Author: David Allen Green

Correction to yesterday’s post

3rd November 2022

Yesterday I attributed the following to the leader of the opposition:

“The Prime Minister promised integrity, professionalism and accountability in Government. His Home Secretary has leaked information, is overseeing chaos in the Home Office and has broken the law. What will she actually have to do to get the sack?”

The question was instead from Dame Meg Hillier, the chair of the public accounts committee.

I have corrected and amended the post accordingly.

I apologise for this error.

(It is never fun to correct such an error, but it should be done openly, as it goes to ensuring that readers can have confidence in the blog generally.)

***

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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.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.

What does the Home Secretary mean by “taking legal advice into account”?

All Souls Day, 2022

What does it mean for a home secretary to “take legal advice into account”?

*

This question is prompted by statements by the home secretary to the House of Commons in respect of the escalating problems at the Manston asylum processing centre.

On Monday she told members of parliament:

“…I have never ignored legal advice.

“As a former Attorney General, I know the importance of taking legal advice into account.

“At every point, I have worked hard to find alternative accommodation to relieve the pressure at Manston.”

*

So whatever “taking legal advice into account” means, it does not – for her – mean “ignor[ing]” that advice.

The home secretary herself makes that distinction and juxtaposition.

*

The home secretary also said in her prepared statement:

“As Members will be aware, we need to meet our statutory duties around detention, and fulfil legal duties to provide accommodation for those who would otherwise be destitute.

“We also have a duty to the wider public to ensure that anyone who has entered our country illegally undergoes essential security checks and is not, with no fixed abode, immediately free to wander around local communities.”

Note that “also”.

*

Those quotations are from her prepared statement, but in response to an opposition question she then also stated:

“I have not ignored or dismissed any legal advice with which I have been provided.

“I cannot go into the details of that legal advice because of the Law Officers’ convention.

“That is part of the decision-making process that all Ministers go through.

“We have to take into account our legal duties not to leave people destitute; I have to take into account the fact that I do not want to prematurely release hundreds of migrants into the Kent community; I have to take into account value for money; I have to take into account fairness for the British taxpayer.”

*

Again the distinction is made with ignoring advice, but you will also see that taking into account legal advice is now set against other (competing?) things for her to take into account: “the fact that I do not want to prematurely release hundreds of migrants into the Kent community; I have to take into account value for money; I have to take into account fairness for the British taxpayer.”

These factors are presented as being alongside – and perhaps of at least equal importance to – “tak[ing] into account our legal duties not to leave people destitute”.

*

The home secretary in another reply said:

“I confirm that I have not ever ignored legal advice.

“The Law Officers’ convention, which I still take seriously, means that I will not comment on the contents of legal advice that I may have seen.

“What I will say is this: I am not prepared to release migrants prematurely into the local community in Kent to no fixed abode.

“That, to me, is an unacceptable option.”

The impression one gets from this further reply is that her not being “prepared to release migrants prematurely into the local community in Kent to no fixed abode” is not merely a factor to consider alongside any legal advice, but is actually the determining factor.

She seems to see that as the “unacceptable option” to which all other factors presumably, including legal advice, must yield.

If so, this accords with the “also” passage in her prepared statement.

*

On Sunday, the day before that commons statement, the well-connected political journalists at the Sunday Times reported:

“Suella Braverman has been accused of failing to act on legal advice that the government was illegally detaining thousands of asylum seekers. The move could cost taxpayers an expensive court action.

“The home secretary received advice at least three weeks ago warning that migrants were being detained for unlawfully long periods at the Manston asylum processing centre in Ramsgate, Kent. According to five sources, Braverman, 42, was also told that the legal breach needed to be resolved urgently by rehousing the asylum seekers in alternative accommodation.

“Two sources said she was also warned by officials that the Home Office had no chance of defending a legal challenge and the matter could also result in a public inquiry if exposed.

“A government source said: “The government is likely to be JR’d [judicially reviewed] and it’s likely that all of them would be granted asylum, so it’s going to achieve the exact opposite of what she wants. These people could also launch a class action against us and cost the taxpayer millions.””

*

On Hallowe’en, ITN reported this further information:

If this ITN report is correct – and it is certainly plausible – this would explain why so many home office “sources” are aware of this issue.

As this blog has mentioned before, it is a significant but not unknown step to go to the Treasury Devil – James Eadie, the government’s senior external legal adviser – for an opinion, especially before any actual litigation.

(You may recall that the Devil was invoked in another matter involving the current home secretary when she was attorney general.)

For the Devil to be invoked and for the advice just to come back as reinforcing the internal home office advice would have been rather the setback for the home secretary.

It would have meant that not only did she have advice before her which was unwanted from internal lawyers, but that the unwelcome advice had been upheld by the most senior external lawyer available to the government.

*

If so, what is a home secretary to do?

One thing a home secretary can do is to comply with legal advice,

That is what is expected by the ministerial code and, indeed, by the principle of the rule of law.

Of course, there will be situations – especially in respect of exercises of discretion in individual cases – where legal views may legitimately differ, and so a minister can take a view in respect of litigation risk.

But that latitude is not there in respect of compliance with general statutory duties.

The only option with a statutory duty for a government department is to comply with that duty.

*

Now we go back to what the home secretary said, and what she did not say.

The home secretary said that she did not “ignore” legal advice.

