13th October 2022
Here is a book that has become strangely, suddenly topical:
*
It is not a bad book, and it has many merits.
The book is not a “woke” critique of the British Empire nor is it a sturdy defence.
It is more of an account of the British Empire from the perspective of those who administered it.
And of those administrators, the author is critical.
*
“Officials, as I hope to show, often developed one line of policy, only for their successors to overturn it and pursue a completely different approach. This was a source of chronic instability in many parts of the empire.”
Successors suddenly overturning policy and pursuing a completely different approach is a bad thing.
Chronic instability is also a bad thing.
*
“….empires, through their lack of foresight and the wide discretion they give administrators, lead to instability and the development of chronic problems.”
Lack of foresight and instability are bad things.
*
“The British Empire is a bizarre model to follow for fostering stability in today’s world. Indeed, much of the instability in the world is a product of its legacy of individualism and haphazard policy-making.”
Haphazard policy-making is a bad thing.
*
“…anarchic individualism led to instability because there was no policy coherence or strategic direction.”
A lack of policy coherence and strategic direction are also bad things
*
“Often strong-minded officials and governors would, by a metaphoric sweep of the hand, reverse the policy of decades, thereby creating more confusion and instability.”
Reversing the policy of decades by a metaphoric sweep of the hand, thereby creating more confusion and instability, is a bad thing.
*
Our new Chancellor of the Exchequer has suddenly sought to reverse decades of “Treasury orthodoxy” – and summarily sacked the respected Treasury permanent secretary Tom Scholar.
Without sharing the details of the “mini budget” with cabinet the new Chancellor of the Exchequer announced radical changes to established policy, thereby causing uncertainty which was foreseeable.
Off on a frolic of his own, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer single-handedly created wider systemic instability, so much so that the Bank of England is now repeatedly having to intervene so as to prevent meltdown.
Because of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, we now have repeated U-turns, which are the very defintion of haphazard policy-making.
And because of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer we certainly now have “instability and the development of chronic problems”.
Indeed, the conduct of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer since he took office is an exercise of the “anarchic individualism” which the author of Ghosts of Empire warned us against.
*
If only the new Chancellor of the Exchequer had read Ghosts of Empire before taking office.
Oh, he wrote it.
***
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.
I still think Chesterton’s Fence is a most useful concept, if you can not explain what purpose you think something is meant to serve, you should not be allowed to remove it. Both Truss and Kwarteng and their supporters illustrate that the need for it. Their combination of ignorance and arrogance shows where the behavior described in Ghosts of Empire leads.
I get the impression that DAG likes his programming analogies.
Some of the following might be slightly wrong both as an analogy and in of itself but…
https://xkcd.com/2347/
Which, whilst important to the whole operation of the everything, fell or almost fell over as a result of lack of support.
The support arrived.
Elsewhere there was a JavaScript function that everyone else rolled into their releases from a central host that became broken or was hacked.
Same thing.
A similar thing happened with libSSL which became openSSL as a result of a coding mistake. That was taken aboard by other extra wings and re-coded.
We also have mitigation of processor architecture and other attacks.
When it goes wrong it gets fixed quite quickly by people who see the threat and know their stuff.
However there may be concerns about being reactive rather that proactive. And, hopefully, there is a response to that.
Otherwise. Stuff happens but it is not as a result of pure stupidity.
Going back to
https://xkcd.com/2347/
You do not kick out the bit of Jenga you do not understand when everyone else with a basic clue can see the everything will fall over.
More importantly you do not attack the institutions that collectively make the whole structure function but rather strengthen them where they may be struggling and seek advised, measured and constructive migration as requirements change over time.
I have no doubt that Truss, Kwarteng and their associated hoard of idiots never would have got anywhere near the Linux Kernel but somehow they arrive at a position where they get to mess about with innately more complex, nuanced and fuzzy systems which, having been trashed, may recover at immense long term cost to those who really make the whole thing work.
Torvalds would have taken note of their previous examples of for shit programming and then invited them to take their SystemZ and go fuck off on the mailing list.
An absolutely stunning comment on British history, the current tory government and Chancellor.
Spot on!
The death of Angela Lansbury prompted me to revisit her grandfather’s biography and this struck me:
At the end of July 1931 the May Committee, appointed in February to investigate government spending,[124] prescribed heavy cuts, including a massive reduction in unemployment benefit.[125][n 12]
During August, in an atmosphere of financial panic and a run on the pound, the government debated the report. MacDonald and Snowden were prepared to implement it, but Lansbury and nine other cabinet ministers rejected the cut in unemployment benefit. Thus divided, the government could not continue; MacDonald, however, did not resign as prime minister. After discussions with the opposition leaders and the king he formed a national all-party coalition, with a “doctor’s mandate” to tackle the economic crisis. The great majority of Labour MPs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lansbury
I scrolled down the article, the link for which interrupted you in mid-flow, and found this (which I hope counts as “fair use” despite its length):-
“The party’s 1935 annual conference took place in Brighton during October, under the shadow of Italy’s impending invasion of Abyssinia. The national executive had tabled a resolution calling for sanctions against Italy, which Lansbury opposed as a form of economic warfare. His speech—a passionate exposition of the principles of Christian pacifism—was well received by the delegates, but immediately afterwards his position was destroyed by Ernest Bevin, the Transport and General Workers’ Union leader. Bevin attacked Lansbury for putting his private beliefs before a policy, agreed by all the party’s main institutions, to oppose fascist aggression,[138] and accused him of “hawking your conscience round from body to body asking to be told what to do with it”.[139]
I selected that extract to highlight similarities with current crisis and not in any way to promote Lansbury, whose stance in the section you quote I in no way endorse.
