Boris of the Thousand Days

Boris Johnson today celebrates 1000 days as Prime Minister. A lot has happened in the 28 months since he won a whopping majority in the 2019 general election. An opinion poll published in The Times yesterday asked a nationally representative sample of the public what they think of the Prime Minister with 72% of the responses portraying a negative view of him (the results are portrayed in the word cloud shown above, source here).

It is difficult to articulate the sense of division within the UK that has grown during his term of office as the government deviates further from the norms of fairness and adherence to the rule of law which have traditionally underpinned the British state. Some of the actions by members of government in recent months were reminiscent of what the British media used to gleefully refer to as a failed state. This excellent blog post by Chris Grey got as close as anything I have seen recently to putting into words the current state of the nation, arguing that post-Brexit Britain “is going metaphorically and literally rotten.” For an audio description articulating the views of many, I recommend this BBC clip (starts at 33:57) reflecting the barely suppressed anger felt by the constitutional historian and peer Peter Hennessy who called Johnson “the great debaser of public and political life” who has turned the office of prime minister into “an adventure playground for one man’s narcissistic vanity.”

Quite how we have got to this point reflects a complex mix of factors. It is easy to point the finger at the Brexit referendum as the primary trigger but in some ways this was merely a catalyst for the discontent that had been burning for many years. The Euroscepticism inherent in  the Conservative Party perhaps reflected the frustration that the Thatcherite revolution was cut short by the defenestration of the Blessed Margaret in 1990. After all, she became a virulent Eurosceptic just before her departure from office and maintained this view throughout her post-Downing Street political life. Discontent was further stoked by Tony Blair’s ill-judged decision to commit military forces to the US invasion of Iraq which did a lot to undermine trust in government. The parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009 and the failure of the economy to rebound quickly following the GFC in 2008-09 were further triggers of discontent, whilst the misguided austerity policy of the post-2010 Cameron government did much to erode the living standards of the less well-off in society.

But Brexit did give the keys to the kingdom to a new generation of politicians determined to overthrow the status quo and not be bound by the conventions of the past. This has resulted in apparent disdain for the principle of personal accountability with no actions apparently deemed out of bounds unless expressly proscribed by the law – and often not even then. Boris Johnson clearly has no intention of resigning despite the fact he has lied to parliament, the sanction for which according to the Ministerial Code is that “Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.” It does not say what happens when the PM is the miscreant. Furthermore, Johnson has now become the first prime minister to be found guilty of a criminal offence whilst in office after he breached the Covid restriction laws that his government implemented. 

I have argued previously that Johnson is merely a symbol of the rot at the heart of the system rather than the primary cause. Indeed the credibility of the man tasked with overseeing the nation’s finances has also been battered by recent events. In addition to being fined for breaching Covid restrictions, it has emerged that Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, was registered as non-domiciled for tax purposes. This means that she does not pay British tax on her considerable foreign earnings – estimated at £11.5 million per year at the last count. Whilst her actions are not illegal, this is a PR disaster given that her husband has just raised taxes on working people following the recent rise in National Insurance Contributions. Sunak tried to argue that it is not fair to use his wife as a political pawn. However, non-dom status is granted on the basis that Ms. Murty does not consider the UK to be her permanent home (she is an Indian citizen) which would be fine except she is married to a man who has ambitions to be prime minister. To add insult to injury, it emerged that Sunak himself was the holder of a US Green Card, one of the conditions for which is that applicants must declare an intention to eventually become a US citizen. 

It is not a good look for a man seeking to occupy 10 Downing Street and called to mind Theresa May’s 2016 Tory Party conference speech: “if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere.” Whilst I do not agree with May’s sentiment, I recognise irony and conflict of interest when I see it.

The current government’s signature policy was to “get Brexit done.” However there is no evidence that it is working as its proponents intended. The subsequent behaviour of government can thus perhaps be explained by its efforts to distract opponents from policy failures by throwing up a smokescreen of outlandish policies to appeal to its supporters which in turn is bolstered by the loud opposition this generates. Its most recent plan to deport refugees to Rwanda has stirred up a huge furore – not the least of which is the cost – which continues to distract attention away from other big policy issues (managing the fallout from the Ukraine war, relationships with the EU and the state of the economy to name three).

All this matters – as I have said many times before – because effective governance is the bedrock of a representative democracy. It is also a crucial underpinning for a market economy. Governments perform a wide range of functions, even in economies which pride themselves on their adherence to market principles. They regulate financial markets; manage the monetary system; oversee market competition laws; protect consumers; negotiate trade agreements and enforce technical standards for products. And that is before we consider their role in collecting taxes and overseeing the infrastructure on which we all rely. How governments act and the signals they send are thus important. Obviously it is impossible to keep politics completely at arm’s length but the more political interference, the less efficiently the economy operates. It is important to highlight that this is not an argument for an absence of government regulation: It is an argument for minimising the impact of politics on the operation of governance.

It is rather depressing to have to continue pointing out basic failings in the conduct of the British government, particularly when there is no indication that matters are about to improve anytime soon. Despite 1000 days behind him as Prime Minister, Johnson still technically has 1012 days until the UK needs to hold another general election. Whether he can survive that long is moot. Quite how much difference it would make to the quality of governance if he were to be replaced is also questionable.

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.

