4th November 2021
When those with public power believe they can get away with anything they eventually are confronted with reality.
All power has its limits, even (supposed) absolute power.
The government’s move against the parliamentary standards committee was nothing over than mere gangsterism – as this blog averred yesterday.
There is no possible defence by regard to constitutional principle or general political theory.
It was not even to protect a particular member of parliament.
The particular case in question was a pretext for the executive to undermine an unwanted check and balance.
And it must have seemed such a good idea at the time.
But the morning after: there is a reversal.
The government has perhaps realised it has gone too far.
The opposition parties will boycott the new regime.
That was a foreseeable eventuality – which, of course, this government seems not to have foreseen,
The government is now affecting that any change should be on the basis of consensus.
But that was as true yesterday as it is true today – and so the lack of cross-party consensus does not explain the u-turn.
The government may have simply gone too far – and has not got away with it.
Not all checks and balances are formal constitutional devices.
******
This daily blog needs your help to continue.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in 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Comments will not be published if irksome.
Does the front page of the Daily Mail now count as a ‘constitutional device’?
Did the Daily Mail turning against them cause the screeching U turn?
It is wonderfully ironic that it was the Daily Mail headline that I suspect forced the u-turn – after all policy is determined by the next day’s headlines in the Mail or Telegraph. I have no pity for the 250 Tory MPs who voted for it: they have merely exposed themselves not only to shame (if they have any) and ridicule, but advertised to their electorate that they are self-serving Gaderene swine. Over-reach – yes, but it will not stop the direction of travel by this Administration for, not to mix metaphors, as the good book says elsewhere, the dog returns to its own vomit.
To answer your question, it’s hard to see it as anything other than over reach. Further confirmation that the government is both corrupt and stupid.
Maybe it was the Daily Mail, maybe it was private feedback to Johnson et al from Tory MPs, many of whom were plainly embarrassed to be dragged through the lobbies in support of this outrageous measure. Some bravely voted against the measure, some abstained but many voted for it through gritted teeth. I wonder how many Tories in the parliamentary party are losing patience with their leader?
My two pennies on this:
I wonder if people are now starting to recognise that this is a pattern of behaviour from the Priti Patel bullying scandal to the COVID contracts. The fact that at least 23 MPs, including Boris Johnson and Owen Patterson himself, have been referred to the Commission and still got to vote on the amendments really says it all.
A lot of commentators are pointing the scale of the ‘rebellion’ (which feels a little dubious since many MPs weren’t around for the vote for various reasons and those that were abstained which feels less like a rebellion and more of a ‘no firm opinions’ position), but I think the scale of the public and private backlash towards MPs, plus the crowing of Owen Patterson after the vote, may have had a hand in the U-Turn as much as the boycott of the new system. Patterson really sealed his own fate when he proudly proclaimed that he would do his crime all over again, presumably on the assumption that he would be saved by the government a second time.
It also puts the government in a mighty fix for the future: not only has their attempt to undermine the system backfired and been revealed as a sham, but they’ve made many of those who voted in favour of the amendment look like complete idiots, especially the ones who are probably still receiving angry letters and emails from voters as well as the people doing the media rounds.
I suspect that the government will be watching its MPs for signs of disunity and the polls for any adverse effects on its popularity. If one happens, but not the other, the government might try again, but in a more circumspect and careful way, seeing the inital row as a flash in the pan. If both happen and the pressure is sustained by the opposition and the media, the government might be in trouble.
No, it offended Boris’s bosses.
Where will it all end? Give a fool enough rope – snag is that rope may well hang us before it hangs Boris. I think a slow burn destruction for Boris. I can’t see how any Brexit policy is going to improve our lives, COVID will drag on holding back trade. Only the upper 15 – 20% will continue to be comfortable. But without opposition Boris will sail onwards until his masters say stop.
An election is coming here and economic improvement will not wait. Then also Mr Trump is waiting round the corner to upset several apple carts. There may be trouble ahead…
My feeling/hope that Ms Rayner may be Boris’s nemesis. She sits in a sweet spot between unvotable Corbyn and Starmer as Labour’s funeral director. When eventually the media bosses tell the populace to see through Boris et al she will have just the right amount of nastiness to hang Boris. Then serve a few years to act as a counter to old style Boris after which it will be time for a Tory again. We shall see.
People seem to forget that the new committee was “enshrined in law”.
I watched the debate, and for me the moment when Leadsom’s amendment truly fell apart was when Wishart confirmed the SNP would not co-operate with the alternative Standards Committee. That made it inevitable that Labour would follow suit and meant the whole thing depended on the impossibility of an all-Tory standards committee anyone. How enormously embarrassing for HMG’s business managers that they did not spot the the significance of this gaping hole in their strategy.
I think you’re correct on the “moment” – The Guardian website yesterday morning had reversed the order in which the refusals to cooperate were referred to, suggesting something turned on it. [The Political Editor’s current piece manages to omit any reference to Wishart’s trenchant “moment”, and implies Labour was the first-mover, rather than scrambling to avoid out-flanking by the SNP. I suppose you pays your money and you takes your choice.]
Will Johnson be able to hold onto power until the next election, due in three years, though it might come earlier?
When can we expect the éminences grises of the Tory Party to pass him the Ace of Spades? Surely, by now they can see that he’s no longer an electoral asset; too much sleaze, corruption, and mendacity.
Do the men in grey suits still exist? Hasn’t Johnson got rid of them?
Did you see the front page of the Daily Mail. It is very rare to see a Daily Mail headline that criticises this government. It was a clear message from the heart of their constituency, whilst the Telegraph toed the party line.
It seems to me the onus for interpreting “ethical standards” lies with parliamentarians and the associated parliamentary standards apparatus.
I was wondering if there are legal mechanisms in place to prevent companies from corrupting British parliamentarians?
If such mechanisms are in place have they ever been used ? Do they have any relevance in the recent Owen Paterson debacle?
I would like to believe your comment that “when those with public power believe they can get away with anything they are eventually confronted with reality” But, in regards the UK judiciary, I fear this not the case.
Having experienced what I determine as corruption in the courts, it is clear that there is no recourse for remedy.
From opposition counsel writing up judges judgements – littered, with obvious bias and deceit, and rubber-stamped by the judge (thereby obliterating any chance of an appeal) to judges forcing me to pay all costs in actions that I have defeated (in that case seemingly because I referred to my home as my home), the courts seem littered with fraud and deceit.
In a system that protects judges from being accountable for their decisions as judges, your optimistic view of eventual accountability, with respect, appears rather optimistic.
‘Improper associations’ (many will know what I mean) with judges and other members of the legal ‘profession’ is the highway to injustice.
Whether BJ would have sought to change accountability rules, if MR P had not been exposed for apparent wrongdoing, One cannot say. But it looks like it.
From experience, those in power in the judiciary can bend, indeed break, the rules (being the Rule of Law) with impunity.
Where is the public outcry about these serious breaches of standard? (There surely will not be one from the self protecting, self regulating judiciary)