21st February 2022
Something unusual happened today.
A planned cabinet meeting was suddenly postponed with ten minutes to go and – this is the important thing – this was done before the glare of the public.
The reason appears to be a policy row between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Health Secretary.
Before we look at why this is unusual – and what it signifies constitutionally – let us first look at what is not unusual about this.
It is not unusual for cabinet ministers to disagree – even about major policy issues.
Such disagreement is routine – and it is even to be expected, especially between a finance department and a spending department.
And because such disagreements are a commonplace, there are mechanisms in place to resolve these tensions before they become public contradictions.
One mechanism is ongoing informal (and sometimes even formal) exchanges between the Exchequer and the other department.
Another mechanism is the system of cabinet committees and sub-committees where differences are discussed and agreed positions arrived at – sometimes under the chair of the Prime Minister (or Deputy Prime Minister).
And the third mechanism is the assertion of prime ministerial authority (in theory ‘cabinet collective responsibility’ – where the defeated Chancellor or minister just has to to take it – or leave the cabinet.
Here think about Michael Heseltine’s dramatic departure from Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet over the Westland political drama.
*
Today, however, none of these mechanisms appear to have worked.
And so we had the undignified public difference, and a full cabinet meeting suddenly had to be postponed.
The ongoing informal (and sometimes even formal) exchanges between the Exchequer and the health department seem to have failed.
The system of cabinet committees and sub-committees seem to have failed.
And prime ministerial authority also seems to have failed – indeed the Prime Minister seems to have been unaware of the difference.
Something is wrong – seriously wrong – in the business of government for this row to have manifested itself publicly today with the real effect of an unexpectedly delayed cabinet meeting.
It is a signal – and it signifies things may not be well with the constitutional processes that regulate the common differences between Whitehall departments.
And that, from a constitutionalist perspective, is a worrying signal indeed.
*****
Thank you for reading – these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together.
So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of 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 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 and comments will not be published if irksome.
Social media has its uses. How else would it have been communicated?
An additional technique: spending (wasting) time on other matters so the contentious issue is adjourned. Harold Macmillan had a splendid story of how Churchill in his last years as PM managed to avoid an argument with his Foreign Secretary Eden over a proposed Egyptian Treaty.
Earlier that morning, the Earl of Derby’s footman had gone mad and shot the butler, so Churchill began by asking the Home Secretary (David Maxwell Fife) to make a statement on “the disgraceful state of anarchy that had broken out in the nation.” It took a little while for Maxwell Fife, a man devoid of any sense of humour, to realise what Churchill was talking about and then he gave a rambling explanation ending with “the police have made an arrest.” “Ah, well” said Churchill “it is something to be prime minister of a country where one can still bag a brace of butlers.”
This was a prelude to the Chancellor, Rab Butler, presenting a paper on the then fashionable idea of long an short term interest rates. During the presentation, Churchill got out his gold pocket watch. When Rab finished, Churchill looked round the table and said: “When I was a young officer and short of money in London, I would take this watch to Mr […] a pawnbroker who would lend me £5. I do not recall him ever discussing long and short term interest rates. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer could explain this for the benefit of a simple old man.” This predictably reduced the cabinet to amusement and Rab to incoherence and produced a lengthy attempt to explain an idea of some young man in the Treasury which the the Chancellor had not actually understood.
When Rab had finished, Churchill looked round and said “A very productive meeting. I feel it is time for luncheon.”
I think we’ve all been aware for a long while that this government and the individuals within it are dysfunctional; also that the context in which they act is creaky and inadequate.
Being AWARE of those uncomfortable matters is largely unproductive – we lack any effective means of resolving our problems. There WAS only one transformational political team with the motivation to tackle the UK’s longstanding failings – Corbyn’s front bench – now that’s no longer available to us.
We know what won’t help.
It won’t help to replace Johnson as PM with any of the Tory contenders on offer.
It won’t help to elect Starmer led Labour to replace the Conservatives.
