3rd February 2022
Today there were various political resignations: at least two (at the time of writing) from Downing Street, and one in Northern Ireland.
Such resignations are political acts.
And as political acts they are significant.
By which is meant that they signify something.
Political resignations are often accompanied by express reasons.
These express reasons are also significant – for they also signify something.
But.
They may not signify the same thing.
They may not even be connected.
*
One thing which a combination of a history degree, two decades’ practice as a lawyer, and (too much) time as a law and policy commentator has taught me is…
..that the reasons for an action and the reasons given for an action do not necessarily connect.
Indeed, the political action and the documented reasons for that action may have nothing directly to do with each other, and are intended as performances to different audiences.
The important thing is to stay sceptical of what people want you to believe about what they do.
******
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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Quite!
So the rumour that Munira what’serface resigned because she is jealous of Princess Nut-Nut is not true?
Or the one that her Hubby has friends in odd places?
I take this to heart: If all else fails, stay sceptical.
Thank you, David :)
Whilst I think the dichotomy observed here is a approaching the sort of six-sigma levels of certainty that would have a room full of particle physicists chortling with glee… I can’t help but skip ahead and ponder, “Well, if the true reasons for these departures are *not* as advertised, what could they possibly be?
Is there a reader here who believes that the real motives are anything *other* than participation in lock-down-busting gatherings in the No. 10 complex? Anyone? Anyone?
No, didn’t think so.
Well, the DUP has gathered in Belfast – different party, I guess ;-)
DUP meetings always start with prayer and absolutely no alcohol is served. They also refuse to have meetings on Sunday…as Mrs May found out during her tenure as PM and her staff wanted weekend meetings with Arlene Foster and her leadership team. The DUP refused to be out of Belfast on a Sunday.
Just in case. Wouldn’t want to miss The Rapture, after all; because, as in so much else, Belfast is where it’s at, so it is.
The fact that much of the commentary is happening around the resignation of an adviser says much to me about the changes we have seen in politics this century. I’m sure there have always been political advisers in the background, we just never used to know who they were.
Correct – I’m old enough to remember Joe Haines and Bernard Ingham – what they did for Wilson & Thatcher respectively – how would they get away from today’s arm-chair sleuth’s ?
Well, to paraphrase a question my father-in-law asked at my wedding – were they pushed, did they fall, or perhaps they jumped in feet first?
Funny thing about actions (whether political or not): Newton’s third law states there are equal and opposite reactions; another proposition indicates there are a number of unintended consequences; yet another states that by the laws of time and motion you can never get back to where you were before “status quo ante bellum”; and yet another that sometimes it is wise to deliberately take no action whatsoever. What to do?
To put it more simply, the ship is listing quite badly.
I prefer the rats leaving sinking ships analogy myself.
If one lies down with dogs one will be sure to get fleas.
One is judged by the company one keeps. Is there time left for any of this Conservative crew to leave with honour intact?
I hope that the stench of Johnson will follow his Cabinet and private staff for the rest of their, hopefully limited, careers.
Maybe they were all at the parties and are getting out now!
The older I get , the more experience I’ve gained, indicates to me, at least that a lot of stuff happens as part of the vicissitudes of life. Good, bad & indifferent.
Now, I know there is a legal meaning to the term vicissitudes – equally, social media encourages us all to have views and rationalise ( doesn’t matter as to their correctness or not) on any/all topics – just like this one.
Sometimes best go with the flow 😉
Cummings said all this in a tweet 2 weeks ago : Reynolds given some Ambassadorial post ; Doyle & Rosenfeld promised peerages; and either Cole ( Sun) or Wickham as new Director of Comms
Think the only one he didn’t see coming was Mirza.
Another day on Abnormal Island but Staying Sceptical, definitely. Johnson won’t resign unless he gets something out of it for himself. His track record tells us this. Johnson, if l remember rightly, has resigned in a move against Theresa May to rally support for his Leadership to be ‘King’.
We’ll probably have to either go in and unglue him from his Desk, wait until he gets voted out or wants more expensive Wallpaper and his Wallpaper people say no.
Very true, David, and I am aware of some factors unstated behind some of these resignations, but that does not diminish their significance or moment. That the stated reasons may not have been the real trigger does not mean that the expressed trigger is invalid, not contributed to the decision. As you say, they are significant events anyway. They may have triggered something much greater than they intended.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-03/sir-keir-starmer-finds-his-voice?fbclid=IwAR0FZgmBz1X1dBwvlnMmRhOPXM7tRBJWuJg1ftgd06HSAHXEn8y9GQnQunk
“… I am aware of some factors unstated behind some of these resignations..”
