27th January 2022
There is a choice that has to be made by every supporter of the current governing party of the United Kingdom.
In essence the choice is: what price partisanship?
By ‘price’ is meant: what will need to be exchanged for maintaining support for the current Prime Minister?
The price currently on offer is the integrity of the constitution.
For the continuation in office of the current Prime Minister means that the torrent of lies and evasions will continue – and these lies and evasions will corrode our fundamental political arrangements until there is nothing worthwhile left.
In more concrete terms: the Prime Minister will continue to refuse to account for any wrong doing; he will continue to freely lie at the despatch box; he will continue to assume that the rules that apply to the rest of us do not apply to him and his circle; and he will continue to believe he can get away with all of this.
Like the Republicans under Trump in the United States, British Conservatives now need to decide whether to enter into a compact with those who will casually bedevil the constitution.
Is the perceived political popularity of supporting this Prime Minister worth the price that this diabolical agent will extract from our constitutional arrangements?
This is the ultimate political choice of our times.
And the worrying thing is that so many government supporters do not – or will not – face up to the fundamental choice now before them.
Brace, brace.
******
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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Once upon a time, being a Conservative meant defending the Constitution if it meant anything at all. No more it seems.
It also meant conserving, conserving what is honest, decent, upright, sensible, balanced and worthwhile.
I passed a familiar face in the street yesterday. I said he looked remarkably like Dominic Grieve, he said I am he.
I gave him a thumbs up, any attempt at a conversation would be an imposition.
Should I have asked him what he thought of the state of the Tory party?
I think you were right not to force such an embarrassing question on one of the more competent of a rotten bunch. Scowling openly in the street doesn’t play well on social media and we probably need him politically intact in future. It is as though there are now two Conservative parties: The one Dominic represents whose policies you may or may not agree with, and the one you can only stare at in disbelief. We seem to be living in UKIP world ( hats off to them for the skill of the coup if that is in fact the explanation ) and it’s only people like Dominic who are in any position to do anything about it.
That is a fine piece of writing and, to my mind, entirely accurate.
I would add that it more than just a trade off between party loyalty and sacrificing the constitution. Oh the same balance pan as the constitution is morality, ethics, integrity, reputation, goodness and being able to look children and grandchildren in the face.
One sincerely hopes that the electorate, (as fickle as they are), will remember both Johnson’s current demeanour and that the Conservative party did not do something about him, at the next election.
Is there not a contract between the party and its members?
Are the rules of the party not an implicit part of that contract, if not an explicit one?
Do the rules not include the Code of Conduct? https://www.conservatives.com/code-of-conduct
Is the contract not enforceable in the courts?
Members of the Labour Party went to court to enforce their rules: can Conservative also people not do likewise?
Would the contract be enforceable by new members, or does the reality override the writing?
Meaning that if we were to join now, a court would find that we did so on the understanding that the Code does not apply.
Or could we join the party, enforce the rules and save the nation?
It is far too simple: it couldn’t possibly work.
Great idea.
It looks as though it wouldn’t even be necessary to join the party. According to the Code of Conduct:
“If any individuals wish to make a formal complaint against elected representatives or officers of the Party they should email complaints@conservatives.com.”
Totally agree with these sentiments David. Having followed the Trump years in power (and the continuing influence ) very closely I have seen the exact mirroring behaviour with Johnson and his followers. The last few days have brought to the fore example s of a slavish devotion to an immoral liar – Mogg, Bone, Dorries, Burns, Gullis to name just a few.
Like the Republican Party in the US, today’s Conservative Party is a complete anathema to the party of Thatcher & Major. Let’s hope there are still enough Conservative back benchers who can see the dangers of continuing with Johnson and his ilk .
I have wondered whether the fulsome and absurd praise from Johnson’s supporters is something they feel they need to show to avoid being attacked by him (later demotion, etc)? That would certainly be following the Trump model: loyalty must be demonstrated through public agnegation, the shit sandwich must be rapturously guzzled before (bemused) onlookers.
That is a profoundly important statement eloquently made, DAG. I have taken the liberty of sending a personalised version of it to my loyalist Tory MP. I hope that all of your readers who have Conservative MPs will do the same.
Excellent idea. I have just done the same.
Thanks, Alison
There’s an elephant in this room, of course.