The current Speaker is insufficiently proactive and confident to tackle any of the Parliamentary shortcomings which he (and we) have identified.
The British public is facing too many horrendous and immediately pressing challenges to want to concern itself with esoteric constitutional matters.
We’re going to hell in a handcart. Though I’m optimistic by nature, I can’t see any adequate reasons for believing we can rescue ourselves before the current crop of politicians exits.
It would surely *help* to elect Starmer-led-Labour to replace the Conservatives, wouldn’t it?
Or are you suggesting that a Starmer-led govt would have just the same deficiences as this one?
A future Starmer-led government may well have some of the same policy flaws as this Conservative government, from the perspective of a Corbyn supporter. And no doubt the individuals would introduce their own special flaws. But we can hope that collectively it might not have quite the same level of corruption and dysfunction as this present government.
Agree. There are only going to be 2 options for next PM – Continuity Johnson or Starmer. Johnson won’t resign and won’t be kicked out by his party. So with that choice which offers the best future for U.K.?
Hi Nigel+Love
I don’t think Starmer ever will be PM and question whether Labour will survive his leadership as a party.
“are you suggesting that a Starmer-led govt would have just the same deficiences as this one?” Not quite … but that the deficiencies would be very similar. And that both individuals share far more personality characteristics than I find comfortable.
We can only judge what a Starmer-led government would do on the basis of the marked inconsistencies of Starmer’s behaviour as candidate for the Labour leadership and during the 2 years he’s been in post as Labour leader.
Everything Starmer’s done and said since he became leader shows him as trying – unsuccessfully – to rehash the Peter Mandelson approach to politics (which I’d describe as manipulative, autocratic, personal power oriented, backward-looking and generally happy with the status quo socially and economically).
Almost all the people in senior Labour posts now hark back to the time when Blair was in the ascendant, are his allies and are part of his “sofa style” of politics.
A reforming, transformational government – needed by so many different aspects of British political life – is unlikely to emerge from inward-looking, out of date politicians and supporters who did very little to change Britain when they had oodles of power and were in government more than 20 years ago. The changes that were achieved then arose mainly from Gordon Brown’s influence and the fading influence of the ministerial team originally created by John Smith. Starmer has no equivalent to Gordon Brown – and would sack him / her if he did (and could).
Starmer is also trying to appeal to the votes of an older style of electorate – the ones who are over 60, male, English and have no qualifications since leaving school. Such voters are likely to feel that constitutional change is wholly irrelevant to their interests.
“I don’t think Starmer ever will be PM and question whether Labour will survive his leadership as a party. ”
I note that many people said the same thing of Mr Corbyn.
Ah but MY grounds for believing Starmer’s leadership is lethal to the Labour party are different than theirs were about Corbyn’s leadership!!!
This isn’t the right blog in which to dissect what’s happening within Labour so I’ll only suggest you “compare and contrast” Labour’s truly frightening finances under Starmer with the comfortably solvent state of party finances under Corbyn. My main reason for believing Labour won’t survive long as a party is because of its finances – though there are lots of other almost as serious problems going on.
Where’s the evidence he’s trying to appeal to white male over 60s? Sounds like you’re trying to attach negativity to him. He has to appeal to a majority of voters to be able to do anything transformational. White males included. Something Corbyn was unable to do, as he was up against very unfavourable mass media and a Tory party campaigning on one issue, Brexit.
Any Labour government would be better then the current right wing zealots. But there won’t be a Labour government unless the left and centre left stop fighting each other and work together.
I’ve no professional training, just a layperson’s interest in polling matters and politics.
Starmer’s said often enough he’s trying to win Tory voters and to attract those “Red Waller” Brexiteers who voted Tory for the first time in 2019.
A lot of what Starmer does (eg wrapping himself in the Union Jack and using near Fascist slogans such as “Respect – Security – Family”) is based on what small focus groups of Tory voters and “Red Waller” switch voters SAY they want to hear from a Labour leader.