And the home secretary said that she took legal advice and legal obligations “into account”.

But the home secretary has not said – expressly – that she complied with the legal advice.

If the home secretary had complied with the legal advice she could simply say “I have complied with the legal advice”.

But she has chosen not to do so, and has used what seems to be evasive wording instead.

The most plausible explanation for this is that she has not complied with the legal advice.

Given the nature of statutory duties, it is not clear how this can be done.

They tend to be legally binary: you either comply or you do not comply.

They are not an item in a basket with other items.

*

In the house of commons today, an opposition politician said:

“The Prime Minister promised integrity, professionalism and accountability in Government. His Home Secretary has leaked information, is overseeing chaos in the Home Office and has broken the law. What will she actually have to do to get the sack?”

[An earlier version of this post wrongly attributed this quote to the leader of the opposition. This was not the case, and I have amended this post accordingly. I apologise for this error.]

She would not have said “broken the law” lightly.

Perhaps she was referring to something else (and please let me know in the comments below if you think that was the case) but the impression I formed was that she was referring to the Manston situation.

The leader of the opposition then asked the prime minister:

“Did the Home Secretary receive legal advice that she should move people out—yes or no?”

When this question was not directly answered, he then said:

“I think the answer to the question of whether the Home Secretary received legal advice to move people out of Manston is yes.”

*

Presumably the legal advice to which the leader of the opposition was referring is the same legal advice which was provided by the Devil and internal legal advisers.

If so, then it seems that that the home secretary has placed a non-legal factor above compliance with the law.

She has decided that the non-legal factor prevails.

In doing so, the home secretary presumably thinks that this weighing exercise means that she has not “ignored” the legal obligation.

Instead, she has seemingly given less weight to that factor than to another factor.

If this interpretation is correct then it accords what she told the house of commons on Monday and it also accords with what the home office “sources” are saying to reporters.

I cannot think of any other interpretation that accords better with the available information.

(If you can, please do set it out below.)

The problem with this position would be that the relevant legal obligations are not just another item in a basket.

Instead, it is the breaking of those legal obligations that should be the “unacceptable option” to any home secretary, and indeed to any minister or official.

But this home secretary appears to think there is an option that trumps such compliance.

*

For the reasons set out above, it seems that the home secretary was advised to comply with the law and she has chosen not to do so, maintaining that “taking account” of the law in such a situation is somehow not to “ignore” the law.

That would be a remarkable position for the home secretary to adopt and, if so, one would expect the courts to take a different view if the matter is actually litigated.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on doing these posts.

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 (suggested donation £1 to £5), 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.

A close reading of Suella Braverman’s account of her unauthorised email

All Saints’ Day, 2022

On Wednesday 19 October 2022, at 4.55pm, the then (and now again) home secretary Suella Braverman tweeted her resignation:

*

The resignation letter contained the following passage:

“Earlier today [ie, the Wednesday], I sent an official document from my personal email to a trusted parliamentary colleague as part of policy engagement, and with the aim of garnering support for government policy on migration.

“This constitutes a technical infringement of the rules.

“As you know, the document was a draft Written Ministerial Statement about migration, due for publication imminently.

“Much of it had already been briefed to MPs.

“Nevertheless it is right for me to go.

“As soon as I realised my mistake, I rapidly reported this on official channels, and informed the Cabinet Secretary.”

*

Those sentences largely speak for themselves and so do not need much of a gloss.

But do note that last sentence: “As soon as I realised my mistake, I rapidly reported”.

Not just “as soon as I realised” but also “rapidly reported”.

Read that sentence carefully.

The image that the author of that letter wishes to convey here is striking: the author acted quickly, and by the author’s own initiative.

*

Now let us turn to another text by the same author.

This is the further letter sent by the author, this time to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday.

You can read this letter in HTML and in pdf.

This further letter is longer than the first letter, at six pages with a one page appendix.

Pleasingly it has numbered paragraphs, which rather makes it look like a court pleading or statement of case, but also makes it easier to navigate our way around – and so where relevant I will refer to the relevant paragraphs in brackets as [Para (x)].

Now let us have a close look.

*

We are not told the reason for this letter: it seems not to be a letter that has been requested by the Committee or required by any provision or resolution.

It appears thereby to be a volunteered and unsolicited account of the circumstances of the resignation – and this is reinforced in the letter:

“Given the level of speculation about the sequence of events that led to my resignation, including several inaccuracies, herewith is a detailed account about the circumstances of my resignation. I know how important the issues being raised are, and that is why I want to be fully transparent with Parliament and specifically with your Committee.” [Para 3]

As there was no request or requirement for creating and publishing this text, it is not clear what the motivation is for the creation and publishing of the text.

One possibility is that it is an attempt by the home secretary to frame and spin certain content of the letter that may come into the public domain by some other means.

*

Contained in this further letter is the following information about what was emailed.

The letter tells us about a written ministerial statement to be laid in parliament on the Thursday (the day after the email and then the resignation). [Para 4]

The letter also tells us that the statement was connected to the Office of Budget Responsibility forecast in respect of the then expected fiscal statement on 31 October 2022, and this indicates the possibility of the statement having some market sensitivity. [Para 4]

On the Tuesday (the day before the email and the resignation) the statement was a four-page document in near-final form. [Para 5]

The statement, we are told, “contained high level policy on illegal migration and legal migration proposals” and that it “consisted of high-level proposals for liberalising our migration rules under the Points Based System for workers, for example increasing the number of low-skilled foreign workers, as well as general plans for controlling illegal migration”. [Para 6 and 8]

(The hyphen comes and goes for “high level” and “high-level” for some reason.)