It’s the simple fact that over decades or centuries, through acts covert and brazen, the inhabitants of Westminster Village have gradually divorced themselves from the rules and laws that apply to everyone else.
Minister in search of a sound-bite love to use terms like “Great Britain, p.l.c.” and given the impression of the country as a dynamic, profitable enterprise. Whether or not that’s true, the fact remains that a CEO or Management of a limited company that conducted themselves in the way we have seen from Boris Johnson and other minsters, the board or shareholders would boot them out. Immediately.
David’s essay is instructive because it highlights for us the cognitive dissonance we’re feeling when we try to use the term “democracy” to describe the system of government presides over the UK. I submit that a (much) more accurate term would be “Elective Dictatorship”, in that every four years citizens of voting age get the chance to elect their next dictator.
Students of history would note that the origins of the House of Commons date from the second half of the 13th century – seven hundred years, when landholders and towns sent representatives to Parliament to present grievances and petitions. At that time, the fastest means of communication was a rider on a fast horse: it took at least four days to get a message from York to London and four more to get the reply.
Today, the web site Statistia projects that the UK will have 64.89 million individuals with smartphones. That’s almost the *entire* population with the ability to interact directly, in real time, with their government – voting on decisions and actively participating in their own future.
Here’s the thing… We don’t need this archaic system of government any more. We don’t need 600+ sycophants and oxygen thieves in Westminster, drawing fat salaries and swindling expenses, renting out second homes and consulting-on-the-side or peddling influence.
A couple of things we could consider asking for:-
1. An enforceable Code of Conduct – not the one we have at the moment, but one drawn up independently, by a body completely outside government influence – that is legally binding and enforceable and comes with non-negotiable consequences for basic things like: lying; corruption; lack of transparency; fraud; etc. for ANYone in public office…
2. A reset on the basic parameters of democratic government; a requirement that starting tomorrow, a minimum of 10% of government legislation be put directly “to the people” via smartphone/ATM/on line voting solutions. Crikey, you could even support this by giving people voting slips and letting them use lottery terminals to collect the results. I’m a technologist, so I *know* that this isn’t hard. And, it’s not hard to make it every bit as secure as using your debit card in an ATM… We could then extend this over time, giving citizens direct vote control over more legislative topics.
3. Eliminate first-past-the-post and replace with PR.
4. Get rid of Quangos, SpAds and significantly curtail the ability of ministers and MPs to hire in friends and family. Have an independent arm of the civil service identify subject matter experts if required.
5. Outlaw direct or off-the-books lobbying of elected officials and make it a legal requirement for any inadvertent social interaction to be recorded – and, if necessary, for elected officials involved to recuse themselves from any government activity involving the lobbyist.
These sorts of things would take time to sort out. None of them are trivial. ALL of them would improve the health of our democracy. The biggest roadblock we face is helping citizens to understand that, in a democracy, all the power lies in the hands of the people. Not the public servants. They’re called public servants for a reason – they’re not supposed to be our masters.
Oh, one footnote… To illustrate that the current political system is entirely incapable of sorting this (physician – heal thyself!) ask yourself why through all of this HM Opposition are more intent on jeering at ministers instead of PMQs instead of quietly and soberly pointing this out. Instead of being drawn in to the gutter fight with the government of the day, if the leader of the Opposition believes that the government are showing misconduct – as seems to be the case here, then go to PMQs, look directly in to the camera and address the people of the UK. Ask *them* (i.e. us) why their government are behaving like this. Ask *them* (i.e. us) if there is any appetite to do anything about it.
Just a guess, but I have a hunch that if Starmer were to prepare his MPs for a quiet and attentive PMQ and push on the facts, ask relevant challenging questions, then the jokes and banter and bluster from the government would not last – because they would look like buffoons in front of the electorate.
4.
I like 1, 3, 4 & 5. Not sure about the unintended consequences.
I would replace 3 with a modification to first past the post. Add second past the post to create a chamber which replaces the Lords with those who come second in each constituency. Simpler than PR and possibly more representative.
There’s another equally large elephant – there are simply no incentives for those who can make any of the changes you identified, actually happen
All the power seems to reside in those have a very clear need to reduce regulation; degrade, devalue, and demotivate public services and those who work in them; and ensure that their wealth is obscured and protected from scrutiny and taxation
I fear 2 would tend to encourage some people further into a game-show mentality, voting for the hell of it and some of them enjoying the lies and muck being peddled. Otherwise, yes, very interesting, if able to implement.
