22nd January 2022
If one day some unlikely but bored person was browsing the internet and looking through old posts on this blog, they would wonder why so many recently have been about parties over a year ago in Downing Street.
Russia is being aggressive in Ukraine, key voted and court cases are being lost in the United States, and this government is pushing through illiberal legislation on protests and refugees.
Surely, that person would ask, there were more important things in January 2022 for a law and policy blogger to write about?
Well.
They may have a point – and perhaps it will look odd.
But.
Law and policy bloggers and other commentators have to deal with situations as they find them.
And the Downing Street parties, which on one level are the most trivial of things, are significant in practical law and policy terms – and not just because of the public interest in the subject.
The Downing Street parties and the Sue Gray investigation raise crucial questions about accountability in action: the Prime Minister and other ministers are using a civil servant (who is not even the most senior official in her own department) as the means of avoiding and deflecting accountability to the House of Commons.
By itself, this makes the affair of key constitutional significance.
The result of this report may lead to a Prime Minister losing office – a possibility that by reason of our uncodified constitution and its lack of formal mechanisms for removing sitting Prime Ministers from office is always one of the most fascinating moments that law and policy can provide.
The news story also indicates – perhaps demonstrates – the contradiction in the attitude to rules between the partying elite in Downing Street and the obligations which were accepted (and imposed) upon the rest of us.
And the Downing Street parties issue also shows us about the extent to which our body politic can deal with the political food poisoning caused Boris Johnson’s ceaseless dishonesty – can it be vomited out?
Or will linger in the system, causing increasing pain and consternation?
(I had severe food poisoning over Christmas, and so this analogy comes readily to mind!)
Of course: the incidental subject matter is of little importance.
But sometimes little things can be a useful way into big things.
And there are few bigger things in law and policy – and in our constitutional affairs – than about how a Prime Minister can be removed, about how accountability of the government to parliament can be enforced and avoided, about the legitimacy of rule-making and the tolerance of law-breaking, and whether the system is robust enough to survive the subversive hyper-partisan dishonest politics of Johnson.
So this is why this blog is following this situation so closely.
Who knows what will come of it?
What do you think will happen?
Comment below.
******
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.
The Church of England morning prayer yesterday included the parable of the servants, with the line “Well done, thou good and faithful servant. As you have been faithful in small things so shall it be in big things “ (I paraphrase).
Basically, if we can’t trust the gov to do the small things properly then why should we have any confidence when it comes to the big things? Partygate has had the traction it has because it is seem as symbolic of this government’s approach to ethics and responsibility.
The parties may indeed be trivial compared to the larger darkness, but they something which anyone can understand and be outraged by. For years, there were major discussions about the abuses and corruption of the Marcos regime. What brought it home domestically and internationally were the thousands of pairs of shoes owned by Imelda Marcos. Shoes are trivial (if you have them), but they became objective correlative of corruption and human rights abuses.
Chilling indeed.
What will happen?
Alexander Boris will be ‘graywashed’: The paragon of virtue will not do a constitutional Guy Fawkes and a new word will be added to the English language.
Q: will Sue call herself Baroness Gray of Newry?
Just read the Hennessy interview in Prospect https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/peter-hennessy-interview-good-chaps-theory-of-government-boris-johnson
You are in good company and right to keep on about the current events. If Johnson is ‘criticised’ sufficiently by Sue Gray to prompt a no confidence motion, then dodges the bullet or is defeated by a couple of votes, who knows where that will lead and not just another blog post.
Sorry to hear about the food poisoning.
Some people were stringently fined for doing what Johnson and his cronies were doing during lockdowns. A fine of ten thousand pounds is life-changing for almost anyone outside the Westminster bubble. I think all such fines should be cancelled and refunded given what happened in Downing Street and the absurd excuses and lies that have been offered up to excuse/hide these events.
As to why “party gate” is creating so big a stir, it’s not just the injury, it’s the bloody insult.
Completely agree !
