Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I don't listen to this podcast but I found this clip with Hancock so enraging - I'm glad he was challenged on it, but I hate his attempt at characterising his resignation as being forced on him because he "fell in love". No-one cares that he had an affair. People are furious that he had an affair while, as Health Secretary, developing and imposing lockdowns on the country because of covid:
https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1659245652465811475

Same with Johnson forced out "for having cake" when it's really not. It's that you can't make rules that have an incredible impact on the lives of everyone in the country and then ignore them personally.

I'm not sure which is more undignified this line, or Truss and Kwarteng refusing to apologise while continuing to offer their policy ideas to the world.

Obviously there was a lot of unhelpful shame in the past, but you can't help but think of Profumo who resigned then spent the rest of his life volunteering at a charity in the East End and never speaking to the press or public again. It's definitely something I think we'd all appreciate Hancock noting - especially because I think Hancock is putting this narrative around but is, I suspect, the person who will face most serious criticism in the covid inquiry (and in investigations of PPE contracts).

Edit: Also Hancock is just Kendall Roy (though not seen last few episodes so maybe he has a redemption arc...).

[Sheilbh]

I know I keep banging on about it, but Post Office, again:

Post Office bosses blocked inquiry into faulty Horizon IT system in 2010
Tom Witherow
Wednesday May 17 2023, 7.10pm, The Times

The Post Office boss in charge of criminal prosecutions blocked a full investigation into the company's faulty Horizon IT system because "such an investigation will be disclosable" in trials, an inquiry was told.

Emails shown to the public inquiry into the Horizon accounting scandal showed that Post Office executives were planning an internal investigation of its IT system in early 2010, and intended to bring in external auditors from Ernst & Young to verify it.

But when Robert Wilson, the head of criminal law, heard about the plans he opposed them, leading bosses instead to order a one-sided report that would only "confirm our belief in the robustness" of the IT system.

In an email to colleagues, Wilson expressed anger that he was not notified about the investigation, telling colleagues he was "staggered" he was not included in the meeting, "given the nature of the discussions that took place".

Months later Seema Misra was sent to jail when she was eight weeks pregnant, leading a senior Post Office lawyer to celebrate the fact they had "destroyed the attack on the Horizon system". Criminal prosecutions continued for another five years, and by 2015 as many as 700 had been wrongly convicted.

Yesterday, in closing statements for the third phase of the public inquiry, counsel for postmasters said the evidence heard in recent weeks showed senior Post Office staff knew there were bugs, but refused to investigate them. The Post Office denies its staff were aware of systemic faults and claims Fujitsu hid errors in its Horizon system.

The inquiry was shown emails from early in 2010. The thread of communications began on February 26, when senior staff met and agreed to "carry out a full investigation".

This inquiry would "conduct full investigations into integrity issues, with conclusions/report provided," the email read, adding: "Once investigated and conclusions [are] drawn, [we will] gain external verification". They recommend Ernst & Young as the "most suitable partner to complete this".

But when Wilson heard about the plans he sent a long email dismissing the idea, because "such an investigation will be disclosable as undermining evidence on the defence in the cases proceeding through the criminal courts".

"Inevitably the defence will argue that if we are carrying out an investigation we clearly do not have confidence in Horizon and therefore to continue to prosecute will be an abuse of the criminal process," he wrote. "Alternatively, we could be asked to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the investigation."

For the Post Office to continue prosecuting postmasters "knowing that there is an ongoing investigation to determine the veracity of Horizon could also be detrimental to the reputation of my team", he said, adding the investigation could result in appeals to the Court of Appeal.

An email chain a few days later on March 8 indicated the outcome. It said that "taking into account Rob's comments", they can "confirm that what we are looking at is a 'general' due diligence exercise on the integrity of Horizon" and this was intended to "confirm our belief in the robustness of the system and thus rebut any challenges".

Jason Beer KC, counsel to the inquiry, told the hearing, which took place last week: "The position had changed... So now there's going to be no full examination of Horizon integrity issues, is there? ... There's going to be no third-party involvement, is there?"

Rod Ismay, the Post Office's head of branch accounting, who wrote the "one-side-of-a-coin" report and was giving evidence, replied "no" to both questions. Sir Wyn Williams, the chairman of the inquiry, questioned if the report, known as the Ismay Report, was a "whitewash". Ismay said it was not.

Wilson's email also said: "What we really need to do is impress upon Fujitsu the importance of fully co-operating in the provision of technical expertise and witness statements to support the criminal and civil litigation now and in the future."

Since 2020 the Metropolitan Police have been conducting a criminal investigation into allegations of perjury, and have interviewed two Post Office contractors, who acted as expert witnesses in trials between 2010 and 2013, under caution.

The inquiry will seek to find out what instructions, if any, were made by Post Office staff to expert witnesses and prosecution teams involved in trials.

Richard Moorhead, professor of ethics and an expert on the scandal, said: "We should wait to hear Wilson's explanation, but as things stand he's in a difficult position. Criminal investigation may beckon.

