Category: Policy and Policy-Making

It is not “local journalism”, it is journalism

29th September 2022

This was not a good day for the new Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss.

And that was just one of many local radio interviews, which are collected together here:

 

The interviews were excruciating.

And they were very effective:

One reaction to this round of interviews was to praise local journalists for pressing this hard questions about urgent matters.

But this was not mere local journalism, it was journalism.

And it showed up, by relief, how hard questions about urgent matters are not similarly pressed at the national level.

There are some very fine national journalists, in the so-called lobby and otherwise.

But there is also what can be called an information economy.

A national political journalist is often only as good as their access to political information that is not otherwise available.

Of course: there is a need for off the record and background conversations.

But.

Politicians and their advisers take advantage of the need for a supply of information and so can exclude any journalist who pressed hard questions about urgent matters.

This means that the only broadcast and newsprint journalists who will press on regardless are those who are so established no longer need to be supplied by the information economy of Westminster.

And such established media figures will often have their own agendas and prejudices too.

But for an up-and-coming political journalist there is a constant risk of exclusion from the information economy.

And it is easier to state the problem rather than to fix it.

One possibility is that the news media shy away from using stories where there is nobody on the record.

But if one news media site does this, then it will be at a competitive disadvantage.

*

My own approach to commentary and journalism is to rely as much as possible on public domain sources – asking hard questions of texts rather than of people, and comparing (and contrasting) multiple documents.

But that sort of commentary and journalism can only go so far, and the human elements  of policy and law making need there to be journalists who ask questions of politicians.

And politicians need to face such questions, as it is a good discipline.

Accountability leads, generally, to better government.

So it would benefit everyone involved if the Westminster information economy was made more, well, more efficient.

And, if so, a Prime Minister would not be able to tell the difference between quizzed by a national journalist and a local journalist.

***

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.

Fantasy and Policy

28th September 2022

Today, it is reported, there were almost mass insolvencies of pension funds:

Pension funds – like constitutional law – should not be exciting.

Pension funds should be dull.

Something wrong is happening.

*

There is a sub-genre of fantasy literature which uses the literary device of a portal.

You go though a wardrobe, or over a rainbow, or down a rabbit hole, or past the second star on the right.

And you are then in another world, where certain fundamental elements are different and strange.

Recently British politics has been unusually volatile, but at least it was within certain familiar parameters.

We had the Regency smugness of David Cameron’s administration; the misplaced Victorian earnestness of Theresa May’s; and the Edwardian charlatanship of Boris Johnson’s.

All bad in their way, but you could comprehend what was wrong about the administration and its approach to law and policy.

But the administration of Elizabeth Truss – despite some early but misleading indications of pragmatism – is of a very different type.

*

It must have seemed so simple, only a few days ago.

Treasury orthodoxy could be cancelled easily – and the permanent secretary Tom Scholar was sacked.

Tax cuts could be announced.

And, at a stroke, the British economy would be “unleashed”.

The new chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng told the House of Commons that the government would “release the enormous potential of this country”.

But.

The problem with words like “release”, “unleash” and, indeed, “unchained” is that they are often mere substitutes for policy.

By using such words you are presupposing that there is a thing which is being constrained that only requires the constraints to be removed.

It is, in its way, a form of magical thinking.

And it must have seemed straightforward to the new administration that all that was needed was for tax cuts to be announced and, hey presto and abracadabra, growth would be be produced:

One suspects that even now at Ten and Eleven Downing Street, the Prime Minister and Chancellor do not understand why the Friday statement has had these consequences.

They did the magic things and said the magic words – powerful words like “release” and “unleash” – but what has actually been released and unleashed is not what they wanted.

*

You could say that the problem is that Truss and Kwarteng are being ideological.

But many practical and effective politicians have ideologies: Clement Attlee and Aneurin Bevan with the creation of the National Health Service, or Margaret Thatcher (at least in her early premiership) and Norman Tebbit (whose trade union reforms are pretty much still in place forty years later).

What is different with the current administration – and this is apparent even after a few weeks – is not that it has an ideology, but that it has nothing else.

There is no engagement with the real world as it is, and no understanding that there is even a real world outside with which to engage.

The fundamental elements of their political vision are different and strange: this is Narnia, this is Oz, this is Wonderland, this is Neverland.

We can enter their world, but they have no notion of ours.

*

Portal fantasies often end with the intruding hero(es) eventually coming back to this world – sometimes changed, sometimes not.

The other world usually carries on, just as before – but without the Pevensie children, or Dorothy, or Alice, or Wendy.

