25th August 2021
There are various means by which those with political power can evade accountability for what they do and do not do.
(By ‘accountability’ I mean those with political power being obliged to give an account for what they have done and not done.)
One means is by minimising or removing any formal checks and balances within our constitutional arrangements – answering to parliament, the independence of our courts, the effectiveness of judicial review, an impartial civil service, public service broadcasting and so on.
A second means is to disregard informal and non-legal self-restraints within the constitution – to ignore the ‘good chaps’ theory of the constitution, where so much depends on the willing observance of unenforceable conventions and rules of procedure.
A third means is to ensure that any special method of accountability – such as a public inquiry – is as delayed or limited as possible, if it takes place at all – and if it does take place, the ‘lessons learned’ are for another generation of politicians.
And a fourth is by means of rhetoric.
In particular, the increasingly regular occurrence of ministers and political appointees invoking ‘hindsight’.
In the commons, the prime minister responds to explanations of how he could have dealt with foreseeable things in a timely manner – regarding Brexit and other things – with the jibe ‘Captain Hindsight’.
The politically appointed head of the national health service test and trace programme told a parliamentary committee, with a straight face:
‘With the benefit of hindsight the balance between the supply and the demand forecast wasn’t right. Clearly that is true.’
And, now with Afghanistan, we have the foreign secretary explaining why he carried on taking a holiday during the fall of Kabul:
"With the benefit of hindsight, I would have been back earlier"
Foreign Secretary @DominicRaab says he was surprised by the "scale and the pace" of the Taliban takeover in #Afghanistan.#KayBurley UF pic.twitter.com/FD0eVrZQf7
— Kay Burley (@KayBurley) August 25, 2021
*
Brexit.
COVID-19.
Afghanistan.
*
In most, if not all, of these situations the potential problems were bleedingly obvious in real-time, at the time.
What was required was not hindsight but foresight.
But we now have a group of politicians who have realised they can benefit from a special form of political herd immunity by deriding criticism as ‘hindsight’.
And this, in turn, provides them with a licence to not properly think things through at the time and to take decisions (or not take decisions) for reasons of perceived political expediency.
For they know, in the back of their minds, that when things go wrong all they have to say to critics:
‘…with the benefit of hindsight’.
*
A healthy polity does not greatly depend on formal constitutional instruments – and legalistic words in a document can only make so much difference.
A healthy polity instead depends on issues that can be characterised as ‘cultural’ as well as constitutional – the general sense of what those with political power can get away with.
And, as the very stuff of a political culture is largely words, symbols and communication, when that culture is debased then it becomes significantly more difficult to hold ministers to account.
The ‘benefit of hindsight’ is becoming the modern ‘benefit of clergy’.
If this trend continues, then our polity will be the worse for for it.
And this will not only be obvious with…
…well, hindsight.
**
Hello there – please do support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
There is no accountability, they have nothing to fear. With hindsight, Hancock could probably have ridden the storm.
Most people in Government who say this have, in theory, access to the best advice and intelligence available and it is their job to think ahead and at least to have contingency plans if things don’t meet the central case. As it is, I take the phrase to mean, look, I made an error, mistake or giant cockup but this is the nearest you will get me to admitting to it, now that the facts are more available. This implies that they didn’t use the advice or intelligence available, or even think the issue through at all. These are the people who have the rank of Captain Hindsight, since they have clearly not made the grade in the Foresight brigade.
Next we can look forward to the following:
“Yes of course with hindsight we should have extended automatic visas to lorry drivers and fruit pickers”
I am no lawyer but would ‘hindsight’ defence / explanation pass muster in an inquiry of Government handling of Covid / Afghanistan / Brexit crisis?
Could any of those who suffered as a result of this frankly cavalier attitude to holders ministerial duties be able to bring them to Court for dereliction of duty? I have given up on anything coming from ‘friendly’ check on adherence to ministerial code.
Except in times of peril Ministers used to be selected on much the same grounds as now – but they had a bunch of fuddy duddy civil servants to stop them doing anything. Whether ‘anything’ meant something useful or something stupid depends on one’s viewpoint, time and circumstances. Now we outsource or hire SPADs, what little control there ever was is gone.
The law is not much help. Historically our legal system derived from the King’s besties. We replaced the monarch as head but put in place a mini-monarch and unsurprisingly legal power derives from the mini-monarch’s besties. Add in an administrative structure descended from the early clerics who knew which side of their parchment was gilded it is not surprising the game is heavily weighted.
We might wonder how other countries manage things. I don’t suppose incompetence, double dealing and dishonesty are exclusively British products. But if I were in power I would definitely not encourage change – the system would suit me just fine.
I can’t see either the usual solutions being used – a revolution or a takeover bid. Neither looks likely. A pity really, the application of rather a lot of cordite might improve Parliament greatly and we could warm ourselves on those piles of Erskine May and pipe rolls. We might afterwards be in need of some good constitutional lawyers – any takers?
Hindsight just means looking back. Perhaps looking back, the wrong decision was made at the time, based on what was known at that time. But “hindsight” implies a proper and necessary understanding of the situation only emerged as events continued or afterwards, and the actual outcome (or the risks of various different outcomes) could not be foreseen at the time or before, so the decision that was made at the time was the best decision (or at least a reasonable one) in the circumstances as they were then understood.
So, was the outcome – the rapid collapse of the Afghan national army and the Afghan government, and triumph of the Taleban – was that foreseeable and when?
The corrupt and ineffective nature of the government in Afghanistan was well known for years, but there was a hope they might hold out for a few months after the US and allies left.
But then the Taleban captured its first provincial capital, Zaranj, on 6 August, and Sheberghan on 7 August. They captured Kunduz, Sar-e Pol and Taloqan on 8 August, and Aybak on 9 August. By this stage, it was clear that most of the Afghan national army was a chocolate teapot and was melting away. The Taleban captured Farah and Puli Khumri on 10 August, then Fayzabad on 11th, and Ghazni and Herat on the 12th. That is 11 capitals of 34 provinces (along with all the hinterland they already controlled) and it was all one way. Then on 13th it was Qala e Naw, Kandahar, Lashkargah, Chaghcharan, Puli Alam, Qalat and Tarinkot. 18 out of 34 fell in a week.
They captured the rest of the capitals in the following few days without much of a fight, and came into Kabul on Sunday 15 August.
The president fled, and the Afghan government collapsed.
The dominoes fell quickly, but it was clear by at least the 13th, and really a few days before, how this was going.
All that said, it is not clear to me that the Foreign Secretary deciding not to go on holiday, or more to the point accepting advice to return early, would actually have made very much of a practical difference. By that time it was far too late: US decision to withdraw had already been made and reaffirmed several times. With modern communications technology, one would hope a government minister could be just as effective (or ineffective) working from a hotel room (or the poolside, or the beach) as he would be working at home or in his office, particularly with a functional team left back in London.
But a political mistake, to be perceived as letting things run out of control? Yes, obviously – both at the time, and afterwards. As long Raab is not caught kissing the wrong person, he should be ok.
On this Government’s basis, Donoghue would simply have to swallow the snail as its presence would no longer be even remotely foreseeable.