There are differences between the two groups (the one that traditionally supports the Tories and the “Red Waller” group which voted Tory in 2019) but a lot of demographic similarities too.
Polling evidence shows that the typical Tory voter is over 60 (younger age groups typically vote left to centre, on the spectrum from Corbyn style left, Green and LibDem). A majority (a small majority?) of Tory voters are male and non-Tory voters female. Tory voters typically aren’t people with college / university level qualifications – partly because they’re mainly from an older age group that didn’t get the opportunity to study after school.
What polling evidence also shows is that Starmer’s efforts to appeal to the traditional Tory voters aren’t working. The focus groups may say they want a Labour leader who’s more “patriotic” and the polls say traditional Tory voters like Starmer more than Corbyn.
What they also say, though, is that most of those traditional Tory voters won’t vote Labour or for Starmer as PM.
In the meantime, Starmer’s infuriating or confusing traditional Labour voters and those who wanted Corbyn as PM to the extent they tell pollsters they won’t vote for Labour either! The Greens and LibDems may get their votes, they say (some will even vote Tory!!!).
I suspect a lot of the people who voted Labour and / or for Corbyn will opt out and stay at home when the next local and general elections come around. That’s already been happening at the local election level (eg Hartlepool).
Many Tory voters are equally infuriated and confused by their party’s leadership and will opt out of voting likewise. So our elections will be “won” by whichever party is best at DRAGGING those who used to support them to the polling stations.
To win an election he has to appeal to a wide range of voters, including red wallers. He must try and win floating Tory voters too, so countering the lie that the Labour Party isn’t patriotic may include some flag waving. He also has to retain core Labour support.
You say most Tory voters are white males over 60. Then link this with Starmer needing to appeal to Tory voters and conclude he’s mainly appealing to those white male’s over 60. That’s not valid logic because it ignores all the other groups he needs to win over.
Blair won three elections because he had wide appeal. Corbyn lost two because he did not.
You’re not alone in your thinking there Linda.
From my perspective, there are so many cans that have been “kicked down the road” by previous governments (of both stripes) that radical change is needed.
But the current crop of politicians on the front benches are, as far as I can tell, not up to that challenge at all.
We need a revolution but it is difficult to imagine what must be stolen from the subject/citizen for the English to be sufficiently angry with their “mustn’t complain” attitude. Road rage or a confrontation over a parking space in Tesco car par more likely to be the spark. So very English.
Don’t ask me why, but your comment around what it would take to cause a sufficient strong outpouring of disgust/uprising to make an actual difference reminded me of the Eddie Izzard “Star Trek” sketch… It is worth looking it up on YouTube to get the full impact, but he discusses how much more fun the show would have been if the the “phasers” had more than the two (kill/stun) settings. One of my favourites was a setting called “Sudden Outbreak of Apathy” – attacker runs at you screaming, you fire, the attacker drops his stick, shrugs his shoulders, mutters, “I really can’t be bothered” and shambles off back home.
I have a feeling that then entire nation has been phasered…
We don’t need a revolution to get rid of this government. We only need an election. The poll tax riots and stop the war demos showed that the English can be roused to action, but let’s give democracy a chance first please.
My diagnosis Johnson does not do detail or manage processes. Now he is also at the mercy of back benchers in his struggle to survive. He has a second rate cabinet who now fight amongst themselves. Hardly surprising that what was always chaotic is getting even worse.
In being so kind to the current government you risk insulting us second raters.
This circus would struggle to manage tenth rate.
The current Labour offering may not appeal as radical reformers but they do stand a chance of achieving the second rate I would be pleased to aspire to.
We are living through days of intolerance at all levels and have the so-called government we deserve.
No wonder wee vlad thinks democracy is pathetic; it appears to be so.
Perhaps Sunak and Javid don’t like one another. Could suit Bozo.
What could possibly disincline the current Chancellor of the Exchequer from a productive working relationship with his immediate predecessor in that office?
Do any of them ‘like’ one another? Surely that’s unheard of in the upper echelons of the Tory Party. They are all out for themselves.
