Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

So he's basically declared himself to be a lame duck PM, then?

Yeah - he's a caretaker PM. And there's clips of the new cabinet ministers describing him as that.

It's one of the rules of our system that there is always a PM and there's no formal concept of an interim or caretaker PM. But that means (in the modern system where parties have formal processes to elect a leader and it's not just decided by a group of men in smoke-filled rooms) that once you resign you have to hang around until your successor is chosen.

Similarly when there was a hung parliament in 2010 Brown had to constitutionally stay as PM even while Cameron and Clegg were doing their neogtiations - it's not like some countries where you appoint someone as an interim.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sure I get that, I wasn't really thinking cabinet secretaries - but more governors, senators etc. It could just be an impression but it seems like generally people don't seem to resign or even get fired in what seem like fairly big scandals.

I know he did resign eventually but I couldn't believe how long Cuomo tried to stay, for example

Re the US stuff:
+This is a parliamentary system vs presidential distinction.  In a parliamentary system, ministers are also MPs and resignations can be used to precipitate a leadership challenge and distance the minister-MP from the declining leader.  In a presidential system, the president can't be toppled until the next scheduled election and cabinet officials do not have dual capacity as members of the legislature in their own right.
+ There are example of legislative resignations - Al Franken is a notable recent example - but the current trend is toward brazening out and removing all shame from the game.
+ Holder didn't resign re fast and furious because the OIG investigation cleared him and the House attacks on him were viewed as partisan attacks.

Re Boris: na na na na, na na na na . . .

[Admiral Yi]

Speaking of brazening out, it's interesting how the Matt Gaetz pedophile trafficking investigation just sort of disappeared.  I thought he was toast.

[Sheilbh]

Re the US stuff:
+This is a parliamentary system vs presidential distinction.  In a parliamentary system, ministers are also MPs and resignations can be used to precipitate a leadership challenge and distance the minister-MP from the declining leader.  In a presidential system, the president can't be toppled until the next scheduled election and cabinet officials do not have dual capacity as members of the legislature in their own right.
+ There are example of legislative resignations - Al Franken is a notable recent example - but the current trend is toward brazening out and removing all shame from the game.
+ Holder didn't resign re fast and furious because the OIG investigation cleared him and the House attacks on him were viewed as partisan attacks.

Yeah get the presidential v parliamentary difference. The other difference is collective responsibility in a cabinet. It's relatively rare but you do get those resignations by ministers because they don't agree with the policy of the government - even if it's an unrelated area.

I think there is a trend on brazening and Gaetz is another example. We definitely have our own brazening MPs - Imran Ahmad tried to ride out his conviction of sexually assaulting a teenage boy pending appeal but was forced to resign. Claudia Webbe has managed to stay on as an MP, pending her appeal, despite her conviction of harassing, stalking and threatening a woman.

On Holder that may be another difference. Though it's very much in abeyance, with the Westminster system (I'm not sure how much it applies in other parliamentary models), there is the principle of ministerial responsibility. The minister/Secretary is, in theory, responsible for everything that happens in their ministry regardless of their personal responsibility and they bear the consequences.

It's meant to be a trade-off: the minister has an incentive to be active and involved in the ministry; the civil service are protected from politics which buttresses their neutrality. In practice it's a lot rarer now, and I'm not sure it functions as designed. But given the number of agencies and range of appointed positions in the US structure I wonder if it's more about what individuals actually knew/did personally rather than the AG being responsible for the DoJ overall, say.

I'm still not sure Johnson will last until the end of the leadership election. As well as the Lebedev stuff which won't go away and the wanting to have a giant party at Chequers there's a story in the Indy now finally revealing some of the invoices from Wallpapergate (while a minor scandal in Johnson's litany, I, for one, am really keen to see what the flat looks like ). But the stuff that's come out so far is eye-wateringly expensive and pleasingly awful. £3,000 on a drinks trolley, for example. Or the £2,250 spent on the emerald Espalier Square design wallpaper used in the entrance hall:


As a country I think we require a full photospread of the flat for closure.

[HVC]

Wallpaper is stupid and that example is particularly ugly

[Sheilbh]

In fairness I don't actually hate that wallpaper But it only works with very specific furniture/decisions around it. And I know rattan is having a moment but I'll always associate it with my nan's extension.