Sometimes, however, people from our world get stuck there, perhaps lost or disguised, unable to escape.

We are currently stuck with our fantasy government, perhaps for the next two years until a general election.

Brace, brace.

We are not in Kansas anymore.

***

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.

Policy and ambition – 1988 revisited

23rd September 2022

Once upon a time I was an Economics A-Level student, and that time was 1987 to 1989.

And I remember one day sitting watching the 1988 Budget given by Nigel Lawson, and it is an indication of how I was not like other A-Level students that this was very exciting.

I even remember writing out “Medium Term Financial Strategy” into my exercise book of quotations – perhaps the dullest book of quotations ever compiled – and sitting with the Times and Financial Times spread out on the living room carpet.

But most of all I remember the triumphalism.

Socialism and the post-war consensus was over: Thatcher and Lawson had re-written the economic rules, and our reward were to be good times that would never ever end.

And all this accorded with the theories taught on the Economics A-Level course.

It was all so easy – and one had to ask why had nobody ever done this before.

*

But.

The 1988 boom ended with bust, as all booms tend to do.

This was not a sound financial strategy – either for the medium term or otherwise.

And Lawson and then Thatcher lost their jobs, and a recession occurred while I was at the university into which my Economics A-level result had helped me.

(Though it was not until around 2008 that I finally dropped my free market views, when it became obvious that – left to themselves – markets tended to disequilibrium – and implosion  – rather than to equilibrium.)

*

I also remember Gordon Brown as Chancellor contending that there would be “no more boom and bust”.

This was a similar triumphalism to that of Thatcher and Lawson, but from another political party that believed they had cracked how to manage the economy.

And that triumphalism was also undermined by events.

*

After a while, watching governments and politicians (and pundits) come and go, one can become unimpressed, if not cynical.

The not-a-budget announced today by new Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng is certainly something that would have fascinated my 1988 Economics A-Level student self.

It is probably even a speech that my 1988 Economics A-Level student self could have given.

The statement is a simple application of some economic theories to the complicated world of real economic activity.

Perhaps it will work.

Perhaps Kwarteng will confound his critics.

Who knows?

Economics is not an exact science – and some would say economics is not a science at all.

Perhaps this engineered boom means that we can have economic good times for ever and ever.

But.

The messy nature of human affairs means that few ambitious plans work – and especially those which are accompanied by triumphalism, the claps and cheers of the easily impressed.

Policy, like law, is hard.

This is because policy, like law, has to deal with human behaviour in complex societies.

And if policy and law were really that simple to get right, our politicians would not keep on making so many mistakes.

“Brace, brace.”

(Which I really should have written down in my exercise book in 1988 instead.)

***

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.

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.

The new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a constitutionalist perspective

6th September 2022

We have today a new Prime Minister.

You may have Very Strong Opinions about them as a person and as a politician.

But let us put those Very Strong Opinions to one side, and let us look at the appointment from a constitutionalist perspective.

Constitutions are about, among other things, parameters of political action – constitutions provide what certain political and other actors can and cannot do, and when.

So the first point to make is that the new Prime Minister only has a short period so as to make any political impression before the next general election.

It is now September 2022 – and the next general election has to be called by December 2024, in just over two years’ time.

The last possible date for an election, once called, is January 2025.

This means that any controversial legislation – especially if it outside the scope of the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto – is unlikely to get through the House of Lords in time.

And the new Prime Minister may even want to call a general election sooner, which they can do because the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is now repealed.

The second point to make is how weak the new Prime Minister is, despite the governing party’s majority in the House of Commons.

Only 50 of the new Prime Minister’s colleagues supported them on the first vote, out of 358.

The new Prime Minister did not even have a majority support of their parliamentary party at the final round before it went to the party membership vote.

This means that there seems to be little positive support in the Conservative parliamentary party for the new Prime Minister.

Indeed, both the departing Prime Minister and the defeated leadership contender will probably have as much substantial support in the parliamentary party as the new Prime Minister.

The new Prime Minister, in their first appointments, seems to be rewarding their supporters rather than building a party-wide coalition.

As any Prime Minister only has so much autonomous power, the lack of a natural and positive parliamentary majority will be a problem.

The governing party is currently prone to rebellion and revolt, and there is nothing about the appointment of the new Prime Minister and their first cabinet appointments that looks as if this propensity to rebellion and revolt will change.

So, not only is there a looming general election and the practical inability to force contentious measures through the upper chamber, there is the possibility that the new Prime Minister may not even be able to get legislation through the lower chamber.

