Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Won't that be fun if Scotland does go ahead with a referendum.
Seems fairly obvious independence will win given boycotts from those against it are likely.
Yes... Seems to be a British remake of a show from some foreign country. I want to say... Italy?

[Tamas]

I mean he wasn't a random man. He was the Secretary of State for Scotland in Blair's government and the first First Minister of Scotland. He also wrote the white paper that the Scotland Act 1998 was largely based on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25092199

SNP ministers cite as precedent the White Paper on devolved powers published by the then Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar ahead of the referendum on devolution on the 11th of September 1997. Voters were asked two questions: should there be a devolved Scottish Parliament; should it have tax varying powers?

Voters assented to both propositions - and Westminster duly responded by legislating for a Scottish Parliament, now established.

Crucially, the details of that legislation, the Scotland Act 1998, closely mirrored the content of the advance White Paper.

Donald Dewar faced obstacles in Cabinet from sceptical colleagues but was able to argue that his proposals, as set out in the White Paper, had a popular mandate.

Tony Blair broadly backed him on that view, while drawing certain "red lines" designed, as he saw it, to sustain the Union.

That White Paper was itself based upon the conclusions of the cross-party Constitutional Convention through which Labour and the Liberal Democrats, in opposition prior to 1997, had drafted a scheme of Scottish devolution.

In that case can we just get it over with and kick Scotland out? It's bound to happen at some point, at this rate. And then give Scotland EU membership ASAP. Once there are border controls within the island people might start waking up to the fact that this is not some romantic Mel Gibson crap but an actual significant impact on their lives.

[Josquius]

Just give me enough of a heads up to move up there please.

[Sheilbh]

/
How does written discussion between members of the 1997 government give legal right for anyone to do anything?

I literally said it won't matter legally, but would change the politics

It's almost as if having loosely defined and overlapping roles and responsibilities and a general lack of written-down commonly agreed basic rules (like a written constitution) can cause issues for even medium-sized organisation let alone multi-national countries. 

I mean Spain has a codified constitution and it didn't prevent this row.

While the union of Scotland and England is a reserved matter so Holyrood can't actually declare Scotland independent, unclear if it can't legislate a non-binding referendum on the matter. And given that the UK has shown it feels compelled to follow non-binding referenda...

Yeah I don't think the two can be separated - whatever happens this will go to the Supreme Court at some point. But my interpretation would be that the Scottish parliament can legislate for a referendum in relation to areas over which they have power, but they couldn't legislate for a referendum which would be beyond their power to implement (because it is a reserved matter). So they couldn't have a referendum (without consent from Westminster) on independence any more than they could a separate Brexit or Re-Join EU referendum.

I think referenda are part of democratic politics, so they need to be linked to the power to implement rather than a purely rhetorical or sort of declarative model. But they could have referenda on areas they do have control over and there's nothing there, I don't think, that would make holding an indy ref unlawful (so no chance of Sturgeon going to prison for "sedition") but it would have no impact beyond rhetoric - like the Catalan referenda, while the 2014 referendum did matter and any one agreed with Westminster would matter.

Won't that be fun if Scotland does go ahead with a referendum.
Seems fairly obvious independence will win given boycotts from those against it are likely.
Yes... Seems to be a British remake of a show from some foreign country. I want to say... Italy?

That model is exactly Catalonia. That's the path Scotland is currently on even down to the nationalist parties having enough votes to win elections but not yet enough votes to clearly lead in the polls or win a referendum.

Totally separately - and an indication as with Cel's comments on the Spanish law that this isn't just some fight from the far-right - Sian Berry (Green London mayor candidate) has stepped down as co-leader of the Greens over trans rights. I'm not sure exactly what's been happening but she's written that "I must stand by my pledges made to Londoners in the recent election, and there is now inconsistency between the sincere promises to fight for trans rights in my work and the message sent by the party's choice of front bench representatives."

I think the Greens elect their "shadow cabinet" (like Labour used to) so I assume they've gone for some "gender-critical" feminist choices.