Cummings and goings

In recent months I have tried to steer away from politics and focus on economics. But as a line from the fictionalised memoir The Tattooist of Auschwitz recently reminded me, anyone “who lectures on taxation and interest rates can’t help but get involved in the politics of his country.” So it was that two years after Boris Johnson was elected as leader of the Conservative Party I watched this week’s BBC interview with Dominic Cummings, architect of the Brexit campaign and until December Johnson’s chief of staff, which lifted the lid on life in Downing Street (a short summary for non-UK based viewers can be found here on YouTube). It was many things – compulsive viewing; exculpatory; self-justifying; incoherent and despite Cummings’ denials, clearly motivated by revenge. But most of all it shone a light into the tawdry workings of British politics in recent years and acts as a reminder of how far standards of governance have fallen.

The context of the interview was also interesting. The BBC, and particularly its political editor Laura Kuenssberg, has come in for significant criticism in recent years that it has given the government an easy ride over its many policy failings. In this case Kuenssberg asked some very direct questions, although as many people pointed out, she has not given the same grilling to anyone still in government (though largely because they refuse to submit to such scrutiny). For all that, the interview was highly illuminating and raises questions for anyone with an interest in good governance.

The lies that they told

I will start with Cummings’s observations on Brexit, having pointed out for the last five years that he headed a campaign that wilfully lied to the electorate. He admitted that “on questions such as whether Brexit is a good idea, no-one on earth knows.” This from a man who led a campaign to persuade the electorate that it was! He went further to suggest that “it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Brexit was a mistake.” As an insight into Cummings’ character, this speaks volumes. His efforts to try and appear thoughtful and rational contradict some of the policies he has long espoused and confirm David Cameron’s judgement that he is a “career psychopath.”

Cummings also denied lying about the costs of membership (the infamous £350 million per week claim), arguing that it was designed to set a trap for his political opponents and dismissed claims that it misled people into voting for Brexit. He further dismissed claims that he used Turkey’s willingness to join the EU to persuade the electorate that the UK was about to be swamped with huge numbers of immigrants. But in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies almost 60 years ago “he would, wouldn’t he.” Cummings did implicitly admit that he did not present the information in its true context (aka he lied) but he justified doing so in order to get people to talk about the issues.

This is both disingenuous and dangerous – dangerous because it has set a precedent for people in public life to make all sort of false claims “in order to generate debate.” But if such lies are not called out, such statements tend to become accepted as truth by those prepared to propagate the falsehoods. Until recently I always thought that George Orwell’s 1984 was a satirical novel warning us of the consequences of totalitarianism (“Ignorance Is Strength”). I now realise that it has become an instruction manual for zealots intent on pursuing their particular interests.

How not to run a government

Given the character of the man, it says a lot about Boris Johnson’s style of leadership that Cummings was appointed the prime minister’s chief of staff. Cummings has little time for Johnson’s ability to lead (although this is undoubtedly coloured by his December sacking) but he clearly thought that Johnson was the only politician capable of “getting Brexit done.” Another insight into Cummings’ character was his response when asked why he took on the role. He told Kuenssberg that he did so only under certain conditions and seemed genuinely baffled when she asked whether he was motivated by any sense of public duty. There was very much a sense that Cummings used the role to pursue his own agenda rather than that of the country. Under the UK’s constitutional arrangements this is highly dangerous. Outside election periods, it is very difficult to call the prime minister to account and they have near-total carte blanche to do whatever they think necessary in order to pursue a particular policy. Giving someone like Cummings the protection of the prime minister’s office is like giving sticks of dynamite and a box of matches to a toddler.

The whole interview exposed the lack of strategy from the current government and the underhand tactics that it used to achieve the one goal that it had – that of getting Brexit done. Outside of this policy, the government seems to be largely rudderless and Cummings gave more insight into its dreadful handling of the pandemic with his central claim being that the prime minister put “his own political interests ahead of people’s lives.” Whilst Cummings' motivation can be called into question, he at least served a purpose by directing the spotlight towards the vacuum at the heart of government.

A deep-seated problem

All this matters because, as I have pointed out numerous times, well-run economies tend to deliver the best outcomes for their citizens. Whilst economics tries to be value neutral, it is hard to accept that the values demonstrated by the British government’s actions in recent years represent a good platform to deliver the best economic outcomes. An excellent post by Professor Geoff Mulgan highlighted that the government is representative of a narrow clique whose interests do not necessarily coincide with those of the wider electorate. Two of his main points bear repeating. The first is that this group does not really understand economics and thus does not grasp the implications of many of their policy slogans. A second point is that this clique “doesn’t really do ideas. It’s much better at commentary and critique than prescription.” 

A second critique was offered by the journalist, broadcaster and clergyman Giles Fraser, who notes that previous Conservative governments were at least guided by some form of moral compass. Even the pro-market Thatcher government, which was widely criticised for its apparent indifference to the social hardship caused by some of its policies, was deeply rooted in a moral view of the world (see, for example, this 1978 article by Margaret Thatcher in the Daily Telegraph). I will come back to the subject of economics and morality another time, but suffice to say a government that continues to make missteps which, (to reuse my all-time favourite political quote from fictional spin doctor Malcolm Tucker) are “the result of a political class, which has given up on morality and simply pursues popularity at all costs”, suggests we are sliding down a very slippery slope.

Last word

Although I do not like a lot of what Cummings stands for, I do understand his position. He sees an ossified political system which is ripe for reform and is prepared to do anything in his power to effect change. But hitching his campaigning zeal to the personal ambition of a Boris Johnson has resulted in a hollowing out of Britain’s political culture. More worrying still is that the vast majority of the electorate do not seem to care. Like him or loathe him, however, I urge people to watch the Cummings interview and make their own minds up as to whether the social, political and economic course upon which Britain is embarking is one that they are comfortable with.