Within the United Kingdom more widely, the matter of the Northern Irish Protocol is no nearer resolution, and the Scottish government is pressing for a further referendum.

Serious questions about the future of the Union are being posed at a time where the new Prime Minister is not in a strong position.

And all this – all of this – is in addition to the pressing political problems of the cost-of-living crisis and the escalating energy crisis, as well as war in Europe.

Any one of these would be a challenge to a Prime Minister in a strong position.

It is difficult to see how the new Prime Minister, who is in a weak position, is going to be able to address, let alone resolve, these issues.

As this blog has said before: do not underestimate any politician who clambers to the top of what Benjamin Disraeli called the “the greasy pole”.

And this blog will give the new Prime Minister a clean slate.

But.

Given the circumstances of the appointment, the outlook for the new Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss is not looking good.

It is difficult to be optimistic – even if one supports her politically.

Brace, brace, as they say.

***

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.

Lawyers as brands, and “legal opinions” as franchised products – on the nature of legal opinions

5th September 2022

Friday’s blogpost on that “devastating” legal opinion has been very popular – with over 30,000 views.

But there were some things missing.

And one omission in particular was deliberate.

The post did not mention either of the authors of the opinion.

This is because, for the purposes of the blogpost, it did not matter who the authors were of the opinion.

The authors could have been two unknown newly qualified barristers at some obscure chambers.

Or the authors could have been the ghosts of Thomas More and Edward Coke.

It did not matter.

And this is one of the great things about law – for it is the content of a given legal document that usually matters, and not the identity of the lawyer.

In this way, a pupil barrister or trainee solicitor can sometimes trump a QC or a partner, just as a cat can look at a king.

(And this is one reason why it is so important that all lawyers should have access to a fully resourced law library, rather than such facilities being only for top chambers and big law firms.)

*

The omission was also deliberate in that so many other pundits were placing huge reliance on the reputation of one of the opinion’s authors, David Pannick.

(Pannick, for example, acted in the two Miller cases against the government and he is regarded as the leading barrister in England on constitutional and public law matters.)

It was almost as if he had been instructed just so it could be said: “look, this is what even Pannick says”.

As such, it was almost as if he was being used as a brand, rather than as an advisor.

A similar thing recently happened, you may recall, with the attempted use of the Treasury Devil, James Eadie, to say that the Northern Irish Protocol Bill was lawful under international law – see my posts from June here and here.

As I then described: what appears to have happened was that the government got its convenient advice from the current Attorney General; somebody insisted that this still had to be referred to First Treasury Counsel – the Treasury Devil; a clever compromise was reached where it would be referred to him on the basis of certain assumptions, so as not to undermine the convenient legal advice; and the Devil, while accepting those assumptions, provided an unhelpful view on the merits of those assumptions.

*

In both cases, there seems to be a cynical exercise to get a convenient-seeming opinion from [Pannick/Eadie] so that it could be said that this distinguished lawyer had supported it.

Here, the barrister involved is not to blame.

Seriously.

The so-called “cab rank” rule means, among other things, that a barrister cannot refuse an instruction just because of the identity of the person instructing them.

Once the Prime Minister and his chosen criminal defence firm instructed the authors of last week’s opinion, those authors had little choice but to accept the instruction.

And Pannick – himself a parliamentarian – has a record in dealing with matters concerning parliamentary procedure, such as his support for Anthony Lester.

Who knows what the authors of the opinion thought about their work being used in the way that it was?

*

If a legal position is being urged by politicians or pundits just on the reputation of the lawyer who has (supposedly) endorsed it – be it Pannick or the Treasury Devil or anyone else – then it is suspect.

For if the legal point is sound, the reputation of the lawyer is irrelevant.

And if the legal point is unsound, the reputation of the lawyer will not save it.

This is especially the case when – with both the Pannick and Eadie advices – we do not have the crucial, prior “instructions to counsel”.

As techies would say, without sight of the instructions, such opinions can be instances of “garbage in, garbage out”.

*

As it happens, the thrust of my post on Friday is also the view of the former Conservative justice minister David Wolfson:

(And Wolfson is about as un-woke a lawyer as I am a woke legal commentator.)

And it also the view of the professor of public law at the University of Cambridge:

*

Such concurrence is always a reassurance.

But.

Even if the cards had fallen differently, and I was saying something in support of (say) Pannick and against (say) Wolfson and Elliott, it would not ultimately matter.

Because it is the content of a legal opinion that matters the most.

