Update – August 2022

Standards in government

Standards in government and whether ministers and officials are failing to live up to them have lately been a sustained subject of public interest. Early in 2022, multiple civil servants, and two of the most senior ministers in government – the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak – received fixed penalty notices (that is, fines) for taking part in illegal gatherings in and around Downing Street in 2020, when Covid restrictions were in force. For two such important members of the government to be found to have committed a criminal act was completely unprecedented. That so many staff members in Downing Street had also broken the law led to significant public concern about a perceived lack of proper leadership at the highest level in UK politics. Johnson was subject to further scrutiny for the way he had responded to previous questions about the gatherings. The House of Commons voted to set up an inquiry, still ongoing, by the Committee of Privileges into whether, in leading MPs to believe that nothing problematic had taken place, he had perpetrated what amounted to a ‘contempt’ of Parliament.

This particular episode, known broadly as ‘Partygate’ because it centred on lockdown parties at Downing Street, was one of a series of instances of Johnson and his government becoming associated with controversy about whether it was failing to meet basic standards expected of public institutions and office-holders. For instance, the way in which he sourced money to pay for a renovation of his flat in Downing Street was heavily scrutinised. On numerous occasions, his governments provided misleading information about matters such as figures for crime and for unemployment. Johnson has been criticised for referring in public statements to ideas popular among far-right conspiracy theorists. Finally, the decision to force him out of office in July 2022 came after it emerged that he had appointed someone to the post of Deputy Chief Whip, despite having previously been warned about their problematic conduct, and who went on to behave in an inappropriate way, leading to their resignation from office.

Prime-ministerial power

The removal of Johnson was revealing regarding the nature of the power of the PM in UK politics. When Johnson first took office in the summer of 2019, there was speculation about how long they might survive in the post. The political turmoil associated with Brexit was at a peak; and the Conservative government of which Johnson was head lacked its own clear majority in the House of Commons. However, after securing, fighting, and winning a General Election in December of that year, Johnson seemed in a far stronger political position. During the course of 2020, there were some challenges to Johnson’s public standing involving the handling of the pandemic response. But during 2021, the roll-out of the vaccine coincided with an upturn in the popularity of the government, and with it the political capital of Johnson. Later in 2021, the issue of standards began to become a persistent source of criticism. Doubts within the Conservative parliamentary party itself about the leadership of Johnson started to build.

However, actually removing a Prime Minister, particular one who had lately secured a General Election victory greater than any achieved by the Conservative Party since 1987, is not easy to accomplish. Johnson and close allies repeatedly pointed to claimed areas of achievement over Brexit, the vaccine rollout and supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion, arguing that they were evidence of the need to retain the present PM. But a sustained series of scandals over a period of more than six months undermined Johnson. They coupled with evidence of declining electoral support for the Conservative Party, including a series of by-election defeats, some of which were in parliamentary seats that would normally be considered unlosable for the Conservative Party. The UK faced economic difficulties; and there was discontent among some within the PM’s own parliamentary party about the policy direction of the Conservative government.

The final move to displace Johnson came when two senior members of his Cabinet resigned, citing issues of standards, early in July. While Johnson initially refused to accept that it was time to concede the leadership, multiple ministerial resignations followed, along with wide demands among other Conservatives that Johnson stand down. Ultimately, on 7 July, Johnson agreed to allow a process to determine their successor. The overall experience of the Johnson premiership is that prime-ministerial power can fluctuate considerably, from weak to strong to non-existent, according to changing political circumstances, some of which are within the control of the PM, others of which are not. Their ability to succeed and retain office is dependent to a large extent upon others. However, they can at times seem exceptionally powerful.

Leadership election

The successor to Johnson was selected by a twin process used in the election of leaders of the Conservative Party. The first stage involved Conservative MPs taking part in a series of votes choosing between multiple candidates, eventually whittling them down to two. In this sense, the party elite had some control over the outcome since it was able to produce a final shortlist of two: Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. It then fell to the mass membership of the Conservative Party to vote on which of these two would become their leader and by extension PM. Members of the Conservative Party were at this point a powerful group, able to impose a leader on their party and in effect on the country. In the event, they opted for the candidate who was less favoured among Conservative MPs, showing a divergence of preferences between party elite and mass membership.

Conservative members seemingly tended towards extreme positions on matters such as taxes, favouring rapid cuts, and the removal of social and economic regulations. Some might hold that these goals would be difficult for practical reasons to attain. But since it was Conservative Party members in the country who made the ultimate determination about who would win, the two candidates needed to appeal to them if they wished to succeed. This necessity could potentially lead the candidates to making commitments on which it might be difficult for them to deliver.

