20th July 2022
We are about halfway through the maximum length of this parliamentary term.
The last general election was on 12 December 2019 and – according to this working out – the very last date for the next general election would be 24 January 2025.
Today’s leadership vote seems to mean that the Prime Minister for that second half of this parliamentary term will be Elizabeth Truss, as she is more popular with the party members who will now vote.
If so, Boris Johnson’s cosplay of Churchill will segue into the Thatcher copslay of his successor.
The governing party as a political history re-enactment society: the Westminster equivalent of the Sealed Knot.
Regardless of the current governing party being the Conservatives, and regardless of whether the victor is Truss or Sunak, it is unlikely that after twelve years of government any governing party will be emphatically re-elected.
“Time for a Change” is a powerful political force, as Douglas-Home found in 1964, Major in 1997, and Brown in 2010.
It is not fun to be a Prime Minister when your party has been continuously in office for a long time.
It is even harder, no doubt, when you cannot be a “fresh start” from what went before.
From a policy point of view, the key question for the new Prime Minister will be whether the post-2019 programme (or lack of programme) is continued.
And if new policies are adopted, what the mandate is for those policies.
Will we have yet another Queen’s Speech this autumn?
And in more direct terms, how can Truss (or Sunak) re-orientate policy on Brexit and the Northern Irish Protocol so that outstanding issues can be better addressed, if not resolved?
Can the incoming Prime Minister effect any change in government policy (to the extent there are policies)?
For, as the recently sacked minister Michael Gove has said, the government is “simply not functioning”.
And yet another minister today did not turn up to something:
In Britain's biggest energy price crisis since the 1970s, @beisgovuk SoS @KwasiKwarteng writes to pull out of today's important evidence session, having agreed to it on *13 June*.
He gives no explanation nor apology. This is not the way for senior Ministers to treat scrutiny. pic.twitter.com/I3ZPu2Fb5k
— Environmental Audit Committee (@CommonsEAC) July 20, 2022
In essence, is it possible that the governing party can become serious about governing again?
Or is it going to be a long wait until the next general election?
***
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.
It’s worth remembering that a large proportion of the right wing of the party is influenced or even inspired by the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as expressed in novels such as “Atlas Shrugged”. Several current or recent ministers have mentioned Rand as an inspiration.
The books are a hard read but the philosophy is easily stated.
Government is inherently inefficient because it lacks competition and the profit motive.
Government action is inherently bad because the money it uses to act is obtained by coercion (i.e. taxes).
If companies rip off government for huge sums, then good on them for showing good old-fashioned private enterprise. (This isn’t an exaggeration, one of the heroes of the novel is clearly based on Robin Hood, except that he steals from government in order to refund income tax contributions to rich people.)
Atlas Shrugged is written in a way as to make this rugged-individualist philosophy seem good and even self-evidently inevitable. But if you look carefully you can see what is left out. None of the protagonists has children, nor elderly relatives needing care. None of them is ever seriously ill nor injured to the point of needing hospital care. By ignoring the existence of people who temporarily or permanently need assistance to function in society, the philosophy removes any obligation on government to care for them.
If you put people into power who think that government is inherently inefficient and bad, then it is hardly a surprise that they turn out to be very bad and inefficient at governing. If they don’t think poor/ill/elderly people matter (or even exist), then they won’t ensure government provides services for them.
This is the situation we are now in. It will not soon change, no matter who is elected the next Prime Minister.
Well yes, no doubt there is that “intellectual” aspect in describing the Tory party; but their behaviour is equally just as imbued with good old UKIP bigoted loutishness, too.
Who at the end of her life ended up needing support from the very state organisations she despised. No (wo)man is an island, after all.
“Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[114] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, after her initial objections, allowed a social worker employed by her attorney to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.[115][116]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
For a scholarly defence of the concept of Public Service see the forthcoming book by Paul du Gay and Thomas Lopdrup-Hjorth, Routledge, September 2022
https://www.routledge.com/For-Public-Service-State-Office-and-Ethics/Gay-Lopdrup-Hjorth/p/book/9781032348339
It is true that government is inherently inefficient and bad for the stated reasons, but the common conclusions are false. Unless there is competition, private enterprise is no better. So if we want some things, such as a welfare state, government is a necessary evil. We should be wary of it and try to keep it under control, but it is foolish to imagine we can do without it.
You will have rather disappointed Team Reeves, sorry, Starmer by changing the date from 24 January 2026 (I get the e-mail version of your posts) to 25 January 2025, given their five year mission to make Labour electorally credible ends around the middle of 2025.
For a moment there, you gave them room for slippage.
As you might have said, ‘it’s going to be a long BRACE!’
Well, I wouldn’t rule anything out. The rules of the contest may change. Boris Johnson may change the calendar so that September 5th is removed. All bets are off.
You say that, but Boris Johnson has compared himself with Octavian, latterly Emperor Augustus after whom the month of August is named.
The month of Pfeffel, anyone?
You may be right.
His final Commons speech will be transcribed on to stone monuments up and down the land under the title “Res Gestae”.
Nero seems a more appropriate comparison than Octavia, but…historical truth has never been Johnson’s forte.
What seems like several weeks ago many people (including me) speculated that Johnson would find a way of hanging on. DAG responded powerfully and persuasively that this was not possible.
Of course that doesn’t stop him from lurking in the background, a monkey on his successor’s back, waiting for his opportunity to make a triumphant return.
I wonder when, during the last 37 days after Kwasi Kwarteng agreed on 13 June that he would attend the Environmental Audit Committee today, he came to realise that he would not be able to attend. Who organises his official diary?
Was he embarrassed to appear before the committee on the same day when the Planning Inspectorate issued a letter notifying his decision in relation to Sizewell C? https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010012/EN010012-011152-SZC-Notice-of-the-Decision-by-the-SoS-GRANTED.pdf
Or perhaps he was too busy attending a “Hydrogen Investment Summit” to drum up investment into hydrogen, and appointing a “Hydrogen Champion” (no “tsar” for this combustible gas). I wonder when that was booked for that event today.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hydrogen-champion-appointed-as-government-accelerates-uk-hydrogen-investment
I doubt the issue, if there was one, first came to light this morning. Unless something urgent and unexpected came up, that seems rather disrespectful, even contemptuous. It will be interesting to see if this dismissive approach to accountability continued after September.
A cynical voice just piped up to suggest it was his personal business… I told it to not be so cynical…
Oh, he had a busy day no doubt. Also
* announcing funding for “space-based solar power (SBSP) projects”, and “high power weather sensor, four times more powerful than those on existing satellites”, although a few million here or there won’t go far https://www.gov.uk/government/news/intergalactic-investment-government-boosts-space-tech-funding-to-cut-carbon-emissions-and-improve-energy-security
* a two year extension to the £4.5 billion Recovery Loan Scheme, 70% underwritten by a government guarantee
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/further-support-for-small-businesses-feeling-the-squeeze-as-45-billion-recovery-loan-scheme-extended
* a review of UKRI
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-of-ukri-published
* blaming the EU for the UK’s difficulties in maintaining EU research funding, and putting in place “transitional measures”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-proposals-for-package-of-transitional-measures-to-support-research-and-innovation-sector-affected-by-horizon-europe-delays
No doubt there were also sensitive negotiations with Sunak and Truss about what government job Kwarteng might or might not have in a few weeks.
All much more important than attending a parliamentary committee.
If it’s to be Liz Truss, it’s bad news for our judges and lawyers.
Flashback to March 2017. The lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, launched a forthright attack on the justice secretary, Liz Truss, for her failure last year to defend judges who were branded “enemies of the people”.
“I can understand how the pressures were on in November, but she has taken a position that is constitutionally, absolutely wrong.” It is was Truss’s duty, as lord chancellor, to defend the judges, he said.