Just as if a “distinguished” computer programmer churns out code that does not add up, it is the same for lawyers and legal opinions.

Being distinguished – or experienced or well-regarded – is a factor, as such lawyers and commentators may be accorded more respect.

But respect is not necessarily deference, and it is certainly not subjugation.

And a wise lawyer or commentator knows this, and will take ready account of better and stronger views.

*

Without knowing the instructions and other privileged material, little weight can be placed on any formal legal opinion; and even if there is full disclosure of such things, any opinion has little weight in a court or tribunal.

For such opinions are not pleadings or statements of case to be presented to a court, and nor are they statements of evidence or summaries of the arguments before a court.

They are documents addressed solely to the client, on the client’s terms, and can be disclosed to third parties only if it suits the client.

And, as an opinion, it is always open to those to whom it is disclosed to take their own view.

*

So, in conclusion: this harsh (now deleted) put-down on Twitter is correct:

(Though the “highly arguably” is adverbly painful to read.)

But.

There is nothing wrong with being a blogger.

For even bloggers can look at kings.

***

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.

Never underestimate archivists and librarians – as Donald Trump is discovering

31st August 2022

Here is a lovely story about libraries and public policy.

The year is 1983.

The library is the British Library, formerly hosted in the reading room at the British Museum and other sites.

Nicolas Barker, then the library’s head of conservation, and Lord Dainton, then the chair of the British Library Board, had a problem.

Public finances were under pressure, and spending cuts were everywhere.

But.

They needed to work out a way to convince the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the urgent need for the move of the library to a new purpose-built building.

They decided to keep the issue simple: no lengthy paragraphs in a wordy report, still less charts or tables.

And certainly no waffly arguments.

They instead took her half a dozen books, as well as a novel by one of her favourite authors, which were falling apart, regardless of the care being taken to conserve them.

They placed the books on the table in front of Thatcher.

Silence.

She looked with horror at the state of the books.

Silence.

And then they then said:

‘Mrs Thatcher, we need a new building because all our books will fall to pieces if they stay where they are.’

So horrified was the Prime Minister at the potential fate of the national collection that they got the go-ahead for the new building.

*

There are perhaps two morals to this tale (which I have told before here and is recorded in this obituary).

One is that sometimes exhibits are more persuasive than words.

The other is never to underestimate archivists and librarians.

*

That there seems a real prospect of legal jeopardy for former President Donald Trump because of a breach of American archival law.

For many watching this is evocative of Al Capone being nailed on tax evasion charges.

Archival offences seem to Trump’s supporters a convenient pretext for legal action, rather than a substantive wrong.

But.

It is a substantive wrong.

For keeping documents and other information safe both for now and for posterity is a central function of the state.

It is how the government (and legislature and judiciary) of one day speaks to those charged with power in the future.

It is how those with power can be confident that certain information does not go to those who would use that information to cause damage and injury.

Like the integrity of the currency and protecting the realm, preservation of certain information is a core duty of those entrusted with power.

And like the damaged books put in Thatcher, visual evidence can be telling:

(Source.)

Of course, few of us know the facts.

It may well be that this legal exercise comes to nothing, and Trump escapes personal legal liability again.

And Trump is entitled to due process, like you and me.

But the wrongful removal of information from a government is not a trivial thing.

For without properly documented information, modern governments could not function.

That is why laws and policies about document management and retention are so important.

And there would be a wonderful irony if laws and policies about ensuring the integrity of written information were used to check the arch-abuser of political language and post-truth politics.

POSTSCRIPT

The historian Dr Adam Chapman has provided us with this similar story – click through to read more:

 

***

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.

Giving the incoming Prime Minister a clean slate

29th August 2022

We are about to have a new Prime Minister.

The candidate most likely to become the new premier is Elizabeth Truss, about whom many of you will have Very Strong Opinions – though it still may be Rishi Sunak, about whom many of you will also have Very Strong Opinions.

They will replace Boris Johnson, about whom all of you will have Very Strong Opinions Indeed.

Of course, from a liberal and progressive perspective there are reasons to be concerned, if not fearful, about the new Prime Minister.

But.

As hard as it will be, it is I think useful to always give a new Prime Minister a blank slate.

(Even if some of the candidates’ harshest critics will accuse the candidates themselves of being blank slates.)

Here I would make two observations.

First, it is not unusual for a politician obtaining power to say and do things that are calculated so that the politician obtains power.

Such things may – or may not be – reflective of what they do once they have secured the power they seek.

