20th April 2023
This evening those who take an interest in Westminster politics are waiting for yet another report.
The report – this time into allegations against Dominic Raab, which he denies – has been delivered.
It is reported Raab has read it and sees no reason to resign, and so it is now up to the Prime Minister whether Raab should be sacked, and the Prime Minister has not decided.
It seems not vey long ago we were all waiting for the Sue Gray report, and there have been various other reports and inquiries, some of which have been quietly abandoned.
The purpose of this short post is not to preempt the report: I have not seen it and, as of today, almost certainly neither have you.
Instead it is to mark that, again, reports and inquiries are taking the place of traditional politics.
Perhaps this practice is a good thing: that information is compiled before a decision is made.
But perhaps it also a bad thing: for it enables ministers and others to avoid and even evade responsibility and accountability with an investigation takes place.
It almost a contracting-out of democratic and representative functions, at least in the short- to medium-term.
And the practice is now as much a part of our polity as the more formal elements that would be detailed in a constitutional text book.
Somebody should maybe commission a report into the practice, so that we too can put off doing anything about it.
***
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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Would this not be a suitable amendment to your proposed “Something Must Be Done” Bill of a few years ago? Perhaps along the lines of “Something Must Be Done But Nothing May Be Done Until A Report Has Been Prepared”.
The measure of a PM is thus how he judges the reports he receives (and which we shall see at some point). If there is a damming report but and he nevertheless confirms his deputy in place and as the minister in Injustice then we can write him off as just like his predecessors. (Which, so far, he has avoided emulating in this regard).
However, if he sees Raab off and takes the opportunity to shuffle a new Home Secretary into place as well (being, not Raab of course), then we might be seeing his government showing an ankle of respectability.
Raab claims be acted professionally at all times. Professionally has become a very low bar now.
550 sub shades of Grey raabbit
Can’t Rishi cite precedent? Boris Johnson refused to accept the bullying verdict on Pritti Patel. What’s the problem with Rishi doing the same – apart from his promises on ‘integrity, professionalism and accountabili.ty
The problem with Rishi doing the same is that it would make him look like Boris Johnson — indeed, make him look like that he thinks its acceptable to look like Boris Johnson.
David, as ever, thank you for your analysis.
(And I hope you are still enjoying the benefits of your rest over Easter).
I ask the following as an open and honest question, which I do not intend to be a leading one.
Also for context, I lay no claim (and in all good conscience can lay no claim) to “knowing” anything over than a surface-level of detail as to how the British constitution has worked / “evolved” in practise in the 20th and 21st centuries.
You say in your post above (with the text in square brackets being my understanding / addition, which I can’t italicise in my mobile browser):
“And the practice [of inquiries and report-writing] is now as much a part of our polity as the more formal elements that would be detailed in a constitutional text book.”
Is the practise of inquiries and report-writing a truly “new” element of our polity?
Or is the expectation that the output of those processes will be (should be?) publically available, the “new” element?
In the spirit of open and honest inquiry (no pun intended), if my question is a topic you have touched on already elsewhere, I shall be more than happy to seek out any previous views / opinions you have given.
There’s another worrying dimension to this, I believe, and that is the further erosion of the “rule of law” element of our “democracyandtheruleoflaw” system. Democracy without the rule of law can easily become demagoguery. If we move to a system where our leaders are held to account not by rigorous legal systems supported by jurisprudence, but by the view of a single individual, however much integrity that individual may have, with no appeal system, it’s another cut to the body politic, to join the thousands already there.
A bit of a problem. I doubt the evidence is unequivocal and there is probably room for endless quibbling and troublemaking and Raab has some friends and supporters – for whatever reason. So fair enough to sleep on it and take soundings. Then get rid of him if the omens and soothsayers are favourable.
One could hang on until general election run up and let it be made clear he won’t keep his seat and everyone would rather he just disappeared.
Perhaps one of those fancy air fresheners advertised on the telly would make a nice leaving present.
It used to be the case that commissioning a civil service report or inquiry was a way of kicking a contentious issue into the long grass, where it could quietly fester until the results could be ignored or quietly slipped out and buried.
Now it seems to accentuate the attention, while we wait breathlessly for the report, and then for some action to follow immediately from the report.
Ministers have always served at the pleasure of the prime minister. It is a strange evolution that recent prime ministers have outsource their conscience to a third party. Is this just a matter of providing political cover – “Sorry, Suella/ Gavin/ Nadhim/ Dominic/ [this_space_intentionally_left_blank], but this report leaves us with no option: you’ll have to resign”?
While of course leaving the prime minister with the option (that they always have anyway) of saying “I don’t care, Priti stays”.
Luckily, Raab has had time to write a defensive article in the Telegraph today, where he complains of undergoing a “Kafkaesque saga … shorn of the safeguards most people enjoy” where “Normal rules of evidence and procedural fairness were disapplied”. There was no limitation period; allegations were “stored up … and then submitted in a coordinated way”; he was subject to “trial by media”; the investigator concluded that he didn’t swear or shout or throw things (interestingly, Raab does not deny them – he simply repeats the investigator’s conclusion); and he didn’t intend to cause offence.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/21/dominic-raab-resigns-people-of-britain-will-pay-price/
But a minister serves at the will of the prime minister. “Normal rules” do not apply. And even if they did, the report is damning.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-report-to-the-prime-minister
Does someone’s offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour need to be with an intention to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure, before it can be called bullying? Probably not.
https://www.ukemploymenthub.com/unintentional-bullying-in-the-workplace/