We are not told the statement’s security classification, though we are assured it was not “SECRET” or “TOP SECRET”. [Para 7]

We are also told that the statement did not contain “any information relating to national security, the intelligence agencies, cyber security or law enforcement. It did not contain details of any particular case work. It did not contain any market-sensitive data as all the data contained in the document was already in the public domain.” [Para 7]

That last sentence is curiously worded.

It is carefully limited to “data”.

If there was nothing in the statement which was market sensitive then the obvious thing to say would be to say there was no information which was market sensitive.

The author could have then just added “market sensitive” to the information listed in the preceding sentences.

But the author chose not to do this.

There are many kinds of market-sensitive information other than data – for example, how the data was to be used and what models or assumptions were to be employed.

But the denial is limited carefully to “data”.

We can only wonder why.

*

The draft statement was incomplete.

There were “some sentences which had not been fully agreed by all departments” and there was to be a meeting at 1pm that Wednesday of the relevant sub-committee that was to agree a final version. [Paras 6 and 9]

Given the mention of the Office for Budget Responsibility, one of the departments would presumably have been the Treasury.

*

At 7.25am the author used her personal email address to email the draft incomplete statement to the government backbench member of parliament John Hayes. [Para 12]

The covering message was:

“Dear John, What do you think? I’ll need to take a view this morning by 10am.” [Para 12]

What did he think of what?

Presumably the request was for his thoughts on the proposed amendments in the text from other departments, as he would know from previous briefings the position of the author.

This would accord with the 10am deadline, which would allow the author time to consider Hayes’ views in advance of the 1pm cabinet committee meeting.

We are then told about how the email was sent with an unintended recipient:

“I addressed it to Sir John’s parliamentary email and intended to copy his secretary’s parliamentary email address. However, I entered the incorrect email address for his secretary unintentionally and unknowingly.” [Para 12]

*

Hayes did not reply by 10am, but somebody else did.

This unexpected reply was at 8:34am:

“‘This has been sent to me in error.’ I did not recognise the person who had sent this message, but noted that it was from a parliamentary email address with a similar name to Sir John’s secretary.” [Para 14]

The author then tells us that at “before or around 10am” she saw this 8:34am message from the unintended recipient.

The “before” here is vague.

Nonetheless, “[t]his was the moment that I realised that I had made a mistake by sending it to an unintended recipient.”

When was that moment?

The “before” could mean any time between 8:34 and 10am.

And what did the author decide to do?

Two things.

*

First, the author sent an email at 10:02 to this stranger:

“Please can you delete the message and ignore. Thanks”.

Note that at this point the author says she does not know the recipient – just that it is someone with a similar name to the intended recipient.

Note also the author does not ask the recipient to confirm deletion, and just leaves it with it with a mere “Thanks”.

Perhaps she thought that was which was needed, and that is all that would come of it.

*

The second thing we are told the author decides to do is “that I would inform my officials as soon as practicable”.

This term “as soon as practicable” is also vague.

But whatever it means it does not mean promptly or immediately, or indeed “rapidly”.

As it happens, the author does not seem to inform her officials for quite some time.

This is even though she is, on her own account, located at the Home Office. [Para 17-18]

*

At 11:31am, the Chief Whip sends a WhatsApp message to the author asking her to speak to Andrew Percy, the member of parliament to whose assistant the email had been unintentionally sent.

The author tells us she did not see this message at the time.

*

At 11:33am Percy emailed the author as follows:

“Suella

“I am really not sure that government documents should be being shared with members of your former campaign team via gmail.

“Can you tell me what the Ministerial Code says on this and what the processes are in the Home Office for the sharing of sensitive government documents via gmail.

“Simply asking my team to delete this email and ignore it is not an acceptable response to what appears, on the face of it, to be a potentially serious breach of security.

“I am considering a point of order on this issue and have raised it with the Chief Whip.

“I hope an explanation will be forthcoming. You are nominally in charge of the security of this nation, we have received many warnings even as lowly backbenchers about cyber security.

“Andrew Percy.”

The author claims not to have seen this Percy email at the time, and the Percy email is only quoted later in the letter which gives an impression that it was a later development.

Indeed, both the Chief Whip’s message and the Percy email are deftly inserted in this further letter outside of the strict chronology of the day’s events, and so it is not obvious on first reading how early in the day’s events they had been sent.

*

By 11.50am there is no indication that the author has informed her officials when she encounters the Chief Whip and Percy. [Para 19]

We are then told of a coincidence.

“At 11.50 in Members’ Lobby, and by coincidence, I saw the Chief Whip and Andrew Percy MP. The Chief Whip asked me to speak to Mr Percy MP. He told me that my email had been received by a member of his parliamentary staff. He was concerned about my having sent the email to Sir John and to his staff member.” [Para 19]

She then gives an apology (to which we will return), but there is still no indication that she had informed her officials.

This is now nearly two hours after her “Thanks” email and three-and-a-half hours after the 8.35am email alerting her to the mistake.

On her own account, it is only at this point she knows who the email was sent to – for at 10:02 she had not known who the recipient was and assumed that whoever they were they would just delete it as requested (without confirmation).

