20 August 2021
There are serious calls for the foreign secretary Dominic Raab to resign – so serious that there is a real possibility that he may actually soon do so.
This political situation means, in practical terms, that three pre-conditions have been met.
*
The first is that there are those in government – officials and/or politicians – who want the foreign secretary to resign (or at least be significantly embarrassed).
Without those in in government being opposed to the foreign secretary, the media would not have been provided with the material with which they are supporting the demands that he should resign.
*
The second is that those in the news media also want the foreign secretary to resign (or at least be significantly embarrassed).
If the foreign secretary had good (that is, information supply) relations with the lobby and other political journalists then, even if somebody else in government was against the foreign secretary, he could ride this crisis out.
But, for some reason, the news media have done a cost-benefit analysis of Raab staying as foreign secretary, and they see no reason to shield him.
*
The third is that the public – or at least a significant portion of the public – care.
Something in this story has received public attention.
For even if those in government wanted Raab out, and the press saw no advantage in shielding him, there still would be no clamour for his departure – unless there was also any interest by the public.
It would be a Westminster village thing, and so on.
But there is public attention, and the public appear to be unimpressed.
*
So, for there to be a serious political-media demand that the foreign secretary should resign the following three conditions have been met: (1) someone in government – minister or official – wants him out, (2) the media will not protect him, and (3) the public are sufficiently interested so as to make this a story.
The absence of any one of these three pre-conditions would mean the foreign secretary would probably be safe.
That these three pre-conditions have all been met is what makes him politically vulnerable.
*
But.
Notice what is not one of the pre-conditions.
There is no pre-condition that the minister has actually done anything wrong.
That factor is almost politically irrelevant.
In fact, ministers get things wrong all the time.
But such ministers are usually safe – as no other minister or official wants him or her out, and/or the media will protect him or her, and/or the public are not sufficiently interested so as to make it a story.
This means there is no necessary corresponding link between (1) a minister doing (or not doing) something that means that he or she should resign and (2) that minister facing any serious clamour for him or her to resign.
*
In an ideal polity, all ministers – all of the time – would be under the same critical scrutiny as to the performance of their duties as Raab is now.
And our political system would be better for it.
But most of the time – almost all of the time – such practical accountability does not happen.
Ministers get things wrong constantly, but they are usually protected.
And this is because no other minister or official wants him or her out, and/or the media will protect him or her, and/or the public are not sufficiently interested so as to make this a story.
So they are often safe.
And this is the difference between a political resignation or sacking story in the news – and there not being one.
This is the accountability gap.
**
Thank you for reading.
Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please 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.
It was particularly striking to listen to Anita Anand on the PM programme tonight making the case against Raab. Striking because, as we know, the BBC is currently in hock to/in fear of its life from the Government.
So, if even primetime Radio 4 are gunning for him, this increasingly looks like he’s headed for the exit door.
All that you say may well be correct, but it seems to me that the main reason he won’t resign or be sacked is that the PM was on holiday at the same time. If Raab resigned or was sacked could Johnson get away with not going too?
With a lying charlatan as PM, Ministers are pretty well obliged to be lying charlatans too.
That’s certainly true – but Raab had been away for over a week, while Johnson was away for around a day before returning to his desk. He’d also been a lot more active on social media (not that this means zilch) while Raab had been awol there too. I don’t think the general public on this occasion see the Johnson absence in the same way that they see Raab’s. What, instead, they’ll be judging the former on is how effective he is in dealing with this crisis. So – plenty to attack Johnson on, but not (in this case) his brief absence from his desk.
That the Prime Minister left his desk in the first place, at all, to go on his summer holidays on the eve of Kabul’s fall to the Taliban – the rest of Afghanistan having already fallen – beggars belief. It’s difficult to understand why the press is allowing Johnson a pass.
Update on my comment: Tim Shipman says Johnson had left on his holidays the previous Thursday. I confess to now being confused about who was away for longest and when, but if Johnson was away for more than a week while all this was brewing, he indeed has possibly an even bigger case to answer.
I think that the key point is that losing Raab would weaken Johnson rather than strengthening him, which means it’s unlikely to happen.
The issue was less that the PM was holidaying (at the same time as Raab, his de facto Deputy – because, y’know – that’s why there are deputies, right?), but that Raab flatly refused, by all accounts, to break from his “well earned” break, even only for the amount of time it would have taken to make an utterly vital phone call .
A call which had to come from him.