I know someone who has been involved in Green politics and I understand they have a "living manifesto" so basically anything that gets approved gets added to the manifesto, but basically nothing is removed until there's an explicit vote to repeal it. Her view was that it's an absolute mess and there's some really dodgy stuff still up there from the 70s and 80s which will be a problem if the Greens ever get close to doing well in an election. I suspect the electing "shadow cabinet" model will be similar - and at least in Labour it was only MPs who had a vote not all members

[garbon]

I think referenda are part of democratic politics, so they need to be linked to the power to implement rather than a purely rhetorical or sort of declarative model. But they could have referenda on areas they do have control over and there's nothing there, I don't think, that would make holding an indy ref unlawful (so no chance of Sturgeon going to prison for "sedition") but it would have no impact beyond rhetoric - like the Catalan referenda, while the 2014 referendum did matter and any one agreed with Westminster would matter.

Why do you think that? The non-binding Brexit referendum had wider impact beyond rhetoric. If Scotland unilaterally held a referendum with high turnout and majority went for independence, sure it wouldn't legally bind the UK, but it feels like it would make it much harder to justify keeping Scotland as part of the UK. Much like it would have been very hard for the UK to disregard the results of the Brexit referendum, it's non-binding nature notwithstanding.

[Sheilbh]

Why do you think that? The non-binding Brexit referendum had wider impact beyond rhetoric. [...] Much like it would have been very hard for the UK to disregard the results of the Brexit referendum, it's non-binding nature notwithstanding.

So the point I was trying to make was more sort of technical I suppose and possibly a legal thing.

My point would be that there needs to be a link between the referendum and the (legal) power to implement it. To move away from constitutional issues I don't think the Scottish parliament has the power to organise a referendum on banning nuclear power because that is an area that is reserved for Westminster - so that would have the same effect as, say, Manchester City Council's longstanding declaration that Manchester is a "nuclear-free zone". That is, no effect whatsoever, it is just declarative or rhetorical.

By contrast the Scottish parliament could organise a referendum on abortion because that is a devolved responsibility and they could implement it (same for the UK parliament and Brexit or Scottish independence or the general election voting system).

I think the legal argument would be that referenda themselves are not a reserved matter but there is an implied restriction on them to only be lawful within the boundaries of devolved powers - but as I say it'll go to the Supreme Court and they may well disagree.

If Scotland unilaterally held a referendum with high turnout and majority went for independence, sure it wouldn't legally bind the UK, but it feels like it would make it much harder to justify keeping Scotland as part of the UK.

Totally agree.

If it is a unilateral referendum the question will be whether unionists will participate or, as in Catalonia abstain to de-legitimise the referendum. So if unionists boycott so turnout is only, let's say, 48-49% (roughly the amount of the vote the SNP and Greens got in the last election) but 99% "yes" I don't think that would necessarily affect the politics very much. But if unionists participate so you have, let's say, 70-80% turnout and "yes" win then I think it's very difficult to argue that's an illegitimate result/referendum even if it isn't strictly lawful and I think it would make the politics really difficult - my own view would be even if it was unlawful that should be taken as the view of the Scottish people and the process of disentangling the union should start.

[garbon]

Why do you think that? The non-binding Brexit referendum had wider impact beyond rhetoric. [...] Much like it would have been very hard for the UK to disregard the results of the Brexit referendum, it's non-binding nature notwithstanding.

So the point I was trying to make was more sort of technical I suppose and possibly a legal thing.

My point would be that there needs to be a link between the referendum and the (legal) power to implement it. To move away from constitutional issues I don't think the Scottish parliament has the power to organise a referendum on banning nuclear power because that is an area that is reserved for Westminster - so that would have the same effect as, say, Manchester City Council's longstanding declaration that Manchester is a "nuclear-free zone". That is, no effect whatsoever, it is just declarative or rhetorical.

By contrast the Scottish parliament could organise a referendum on abortion because that is a devolved responsibility and they could implement it (same for the UK parliament and Brexit or Scottish independence or the general election voting system).

I think the legal argument would be that referenda themselves are not a reserved matter but there is an implied restriction on them to only be lawful within the boundaries of devolved powers - but as I say it'll go to the Supreme Court and they may well disagree.

If Scotland unilaterally held a referendum with high turnout and majority went for independence, sure it wouldn't legally bind the UK, but it feels like it would make it much harder to justify keeping Scotland as part of the UK.

Totally agree.