If Truss were to seek to deviate from pledges made in areas such as taxation during the leadership campaign, the Conservative membership might be alienated. More importantly, there would be strong resistance from the significant minority group among Conservative MPs that played a party in ensuring that Truss was one of the final two candidates in the election. Members of this group seem determined that their policy objectives –for instance, in support of deregulation and free market forces– should be realised by the candidate they backed for the leadership. Truss, therefore, has been elected to lead a parliamentary party the majority of which preferred a different candidate; and a minority group within which will expect to hold their leader to achieving specific outcomes that are likely to prove controversial.

Circumstances facing the new PM: external and domestic

Like all new PMs, Truss faces multiple challenges. One characteristic of the issues requiring attention is that they illustrate the close connection between external and domestic policy. The distinction between the two categories is not clear-cut. For instance, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is connected to a rise in energy prices, which are in turn a source of upward pressure on the cost of living in the UK domestic economy. The Ukraine conflict, moreover, raised the issue of refugees and how the UK receives them, which was already, and continues to be, a sensitive topic in internal UK politics. Another policy in this area –to deport refugees to Rwanda– has proved politically controversial and has been challenged on the basis of domestic law and international treaty commitments.

Lying behind many of the difficulties facing Truss is a policy with origins in domestic politics, but with numerous external ramifications: Brexit. The precise economic impact of Brexit is not always easy? to determine, but there is evidence of it having a disruptive effect upon trade and contributing to labour shortages in some sectors. The UK government is presently seeking to legislate to enable it to override aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement. This plan has serious implications not only for the internal governance of the UK, but for relations with the outside world. It could lead to what is commonly known as a ‘trade war’ with the EU. Brexit remains an important motivator for the movement for Scottish independence; and it continues to be a subject of controversy and criticism, not only among those who were opposed to it, but also among those who supported it and hold that the benefits they believe it offers have not yet properly been realised.

UK Politics Update: December 2021

Time moves quickly in UK Politics; trading relationships change, elections are won and lost, and news stories are published that may change the opinions of many.

It is important for anyone studying UK politics to keep themselves up to date with recent developments in order to be able to understand the subject properly. The chapters in this book will equip you with the contextual knowledge and skills to be able to analyse and interpret recent events, and this page will be updated regularly with important updates.

Integrity in public life

In November, the question of standards in public life became a central issue of political concern. The immediate trigger involved the case of a Conservative MP and former minister, Owen Paterson. The House of Commons Standards Committee found that Owen had broken the rules by using their position as an MP to benefit two outside companies from whom they were receiving payment. This kind of activity raises a key principle that applies to people holding public office: that they should use their position only to further the public interest, and not their private interest or personal gain. The Standards Committee recommended that Paterson be suspended from the Commons. However, rather than simply accepting this outcome, the Conservative government exceptionally instructed its MPs to vote to halt the Paterson case and to overhaul the whole Standards system in the Commons. This move was subject to intense public censure from opposition parties and the media. Critics held that MPs were using their power to prevent one of their number from being made subject to the rules; and that the government was protecting an ally and perhaps seeking to prevent further inconvenient investigations.

Faced with this negative response, the government swiftly dropped this plan, and instead pledged to bring about a tightening of the rules to ensure that MPs were not permitted inappropriate outside interests. In the meantime, a series of stories appeared about MPs – many of them Conservatives – engaged in financially lucrative activities additional to their parliamentary roles. Unease about this practice focused both on the idea that MPs might be exploiting their political influence to achieve financial benefit; and that they could not properly carry out their job as representatives if engaged in other work. Concerns about integrity in public life extended beyond the Commons and Parliament. In November, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, an official body that reports to the Prime Minister, concluded an inquiry into the ways in which standards are maintained. It recommended changes intended to ensure better enforcement of the rules that apply to ministers as currently set out in the Ministerial Code; and to safeguard and political interference in the process of appointments to important public posts.

The Paterson episode and related events tell us some important things about the UK political system. Governments have majorities in the House of Commons and can potentially use them for highly controversial purposes, such as blocking the Paterson suspension and overhauling the standards system. But, if they are able to induce their Commons cohort to approve such measures, they may come at a considerable political cost. The rapid reversal of this approach demonstrated the potential influence of the media, particularly if the criticism comes from sources that are generally supportive of the government of the day. While the government was swift to change course, the incident was seemingly damaging to the reputation of the Conservative government and its Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. Critics – including from within the Conservative Party – questioned the judgement of the PM in seeking to overturn the Standards Committee conclusion over Paterson. The Conservative government now said it was committed to a more rigorous system of standards, as did Opposition parties. Yet finding agreement on the best way forward, and designing workable and consistent rules in this area were not easy tasks.