*

It is now noon:

“At midday I decided that I would not attend PMQs as planned, so that I could take action regarding my mistake. I returned to my parliamentary office. This was the first opportunity I had had to communicate in full what had happened.” [Para 21]

*

The “in full” here is doing a lot of lifting.

The author had been at the Home Office by her own admission between 10am and 11.20am.

Some communication with her officials would have been possible after the 8.34am email or the 10.02 email.

And who does she “communicate in full” to?

Her Private Secretary?

No.

Her Permanent Secretary?

No.

The Cabinet Secretary?

No.

It is to her Special Adviser (a political appointee), and not her Private Secretary or her department’s Permanent Secretary, or the Cabinet Secretary.

We are then told:

“There, I explained the above chronology to my Special Adviser and asked him to phone my Private Secretary immediately.” [Para 23]

She does not herself tell the Private Secretary directly, for some reason.

“I asked [my Special Adviser] to inform my Private Secretary of the chain of events set out above and make clear that I wanted to fully report the breach and follow official processes. I wanted official advice on what I needed to do next. This included any reviews that were deemed appropriate by senior civil servants.” [Para 23]

She does not herself tell the Private Secretary of the chain of events, for some reason.

We are then told it is only after she has asked her Special Adviser to tell the Private Secretary that she reads the Percy email of 11:33am. [Para 23]

And then we are told that it only after seeing the Percy email that she saw the Chief Whip’s message of 11:31am. [Para 24]

*

Back to the Special Adviser being asked to inform the Private Secretary:

“Immediately after being told, my Private Secretary discussed the issue with the Permanent Secretary, and with his agreement then flagged the issue on my behalf to the Prime Minister’s Private Office and the Cabinet Secretary’s Private Office. This was the first time the Prime Minister’s Private Office or the Cabinet Secretary’s Office had been informed. As a result of my actions, the Cabinet Secretary was told for the first time. Separately, and unbeknownst to me at the time, the Chief Whip had also notified the Prime Minister of this issue. This was not known to me until after these events.”

There are two very interesting turns of phrase here.

The “Immediately” implies promptness.

And the “As a result of my actions” suggests that she was directly responsible for the Prime Minister’s private office and Cabinet Secretary’s office being informed, when in fact it had gone as follows: Author > Special Adviser > Private Secretary > Permanent Secretary > Cabinet Secretary.

*

It is now almost 1pm on the Wednesday.

The original email had been sent at 7.25am; the email from the unintended recipient was at 8.34am; the thanks-and-please-delete email had been sent by her to a stranger at 10:02am; the Chief Whip’s message had been at 11:31am; Percy’s email had been at 11:33am; and the meeting with the Chief Whip and Percy had been at 11:50am.

But on the author’s own account, she still has not spoken or otherwise communicated directly with any Home Office officials (as opposed to her own Special Adviser) about the matter.

And then:

“At 12.56 and 12.57, I emailed all of the relevant emails to my Private Secretary as part of my referral to officials.” [Para 27]

There is no reason given why this did not happen before.

*

Ministers are busy people, and they can be swamped with information and communications.

And so nothing in the above should be taken to mean that the author is not being accurate as to when she actually saw messages.

Indeed, this post is set out on the basis of the author being accurate in what she says in the further letter.

*

But.

If we go back to the author’s resignation letter, we see the following:

“As soon as I realised my mistake, I rapidly reported this on official channels, and informed the Cabinet Secretary.”

This statement is not consistent with what the author said in the further letter.

If we accept that the 8.33am email was not seen at the time, the mistake was realised “before or about” 10am.

Her Special Adviser was not asked until after noon to contact officials , and there was no direct contact with officials until almost 1pm.

If her further letter is correct, then “[a]s soon as I realised my mistake, I rapidly reported this on official channels” cannot also be correct.

The author also did not inform the Cabinet Secretary.

On her own account, it was: Author > Special Adviser > Private Secretary > Permanent Secretary > Cabinet Secretary.

Yet the normal and natural meaning of “[a]s soon as I realised my mistake, I rapidly reported this on official channels, and informed the Cabinet Secretary” is that the author herself directly informed the Cabinet Secretary.

This was not the case, if her account in the further letter is correct.

*

For completeness, the further letter also states:

“Following my referral and subsequent resignation, the Home Office conducted a review of my use of personal email and verified the above sequence of events. The review also identified that within the period between 6 September and 19 October, I had sent official documents from my government email to my personal email address on six occasions.”

Note: six.

Note also that it is not said that she only sent official documents to her personal email six times, but only that six occasions have been “identified”.

It would have been easier just to say that author only did this six times, but this other form of words was chosen instead.

Those six occasions would have been in addition to the incident described above.

We are also not told how many times those official documents had been forwarded.

And note the dates: there may have been, on the face of this wording, other occasions in her other government roles, outside of those specified dates.

*

At the meeting with the Chief Whip and Percy, the author says she said:

“I apologised and said that this was the first time that I had used my personal email to send an official Home Office document to someone outside government, that there was no risk to security due to the content, and that I would ensure that this would never happen again.” [Para 19]

Note: “first time”.

The appendix to the letter lists six times the author had forwarded emails from her official email to her personal email:

The 19 October incident above is not one of these, because the relevant draft statement was forwarded to her from her Special Adviser.