Sue Gray’s report will be released in full but heavily redacted.
Martin Reynolds takes the blame, resigns then is quietly appointed as an ambassador to somewhere lovely.
Thus, there is a vacancy to be the PM’s PPS. And SG deserves a promotion, and who better to ensure that the laws are obeyed in No. 10.
Johnson survives as a lame duck, but is removed once he can take the full blame for the economy, covid and the disastrous May elections.
Successor is presented to the electorate as clean hands.
Starmer is PM after next election in exchange for giving the SNP the indie vote.
I think this worry about post-truth in politics might be the most consequential. For some, horror at untruth will be the reason they got involved with politics itself. But, in the manner in which communication with the public occurs, particularly when disparaging political opponents, there exists a culture of uncharitability, ungenerosity, and distortion of argument and fact, in which members and supporters of all parties participate. Dishonesty is in the nature of the art of rhetoric itself. 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?
It is sometimes difficult to set aside what one would like to happen what one thinks might.
In any case, forecasting depends on what we can call the normal course of events, which is exactly what is absent here.
So I will pass on your question.
Johnson has built his entire journalistic and political career on the basis of lies, the Tory party need to vote him out and excise the corruption that he has infected into the body politic.
The natural cynic in me doesn’t have much faith in Sue Grays inquiry, I would have preferred a judge led inquiry with real powers.
I can only hope that these episodes of political misdeeds will reinvigorate people to get out to vote and sweep the Tories from power, I can’t see Labour doing it on their own, but will have to form a centre left Alliance with the LibDems and the SNP. Then, and only then can we get PR to make the system more fair.
I thought that it was a majority of elected Members of Parliament who chose their own chairman and gave him the temporary name of Prime Minister – primus inter pares (first among equals). He is not the Ruler, he merely advises Her Majesty as to the majority’s view. If that is right, then logically it hardly matters who he or she may be provided they have the confidence of the majority of the people’s elected representatives.
We need not work up a faux fury about how that majority is ascertained.
Not quite. Once in office the PM has vast & almost untrammelled powers. It’s no hyperbole to say that the UK PM has far more power than the US President. This PM who is not a ‘good chap’ has very successfully used these powers in building a big network of patronage in the party and especially among wealthy donors to the party and who own much of the media.
The great wave of decolonisation that took place in the 1960’s in Africa was driven by the high principle of ‘one man, one vote’ but sadly the norm became ‘one man, one vote, once’ as newly elected leaders rigged the systems and dismantled all checks and balances and became dictators.
Backbench Tory MP’s are finding out that Johnson has been doing the same and getting rid of Johnson will be very diffcult.
Could Russia or China take over England ?
How?
I truly don’t know what will happen, I hope there can be a sensible solution.
Although, kaiser chiefs ‘I predict a riot’ was the first thought in my head when I read the question.
I always felt it was likely to be sleaze or corruption that brought him down, rather than incompetence, where he could always hide behind others. If it’s not to be wallpaper, then it ought to be parties. Let’s hope that Sue Gray doesn’t give him enough wriggle room.
I feel that this government has effectively made the case for a written constitution, as the good chaps theory only works if we are governed by good chaps. If neither Lord Geidt nor Sue Gray send Johnson packing we are truly up the creek without a paddle.
I am amazed that so many people think the lying about parties is unimportant but then I was already floored by the lack of response to `Peter `Oborne’s “The Assault on Truth”. Honesty and integrity seem to be out of fashion!
On the one hand partygate matters a lot – it speaks to the dishonesty embedded in our government. On the other hand it matters little – dishonesty has always been a major part of politics especially where intractable problems impinge.
The difficulty for practical politicians is that no amount of honesty or competent administration is going to sort out energy cost, greening the economy, housing, transport etc etc. Indeed competent administration will merely make the impotence of government openly visible – so don’t do it.