Well played sir
Ooooh – events.
Do you think Thick Lizzy reads your posts?
You can’t make it up🤬🤬🤬
Writing books which can be used in evidence against you is a bad thing!
Touché.
What a very weird man he is!
I thought you had left the best bit until the end – then I re/read the title!
It’s almost too easy sometimes, isn’t it?
I sincerely hope you’ve tweeted a link to this masterful insight to the parties concerned!
👍👍
Parents, doctors and politicians often have this attitude in common: “do what I say, not what I do.”
That’s not necessarily a problem, as long as “do what I say” is the smart choice.
Brilliant piece of blogging truly brilliant!
That’s an interesting article. Thanks.
It’s remarkable that Kwasi has acted in the reverse of many politicians through history.
You would expect to find that a Chancellor or other MP to have written a book describing a particular ideology that they heavily, almost irrationally favour, only to enter office and be struck by the ‘real world’ and realise that ideology does not fit with the world they now find themselves in.
However Kwasi has done the opposite and gone from rationality and embraced an ideology even in the face of all the evidence that was available to him in his new role.
I can’t recall such a situation occurring before.
“and embraced an ideology even in the face of all the evidence that was available to him in his new role.”
And still he’s doing it: he’s rightly out on his ear now, but – despite his beloved, infallible markets telling him unequivocally that he and Truss got things wrong in spectacular style – he’s still claiming that their approach was right, and that he still supports it.
I can only assume there’s so much cognitive dissonance rattling around in that head, that there’s no room left for anything else.
That’s the thing about Doomsday Cultists – When the apocalypse fails to arrive, it inevitably leads to a deepening of commitment to the group, rather than a departure in disgust.
Alternatively extend one of DAG’s favourite Brexit metaphors, the dogma finally caught the car.
Not read, so stay silent on the book, maybe look at the pdf.
I feel Mike Tyson had a good quote – ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth’.
He passed his test, got given the keys and crashed the car in the first 5 minutes. That will hang like an albatross forever, perhaps he could get a job as a barrister – or a barista.
He’s now the ex-chancellor of the exchequer.
Can’t say that I am sorry about that.
This is now like a soap opera rather than a distinguished government!
“He’s now the ex-chancellor of the exchequer.
Can’t say that I am sorry about that.”
Astonishingly, he’s still not (officially) the shortest-serving chancellor!
Oh – and that noise you hear is Truss’ screeching u-turn on their omnishambles of a mini-budget. I’m rather surprised she didn’t get Kwarteng to deliver it, as a final act of penance.
But the winner of the gold medal for briefest chancellor had to die in office abruptly.
Of those who did not die in office Kwarteng wins. Pity Truss is not as fast to the exit as she was this afternoon at the announcement.
“But the winner of the gold medal for briefest chancellor had to die in office abruptly.”
Not exactly.
Edward Law lasted for 13 days, but he was an interim Chancellor. Charles Abbott was in post for 28 days, but again he was a stopgap.
Iain McLeod died in office 30 days in, but there was also Thomas Denman – 31 days in office, although he was yet another interim occupant.
So if we’re counting all of the holders of the position, Kwarteng has been a bit of a fixture.
I suppose we could be charitable and refer to Kwarteng as another in the long and honourable line of interim Chancellors…
Thank you for the corrections, with my deplorable level of ignorance I should be in Truss’s cabinet.
No, you have too much humility and self-awareness.
Edward Law (or to give him his more familiar title from 1802, Lord Ellenborough) was Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench from 1802 to 1818, and briefly Chancellor of the Exchequer pro tempore for a few days in 1806.
Charles Abbot (or to give him his more familiar title from April 1827, Lord Tenterden) was similarly briefly Chancellor of the Exchequer pro.tem. later in 1827. And Thomas Denman (Lord Denman) was briefly Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1834.
Earlier, you could add off Lord Chief Justices: Sir John Pratt, Sir William Lee, and William Murray (Lord Mansfield) who filled the office on an interim basis for about a couple of months in 1721, a month in 1754, and almost three months in 1757, respectively.
Denman was the last Lord CHief Justice to do this, and I wonder whether that is connected with the Judicature Acts that eventually merged the various courts into the High Court, or perhaps the earlier loss of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to sit with the Barons of the Exchequer, although rarely exercised that right: but for example, Walpole did in 1735, in Naish v East India Company – for some background, see https://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2021/02/chinese-new-year-in-canton-1731.html
It seems there was a vacancy in the office between the death of Ian Macleod on 20 July 1970 and the appointment of Anthony Barber on 25 July. Probably a good thing that the 70 year old Lord Parker CJ was not asked to fill the gap…
And Lord Coleridge was not pressed into service during the vacancy of several weeks in late 1886 to early 1887, between the resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill just before Christmas on 22 December 1886 and the appointment of George Goschen on 14 January 1887 (and even then Goschen was still not an MP – he had lost his seat in Edinburgh at the general election in July 1886, lost the by-election at Liverpool Exchange on 26 January, and only gained a seat at Westminster St George’s at another by-election on 9 February).
Goschen was formerly a director of the Bank of England, and he remained Chancellor of the Exchequer for over 5 years: he introduced the first road tax, and pushed through the National Debt (Conversion) Act 1888, which reduced the core of the national debt from 3 to 3.5% to 2.75% and then 2.5% consols (that included refinancing much of the gilts issued to make payments to former slave owners in 1834). And on that, see for example: https://matthewbrealey.medium.com/the-myth-of-the-uks-debt-to-slave-owners-being-finally-repaid-in-2015-df82cba09c6c
I think I had better stop there.
At least he was able to write himself a nice ‘Thank you’ letter…