"Concerns about unprofessionalism were not confined to these two, even in this small segment of the inquiry. There were toxic levels of aggression on display."

[Sheilbh]

Feels like this story could escalate. See what comes next but I could see this ending up being a sacking/resigning issue (and it probably should) if there are any other details to break.

Reflects well on the civil service and course provider though:

Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her dodge speeding fine
Home secretary told aides to arrange private driving awareness course
Harry Yorke, Deputy Political Editor | Dipesh Gadher, Home Affairs Correspondent
Saturday May 20 2023, 4.55pm, The Sunday Times

Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

After the requests were refused, Braverman, 43, who is in charge of law enforcement, pulled out and opted to take the three points on her licence.

The revelations raise questions about whether she breached the ministerial code by directing civil servants to help with her personal affairs, and whether she has complied with the Nolan principles of public life — seven ethical standards which anyone working in public life is expected to adhere to. They are also written into the ministerial code.

Braverman was issued with a speeding notice by police after being caught outside London when she was attorney general, the government's most senior legal officer.

She was offered the choice of paying the fine and receiving three points, attending the course in lieu of points and the fine, or challenging the speeding notice.

She initially opted for the course, which sources close to her say was because she was concerned that points on her licence would increase her car insurance premium.

As home secretary, she earns more than £150,000 a year and is driven in a ministerial car.

In September, shortly after being appointed home secretary by Liz Truss, she asked civil servants in her new department to help her secure a special arrangement for the course.

These are often run by private providers on behalf of the police and offered on a discretionary basis to motorists who have committed minor offences. Most involve two instructors and are attended by groups of up to 25 motorists.

Rather than attend as normal, Braverman asked civil servants to contact her course provider and attempt to negotiate a special one-to-one session with an instructor. Sources close to the home secretary repeatedly refused to comment when asked whether her motivation was to reduce the chances of her being recognised by members of the public.

The civil servants refused her request after becoming concerned they were being asked to become involved in the home secretary's personal affairs.

They asked the Cabinet Office for advice and were told not to assist Braverman.

The civil service code makes clear they must not "act in a way that is determined by party political considerations"; use "official resources for party political purposes"; "be influenced by improper pressures"; or "act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests."

The ministerial code also says that ministers "must uphold the political impartiality of the civil service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the civil service code".

After the officials refused, a Home Office source confirmed Braverman asked one of her political aides to assist her.

A number of requests were then made to the course provider. These included asking whether Braverman would be able to undertake an online course, but be allowed to use an alias or have her camera switched off.

Sources close to the home secretary claim she was not aware these requests had been made on her behalf. They were rejected by the course provider, which made clear it could not bend the rules for her.

The issue is understood to have remained unresolved when Braverman resigned from Truss's administration after she was accused of leaking sensitive documents to a political ally.

When she was reinstated by Rishi Sunak a week later, she decided to stop pursuing the speed awareness course, took the points and paid the fine.

A source close to Braverman said: "Ms Braverman accepted three points for a speeding offence which took place last summer. The Cabinet Office was notified of this as requested by Ms Braverman. She was not and is not disqualified from driving."

They were not able to explain why her concern about insurance premiums suddenly changed.

When she became home secretary for the second time, two of her fellow home office ministers, Tom Tugendhat and Robert Jenrick, were facing driving bans.

Tugendhat, the security minister, was caught driving while using a mobile phone and banned last November for six months.

Jenrick was caught driving at almost 30mph over the speed limit and banned for the same period in April this year. Both men notified the Cabinet Office of their pending cases when they were appointed to their roles.

Sources close to the home secretary say that the Cabinet Office was informed after she received notice of the offence. They said she also notified Matthew Rycroft, the Home Office permanent secretary, but refused to say when.

They dispute that her actions amounted to any breach of the ministerial code and say that her ultimately taking the points resolved the issue.

Last night a senior Conservative MP with knowledge of the controversy said they believed Braverman's actions breached the seven Nolan principles of public life, including the requirement to be accountable, open and honest.

They also suggested that, as the cabinet minister in charge of law enforcement, Braverman's actions may also have implications under the ministerial code because it presented a clear conflict between her public duties and her private interests.

The code states that ministers "must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise".

No 10 declined to comment when approached. A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "It would not be appropriate to comment on the existence of or content of advice between government departments."

Suspect it may end in resignation or sacking (possibly Sunak trying to farm it out to someone to do a report on if it breached the ministerial code). All the press will be trying to find an angle/the next bit of the story and given that story it feels like it's come from inside the Home Office where I imagine she's not universally beloved. I could be wrong, but it feels like it may just be the start...

[Gups]

Doesn't feel like a big enough deal for her to go. Sadly

[Sheilbh]

Maybe - she did accept the points in the end.

But I feel like Home Secretary trying to get special treatment on a course for speeding is the sort of thing that will piss off a lot of people and maybe give the story legs.

[Josquius]

Nicely brings partygate back to relevance.