Climate politics

The UK hosted the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26) during November. Held at Glasgow, the occasion was a focus for immense interest, both within the UK and internationally. A phenomenon such as climate change demonstrates how international and domestic issues can become closely intertwined. Climate change effects the whole world. Though it will impact upon some regions more immediately and severely than others, it is a problem for every state. Only by acting together will they be able to tackle it.

Successive UK governments have presented themselves as prioritising action to tackle climate change. It is significant that a government led by Boris Johnson as PM – who admits to being, until recently, a sceptic regarding firmly established scientific views on this subject – should attach such political importance to the issue. There is, therefore, something of a consensus across party leaderships – at least in their rhetoric – regarding the need seriously to address climate change. As conference host, the UK was to some extent able to shape the agenda of the event. In doing so, it sought to utilise soft power – that is, the ability to encourage other states to behave in certain ways, without having the ability to compel them to do so.

How successful was the event? Critically, there was an agreement to reduce coal usage; and for the richer countries to provide assistance to poorer in taking action on climate change. Participants also agreed to regroup the following year with firmer plans. But the wording was weaker than had been hoped – the final agreement altered a pledge to ‘phase out’ coal to an intention to ‘phase down’. There are no absolute guarantee that parties to the commitments will honour them in full; and even if they do, present agreements will not prevent a rise in temperature of over 1.5 centigrade. Furthermore, even the event host, the UK, is not necessarily setting the best example. In December, for instance, the UK Climate Change Committee, an independent statutory body, warned that the UK was ‘nowhere near’ achieving the objectives agreed to at Glasgow, making recommendations for more effective means of delivery.

Is Brexit ‘done’?

The Conservative Party contested and won the 2019 General Election on a pledge to ‘get Brexit done’. In an important sense, it delivered on this commitment. The UK formally left the European Union at the end of January 2020. The transitional arrangements which, under the exit agreement, preserved important aspects of membership, then ceased at the end of 2020. At this point, a new basis for the relationship between the EU and UK, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), negotiated during 2020, came into force. Another key aspect of new arrangements is the Northern Ireland Protocol, part of the exit agreement. The Protocol was designed to prevent Brexit causing disruption to the peace process. It provided for Northern Ireland broadly to continue to adhere to EU trade and customs rules, thereby avoiding the need for the introduction of a hard border to the island of Ireland.

Formal departure from the EU and the introduction of new agreements underpinning interactions between the EU and its former Member State were events of immense significance. They marked an important moment of transition for the UK. But is the ‘Brexit’ episode entirely in the past now? There are senses in which you might think that it is not ‘done.’ The TCA is not as comprehensive as it might have been. It does not apply to all commercial activities. While it deals with trade in goods, it is less relevant to services, including finance, which are very important to the UK economy. Disputes have developed between the UK and France in particular about the application of aspects of the TCA to fishing. In late November, for instance, French fishers held protests over access to waters, blockading the Channel Tunnel and the Port of Calais. France-UK bilateral relations have suffered in other ways, including in relation to the handling of migrants crossing the Channel to the UK.

Perhaps an even more serious threat to the attempt to create a stable Brexit settlement involves the Northern Ireland Protocol. Boris Johnson initially claimed that its implementation would not involve checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This claim has proved inaccurate. The existence of a regulatory barrier within the UK (which the UK authorities are responsible for enforcing) is highly controversial within sections of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, and has been a factor in unrest within the territory. The UK government has also demanded a full overhaul of the Protocol. It has threatened to activate Article 16 of the Protocol text, which allows for a party to it to take unilateral measures if serious problems arise from it. The EU and UK are currently in talks over the best way forward. If they do not succeed, a dispute over the operation of the Protocol has the potential to undermine the wider TCA, general relations between the EU and the UK, and even the Northern Ireland peace process.

Andrew Blick,

December 2021

UK Politics Update: June 2021

Time moves quickly in UK Politics; trading relationships change, elections are won and lost, and news stories are published that may change the opinions of many.

It is important for anyone studying UK politics to keep themselves with recent developments in order to be able to understand the subject properly. The chapters in this book will equip you with the contextual knowledge and skills to be able to analyse and interpret recent events, and this page will be updated regularly with important updates.

The end of the Brexit transition period

At the very close of 2020, the Brexit transition period came to an end, and the new EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement came into force.

A key feature of the agreement was the extent to which it avoided the introduction of tariffs and quotas for trade in goods between the two parties. Where it was less effective was in avoiding non-tariff barriers, and in providing for trade in services. The deal, therefore, meant that there was more friction in trade between the UK and the EU than there had been before Brexit. The UK was now subject to the various rules and regulations that the EU applied to third parties, meaning that the UK was subject to bureaucratic barriers that it had not been previously. The UK has yet to apply in full its various regulations on incoming goods from the EU.