If what the author says what she assured the Chief Whip and Percy is correct, then the position would be that not one of these six documents was then forwarded.

We must also assume that none of the times official documents were forwarded to her by her Special Adviser (such as above) that they were not also sent outside of government.

*

The letter of 31 October 2022 from the home secretary to the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee is carefully drafted and, as with any carefully drafted document, rewards careful attention.

There are turns of phrase and framing of information in that letter that could give an impression different to that which would be gained from a close reading.

But a close reading shows that the portion of the resignation letter that says “[a]s soon as I realised my mistake, I rapidly reported this on official channels, and informed the Cabinet Secretary” cannot be correct.

The further letter raises more questions than provides answers.

Either her resignation letter is correct or this further letter is correct.

But not both.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry doing these close readings.

Close readings 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 (suggested donation £1 to £5), 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.

The Home Secretary, the Home Office, and “statutory duties”

Hallowe’en, 2022

The uses made of certain law-related phrases in political discourse can be fascinating.

Take the current political row about the treatment of asylum seekers in Manston.

It appears from news reports that the current home secretary Suella Braverman and/or the previous home secretary Priti Patel failed to ensure there was sufficient accommodation for asylum seekers.

This failure was, in turn, a breach of the law – and, it is alleged, that this breach of the law was knowingly made.

In essence, the accusation is that the home secretary was told what the law was and the home secretary chose not to comply with that law.

*

I do not know – and I suspect you do not know – the truth of the matter (at least not yet).

But the language in which the accusations are framed is interesting.

This is not, it seems, about human rights gone mad or “woke” or both.

It is not about a minister “taking a view” on the risk of there being a successful challenge, either by an application for judicial review or otherwise.

It is not thereby about an area of law with “grey areas” or “fuzzy edges” or whatever evasive language one can get away with.

No.

This row is about good-old, old-fashioned, domestic law “statutory duties”.

That is the sort of binary law in respect of which you either comply or do not comply.

It is not the sort of law in respect of which, for example, you take a view on whether you have acted “proportionately” or not in a particular case, and in respect of which you guess (ahem, forecast) how a court will deal with a challenge.

Where the law provides binary “statutory duties”, a government department (and indeed anyone else, including you) should not “take a view”.

You comply.

Simple as that.

The Act of Parliament says you should do [x], and so you do [x] – else you are in breach of your duty to do [x].

It is therefore not open to Braverman or any other partisan to ignore the law on the basis that it is about woke human rights and assert that the courts will strike the wrong balance for proportionality.

And this is why, in part, I think this row has reached the public domain.

*

This is not about exercises of discretion in individual cases, where the home secretary or relevant official can take one view or another on a case-by-case basis.

This is wholesale non-compliance.

That is why I think officials are more jumpy than they otherwise would be.

This is not a decision to interfere with right in individual cases, but an apparent decision to disregard entire legal rules.

Perhaps the relevant home secretary did not realise or care for the distinction.

Perhaps the disdain for “individual case” human rights law has tripped over to disdain for the general rules of legal compliance with statutory duties.

Who knows.

But we have got to a point where even Home Office officials – Home Office officials! – are sufficiently alarmed by a home secretary’s proposals to disregard the law that they are contacting and briefing journalists.

*

First it was individual human rights, and now it is general statutory duties.

Once you start making exceptions to the rule of law, those exceptions become wider and more troubling.

Brace, brace.

 

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on for another year.

Please do 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.

Politeness among strangers – some thoughts about internet comments

29th October 2022

Yesterday’s post went up late and it was on a contentious issue, where the views I expressed were probably not shared by many of those who follow this blog.

But still, at the time of writing, there were 141 comments – some of a high quality, and many were balanced on the PR issue.

Only one comment was not published by reason of irksomeness.

*

Of course, comments moderation makes a difference.

Comments moderation is time-consuming, but I think it is worthwhile as it ensures a good standard of published comments.

I see my role as a letters’ editor of an old-style newspaper, where there was pride in what letters were published.

And so it is not like the anything-goes antics of “below the line” on other media sites.

I think it is a false economy for such sites not to pre-moderate their comments, as it means fewer (if any) sensible people will spend much time looking at the comments.

As for “free speech” (or “freeze peach”), nothing in my moderation policy is stopping a person from publishing a view elsewhere.

But curating the comments on this site is itself an exercise of free speech.

I especially welcome – and treasure – comments that show how my posts are wrong in detail or in principle or in reasoning, but without abuse and name-calling.

This is because the subject matter of this blog – law and policy and how the two connect – is the thing, and there really is no merit in saying things which are incorrect.

And so as Twitter becomes more of a Hellsite – and I spend far less time on there than I used to, and my main account there is now permanently locked – I would like readers and commenters to know that they are welcome here.

For it is possible to have polite discussions on the internet on contentious issues between strangers.

Thank you.

***

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.

For and against changing the electoral system

27th October 2022

Here is a brief post on a constitutional topic that I have avoided on this blog: the electoral system.

This is a topic on which many of you will have Very Strong Opinions – and, as with a codified constitution and membership of the European Union, it may be difficult for you to comprehend why someone could possibly not be in favour.

But.

The value, at least for me, in the current system is twofold.

First, I think there is merit in one person being the representative for a distinct, meaningful area – for example, Birmingham Edgbaston, or the Isle of Wight, or the Western Isles, and so on.