Truss said she supported freedom of the press and did not feel it was her role to tell newspapers what they should put on their front pages.
It hasn’t been pointed out enough (in my opinion) that the seemingly ‘democratic’ way of electing a party leader by votes of the members is very far from democratic when it comes to selecting a Prime Minister.
A political party should have leadership that represents its members, so election of a leader (like Starmer, Corbyn, Miliband) by its members is entirely reasonable. It is then up to the electorate at the next general election to ratify – or not – this choice by electing party members as MPs.
A Prime Minister, on the other hand, represents the whole country. Since the principal – only? – qualification to be a PM is to have the backing of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons it makes sense, in the context of a party system, for MPs of the majority party to agree who they want to lead them, Parliament and the country. This can be validated, or not, at the next election but in the meantime we still have government by majority in the Commons.
But if the governing party delegates the choice to its members at large then there is every possibility of a ‘freak’ candidate being chosen simply because the main qualification to be a party member is to have rather stronger, and hence likely more ‘extreme’ views than the general public. Note this applies to all parties. Hence, there is every chance that the party, its MPs and hence the country will have a much more extreme leader than would otherwise be the case.
As I said, this is less important in opposition where a candidate perceived as too extreme (Corbyn, Hague, Howard) is likely to be rejected by the general public. But in government, a leader, and hence Prime Minister, chosen in this way may well do a great deal of damage (in the case of Johnson probably has) before being removed.
It remains to be proven that membership of a political party indicates extremist attitudes. The right-wing press and the government of the day, regardless of party, may occasioally use the word “activist” pejoratively. Remember Harold Wilson’s description of trade union leaders who were doing their job as “a group of politically-motivated men”? (Well, gosh!) There has always been a type of politician who thinks politics should be left to the professionals, yet expects the party’s rank and file to turn out in all weathers when that politician’s “contract of employment”, as it were, comes up for renewal. If membership affords no realistic opportunity to influence policy, how else does a party motivate people to pay their subs? Even a party of independent means, i.e. heavily dependent on a few massive donations, loses face if its membership-figures look pathetically small or can be shown to be decining.
The situation here is similar to the one with Corbyn in 2016.
We have a discrepancy between the opinion of the members and the opinion of the elected representatives.
It is perfectly right and proper for the party members to choose the party leader, but there is a problem when the elected representatives have a different opinion, as their opinion is representative of their electors.
Clearly the democratic course is for the parliamentary party to choose the parliamentary leader and the party members to choose the party leader, and to do otherwise would be to interfere with the free expression of the opinion of the people, which is required by the Convention on Human Rights.
The consequences of breaching the convention last time were disastrous. I wonder what will happen this time around, but we have at least worked out the law beforehand instead of after it was too late.
We delegate representation to MPs; their decisions are theirs to make according to their judgement.
That is my point.
The authority to choose the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition can only be democratic if that choice is through the delegated representation, rather than by the paid up ideologues.
One of the many political problems the UK has is that the party often governing us (the Conservative party) has a very skewed membership## . That means the decisions its members take about selecting candidates as MPs and party leaders (who currently will become our new PM) will also be skewed.
We’d all be better off if the Conservative party was a mass membership party drawn from all parts of the economic and social spectrum and their general opinions about priorities and individuals closer to the views the wider community holds.
## more male, significantly older, significantly richer and mainly living in Southern England
Australia has a written constitution which comes resplendent with PR and compulsory voting .
Every Parliamentarian has to have just the one passport (Australian of course) .
Yet when it comes to swapping PMs and back stabbing recent history proves they leave the UK in the shade.
Gotta point out that the Australian Constitution does not provide for the office of prime minister, or for how or by whom the PM is to be chosen or removed. All that is regulated, as in the UK, by custom and convention.
So the one part of the Australian constitution that *isn’t* codified is just as prone to disruption, unpredictability and chaos as the corresponding part of the uncodified UK constitution.