1. Impossible. There’s no such thing as a body completely outside government influence. The government could pass legislation at any time which affects the body.
2. The purpose of electing representatives is that making the right decision requires information. Collecting and understanding that information is a full time job, so requiring everyone to decide lots of issues directly means lots of bad ill-informed decisions. It would be like expecting everyone to do their own plumbing rather than calling for a professional – while many could do it, many would make a big mess.
3. While FPTP is bad, PR is a very broad category which includes systems even worse (party list PR). Use multi-member single transferrable vote.
4. If you have the power to select the experts you have the power to bias the advice to that point that it’s often pointless having experts – they’re just a disguise for your own judgement.
5. Part of being well informed requires MPs to talk to anyone with an interest in an issue. Trying to ban this is trying to force MPs to make uninformed judgements.
And with regard to your last point, the electorate knew perfectly well that Boris was a buffoon when they elected him, so it’s not at all clear why that would make a difference.
1. Whether or not you believe it works, perhaps the U.S. model of “Co-Equal Branches of Government” might be a pattern worth exploring. My point was that any official with the power to:-
i. Select those who can examine the official’s conduct;
ii. Set the terms of any such examination;
iii. Receive any report from the official and censure as they see fit…
has the power to do pretty much as they please.
But perhaps I failed to explain a driver behind my comment and the direction I was taking in advocating for a greater degree of direct participation in government, which is this:
When you have ~ 600 individuals (whatever the number is today) who are assigned the task of making all decisions and wielding nation-level budgets, authority and influence, you have a model that is tailor-made for corruption. It’s much harder to bribe 60,000,000 British citizens (as a vested interest) than it is to bribe an effective number of MPs – which could be as few as a couple of hundred people.
So the problem with extensive use of representative government is that it is designed to be an ideal model for the facilitation of corruption.
Therefore, if we boil one element of this down to its simplest elements and express it thus: “If we had to choose between a handful of elected representatives – who are prone to corruption but in theory have access to experts and can make better decisions; or a broader and more democratic model – who in theory are less well informed but much harder to corrupt – which would yield the more effective form of government?” then we have something a bit more interesting to discussion.
Disclaimer: I’m not suggesting that it is wise to simplify ANY question down to either/or considerations, mainly because IMHO that is a further way to corruption, because you are asking your audience to decide between two options that you have chosen for them. That’s no better than representative democracy…
Others have noted the possibility of unintentional consequences. I actually like your intentions.
A constitutional proposition like this could be debated by a citizens assembly that’s the product of a sortition process designed with enough rigour to grant its deliberations significant authority. Though such advice may not be legally binding, that doesn’t mean it’s illegal to provide it. Nobody needs permission to do such a thing, just funding and / or donated competence.
It’s come to something when crowdsourcing constitutional advice on the web from the group that gave you “Boaty McBoatface”, looks both credible and desirable as an alternative way forward for the UK.
Kickstarter project ? :)
One of the greatest traps into which we fall, as a community of citizens, is to believe that we have to accept the choices given to us. That is misleading at best and an attempt at outright deception at worst.
If I ask you, “Would you like a tea or coffee?” it may sound like I’m giving you a choice. In fact, I am giving you the illusion of choice because I have total controls over the options you can pick from. Therefore, one of the changes I’d like to see in administration is a better way of “surfacing options” – making sure that there is a broader range of consideration before we start facing these sorts of binary decisions.
The other thing I note is that prior adminstrative debacles have had a chilling effect on democracy yet not been noticed by most of us. Remember the Poll Tax and the VaT subsidy? The UK switched from Domestic Rates to Poll Tax, but faced with widespread civil disobedience, cut that tax and added 2.5% to VaT – elevating from 15% to 17.5%. When the Poll Tax was replaced by Council Tax, the typical Council Tax property charges were slightly higher [allowing for inflation] than Rates would have been had they been left alone. But the government hung on to the extra 2.5% they took from us as VaT.