This is especially so given the convention that Members of Parliament refer to each other by their constituencies.

It means that parliamentary debate is itself a congress of places and local identities.

One member constituencies also mean we have by-elections, which provide a form of accountability between general elections that can be surprisingly effective – for example, Johnson’s fall from office followed two huge by-election defeats.

Second, many systems of proportional representation seem to give disproportionate power to party lists and party managers, breaking the direct link between the voter and the candidates.

But, but.

Those two factors are not overwhelming, and perhaps can be offset by other factors.

It cannot be right for certain parties, such as the Green Party, to have so low a parliamentary presence given their national share of the vote.

The current party system is also somewhat artificial, and the parties are themselves faction-ridden coalitions kept together by the needs of the electoral system, and this just causes different political problems – as we have seen with both the Conservative and Labour parties in recent years.

The current system has not even avoided hung parliaments – for example, in the late 1970s, the mid 1990s, and between 2010-15 and between 2017-19.

And the powers of party managers and party lists is just exercised in different ways, with certain candidates benefiting from safe seats.

*

So my mind is not made up, and recent experiences have tested my assumptions in favour of the current system.

(I do not have Very Strong Opinions on every constitutional issue!)

Can a case be made for electoral reform which (a) does not involve name-calling of those opposed, (b) keeps the geographic links without giving party lists and managers too much power, and (c) keeps the possibility of by-elections as a potent political device between elections?

I open to persuasion – and so may be many others who have hitherto been wary of electoral reform.

***

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.

Re-visiting the “codified constitution” debate after the Johnson and Truss premierships

26th October 2022

From time to time it is worth revisiting the question of whether we should have a codified constitution.

For many the answer is self-evident.

Indeed, one sometimes cannot imagine a political situation in the United Kingdom where somebody, somewhere would not add “and this shows why we need a written constitution”, as if it were some universal panacea.

The view of this blog, as you may know, is more sceptical.

There is nothing inherently good or bad about a codified constitution: the test is is whether the constitution is liberal or illiberal.

In other words: whether or not the constitution tends to permit unchecked and unbalanced executive, judicial or legislative power.

Those constitutions which do not check and balance such powers tend to be illiberal, and those which do tend to check and balance such powers tend to be liberal.

The test, for me, of a constitution is not whether it is codified or not, but whether it is liberal.

And if we were to somehow have a codified constitution it should be at least as liberal as the current uncodified constitutional arrangements.

*

So: are our current constitutional arrangements liberal?

Some of you reading this will have Very Strong Opinions – and are undoubtedly and impatiently scrolling through this irksome post.

But.

Take a moment.

Here are three counter points to consider.

First, during Brexit, the Supreme Court twice stopped the executive from acting against the rights of parliament, in the two Miller cases.  And parliament itself was able to legislate for the Benn Act in the face of opposition from the executive.

Second, since 2016 the body politic has been able to regurgitate and spit out a sequence of Prime Ministers and other ministers who have been repugnant for one reason or another – Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, and so on.

And third, and notwithstanding the nominal overall majority, we have ended up with, in effect, a hung parliament anyway.

If we were to have a more rigid, codified constitution that entrenches executive power, none of these things may have been the case.

We could, like in the United States, be stuck with a Trump-like politician for a term with only the clumsy and practically useless weapon of impeachment.

*

That said, there are problems.

For example – yes, we have been able to spit out a succession of repugnant politicians, but it is hardly to the credit of our constitutional arrangements that we have had such figures becoming Prime Minister in the first place.

And we are still only one competent tyrant (and a parliamentary majority) away from the “supremacy of parliament” being used to create Enabling Acts conferring wide discretionary powers on minsters that courts will have to accepts as being unchallengeable.

Our constitutional arrangements may be liberal in some respects, but there is still the scope for abuse, as well as it providing a framework for inadequate politicians to take (as well as lose) powerful jobs.

And recent years have shown the limits of the “good chap” approach of ministerial self-restraint, with Johnsonian anything-goes.

The counter-case is strong.

*

So there are reasons to be in favour of our current constitutional arrangements, but also reasons to be worried.

The next two years are, from a liberal and progressive perspective, likely to be grim – especially if the new Prime Minister and his cabinet are alert to avoiding the unforced errors of the last two Prime Ministers, and are able to “deliver” (ahem) their policy agenda.

We cannot always trust illiberal ministers to make easy mistakes.

And the next two years will be the real test of whether our constitutional arrangements are robust as well as liberal.

Brace, brace.

***

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.

Here we go again: Raab returns to the Ministry of Justice

25th October 2022

When Dominic Raab left the Ministry of Justice when Elizabeth Truss became Prime Minister, the blog teased that the Human Rights Act was still there and Raab was not.

Well.

Raab has today returned to the Ministry of Justice as Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor (and Deputy Prime Minister).

And this means things do not look good for the Human Rights Act.

As this blog has previously averred, the Human Rights Act is Moby Dick to Raab’s Captain Ahab:

And so when Raab went, it seemed the Act was safe.

The new Truss administration dropped the “Bill of Rights”, a dreadful mess of a Bill.

That reversal was, it seems, the price exacted by Robert Buckland, the former Lord Chancellor, for serving as Welsh Secretary in Truss’s cabinet.