There were early indications of significant disruptions in trade. In particular, there seemed to be a substantial downturn in exports from the UK to the EU; and a smaller though significant drop in imports from the EU to the UK. It is difficult to determine precisely at present the extent to which the early downturn was an initial shock that would be overcome and was attributable to the pandemic more than Brexit. But it would be difficult to dismiss entirely as a transient or non-Brexit related phenomenon.

This drop-off in trade, including exports, is of particular importance from the point of view of the UK economy, since the EU as a whole is its largest trading partner. The UK government has made considerable efforts to enable expansion in other markets, partly through seeking trade deals with countries such as Australia. How successful it will be in this regard remains to be seen.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Brexit politics in the UK involved Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Protocol of the Withdrawal Agreement was designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. To achieve this end, Northern Ireland had to continue to align with EU regulatory and customs arrangements to an extent that Great Britain did not. However, from the point of view of some members of the Unionist community, it was unacceptable that Northern Ireland should diverge from Great Britain in this way. They took particular exception to the existence of checks on goods moving from the latter to the former, necessitated by the Protocol. The UK government – which had negotiated and endorsed the Protocol – began in public statements by ministers during 2021 to call into question its viability.

The 6 May 2021 elections

On 6 May a series of elections took place across the UK, some of which had been delayed from the previous year as a consequence of the coronavirus emergency. They included elections to local authorities, at devolved level, and a parliamentary by-election for a seat that had fallen vacant. The results were diverse in their nature. In the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish National Party won 64 seats, one more seat than it won in the previous election in 2016, but still fell one seat short of an overall majority. In the Parliament as a whole, there continued to be a majority for pro-independence parties, since the Scottish Green Party, which also shared this position, won 8 seats (up two on 2016). This outcome ensured that the idea of another independence referendum would remain on the agenda. Whether and when it would occur, and if so, what the result would be, remained matters of speculation.

The Conservatives made overall gains in local authority elections in England, to a large extent at the cost of the Labour Party. Many areas of Labour lost were in areas that by tradition it had been strong. For instance, Labour lost overall council of the County Durham local authority, the first local authority which it had ever controlled, and which it had held since 1919. Labour also lost a by-election to the UK Parliament for the Hartlepool constituency to the Conservatives. Labour had held this seat since the seat first came into existence in 1974. The Conservative performance presented a challenge to conventional political wisdoms – that a party that has held power at UK level for a significant period of time tends not to perform well in contests between General Elections. The Conservatives had been in office, in coalitions or alone, since 2010. Yet it was still able to perform well.

This turn of events raised questions about Labour’s future chances of regaining power, and that it might be losing its traditional support base in parts of the country such as North East England. The party did manage to maintain in its position in some English cities, for instance, winning mayoral elections in London and Greater Manchester; and winning other mayoral elections. There was evidence that Brexit continued to be a factor in UK politics, with the Conservatives attracting more ‘leave’ votes, while Labour was more popular among ‘remain’ supporters. Labour faced a considerable dilemma over Brexit, and the extent to which it should be critical of the government over the impact of departure from the EU. In Wales, however, the incumbent Labour Party strengthened its position in the Senedd, though still slightly short of an overall majority.

One area of relative weakness for the Conservatives was the South of England, where it has tended to be exceptionally strong. This tendency added force to discussion of the idea that the support bases of the two main parties was reconfiguring.

Controversy around the Johnson government

The way in which the government of Boris Johnson operated had become a subject of intense controversy by the middle of 2021. On 26 May, Dominic Cummings, former senior special adviser to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, gave evidence to a joint inquiry by two House of Commons select committees into lessons learnt from the pandemic. The session attracted immense media coverage, demonstrating the potential for Parliament to be a focus for public attention.

Cummings, whose employment by Johnson had come to an end in acrimonious circumstances late in 2020, called into question the integrity of, among others, the PM; and suggested that the performance of the UK government had fallen well short of what should have been expected of it during the pandemic. In his view, the nature of the system made it difficult for genuinely talented people working within it to perform to their maximum capability.

This episode compounded existing scrutiny of the extent to which Johnson and other ministers were adhering to ethical and constitutional standards set out in documents such as the Ministerial Code. There were complaints, for instance, that ministers were misleading Parliament in efforts to avoiding the executive being held to account by the legislature. Questions also emerged about the probity of financial transactions involving the government, for instance in the award of contracts for the production of protective equipment during the pandemic. Yet while such issues generated much interest among commentators, it was not clear that they had attained significant resonance among the wider public.

Andrew Blick,

June 2021