The difficulty you face making strawman assertions per above, is that:
a) they’re patently untrue but written for some desired effect
b) the fact that you’re unable to state what these factors are , are of no value or place on a public blog.
This in itself is irksome.
If you approach the situation from a Kremlinology vantage point – taking consideration of the structural factors affecting the government and current pain points – it is quite clear that energy policy and key decisions around the future energy mix are likely to be the main issue.
As ever in the UK – there is no hint of the internal disagreements in public debate.
Some of the major donors to the Conservatives have business interests that are antithetical to Net Zero – Koch is a massive coal trader to pick one example at random.
And the timing – why does Boris have to go right now, rather than in May or next year? – suggests that key decisions have to be squared.
You’ll also know that the City is chasing Green Finance as a new opportunity. If trillions have to be spent in the next 30 years, why shouldn’t we do the financing?
So disagreements between donors, and factional divides between backbenchers. Green policies remain popular – particularly with centrist voters as efforts to shift Overton Window have failed until now.
Pitching the argument that the key to lowering our exposure to expensive natural gas prices is to increase our reliance on LNG imports takes a certain amount of chutzpah to pull off.
The inevitable conclusion is that Johnson’s successor will face exactly the same unpalatable set of choices. Energy being a long term game. This crisis was bequeathed by Cameron and even late period Blair and Brown.
All the while, the international environment is continuing to evolve. The major energy importers like Germany, Japan and Korea are pushing ahead with their own plans. Even Spain and Italy are joining in.
Kicking out Johnson to reverse Net Zero is unlikely to be a popular electoral slogan. So we talk about irrelevancies like office parties during lockdown.
I’m sure it’s time for an update to Samson’s Who Runs This Place, Anyway.
As always wise comment.
I note it is not finished with customary ‘Brace. Brace.’
Should I read anything into it?
This is all very cryptic. I think what you say is quite self-evident… but the obvious next question is: so why have they *really* resigned? As opposed to the reasons they have given for resigning?
Clearly, each aide may have different reasons for resigning – and have indeed given different reasons. In the case of Munira Mirza, I infer (I think?) that you are skeptical of her stated reason – Johnson’s “scurrilous” attack on Starmer.
So then what do you believe really motivated her, and the others?
Perhaps you think – by resigning together, en masse – they are trying to bring him down with a final push? (which would imply – given all their years of inside knowledge – that they have no longer have any personal confidence in him as PM?).
Or do you think they are simply fed up and would rather do something else?
Reading this blog was rather like sitting down to a good meal – and, puzzlingly, only being served a glass of water!
If I were Munira Mirza I would want to get out while my reputation remained intact. Judging from her resignation letter, her disappointment and disapproval of Johnson must go beyond the distasteful comment which triggered it. Her resignation will undoubtedly precipitate others to follow suit.
The same cannot of course be expected from the Cabinet. For the most part I can think of no-one similarly burdened with either a conscience or talent. They must be aware that when Johnson goes they’ll never be invited to sit at the big table ever again.
Whatever the reasons, stated or implied, for the ‘resignations’ from No. 10, what this is not is accountability.
These were not the ‘resignations’ of ministers but civil servants (temporary or permanent). There is no constitutional nicety which requires dismissal from the post to be choreographed as the offer and acceptance of resignation accompanied by an exchange of letters. There is simply no reason to infer that these resignations were instigated by the Prime Minister at all.
Accountability in this context is: (i) dismissing or taking other disciplinary action against those that are identified as wrongdoers; and, (ii) those who are (from a leadership perspective) responsible for the wrongdoers offering themselves to account.
The second limb may mean resignation, but will not always do. That these ‘resignations’ have been offered when: neither we nor the Prime Minister are in receipt of the final/actual Sue Gray report; a police investigation is ongoing; no internal disciplinary action; and, in the case of the PPS and Chief of Staff, no explanation for them has been offered, it is impossible to know, whether this is (i), or (ii), or none of the above. It is also impossible to judge whether any of it is warranted.
In fact, given the PPS’ ‘resignation’ is that he will remain in post until a new PPS is appointed and then return to the Foreign Office to take up a new role there, it is hard to paint that as either (i) or (ii).
It is entirely predictable that when the police and Sue Gray are done and further and better particulars of the “failures of leadership and judgement by different parts of No 10 ….at different times” are made public, it will be said that the Prime Minister has already restructured his office and got rid of the senior leaders who failed and made mis-judgments. It will be worth remembering then, that at the time these resignations were offered and accepted the Prime Minister made no public statement to that effect at all. He was silent.
We do not want these performances. We want them to fix EVERYTHING. Especially the crazy high energy bills.