I’d like to ask an entirely provocative question on this..
In my memory, at least, it has often been the Chancellor that has bee responsible (directly or otherwise) for some of the most fundamental and seismic events in government:-
– Nigel Lawson inflating the country out of the financial mire of the 1970s, by creating a beast that took a decade to tame and resulted in a huge erosion of wealth
– Norman Lamont with his public statements of intent that prompted George Soros to sell Sterling short and make billions at the UK’s expense
– Gordon Brown, who publicly announced the sale of 417 metric tonnes of gold because he thought he could back Sterling with a “basket of foreign currencies” (read: speculate) and instead was taken to the cleaners by the international gold markets
– Gordon Brown again, who kept referring to his dear friend “Prudence” as he ran up the UK debt to record levels immediately prior to the 2008 collapse…
– Gordon Brown again, who then more than doubled UK debt by bailing out banks and getting all of us to buy out the toxic assets…
– George Osbourne, who seems to have been the architect behind HS2 and the “Northern Powerhouse”
You see the pattern, right?
Yet when you think about it, the Chancellor’s job should really be all about making sure that tax receipts are where we expect them and accurately reporting the same to Cabinet and Country; and then faithfully enacting the financial administration of the nation’s finances. Yet as the above examples show, in the UK at least the Chancellor seems to often be the loudest voice at the table, second only (if that) to the PM himself.
Can anyone seek the US Secretary to the Treasury tell the various Congressional Committees how much to spend? Or what to prioritise?
Could it be the case that in the UK we find that we have drifted in to a position where the Chancellor holds far too much power/sway over government policy, priorities and strategy? Now, granted, a Chancellor only serves at the pleasure of the PM, who has sole authority to appoint a Cabinet of their choosing.
But in a position where a PM is weakened [or just generally weak] or where a Chancellor has accrued more power, what we’re left with is a complete breakdown in a cabinet-based government.
Of course, different nations and different implementations of democracy (and other forms of government) all have their own foibles. It sometimes just feels like the UK model seems to have been specifically designed for corruption, in-fighting, risky shift (weak decisions based on lack of collective accountability) and incompetence. Yet the only choice available to the tax-payer/voter is to replace one bunch of bungling administrators with a different set.
There is never an option of fixing the actual problems at the heart of the issue, like the designed-in idiocy that we seem condemned to put up with.
Is the leaking of ministerial differences so unusual? Admittedly having to postpone a cabinet meeting as a result is rare but the present row is not yet over. Javid already has shown he’d rather walk than accept decisions he wasn’t happy with. Javid and Sunak both have ambitions to go higher. The PM is a few days away from a police decision about partygate. Two likely contenders are trying to show they could be strong leaders. What this particular spat does illustrate is just how limited is Johnson’s leadership of the cabinet.
Yet another sign of a failing state, with the institutions incapable of handling any complex questions, and left to generate incoherent gibberish.
I have just had the misfortune of reading through the drivel of the Levelling up and Brexit benefits documents, both of which underline the paucity of ability within the hideously centralised system that is the UK of today.
My advice: get drunk instead. You will have a more enjoyable time, and will destroy fewer brain cells.
It’s difficult, isn’t it, to try to describe what happened in this case using words which have any sort of clarity.
You had to resort to a variety – ‘mechanisms’, ‘systems’, ‘processes that regulate’, even ‘the business of government’.
But that’s not surprising. Because there is no text describing ‘the rules’ in legal terms.
The Cabinet Manual, the first attempt to write down a description of the ‘processes’ of government decision-making is instructive. Not for its content, nor its clarity but its form. It is a work of literature. An artful blancmange of worthy-sounding terms that constrain no-one and prevent nothing.
The fact that such a ‘system’ works at all is a testimony to the professionalism of those who try to make government work.
But the fact that it exists shows how the unprincipled, the unprofessional or the downright corrupt can manipulate it to give us the bad government we suffer from.