[Sheilbh]

This seems plausible:

Ayesha Hazarika
@ayeshahazarika
Braverman will probably resign the day the net migration figures come out brandishing the government's immigration policy a failure, saying that the leadership has betrayed Brexit & the will of the people etc which will kick off her big campaign to be leader of the opposition

There's a lot of pre-briefing of the net migration figures. It's clear they'll be a record high (last year's was a record high at 500k net immigration) with briefings ranging from 750k to 1 million net immigration.

The vast majority, though, comes from things that people (and ministers) want - the Ukraine scheme, Hong Kong BNO visas (between them over 300k), work visas (particularly in health and social care sectors - about 400k), students (600k) etc. Apparently Braverman presented the cabinet with 12 options to reduce the level of legal immigration and the only one they agreed to would restrict family visas for the families of Masters students, which strikes me as probably quite a small amount.

I can fully imagine Braverman looking for an excuse to flounce out/resign.

[Sheilbh]

The excerpt of Polly Toynbee's autobiography finally makes me sympathise with Yi's take on the left - and also seems like the Guardian just chose to self-parody For example:

This is a story about English class, as divisive now as ever. Class-consciousness was deep-dyed in our veins, my family of liberal and leftist descent, social reformers, anti-colonialists, good internationalists, atheists, communists, socialists and social democrats. For as far as I can reach back to uncover, all sides of the family lived on the left, from my grandfather, the universal historian Arnold Toynbee, to his father who worked with Beatrice Webb on the poor laws. My great-grandfather Gilbert Murray, Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford, vegetarian, teetotaller and fierce anti-conservative, was in his turn following his father's example, an Australian administrator campaigning for the rights of Indigenous Australians and against capital punishment and transportation. Gilbert's wife followed the example of her mother, the ferocious "Red Countess" of Carlisle, keeper of Castle Howard, Irish home ruler, women's rights campaigner, so strictly temperance she smashed all the wine bottles in the castle's cellar.

In each generation my family were forever locked in combat with the perpetual old enemy, the forces of conservatism. But to live a well-heeled life on the left is to live with inevitable hypocrisy and painful self-awareness, with good intentions always destined to fall short of ideals, social concern never enough, struggling to be good but inevitably never good enough. I hunted hard for any redeeming twig of a working-class branch of my family tree, without success. Confessing a background of privilege comes hard to the likes of us, who can claim no "merit", no handy pulling-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps rugged path to our good professional jobs as writers, academics and teachers, set on our lucky way at a young age. Even when I idled my education away and sabotaged my chances, I still landed back on my well-shod Start-Rite feet. The shame of it is here, in my lifetime, social mobility has fallen into reverse. Birth and inheritance is destiny more certainly, the ladders up steeper and the inequality deeper than when I started out writing.

Edit: Separately I see that Labour and the Guardian are moaning about the Foreign Secretary using a private jet for an 8 day trip to Latin America and the Caribbean - meanwhile the right and hard left have been moaning about Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor travelling Business or First Class (not clear) to the US

[Admiral Yi]

What take is that?  Honest question.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know - very general ideas of many on the left looking for a grievance Olympics and searching for a "redeeming" bit of working class family history

In fairness she does talk about how class has played a role in her life. But I had a couple of thoughts reading it. One is that it's interesting she doesn't talk about how that family also shaped her political views - the idea of "liberal and leftist descent" is striking, probably true but peculiar and worth examining. Also I think maybe it could do with more on the particular side of being a Toynbee because she is from a famous family of social reformers and activists which I think is different than just class - it's like being a Pankhurst.

The other thing is that I think she does the very English thing of noting all the other angles of class - which are true - but in a way that means she never really talks about money/the financial side which is fundamental, I'd argue.

[Oexmelin]

but in a way that means she never really talks about money/the financial side which is fundamental, I'd argue.

That would be gauche.

[Sheilbh]

And Johnson's been referred to the police again over breaking covid rules. Apparently government lawyers, while preparing evidence for the public inquiry, discovered evidence in his official diary about hosting friends at Chequers and Downing Street while covid rules would not have permitted that type of visit. So the Cabinet Office have handed it over to the police and the Commons privileges committee.

Separately looks like Braverman's a bit in the balance - it feels less because of the original story but because of how poorly she's been handling the response both in the Commons and in speaking to the media. For example:
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1660697067860180993?s=20

[Syt]

Speaking of BoJo, YouTube recommended this video to me recently. I think this person does not like him very much. 

(Though he seems to still leave out tons and tons of stuff. Also, fairly hyperbolic title, I'm sure Britain was already broken when he took over )

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. You can barely move for Tweeters, books, YouTubers, podcasters on all the crimes of Boris Johnson/the Tories.

There's a huge market for it. I'm not personally convinced - as you say I think it more often than not misses the point/a lot of issues.

I think Boris Johnson was unfit to be PM, failed as PM and was rightly forced out of office. I'm not convinced he's particularly consequential.

[Syt]

Well, the video also criticizes that someone like him could rise this far in the first place (but then again - having rich background, visiting the "right" schools ... )