Second, never underestimate any politician who “makes it” – who gets to the top of Disraeli’s greasy pole.

You may – perhaps rightly – regard them as a vacant dimwit.

Yet they are a vacant dimwit who got to be Prime Minister, against hundreds of other ambitious (and ruthless) politicians.

Deriding them for a lack of intelligence or insight does not, by itself, explain how they got to be Prime Minister while hundreds of other politicians did not.

Of course: past performance (or lack of performance) can be a fair guide to future performance.

But the unique nature of the job of Prime Minister is such previous ministerial and non-ministerial roles are not a perfect guide.

For what it is worth, I also adopt this approach to new Lord Chancellors.

Again that is a unique role – where previous jobs may not be a perfect guide.

Sometimes one can be pleasantly surprised: Michael Gove, for example, was shaping up to be a good Lord Chancellor, and not just because he was not Chris Grayling.

While other Lords Chancellors were hopeless, even if one strained to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ones like, well, Elizabeth Truss.

***

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 next Prime Minister

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 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.

The lack of seriousness about policy, “mandates” and “collective ministerial responsibility”

18th July 2022

Today will be the hottest day, we are told, since records began.

It is strange to be living on such a historical day.

One would expect the “most [x] day ever” was some other time, with historical footage or monochrome photographs.

But no, it is today.

And on this hottest day since records began, we have current and very recent members of the government tearing into the government’s record in general and each others’ records as ministers in particular.

Confidential and private ministerial exchanges – easily outside the reach of even the most determined Freedom of Information request – are being casually and freely disclosed on national television.

And these disclosures are not being made because they pass some (supposedly) objective public interest test, but because such disclosures are to the personal and political advantage or disadvantage of particular candidates.

It is quite a spectacle.

If you were watching this – but were unaware of the doctrine of collective cabinet and ministerial responsibility – you would never guess such a doctrine existed.

Of course, this is a leadership election – and so perhaps one could contend that such a doctrine is suspended for the duration of the contest.

Just like the doctrine was suspended for the referendum campaign.

But.

It could also be contended that this spectacle is not an exception but indicative of a new (if temporary) norm.

When Prime Ministerial authority collapses, a cabinet full of ambitious politicians loses its only real source of discipline.

And until and unless there is another authoritative Prime Minister – and the signals from the current leadership debates are not encouraging – such public rows and confrontations may reoccur.

But there is perhaps a deeper problem.

Another explanation for the lack of collective cabinet and ministerial responsibility is a lack of seriousness about policy.

Instead of politicians being in office to implement policy, policy positions exist to promote the careers of politicians.

In this way, policies like words are the counters of the wise, but policy positions are the money of fools.

And it seems many current ministers do not care for many overall government policies to do with such issues as the economy, fiscal policy, and – notably on this hot day – climate change.

(They do, however, support – or say they support – the performative cruelty of the Rwanda deportations.)

This lack of overall commitment to government policy is especially significant given that this government is between parliaments.

As the fine columnist Zoe Williams observed about the most recent televised debate:

“Two points of unity in the hour: none of them would have Boris Johnson in their cabinet, should he ask to serve; none of them wanted an early general election.

“This is the crucible of their problem: they want to keep the mandate, while wholeheartedly disowning the mandated, and on what grounds, they have no clue.”

Williams is correct to highlight this tension, if not contradiction.

Even before Boris Johnson announced his departure as Prime Minister, this government was running out of ideas.

The most recent Queen’s Speech was an unimpressive affair, on any sensible view.

Brexit is still not “done”, and “levelling-up” is a slogan without substance.

And now, with Johnson gone, it becomes even less obvious what the governing party should do with the majority it obtained from the 2019 general election.

At least with Johnson in place, the purpose of that majority was to keep Johnson in place.

And now he has gone, even that personal and selfish purpose disappears.

Any new programme by the incoming Prime Minister will not have a general election mandate.

And if elements of that programme are controversial, then – given we are now at least over halfway through this parliamentary term – there may not be enough time to push contentious legislation through the House of Lords.

We may therefore end up with a lame duck government, unable to promote new policies and unwilling to face a general election.

This will also be in a period of weakened Prime Ministerial authority and a decline in collective ministerial responsibility.

And all this in the context of a cost of living crisis, war in Europe and ongoing climate emergency.

The general lack of seriousness about policy risks changing from being an irksome bug in our government to its characteristic feature, at a time where we most need seriousness about policy.

This is not looking good.

***

Please help this blog continue providing free-to-read, 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.