What will happen to Ms Gray’s report? I suspect Boris will stay put, it simply is not convenient to oust him. There are few enough ‘competent’ replacements and one does not want to burn them out. Better to leave Boris dangling and burning until say 2023.
I dare say the way round Ms Gray is to declare it a ‘rush job’ with ‘many defects’ and quibble over the evidence. Call for ‘further work is required’. Discover some real or faked ‘new evidence’, anything to kick the whole issue into the long grass.
“… there are few bigger things in law and policy – and in our constitutional affairs – than about how a Prime Minister can be removed, about how accountability of the government to parliament can be enforced and avoided, about the legitimacy of rule-making and the tolerance of law-breaking, and whether the system is robust enough to survive the subversive hyper-partisan dishonest politics of Johnson.”
You ask:
Who knows what will come of it?
My answer: As things stand, it’s anyone’s guess. And this is largely down to our refusal to have a written constitution which we could perhaps refer to in cases like this. But it surely cannot be allowed to continue.
What do you think will happen?
My answer: Well, it’s a ditto answer, but with the added hope that we will decide to enshrine a few principles into a constitution. In a previous response to another of your posts I think I suggested that it should revolve around all people being equal, and no-one being above the law. We most definitely need an ‘arms length’ authority to whom such matters will be referred in future (and I don’t mean someone from the Civil Service as they are intended to be neutral), and we also need to remove from the PM the possibility of being the instigator and arbitrator of such matters, as is currently the case.
Do we go for a US impeachment style, or do we create our own model? I hope we could put those questions to a randomly selected People’s Parliament to decide, such a body to have full access to legal and other opinion to help in their deliberations. For one thing’s certain – we cannot trust Parliament alone to decide such things as there is too much self-interest, too many careers to consider, too much politics, which would inevitably colour the judgement of those serving within it.
Certainly the behaviour of the main individual concerned does not seem to follow any kind of normally acceptable morality.
So making a sensible prediction of movement in such uncharted territory is probably beyond most of us.
And focusing on the individual may be tempting and natural, but it would be to miss the forest for the trees.
Because you rightly ask whether the system is robust enough to survive.
But does anyone know what a description of ‘the system’ might be ? The sheer difficulty of making any such description is probably a good indicator of where to start.
What could be some robust building blocks ?
I venture to suggest that the first one should be freedom of information. Transparency. Shining a light in the dark places.
The ‘system’ as we have it now does not guarantee transparency.
Because it is striking that almost all we know of the parties during the lockdown comes from leaks. Disgruntled former pillars of the downing street operation. Maybe also some principled people (although where have they been up to now….?).
We should not have to rely on them.
Because all information paid for by the public purse should be publicly available.
All reports, emails, diaries, meeting records, notes, letters, public procurement procedures, legal advice, financial transactions….
With a very strictly limited exception for immediate threats to national security.
Accountability is impossible without transparency. It’s also impossible without the power to create remedies. But that’s for another day.
“Accountability is impossible without transparency. It’s also impossible without the power to create remedies.”
Quite.
Those who think that a written constitution is the solution to our ills need look no further than the United States on 6th January 2021.
I doubt anyone thinks that a written constitution would solve all our ills. Solving more than it created would be good enough.
I expect to be disappointed. The report will be redacted and not published in full. Tory MPs will revert to their craven self-serving selves. The agony of UK diminishment will continue.
As a (resigned) 75 yr old – I have no answer.
I would like to believe in Karma.
I would like to believe that there are “decent” people out there.
I have never (nor ever will) voted Tory.
I believe in equality of everything – including opportunity and opinion and rights and… whatever…and I KNOW I’m one of the Few…
Thank you for your Blogs (which I follow & admire!!)
I know it has been said but it is utterly disgusting that any inquiry into the parties – paid for by us, the citizens of this country – should be held at all. I was going to say Boris Johnson should own up and take responsibility but he is so nakedly guilty, and almost proud of it, that there should be no need to inquire at all, it should be a waste of time. A Gray charade indeed.