I don’t think this is quite the argument against codification that some seem to think.
Yes, and compulsory voting is not in the constitution either.
I’m inclined to think that we used to look to politicians to have decent characters, but now we simply look to them to have interesting personalities.
And it’s a nightmare.
It’s the old issue about checks and balances – but the checks and balances will only work if people go along with them. The ‘decent chap’ school of thought.
I can’t come up with a workable solution but do think that there need to be consequences – which there are not in so much of the current system.
Many people criticise Hoyle and compare him to previous Speakers, but Hoyle is limited in his role and relies on others to play the game.
Or, rather, not play games.
In the same way we blame oil companies for climate change when they are simply meeting our demand, we raise an eyebrow at politicians but continue to vote in those interesting personalities.
I don’t have a solution – and certainly I don’t want to advocate for a presidential system – but part of me thinks limiting the sway of political parties might be a start.
Take logos and political parties off ballot papers and candidates may actually have to work to get votes rather rely on people responding to their tribal affiliation.
That still raises the question of interesting personalities, but if they have to woo the electorate, they may be even more visible – and the electorate may see them for what they are.
It took Rupert Murdoch a decade or two to achieve a blind* and — literally — stultified electorate. The delusion that we are Classical Athens won’t be rebuilt in a day.
*(Ah! So that’s what Page Three was all about!)
I can see some merit in the idea of removing the logos, but not as much as the suggestion from somewhere that they ought to prominently display the logos of their sponsors…
This is why many of us were supporting Kemi Badenoch; the change candidate. But as Boris said, “I’ll be back”, sorry I meant “ Hasta la vista”.
Holding that Government lacks competition was bizarre no less so from a writer who was moved from a country a few years after a revolution, and had lived through WW2 and the Korean War.
A nastier competition than commercial, and cooperation is rather better.
The short version is that we’re probably getting a Prime Minister who is less capable of mastering the brief – and even less willing to listen to her briefings – than Boris Johnson.
On current form, she’s even more willing to say and do things that break established conventions, agreemement, treaties, and the legal obligations of the role.
It’s going be ‘bracing’.
…And there are a great many reasons, albeit different ones, to be unenthusiastic about her rival.
Liz Truss…
That would be the minister who negotiated a trade agreement with Australia – a political triumph that is seen by some to validate the promise of post-Brexit trade opportunities – which is a very, very good deal for Australian farmers and food exporters.
For British farmers, less so.
Against expectations, Partiament will not be given an opportunity to scrutinise and debate the terms of this binding trade and tariffs treaty.
However, there is no ‘constitutional’ requirement for Parliament to ratify (or even debate) the executive act of entering into international treaties; but this is, nevertheless, a worrying omission.
Boris Johnson and his predecessor Theresa May had a consistent record of negotiating and signing-up to binding agreements and treaties which were either politically untenable or administratively unworkable, or both, and finding it impossible to fulfil Britain’s obligations.
Sometimes through political ineptitude and sheer incompetence, sometimes due to hostile factional political machinations tantamount to sabotage; and sometimes by a calculated decision to negotiate in bad faith.
I chose not to speculate which, if any, of those factors might be ‘in play’ with this particular trade deal.
The essential point, here, is that Liz Truss is starting-out, before she’s even in Number Ten, by sidelining the route by which ‘politically untenable’ becomes a concrete impossibility: being held to account by Parliament.
This is not an encouraging start to her likely (or unlikely) tenure as Prime Minister.
Liz Truss has explained why Boris Johnson had to go, and oddly it had nothing to do with his inaccurate and mendacious statements in Parliament or in the press. No, it was seemingly that herd instinct which he finds so deplorable.
Paying tribute to Johnson, Truss said she had wanted him to carry on as prime minister. “I think he did a fantastic job with the 2019 election, and that he delivered Brexit and the vaccines. Regrettably we got to a position where he didn’t command the support of the parliamentary party.”
If we’re going to brace, brace, isn’t that what a truss does?