But earlier today, Buckland announced he was leaving the cabinet under the new Prime Minister Rushi Sunak:

Buckland’s letter refers to a meeting, and one wonders if he again asked for an assurance about the Human Rights Act – and, if so, what the answer was.

*

While Raab was away, his replacement Brandon Lewis had the confidence and sense to negotiate a resolution to the strike by criminal barristers.

It is unlikely that resolution would have happened had Raab stayed on, and it should not be taken for granted that action by criminal lawyers has come to an end.

*

As this blog has previous stated, those who sneer at Raab for not understanding human rights law are wrong.

It is that he does understand it – he just does not care for it.

And this makes him a more formidable opponent to liberals and progressives than someone who is merely ignorant of the applicable law.

We do not know yet whether Raab will now seek to revive the “Bill of Rights” many of us had assumed would pass into oblivion.

There are at least two years left of this parliament and so there is perhaps enough time for him to have a go at forcing the Bill through if he can, regardless of any backbench worries.

He may have difficulty in the House of Lords, however, as the 2019 Conservative Manifesto stopped short of promising to repeal the Human Rights Act.

But for Raab this is unfinished business, and so such an attempt is more than likely.

And for those who have a liberal or progressive interest in the law, we are again that fabled bowl of petunias:

“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again.”

Oh no, not again.

***

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.

A close reading of Boris Johnson’s statement saying he is not standing for leadership

 

24th October 2022

Yesterday the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson provided a statement about not standing for the leadership of the United Kingdom’s governing Conservative Party.

I joked on Twitter that a close of reading of this statement was a joy – and I was then commanded by the highest of all temporal and spiritual authorities to do a post setting out why.

And so here it is.

*

A close reading of any text has to have regard to the (seeming) intentions of the author, the content of the text itself, and the relevant context(s).

Here we have a resignation but not a formal resignation – indeed, there was not even a prior application, formal or informal, to which this is a sequel.

It is not any form of a required text – it was instead volunteered by its author.

This means that more regard has to be made to (seeming) intention and context than otherwise, as there are no formal, required “buttons” to “press” with its content.

*

Now let us begin.

“In the last few days I have been overwhelmed by the number of people who suggested that I should once again contest the Conservative Party leadership, both among the public and among friends and colleagues in Parliament.”

See how the “I”s are buried in this sentence, so as to indicate that it is not really about him.

The references to “the number of people” and to “the public and among friends and colleagues in Parliament” is pretty much an exercise in duplication.

The author could have said more simply “In the last few days I have been overwhelmed by [encouragement] that I should once again contest the Conservative Party leadership, both among the public and among friends and colleagues in Parliament.”

But the author needs to emphasise the quantity of people, and so the double-egging of “the number of people”.

The “overwhelmed” also indicates that he is protesting too much – and, indeed, the context implies that he was instead underwhelmed.

He did not get enough support.

*

“I have been attracted because I led our party into a massive election victory less than three years ago – and I believe I am therefore uniquely placed to avert a general election now.”

The author was once a winner, and it is important that this is emphasised and that the reader is reminded.

There was not just a “election victory” but a “massive” one.

And it was not now some time ago, back in 2019, but only “less than three years ago”.

But it is the last part which is most interesting, where the author puts forward a false proposition about an imminent general election.

There is no imminent general election – and there cannot be one without the governing party wanting one.

So this is misleading.

The author then protests that he is not only well placed but “uniquely placed” to “avert” this non-existent imminent general election.

He presents himself as The One – “uniquely”.

And he uses “therefore” when he means “thereby” – a neat and deft trick to make the proposition seem stronger than one bare assertion leading from another.

*

“A general election would be a further disastrous distraction just when the Government must focus on the economic pressures faced by families across the country.”

The “further disastrous distraction” means, of course, that there was a previous “disastrous distraction” – and here he can only mean his own loss of office.

The necessary implication of seeing his own loss of office as a “disastrous distraction” is that he is not contrite about how he lost the premiership.

*

“I believe I am well placed to deliver a Conservative victory in 2024 – and tonight I can confirm that I have cleared the very high hurdle of 102 nominations, including a proposer and a seconder, and I could put my nomination in tomorrow.”

Ah, the “well placed” line – a feature of a million job application letters, where the applicant cannot think of a better way of boasting that they are fit for a vacancy.

This follows the “uniquely placed” just two sentences ago, and it is saying the pretty much same thing: his electoral prowess.

Also note the passing mention of 2024, as for when this election should be.

Then we have “tonight I can confirm that I have cleared the very high hurdle of 102 nominations”.

Not just a hurdle.

And not just a high hurdle.

But a “very high hurdle”.

And he has “cleared” this hurdle.

This is energetic imagery.

The superfluous “I can confirm” – like the “therefore” in a previous sentence – is intended to make a proposition seem stronger.

Of course, in context, this is an unimpressive proposition, as his supporters have claimed for days that he had over a hundred nominations.

He is now reduced to claiming that he has managed 102 (or perhaps more).

The detail of “including a proposer and a seconder” gives an impression of desperation.

The crescendo of this sentence is “I could put my nomination in tomorrow” is an attempt to convince the reader and perhaps also the author.

Of course he could.

*

“There is a very good chance that I would be successful in the election with Conservative Party members – and that I could indeed be back in Downing Street on Friday.”

Not just a chance.

And not just a good chance.

But “a very good chance”.