These changes coincided with a move that saw more of a “central redistribution” of tax from the shires to Westminster – taxes were adminstered centrally, which gave Westminster more control over regional budgets. This is one example of an area where greater local representation would be much more equitable. Ultimately – a bit like the relationship between the 50 states in the US and the federal government, I like the idea of only giving our central government the money it needs to perform the services we want it to provide.
Ultimately, government is supposed to be an administrative service for a nation, tasked with making sure that the basic amenties of life are provided equitably. The problem that the UK and many other democracies face is that over time this ideal is gradually eroded. Power shifts, piece by piece, until it is concentrated centrally.
The phrase, “Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” was not coined as a reflection of Westminster, but it still applies. As citizens, we should recognise that by limiting the power of a government, we limit the potential for corruption.
I’m jumping about with my examples here… but think back to the time right before the Second Gulf War. The Blair Government had signed on with George W. Bush and the US hawks, but the majority of British citizens seemed [to this observer, at least] unconvinced by the paltry evidence and propaganda and not in favour of starting a conflict on false pretenses.
Think about that. Our government asked our service men and women to go to war and lay down their lives – on a lie – and we were powerless to stop it. Hundreds of allied personnel and thousands of Iraqis might have been alive today if we had not gone to war on that lie.
So yes – no form of government will ever be perfect. But in response to anyone who tells you anything along the lines of “well, the choice boils down to A or B” – they are lying and trying to trick you. Life is more subtle and sophisticated than that.
I am unfortunate enough to live in a constituency that has a Tory MP who appears to think that the sort of considerations you refer to are outweighed by ‘levelling-up’ funds that are generously bestowed on our benighted town, seemingly in return for his voting in favour of raw sewage in rivers, not feeding children, the Internal Markets Bill, PCSC Bill etc etc.
The price is too high, and the whole thing stinks of corruption. It will not do.
I fear it maybe too late. I feel most of the Tories have gone past the point of no return and are content to go with the lies.
The only glimmer of hope l see is if they fear Johnson is a re election liability for themselves: I can’t quantitfy this but l think that the trappings and financial reward (not to mention if they land 2nd or 3rd Jobs) for remaining an MP will drive the Tories to scrunch up our Constitution and turn our Democracy into a shade of it’s former self. Just like the Republicans became Trumpers, they are now Johnson’s Tories and they even signed on the dotted line.
The process is well underway to test the Constitution and Parliamentary Democracy: From Porogation, planning to breach International Law to passing Voter ID Legislation. We’re on our own, except for the Judges and Lawyers for now. No one is coming to help to rescue us. Other countries haven’t finished laughing at us. I don’t blame them. Indeed, we should buckle up.
We can do more than buckle up and brace. We can do active political things. I – for example – am a signed up and active Liberal Democrat, but there are plenty of other ways of “doing something”.
As someone said, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”; and as someone else said, “If not me who? If not now, when?”
My local party had a by election yesterday (count is this morning) . The Tories put out a leaflet where the first words were “Let’s be honest….” “Tin ear” doesn’t begin to describe it, but I suspect it helped us. Johnson of course was not mentioned at all.
Personally, I’ve always thought Johnson was wholly unsuited to ministerial office. His personality flaws are not hidden away: the Eton teacher, and Eddie Mair, and Michael Gove, were all right.
But against all sense, the Conservatives elected him, and he won them an 80 seat majority just over two years ago. They will keep him in place as long as they think he is an electoral asset rather than an electoral liability, and until they identify someone better.
Perhaps we can see your byelection as a dry run for the local elections later this year: if I’ve identified the right one, can the Conservatives lose a seat that they have held for well over a decade, and won with a majority exceeding 50% just over 6 months ago?
Given their performance in 2018, and last year, the Conservatives should be hoping for some gains in May 2022. If there is a bloodbath, Johnson should be toast, if he is not gone already. But what will it take to skewer the greased piglet?
Don’t ever forget that the size of Johnson’s majority was down to Corbyn. I spoke to Labour voters at the time who said this time they’d have to vote for Johnson. He might well have still won but with a much lower majority would have faced proper debate.
Jonathan Meldrum, commenting on the 22 January post about the Downing Street parties, asked “Which party wouldn’t trade truth for victory, if it thought there to be a separate moral obligation to prevent the other side getting in?”