If it is a unilateral referendum the question will be whether unionists will participate or, as in Catalonia abstain to de-legitimise the referendum. So if unionists boycott so turnout is only, let's say, 48-49% (roughly the amount of the vote the SNP and Greens got in the last election) but 99% "yes" I don't think that would necessarily affect the politics very much. But if unionists participate so you have, let's say, 70-80% turnout and "yes" win then I think it's very difficult to argue that's an illegitimate result/referendum even if it isn't strictly lawful and I think it would make the politics really difficult - my own view would be even if it was unlawful that should be taken as the view of the Scottish people and the process of disentangling the union should start.

I think we are on the same page then.

[Tamas]

What's a gender critical feminist?

[Jacob]

What's a gender critical feminist?

Feminists who don't consider trans women to be women.

[Sheilbh]

Johnson's apparently giving a speech on "levelling up" - the only actual policy proposal I've seen is making it easier for pubs/cafes/restaurants to keep seats on pavements post-covid. That has powerful "cones hotline" vibes

Also it seems clear that the Treasury and economically dry Tories are fighting back to re-assert control.

Interesting piece on the threat to "Blue Wall" seats in the New Statesman:

Which of the Conservatives' "Blue Wall" seats are most vulnerable?
The Tories are facing an electoral threat in more deprived areas that voted Leave, as well as in affluent Remain seats.
By Ben Walker

Is Conservative hegemony under threat following the Liberal Democrats' victory in the true-blue seat of Chesham and Amersham on a 25-point swing? This Tory defeat has sent many activists into an excitable – or depressive – frenzy. If it can happen in Chesham, they say, it can happen... well, where, exactly?

It's worth remembering that by-election swings are rarely replicated at general elections. But in recent years we have seen a drift away from incumbents in some Conservative regions. Most of these areas are part of a so-called Blue Wall (hat-tip: Patrick English), an aggregate of Tory seats located in the south and east of England that voted Remain and boast an above-average number of university graduates.

But while these demographics might logically lead to faltering support for Boris Johnson, not all these areas are drifting away from the Tories, which makes me question whether we can speak of a tightly defined Blue Wall. If we want to examine which constituencies the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens might one day win, we need to dispense with the assumption that they will necessarily all be affluent and Remain-voting. So what, if anything, are the unifying features of Blue Wall seats?

Mapped here are the Conservative-held constituencies that either experienced a shift away from the party or a net swing in the direction of one or more of the so-called progressive parties at one or more of the local elections held between 2018 and 2021. It shows how variable votes are by constituency and how willing voters are to entertain alternative parties.

Some reflect wider trends seen elsewhere (such as in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire), while others are enigmas. The affluent, graduate-heavy commuter belt that YouGov's Patrick English has highlighted does feature but, crucially, not in its entirety.

Unlike most of the Sussex coast, Worthing West and Worthing East – which voted Leave – are deprived areas. Support for the Conservatives there rose in the recent local elections, as the party absorbed what remained of the Ukip vote, but these gains were far exceeded by those of Labour, which claims to be in contention to win the parliamentary seats.

Shropshire, a county in the Midlands that voted Leave, also recorded a swing away from the Conservatives in 2019. Within the constituency of North Shropshire, total council votes split 44 per cent Conservative (down three points on the 2017 county elections) and 31 per cent Liberal Democrat (up nine points). In Shrewsbury and Atcham, represented since 2005 by the Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, votes split 36 per cent Conservative (down six points), 28 per cent Labour (up four points), and 22 per cent Lib Dem (down one point).

Here, again, are constituencies that have become more competitive despite supposedly favourable demographics for the Tories. This phenomenon, as also seen in areas such as Sunderland and the Wirral, could be attributed to parties being in power for prolonged periods of time without any effective opposition. In the instance of Sunderland and the Wirral, those establishments were Labour, but in the case of Worthing and Shropshire, they happened to be Conservative.

Continue north to the affluent "commuterville" of Altrincham and Sale West, and you'll find a constituency that bears a resemblance to southern Tory areas such as Watford and Harrow. At the May local elections Labour's vote rose in Altrincham by two points compared to 2016. This is no major increase by any measure, but what makes it significant is that it coincided with a nine-point fall in support for the Tories and a ten-point increase for the Greens.

What all these examples reveal is that discontent with incumbent Tories is not the preserve of wealthy Home Counties England, or the blue parts of English Remainia. There are many areas where voters are defecting to alternatives to the Tories – some of which voted Leave and have above-average levels of deprivation.