*

“But in the course of the last days I have sadly come to the conclusion that this would simply not be the right thing to do. You can’t govern effectively unless you have a united party in parliament.”

But.

Having bigged himself up as the one who is “uniquely placed” to avert an imminent general election (which will presumably now have to take place) and “well placed” to give his party a general election victory in 2024, he now says it is not actually in his party’s interests for him to avert this looming defeat and claim this brilliant victory.

It would “simply not be the right thing to do”.

Why?

Because, he says, “You can’t govern effectively unless you have a united party in parliament.”

Seemingly gone is the “overwhelming” support he has in the party from the start of the statement, and gone also is the support that enabled him to “clear” a “very high hurdle”.

The support, in fact, is not “overwhelming”.

His candidature would split the party so much that he would not be able to “govern effectively” – even though he contends he is “well placed” to govern so effectively as to achieve a general election victory in 2024.

None of this adds up.

*

“And though I have reached out to both Rishi (Sunak) and Penny (Mordaunt) – because I hoped that we could come together in the national interest – we have sadly not been able to work out a way of doing this.”

With “reached out” we switch in style from the hapless job application to irksome public relations verbiage.

The context here is that the other two contenders rebuffed him.

The framing of this sentence is to blame the other two contenders for rejecting his approach: they are the ones who are not thereby acting in the “national interest”.

He is the statesmanlike goodie, and they have let him and you down.

And you are to be “sad” at this outcome.

*

“Therefore I am afraid the best thing is that I do not allow my nomination to go forward and commit my support to whoever succeeds.”

Hello, here is “therefore” again, seeking to add gravity.

Just sentences ago he had “come to the conclusion that [becoming leader again this week] would simply not be the right thing to do”, and now – separately – he is saying he has concluded because of another reason that “the best thing is that I do not allow my nomination to go forward”.

Given he had already decided this before “reaching out” it makes no sense for him to say that the rebuff is the reason he did not “allow” his nomination to go forward.

The author wants us to believe he is both a wise statesman and the unfairly scorned reject.

He wants both the credit for not standing and for others to be blamed for him not standing.

He wants the king-making cake, and to eat it.

*

“I believe I have much to offer but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time.”

Well.

***

Thank you for reading – and this blog needs your support to carry on.

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.

The fantasy of the Brexit “ring of power”

21st October 2022

Imagine, if you will, a Brexit “ring of power” – as magical and metallic a prop as you would find in any work of high fantasy.

This ring, however, has two qualities.

*

First, the size of this ring is diminishing slowly over time.

In December 2019 its size could be measured as a majority of 81 parliamentary seats.

Now, in October 2022, its size can be measured as 71 seats.

And with by-elections and defections, its size will go down and down.

*

Second, the shininess of this ring also is diminishing over time.

In December 2019 it was bright and glimmering.

But now it is somewhat faded and – by January 2025 – there will be no shininess left at all.

The shininess is time-limited.

*

Yet, for both these qualities, it is still a ring worth seizing – or so its pursuers think.

For a parliamentary majority is worth having, especially for the Conservative party, as they are not that common.

After 1992, the Conservatives had to wait until 2015 before they had an overall majority, and they promptly lost that in 2017.

In 2019, they managed another overall majority against weak opposition and with the promise of “getting Brexit done”.

But this may now be the last Conservative overall majority for a political generation, if not for all time.

One can understand why so many Conservative politicians want to wear the ring and wield its supposed power before January 2025.

*

The problem for those seeking to wear this ring and wield its supposed power is that the ring was itself wrought out of a deeper fantasy.

This were the fantastic notions that, first, the prospect of Brexit could be easily avoided with a mere referendum – and that, second, Brexit would be easy and inconsequential.

In 2015 the Conservatives avoided splitting the vote with Ukip with the promise of a referendum.

Then the Conservative government under Cameron nonchalantly assumed the referendum would be an easy win, and so they lost.

In 2019 the Conservatives promised that getting Brexit done would be easy, but it has not been.

Instead the clouds and forces of reality, as manifested in market forces and otherwise, batter and bruise the United Kingdom.

We have sluggish-to-no growth and have willingly cut ourselves off from the huge single market of our neighbours – a single market we helped fashion to our advantage in the 1980s.

We are getting relatively ever-poorer.

And there is nothing which any government can really do about it while we remain cut off from the huge single market of our neighbours.

All politicians can do is incant the same old lie about “taking back control” as the United Kingdom is increasingly at the mercy of global forces.

*

No politician who puts on the ring is going to do well: there are just different forms of failure, different ways to implode, different reasons to resign or be sacked.

One national step forward, of course, would be to suddenly trash the ring of power, and to have a fresh general election.

To rid ourselves of the allure of this cursed artefact.

But there is no reason to believe that those craving the ring of power would voluntarily agree to lose the ring completely while it still exists and glimmers.

And they can toss the ring among themselves until January 2025.

*

But, because the ring’s power is ultimately illusory, then no good can come to those who put the ring on.

Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss have all come and gone, even if Johnson wants to come back again.

The ring, forged with lies, will destroy each politician who wants to wear it.

And after January 2025 – or some happier earlier date – the ring disappears.

The Conservative majority built on the back of Brexit disintegrates.

There will then just be a political void where the governing party used to be

And those who remember will wonder why any of it was ever thought worthwhile.

***

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.