Incidentally totally agree with this - I'm not sure any of the Tory frontrunner, or Keir Starmer, quite grasp it though. Like McTague (and Cummings ) I think a lot of the problems are systemic and particularly in the British state and need pretty radical reform:

Tom McTague
@TomMcTague
Britain needs a prime minister who understands the scale of the problem they face. He or she will take over a relatively poor country, in comparative decline, divided in international law, and without an obvious strategy to get rich again. More weapons to Ukraine won't cut it.

[The Minsky Moment]

On Holder that may be another difference. Though it's very much in abeyance, with the Westminster system (I'm not sure how much it applies in other parliamentary models), there is the principle of ministerial responsibility. The minister/Secretary is, in theory, responsible for everything that happens in their ministry regardless of their personal responsibility and they bear the consequences.

Yes I think that is a relevant distinction.  Technically ATF falls under DOJ so on a "command responsibility" theory, Holder would be responsible.  But in the American context it is usually recognized that heads of giant sprawling agencies like DOJ or DOD can't be held to direct account for everything that goes on.

[The Minsky Moment]

Speaking of brazening out, it's interesting how the Matt Gaetz pedophile trafficking investigation just sort of disappeared.  I thought he was toast.

His "wingman" filed a motion this week touting his cooperation with ongoing federal investigations and requested leave to file the details under siege.  That suggests that the criminal investigation into Gaetz may still be active, though I don't know why it is moving so slowly. 

[Sheilbh]

Yes I think that is a relevant distinction.  Technically ATF falls under DOJ so on a "command responsibility" theory, Holder would be responsible.  But in the American context it is usually recognized that heads of giant sprawling agencies like DOJ or DOD can't be held to direct account for everything that goes on.

Yeah I think it is understood as political accountability rather than any level of personal responsibility. It's why people normally come back from this type of resignation - unless the failure is so big that public opinion becomes a little bit unfair.

Unless you're out to hurt the leader/PM, then it will be their office that writes the resignation letter and the response - but you'll often see a line at the end from the PM/leader about "you still have much to offer in public service" or something like that which is always a hint that they'll be back.

Meanwhile it looks like, as with Thatcher, the Johnson-ultras are setting up a stabbed in the back myth that will make it rather difficult for his successor - e.g. Mark Jenkinson MP - although this may just be annoyance at being approached by no-hopers taking soundings and making promises:

Mark Jenkinson MP
@markjenkinsonmp
I have sought counsel from those I can trust to blow smoke up my arse 💨

That, when weighed against my own inflated sense of self-importance, leads me to conclude that I should throw my hat 🎩into the ring and stand for election as Leader of the @Conservative and Unionist Party
Over the next six weeks I will be available to promise you the moon on a stick. Ask and it shall be yours.

Let me worry about how I deal with three chancellors and a cabinet of 160. It is having the answers to those questions that makes me the most suitable candidate.

I can see what he means. I follow British politics closely and I have no idea who John Baron is, but he is apparently considering throwing his hat in the ring
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1545365697550770182?s=20&t=WDC7trHAT2Kn2ky-cp3WGA

It is worth noting that the Johnson-ultras are a small group. Johnson's team were trying to rally a group of MPs to stand behind him for his resignation statement yesterday but could only get 20-30 to turn up so the optics would be bad and they were just shuffled to the side to applaud instead. In addition there are two polls today conducted before his resignation that have the Tories on 28-29% - I've said before but my view is the Tories and Labour have a floor of about 30%. If they're falling below that, things are very bad indeed. The public wanted him gone - they also now (according to polls) want him gone as PM immediately and want him to step down as an MP (once the public make up their mind....)

There's loads of references to Thatcher and I think it's one of those really interesting examples of myth mattering more than reality. I think the myth among Tories of a certain stripe is that getting rid of Thatcher basically unleashed two decades of internicine civil war that allowed Labour in for 13 years. Your view of that might be different - one that it poisoned the party and basically minor figures (Brutus, Cassius) were overwhelmed having brought down a great leader; the other is that Thatcher was one of the worst ex-PMs we've ever had who continually meddled and undermined her successors as well as retrospectively re-writing the history of her time in office. I think that myth is mostly wrong. Getting rid of Thatcher allowed Major to win the 1992 election, which cemented Thatcherism. The internal civil wars mattered but I doon't think it's as simple as getting rid of Thatcher was a mistake.

Separately still not sure Johnson will survive as a caretaker. James Cleverly (one of his new cabinet ministers) was on the radio this morning defending Johnson having a party at Chequers before he goes - literally minutes later Downing Street were briefing that they'll use a different venue and, of course, it has nothing to do with Johnson staying on as a caretaker. They've got months of this to go. I imagine Johnson will also squeeze in another trip to Ukraine - like Blair spent his lame duck period doing a big tour of foreign leaders and countries he'd declared war on (to varying degrees of gratitude/acclaim).