In the long run, who will benefit from these shifts in a general election? For now, and disproportionately, the Lib Dems. They don't need to poll well nationally to poll well locally. In the most recent local elections, the Conservatives topped the poll across the wards that make up Chesham and Amersham by 19 points. In the 2019 locals, the Lib Dems topped the poll across York Outer by a margin of 28 points. It is no stretch to claim York Outer would have been an easier by-election for an opposition party (Labour finished second there at the last general election) than Chesham and Amersham.

But, I must emphasise, not all of the Blue Wall seats are even remotely competitive for the opposition parties. The decline in Conservative support will not lead to an electoral shock on the same scale as the fall of the "Red Wall" – many of the Tory majorities are simply too large.

All the same, the local election results reveal a less tribal electorate that is more open to change than the results of the 2019 general election would suggest. Tory support among its true-blue base has yet to significantly drift, but it might be beginning to. And if it does, don't be surprised when Hyndburn stays Tory, but Shrewsbury, York Outer and Altrincham do not.

Ben Walker is a data journalist at the New Statesman.

[Josquius]

Johnson's apparently giving a speech on "levelling up" - the only actual policy proposal I've seen is making it easier for pubs/cafes/restaurants to keep seats on pavements post-covid. That has powerful "cones hotline" vibes

I like it.
Both because it is a great idea in itself and because it will anger just the sort of gammon who normally believe tory lies about investing in the north.

[Sheilbh]

What's a gender critical feminist?

Feminists who don't consider trans women to be women.

I don't know if they're all that strong - but, yeah.

There's still incidentally no sign of what exactly is going on in the Green Party but they are very democratic and it is clear that there is some sort of big internal fight over trans rights. We're only seeing bits of it that are bubbling like the resignation of Sian Berry.

I think it is striking that there are two parties now which have had significant fights over trans rights - and they are both broadly on the left: the SNP and the Greens. It also seems to be quite a contentious issue among the Lib Dems and Labour. I think this gets to the sense that this isn't just an artificial fight launched by the right - and, within the UK, I think it is arguable that the Tory position is basically just small-c/classic conservative. They're not challenging existing trans rights and support the Gender Recognition Act 2004 - which was considered globally ground-breaking at the time but is now more out of date - rather they are not pushing forward with reform of those laws.

And that small c-conservative approach is being supported by the courts who in the UK have broadly ruled that obviously trans people are protected under the Equalities Act, but so are "gender critical" feminists (provided they don't treat trans people differently because of those beliefs). Similarly the UK courts - and I think this will go to the Supreme Court - have broadly ruled that children under the age of 16 are unlikely to be competent to consent to treatment like hormone blockers and that, while 16-17 year olds are legally competent to consent, there may be circumstances where clinicians think it's appropriate to actually go to court on this.

I like it.
Both because it is a great idea in itself and because it will anger just the sort of gammon who normally believe tory lies about investing in the north.

It's a good idea - but it's exceptionally thin gruel.

[Tamas]

Johnson's apparently giving a speech on "levelling up" - the only actual policy proposal I've seen is making it easier for pubs/cafes/restaurants to keep seats on pavements post-covid. That has powerful "cones hotline" vibes

I like it.
Both because it is a great idea in itself and because it will anger just the sort of gammon who normally believe tory lies about investing in the north.

It is bound to be popular with everyone, especially those being inconvenienced by the blocked streets.

[Sheilbh]

I know it's a joke about the White House in In The Loop - but is Britain unique in having a lot of pretty influential people basically be under 35 and on politics' version of a grad scheme?

SW1's real power players: the secret lives of spads
Behind every minister there is a special adviser who knows their secrets – but what about when they become the story? Anne McElvoy has a who's who of Westminster
By Anne McElvoy
@annemcelvoy
6 days ago

They are the influential, socially ambitious and fiendishly interconnected tribe of Westminster advisers who in the words of the Hamilton musical, hanker to be "in the room where it happens" – and make sure they are.

The close-knit tribe of "spads" (special advisers) to senior ministers are keepers of romantic and professional secrets, spreaders of good news about their bosses' talents  – and the first line of defence when political trouble, marital strife and the minefields of resignation loom. And they are often the young "shock troops" of their party's future, earning their spurs.