From my vantage point in the States, Boris Johnson and his band of cack-handed grifters bear far too much resemblance to Mr. Trump and his associates. The Republican Party decided some time ago that it had “the separate moral obligation” to keep the Democratic Party away from any political power. Gaining political power — and retaining it — was more important than adhering to seemingly well-established political and legal norms. “The worrying thing,” to use David’s phrase, is that Johnson’s supporters, whether in or outside government, seem to have already decided that they have the same “moral obligation” as the Republicans.
Brace, brace, indeed. “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.” [Bette Davis, “All About Eve.”]
Last week’s The Economist quotes a survey finding that only 13% of vOters believe Johnson on Partygate c/f about half of all tory party members.
More shades of Trumpism.
Does anyone think that the Borris supporters devote their allegiance because of genuine political beliefs, or because they and BJ belong to other subversive and hidden groups, such as the Freemasons?
It is an unsurprising fact that many Tory MPs are cravenly “waiting for the Gray / Met report”. Their sole calculus is what impact the report(s) might have on their own futures. A judgement on the facts that are known is not difficult for a sentient being. But then it is not a secret that the Tory MP’s consideration has always been self preservation first, second and third; the party fourth; and the country a very distant fifth. Those in marginal seats or small majorities are likely to cave in first, whilst those in “safe” seats feel essentially protected from their supposedly enfranchised voters. North Shropshire may or may not have put the frighteners on some. But the essential fact is that no 21st century democracy worth its salt should have “safe” Tory (or Labour) seats. The FPTP system is at the heart of our democratic dry rot and its continuance threatens the entire edifice.
We are now beyond the point where Boris Johnson can realistically hope to recover. He will have to go at some point in the next six months or so.
The reason why the axe hasn’t come down quicker is simply because there is no agreement within the party about who will succeed him – or what the party’s policy platform should look like. (The economic arguments for Net Zero will remain whoever comes in – so they might as well make a virtue out of necessity).
And, more prosaically, the party needs to decide whether to double down on the Red Wall/CD1 strategy – or attempt to complete the reconciliation with Remainers that Johnson was inching towards.
That will also affect the next choice as PM. I imagine it’s boom time for focus groups. “What sort of animal would you describe Dominic Raab as?” Etc
DAG is right about the long term damage to political institutions but that view is in short supply among Tory leaders since Cummings’ purge of the Wets.
“DAG is right about the long term damage to political institutions but that view is in short supply among Tory leaders since Cummings’ purge of the Wets.”
Purge? What an amateur. As Crocodile Dundee might say, “That’s not a purge. This… is a purge!”
(As described by Christopher Hitchens)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y
The unabridged footage with garbled subtitles:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HgdVN9C_k
Yes, things are trending in a worrying direction, but we’re not there yet.
If fear Brace, brace is correct. Johnson is not the cause of the corruption of the Conservative Party but rather the perfect fruit of a decades long rot. However Johnson is singularly bad as PM since being a pathological liar and narcissist with no principles other than his own aggrandisement he has made a Faustian bargain with other malign factions with really dangerous agendas who made and probably will keep him as PM a role he loves playing plus it appears his fixed costs are large and so he needs the salary and free accomodation & transport. The long and short of it is that like all cornered rats he will fight viciously to stay alive and given his powers of the office that gives those who back him a chance to get him to cross the line into overt law breaking in areas even he may have been reticent.
In today’s edition of the The Times a front page story reports that the USA is alarmed that a unified Western response to any Russian invasion will be compromised by the way Russian oligarch money has captured the Conservative Party, and worse, we have the Belfast Telegraph today reporting as their front page leader that Liz Truss has said that the UK Gov will not intervene (via the powers of the NI SoS) if as expected next week DUP Minister Edwin Poots in the NI Executive orders all civil servants under his control (port control and agriculture) to cease border checks. The Belfast High Court has already ruled in a case brought by the DUP that the NIP is legal so this action would be illegal. This story led David `Henig to comment this morning
‘Oh dear, UK government once again threatening to break international law’.
“
Its no wonder that Jo Maugham sent a Tweet this morning
“This Government is doing things to the fabric of the country, things very hard to undo, that are antithetical to Conservatism.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it the parliamentary party can depose Johnson (aka Mendacious Fatberg) as leader but not as PM. I wouldn’t put it past him to try and cling on.