[Sheilbh]

Durham police about to announce their decision on fining Starmer and Rayner - which may throw Labour into a leadership election too

Edit: Not fined - which I think is the right decision legally. So Starmer's safe.

[Sheilbh]

Again the gulf of Johnson's domestic popularity and his popularity in Ukraine is really extraordinary.

Yesterday after his resignation speech Ukrainian Railways and several big companies did social media rebrands in honour of Johnson:


And Zelensky talked about it on Telegram channel as the "main topic" of the day for Ukrainians:
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1545348394222292992?s=20&t=ZrLzN1Nq0bD67Tq2kr3xJQ

Of course there were cynical self-interests by Johnson in his Ukraine policy but there almost always are in politics. But I think more broadly it's an example of when his own interests, his own instincts (which are bold and have a high risk tolerance), the national interest and the right thing to do all happened to point in the same direction.

I've said before that I think foreign policy is the one area his record will be seen as pretty good - on Ukraine, hardening the UK's position on China from just trying to benefit economically and on offering a route to the UK for 5 million Hong Kongers (so far running at about 25,000 people per quarter - but almost 500,000 new BNO passports issued, which is about 10 times higher than normal). But on Ukraine it is incredible to see the difference - the street art, the streets being named after Johnson, the song etc v his profound unpopularity at home (despite strong support for his Ukraine policy).

I just hope whoever takes over keeps it up because it is the right thing to do and in the national interest (I am very suspicious of Sunak on this).

[Duque de Bragança]

I've said before that I think foreign policy is the one area his record will be seen as pretty good - on Ukraine, hardening the UK's position on China from just trying to benefit economically and on offering a route to the UK for 5 million Hong Kongers (so far running at about 25,000 people per quarter - but almost 500,000 new BNO passports issued, which is about 10 times higher than normal). But on Ukraine it is incredible to see the difference - the street art, the streets being named after Johnson, the song etc v his profound unpopularity at home (despite strong support for his Ukraine policy).

I just hope whoever takes over keeps it up because it is the right thing to do and in the national interest (I am very suspicious of Sunak on this).

Foreign policy does not include the Brexit consequences and constant attempt to cynically change the rules? 

[Sheilbh]

I think so far there have been zero Brexit consequences in foreign policy and I think that's probably likely to continue. It was actually a question I saw someone at RUSI pose - of have there been any foreign policy consequences of Brexit and they couldn't identify any.

The consequences of Brexit are overwhelmingly economic and permanent.

I don't think his Brexit policy will be seen as a great success - but I think it will be the status quo and basis of UK-EU relations for the foreseeable future. I'd guess at least the next 20 years. So not necessarily good, but consequential.

Edit: I think part of that is possibly how different countries use the EU for foreign policy. Sir Humphrey is kind of right - the UK didn't, except to stymie other (French) attempts to use the EU for foreign policy.

[crazy canuck]

Sure I get that, I wasn't really thinking cabinet secretaries - but more governors, senators etc. It could just be an impression but it seems like generally people don't seem to resign or even get fired in what seem like fairly big scandals.

I know he did resign eventually but I couldn't believe how long Cuomo tried to stay, for example

Re the US stuff:
+This is a parliamentary system vs presidential distinction.  In a parliamentary system, ministers are also MPs and resignations can be used to precipitate a leadership challenge and distance the minister-MP from the declining leader.  In a presidential system, the president can't be toppled until the next scheduled election and cabinet officials do not have dual capacity as members of the legislature in their own right.
+ There are example of legislative resignations - Al Franken is a notable recent example - but the current trend is toward brazening out and removing all shame from the game.
+ Holder didn't resign re fast and furious because the OIG investigation cleared him and the House attacks on him were viewed as partisan attacks.

Re Boris: na na na na, na na na na . . .

One small quibble - it is possible to have ministers who are not also MPs.  It is rare, but it does happen.  For example, if a party elects no MPs from a particular region, it can be good politics to appoint an non MP from that region to cabinet.

 

[Barrister]

One small quibble - it is possible to have ministers who are not also MPs.  It is rare, but it does happen.  For example, if a party elects no MPs from a particular region, it can be good politics to appoint an non MP from that region to cabinet.

A cabinet member can be appointed from the Canadian Senate / UK House of Lords, but that's far different from saying 'a non MP'.  A Prime Minister can't just appoint anyone off the street to cabinet.