As Westminster returns to full combat from the deep-freeze of Zoom calls and disembodied WhatsApp groups in what one spad calls the "working from Zone 3" period, the league of influential, conspiratorial (and occasionally exhibitionist) aides to the Prime and other ministers anticipate a rollicking summer of parties, feuds and score-settling – all in the service of their bosses, jockeying to be on the right side of the national battle over the wisdom or foolishness of the Great Reopening.  But as well as reflecting their bosses' voices, political advisers can find themselves turning into the cause célèbre – or major embarrassment – all by themselves.

They relish a scrap – and come to life when conflict beckons, ready to WhatsApp LTT "Lines to Take" to supporters and defences (or veiled threats) to detractors. Spad world is as hierarchical as any big corporation, even if many of the main players tend to be under 35.

There is always an in-crowd of top-notch aides and these days, they range from Josh Grimstone, 28, the photogenic, waspish protégé of Carrie Symonds, now an adviser to Michael Gove. Grimstone's Facebook page once joked "Once you kill a cow you gotta make a burger." The "burger" in this case is sorting out the tangled links between Gove's role at the Cabinet Office – the "clearing house" of government business – and Number 10. In that incarnation, he is in regular touch with Henry Newman, another of the A-list spads and FOCs (Friends of Carrie), now in Number 10 and deputy to Simone Finn.

Finn, 53, is the present incarnation of the "Mother Spad" – a figure idolised (and often feared) by those on their way up the Tory greasy pole. She's the tough but polished product of a Swansea state school, an accomplished top accountant at PwC and the  Financial Services Authority . "She's probably the only adviser outside the Treasury who can laser-brain her way through accounts," says a contemporary. A party animal – usually in dress-to-kill heels and a designer frock – she served under Francis Maude at the Cabinet Office and as a non-exec there under Gove, an old Oxford boyfriend.

These days, Finn is deputy chief of staff in Number 10, charged with the personnel mess after Dominic Cummings' Krakatoa eruption – and ensuring friendly rivalries between the younger spads like Grimstone and Newman are kept within the bounds of Tiggerish competition.

Dubbed "the Claire Underwood of Downing Street" after the stylish but ruthless power broker in Netflix's House of Cards, Finn once joked to me that she would do "anything for the Conservative Party except wear cheap make-up on TV". Melding  social and political nous, she earned her spurs organising an ABBA-themed evening for Symonds - with  whom she is a close friend. Finn can charm or freeze in equal measure - the skilled spad wields power and connection like a political crypto-currency, which in this world, it is.

Crises are opportunities for new aides to shine - and those caught up in the mess to fall. And rather a lot has been going on in the "room where it happened" at the Department of Health, as it emerged that Matt Hancock was having an affair with one of his key aides Gina Coladangelo. Evidence of the "minister for hugs" taking his jokey moniker literally – in snatched footage from a security camera of him in a hot clinch with the woman who joined his team in a combined role of non–exec and special adviser – has shone an unforgiving light on the coterie who keep the political machine at Westminster rolling along, and the gossip mills turning.

Despite her titles, Coladangelo was not really a member of the brightest-and-best inner sanctum of top-notch spads. Having covered health policy for a longish stint, I was frankly unaware of her bona fides, until a policy aide discussing Team Hancock's response to the pandemic said archly, "You'd better talk to Gina, though I have no idea what she does." That question is now being directed at Lord Bethell - the close ally of Hancock in the Lords who signed off her parliamentary pass and is now under investigation in the Lords for so doing.

This bonfire of the vanities also casts light on a distinction in such circles which is lightly-worn but important – between policy experts and presentational gurus. Spads are political appointees unlike impartial civil servants. Some come with legal or innovation expertise  in a sector. But the most prominent exponents are often spin-doctor-strategists - helping their masters to survive the snakes and ladders of SW1 life.

And that brings us to the style of the men and women who walk discreetly behind them (though close enough to be caught in photographer's shots in perfect blow dries and stylish office wear). Cleo Watson was invariably alongside Dominic Cummings embodying  the silky art of not outshining your boss, but always being fervently on-message. Her Twitter handle reads simply "Got Brexit done".

And when trouble comes calling, fellow spads pick up the pieces – a role that now falls to  Damon Poole, as he starts work with Sajid Javid after the hasty resignation of Hancock. Because the relationship is so close and intense, one established adviser reflects that a spad feels "like a dog being rehomed" when "their"  minister falls on his sword – or one inserted between his shoulder blades by an enemy.

