Pragmatism, competence, policy, and law

20th September 2022

Day-to-day politics have returned, and there was an interesting admission from the Prime Minister:

The content of this admission is not, in and of itself, any surprise.

There will be no trade deal with the United States in the foreseeable future – indeed there may not even be trade negotiations for such an agreement.

But.

The surprise is that this is being openly admitted by any minister, let alone the Prime Minister.

*

Other Brummie solicitors will be hating this:

*

Of course, one reason for this admission may be tactics.

The United States can hardly use a trade deal as leverage in respect of their concerns over the Northern Irish Protocol if we say those Californian grapes are already sour.

You can see the point of such a tactic, even if you do not see any merit in it.

*

Another recent deft government manoeuvre, which was not widely noticed, was the government not carrying through the nomination of the controversial Christopher Chope to the committees investigating the conduct of departed Prime Minister Boris Johnson:

A further tactical switch was the dropping of the attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act, which was going to take up a lot of parliamentary time and departmental resources and still get stuck in the House of Lords.

As this blog suggested, this dropping of the bill is likely to be replaced by smaller illiberal changes to other legislation, rather than through one big bang Act of Parliament.

And today also saw indications that the government’s commitments are weakening to “privatising” Channel 4 and the awful Online Safety Bill.

*

Taking these incidents together, one could form the impression that the government is becoming more pragmatic.

If so, this would be a welcome to change to the bluster of the Johnson period, where unforced errors were freely made, and as loudly as possible.

But.

*

Tactics, of course, are not the same as strategy – or overall tone.

Even when there are this micro-changes to the business of government and the process of legislation, the macro politics seem unchanged.

In particular, the “cake-ism” of the government’s Brexit policy – and of its promised tax policy.

The government is also maintaining the fiction that the Northern Irish Protocol bill is “necessary”.

*

The new deputy Prime Minister Thérèse Coffey (who – disclosure – I happen to have known since university) was last week roundly and rightly mocked for her apparent new departmental guidance on the Oxford comma.

(The punctuation in the title of this post is deliberate.)

But perhaps more interesting from a policy perspective was what else was in that guidance:

This is sensible stuff for any minister in charge of a medium-sized or large department.

It should be the minimum standard required – but one suspects hyper-active and unfocused minsters have been trying to do everything and ending up doing nothing.

*

Tactical improvements are of little use or value if the overall strategy is misconceived.

Neither Brexit nor solving the cost-of-living crisis will be “done” by the government’s current approach.

Avoiding easy mistakes will not be enough with the hard policy problems ahead.

That is also the minimum requirement of governance.

And it is a measure of how bad politics – and policy – have been that these simple changes are conspicuous enough to be welcomed.

*

This blog said that it would give the new Prime Minister a clean slate – although some under the line thought this was too generous.

And it is still very early days: the Prime Minister has been office less than two weeks, and that has included a period of national mourning.

The early signs are that there may be marginal improvements.

But the big blundering is still there.

And although we should always remember that there is no one way of governing well, we should note there are many ways of governing badly.

This should be obvious to capable politicians, Elizabeth Truss and Thérèse Coffey.

*

***

Thank you for reading – and now please help this blog continue providing free-to-read and independent commentary on constitutional matters and other law and policy topics.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

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 comments policy is here.

5 thoughts on “Pragmatism, competence, policy, and law”

  1. Here be dragons.

    The United States, espousing world freedoms and liberal trade, uses their wealth and the size of their domestic market to bludgeon other nations into agreeing trade deals that might give their “partner” short term relief, but which conceal massive longer-term harm.

    For just a handful of things we should expect forced on the UK from a US trade deal:-

    Opening of NHS markets to US Health Insurance companies – where the *average* cost of delivering a baby was $18,865 in July this year…

    Lowering of UK food standards – to allow GMO foods, chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef, the list goes on…

    “Respect for intellectual property” (translation patents) where the US has one of the most insane and irresponsible Patent & Trademark Offices – where for example software patents and business method patents are allowed – after which expect UK companies to get sued in to oblivion…

    And we should probably also expect an immense amount of pressure to protect US Corporate Profits, so that they can be off-shored from the UK to some random international tax haven with guarantees from the British government to never attempt to actually get those companies to pay what they owe.

    Just wait – the government will try and put on a PR offensive to tell the nation how fortunate we are and what a good deal has been struck.

    Like turkeys voting for Christmas.

    Brace, brace.

  2. “This should be obvious to capable politicians, Elizabeth Truss and Thérèse Coffey.”

    I wonder should there be an Oxford comma after “Truss”, lol …

    But you’re right – it’s too early to say, and already there seems to be a more pragmatic approach.

    1. “already there seems to be a more pragmatic approach.”

      Really, no.

      There has been some unavoidable compromise, but taking a wider view, removing salary caps for bankers; arguing for the reintroduction of completely discredited Reaganomic/Thatcherite “trickle-down” economic policies; her tediously predictable “small state” rhetoric – these are the absolute antithesis of Real World pragmatism.

  3. There is a way of interpreting the insights here that suggest the secret skill of the last PM ( I forget his name ) was making sure he backed political objectives that were populist, but also so ridiculous and poorly managed that he could benefit from the political support without the risk of actually being able to change anything significant.

    Ideally he would have liked the popularity of supporting Brexit without the consequences of actually doing something that daft. He screwed up there and his successor might be lining up a few more cock ups because she actually believes the nonsense.

    I remain braced.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.