I suspect that there are many in government (and the government-friendly media) who sense Johnson might not make it to the next election. Ordinarily Raab as FS would be likely to throw his hat into the ring in such an event. However if he is forced out now, his path to power would look all the more harder, and another more favoured candidate (Gove, if I date use such a word?) all the more easier.
How do you feel about the relationship between your third factor – public interest/caring about the issue – and your conclusion around the accountability gap?
Surely political accountability is voters caring about government competence (by their own definition) ? While government and the media looking after their own interests (factors one and two) will always matter, the core of political accountability is always with the voters (your third factor). To give an extreme example, if public clamour was overwhelming despite the government and media defending their interests/protecting a minister, there would likely only be one winner.
Similarly while voters not be able to effect things in real time there is always another election. It may be a less immediate form of accountability, but it still exists and arguably drives government behaviour more than the views of their colleagues or media counterparts.
It may not be perfect, but I’m unclear as to what you might prefer from a law and policy perspective with respect to political accountability.
Interesting – I think it is more useful to think of the Johnson government using early modern English concepts like faction. The interesting dynamics are within the Conservative party.
Jockeying to succeed Johnson continues – with high profile media reports on Johnson’s fund raising consigliere breaching the Tories’ Rule Number One – Never Draw Attention to the donors.
Johnson has placed Raab in a post where he will not build up domestic support (Foreign Secretary has been a good place to park potential rivals since Owen back in the 70s – most recently May put Johnson himself into the role). Patel is Home Secretary, which also has a high attrition rate.
Raab himself has motives to want to leave the Foreign Office. As a prominent Brexiteer with a heavy Remain leaning marginal constituency (it resembles St Albans), his successes will not win any additional votes, while his failures will slowly accumulate.
Why would Johnson move Raab where it will be easier to build momentum behind a leadership challenge?
On the constituency, the LibDems took St Albans in 2019 with a 10% swing from a strong showing by a very credible candidate in 2017. The seat has effectively been a three way marginal for several decades.
Esher has been a safe Conservative seat for a long time and the LibDems failed to take it in 2019 despite an 18% swing. If all of the Labour voters had switched to LibDem, Raab would have been unseated, but only just.
From the strong LibDem position in 2019, and the same LibDem candidate standing again in Esher in the next general election, I’d be worried if I were Raab. Could this be a potential Portillo moment in the making?
“In an ideal polity, all ministers – all of the time – would be under the same critical scrutiny as to the performance of their duties as Raab is now.” This is I guess why so many argue for a written constitution from outside GB. Here in Germany we don’t have an “ideal polity” for sure but we would (or our Laws and Opposition) never accept such behavior be it Raab or Hancock. Sure the Media and the Peoples Interest would play a role but they would resign because of the Mistakes they or even their underlings made
and not because of the (sorry) mob rule that you describe.
Here in Germany to party’s from the opposition are asking for the resignation of 2 Ministers because of the Afghan fiasco, non of the 2 where AWOL they “just ignored” the warnings from our Embassy in Kabul for 2 Weeks and decided to trust the Allies Secret service more. Actually a third Minister is asked to resign because his servants somehow delayed the Visa process. but most of the people (and the Media) take it with a pinch of salt because we have a General Election in September.
ps when I mentioned Hancock I was not talking about his mistress I meant the millions spaffed on friends during covid for Chinese takeaway PPE
Beautifully argued, as usual! A pleasure to read albeit yet another grim story.
Good thoughts on the Westminster Game. Did all this come as a genuine surprise or was ‘limited action’ the plan all along.
Let us assume the security and military people were on the ball, which leads us to ‘limited action’. To be left in the hands of the military because any effective ‘action’ might be troublesome for the politicians. A spot of credible deniability and Mrs Patel is not lumbered with many many thousands of hapless refugees. Just a few thousands. That could look to be good damage limitation – to politicians.
So, a cynical person might conclude that a tight meeting in No 10 knew what was coming along and decided this ‘line to take’. We would have to get out anyway, if the objective was to minimise refugees and obvious bloodshed, so far it has succeeded. All go on holiday and let the plan unfold. There might be a bit of flak from the usual suspects but close ranks and keep going. A few people missing and gaps in communications – rather useful. I think Mr Rabb will keep his job, he has done it well.
It baffles me as to why someone in the government would wish to force the resignation of the most senior seats of government when doing so is usually regarded as a major coup for the opposition.
The only reason I can identify is hubris; and that the next GE is several years away.
As the old Whitehall cliche has it, there are no other politicians a cabinet minister hates as much as their cabinet colleagues. Especially true when they are a future rival for the leadership.