Control and who has it

Over the last couple of years I have expressed concerns at the UK’s mounting governance problem in which the government has failed on numerous occasions to adhere to the standards expected of it, arguing that this undermines the rules-based economic system in which we operate. Equally, I have been puzzled at the lack of cut-through with the wider public. But in the last week there have been signs that the issue is beginning to generate wider public concern. Quite how pivotal this will turn out to be remains to be seen but it does feel highly significant.

The Paterson case

The issue was triggered by the Owen Paterson affair (here for an overview). For those not following the minutiae of British politics – and who can blame you? – Paterson was an MP who was found guilty by the parliamentary Standards Committee of having “breached the rule prohibiting paid advocacy.” In other words accepting money from outside sources to lobby government – something which is expressly prohibited under parliamentary rules. His original punishment was a 30-day suspension from the House of Commons which under the circumstances seemed like a minor slap on the wrist. However, Paterson protested his innocence, arguing that the system was not fit for purpose although surprisingly no MPs had seen fit to bring up this problem before.

What was shocking was that the government then backed a parliamentary motion to suspend the current process and review the system of investigating breaches of the parliamentary code by MPs, which would have let Paterson off the hook. They did this by whipping MPs (instructing them to vote in line with the government’s wishes) to override the findings of the Standards Committee. 242 Tory MPs backed the motion (6 voted against and 111 abstained), apparently on the understanding that those who did not support the government’s line would find their constituencies at the back of the queue when it came to doling out funding.

Like no comparable issue in recent years, this generated a huge backlash with even traditionally sympathetic newspapers such as the Daily Mail crying foul. Even the most ardent Conservative supporters found it hard to stomach what came across as an attempt by MPs to change the rules in order to protect one of their own, despite the fact that the due process found Paterson guilty of the charges he faced. Consequently, the government swiftly executed a U-turn after claiming that “this isn’t about one case but providing members of parliament from all political parties with the right to a fair hearing.” This is nonsense and everybody knows it. But as a result the 242 MPs who risked the ire of their constituents were left high and dry by the government’s about-turn.

Symptomatic of a wider problem

Whilst there have been numerous financial scandals in British politics in the past (see here for a list) what differentiates this issue is that the government sought to subvert due process. It is part of a developing pattern which has gained momentum during Boris Johnson’s time in office. In 2019 his government attempted to prorogue parliament in order to shut down dissent over Brexit. In 2020, it backed legislation that was a flagrant breach of international law. The prime minister also kept the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, in place despite the fact she was found to have breached the Ministerial Code. Those Tory MPs who voted in line with the government’s wishes may reflect on Johnson’s handling of the DUP, upon whom his government initially relied for a parliamentary majority prior to the 2019 election, whose position regarding the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland was totally ignored when it no longer suited Johnson’s interests.

It is ironic that this furore blew up during Johnson’s hosting of COP26 where the world’s media must have been somewhat bemused to be told that the UK is "not remotely a corrupt country." On the basis of research carried out by Transparency International (TI) there is some truth to that statement (strange as it may seem). Ten years ago, TI launched a report which it defined as a ‘health check’ for the UK. Since it was published the UK has acknowledged some of the criticisms and has improved its performance in the TI corruption perception index, moving up from 17^th place in 2011 to 11^th. Yet one line from the report remains true today: “it is correct to say that in some areas of UK society and institutions, corruption is a much greater problem than recognised and that there is an inadequate response to its growing threat.”

Indeed, there is a sense that something is not right in the corridors of power. A joint investigation by openDemocracy and The Sunday Times found that in the past seven years, every former Conservative party treasurer who has contributed £3 million to the party has been offered a seat in the House of Lords. The analysis by openDemocracy suggests that the odds of so many major Tory donors in the UK population all ending up in the House of Lords is equivalent to winning the National Lottery 12 times in a row. Even if we accept that such dubious practices are less of an issue in the House of Commons and that the Paterson case was a rare example, there has been a corrosion of political standards (cf the list of examples above). Perhaps this can be traced back to the Brexit referendum when the Leave campaign blatantly misrepresented the facts without sanction, and secured their end goal.

Brexit opened up a whole new can of worms

A pattern has emerged whereby the government is determined not to be constrained by the institutional framework in the pursuit of its policies, and will only back down if ordered by the courts or if it plays exceptionally badly with the electorate. Thus, nobody cared sufficiently about the Patel case to make an issue of it, nor was the double-crossing of the DUP likely to cost many votes. By contrast the attempt to prorogue parliament was enough of a big deal that the Supreme Court was forced into a ruling. A test of the government‘s new-found principles will be whether it feels sufficiently bold to try and force through former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre as the next head of the media regulator Ofcom despite him being found “not appointable” by the interview board when he applied for the job earlier this year.

One of the supreme ironies in all this is that Brexit was sold as a way for the British electorate to take back control – whatever that meant. Yet large parts of the electorate are increasingly concerned at policies being enacted in their name. Voters might have been given their say on whether the UK should remain in the EU but they have had no subsequent input on the form of Brexit (the general elections of 2017 and 2019 cannot be regarded as true plebiscites on Brexit as they conflated a number of issues). The quality of governance also appears to be deteriorating. For example, the extent of shady deals agreed between government and its favoured suppliers in the early stages of the Covid pandemic represented a degree of insider dealing that is simply not tolerated in the financial services industry.

All of this should worry those who care about democratic accountability and the rule of law upon which the economy is based. Sometimes it takes an outsiders eye to uncover the truths that many at home are unable or unwilling to see. This excellent essay by ARD’s London bureau chief, Annette Dittert, does just that. She points out that the inherent contradictions within Brexit, which is an ideological project offering no steer on how Britain can use its new-found sovereignty, has forced Johnson to turn his back on reality merely to keep the plates spinning. In so doing, he has been forced to ride over democratic norms and in the process is showing the British constitution for what it is: A beautiful illusion that only ever worked “so long as everyone wanted to hold onto it.”

The good news is that the UK has a strong institutional framework which has so far stood firm in the face of a political onslaught. But as the experience of Hungary and Poland shows, it is quite easy for a determined government to override it. That should be a lesson to us all.