a point of conservative principle – should simply not be the concern of an MP. 

It seems that in contemporary politics, MPs need a new type of courage. To be honest with the public about the priorities and limitations of their roles. To oppose legislation on principle, rather than act because “something must be done”. In foreign affairs, it may even mean responding to certain events by stating that action is neither in Britain’s interest nor its concern.  

Finding this courage won’t be easy, not least because the temptation to pander to the whims of constituents is very strong, and in turn reinforces the public’s perception of what an MPs duties are. But the public aren’t fools, and a great deal of respect and sympathy can still be found for those who take the time to make reasoned arguments, rather than immediately try to assuage concerns. No number of short-term bribes will make up for a collapse in principled government – the ballot box affirms this.  

The broader conservative movement should also look to reward such courage. Support parliamentarians who have the confidence to debate on the basis of conservative first principles, and who are able to approach the issues of the day not just with a plan of action, but with a philosophical roadmap underpinning it. 

This is why we should, of course, not paint all MPs with the same brush. But the disasters of the past fourteen years can be explained in part by a lack of courage or absence of conviction. 

Until this courage is rediscovered, Britain will always be vulnerable to the expansion of the blob, trapped in a constitutional settlement that undermines the authority of Parliament. To challenge this conservative MPs must rediscover their commitments to virtue and principle, not just policy and politics.