Most of the time, relationships stay platonic, but Hancock and Coladangelo have followed in the pattern of married ministers who segue to a second relationship via the spad route. Coladangelo hosted departmental gatherings alongside Hancock (and was known as the "office wife" – a phrase which should chill the marrow of every watchful spouse.)

It is a dynamic wryly observed by Sarah Vine, who wrote candidly in her Daily Mail column last week in the wake of separating from Michael Gove after a 20-year relationship: "Ministers are surrounded by people telling them how brilliant they are. Their departments treat them like feudal barons. Their every whim is treated as law.  It  changes them. It becomes increasingly difficult for anything to compete with the adrenaline of power."

This brought to mind the eye-roll delivered to me by the wife of a prominent aide of the Blair era, who observed that her husband, steeped in the details of international agreements, had somehow acquired "diplomatic immunity from domestic life".

In the case of the Goves, rumours of third parties being involved in the divorce of the high-profile Minister for the Cabinet Office  return to scuttlebutt about aides, past and present – something that Gove and Vine, as seasoned Westminster operators, anticipated by insisting in a clear joint statement  there was "no one else involved" in their split.

The heat and speculation are themselves a sign of how intense and committed the relationship between advisers and senior ministers can become. Excitable gossip aside,  Gove's networks of spads and non-exec links is both highly personal and politically trenchant. It intersects with the ultimate court of the Johnsons – and the FOCs who control it unopposed since the departure in high umbrage of the Great Ousted Adviser Dominic Cummings. The best of these aides are often bridges between two power bases. So Gove's old team made amends with the Boris fiefdom, by supplying the PM and his wife with a fresh bank of loyalists – the better to hold the fort against the traditional power base of the Treasury, where the Chancellor has a far deeper bench of official expertise to support his arguments.

For a pitch perfect send-up of this tendency of modern spads to end up as cheerleader, it's worth watching the comedian Josh Berry's impersonation of a Newman-esque figure comforting the PM's wife after criticism of her expensive choice of furnishings in the Downing Street lair: "It was perfect: it was gorge and well worth spending 1% of GDP on. Go chill and get yourself a turmeric latte."

Real-life spads are, however, sharper than Berry's engaging public-school dimwit and these days not always from the smug Oxbridge factory. Grimstone started his career after being hired at Conservative Central Office by Symonds after bonding with her over the best places to go clubbing in the northern cities. He's a Manchester history  graduate who went to state school (albeit top-notch Tiffin in southwest London) and was one of a handful of political insiders at the Johnson wedding (beating many Cabinet ministers to an invitation).

But when quarrels arise, they can be fervent and  bitter, because everyone knows so much about their fellow aides' faux pas. Proxy wars then spiral between camps, once aligned, now at war.  Cummings accused Newman of being the "chatty rat" who leaked information of a second lockdown and, along with many spad insider mysteries, this one was never fully cleared up. Newman insists he was not the leaker and would not have been hired by Number 10 if he had been. "Debatable," texts a colleague with a glint of mischief.

Inevitably, some aides hit the buffer in the pinball of power – notably Allegra Stratton, the talented TV journalist shunted from a promised role fronting televised press conferences to spinning for the Cop 26 climate change conference. On the upside, many of the breed go on to highly successful business careers, capitalising on their insider knowledge. Ben Wegg-Prosser, dapper sidekick to Peter Mandelson in his ministerial pomp, is now managing partner at Global Counsel, a prominent international strategy consultancy.

He reflects: "Spads have always drawn their influence from the political masters. But the best ones extend their reach beyond their boss's own remit. That way they can secure better outcomes but also be seen as distinct and different."

When I point out that Cummings might be seen as a case of too much independence, Wegg–Prosser replies, "He took distinctiveness to a new level which ultimately became destructive." And advisers can make a bad situation worse - as it turned out when Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy ran into trouble serving Theresa May and were dubbed the "gruesome twosome" for alienating colleagues. In truth, Timothy was an ideas man who could have been at arms length from the daily battles surrounding the Withdrawal Agreement and Hill, a tough TV journalist, also struggled in a role which requires allies as well as underlings. If it looks like an easy gig from the outside, it isn't, which is one reason (as well as the connections) spads often go on to successful careers in comms and business.

Often most effective are the ones you haven't heard of – not the ones who brief journalists on the brilliance of their bosses and foibles of opponents. They are the ones ministers turn to for candid, confidential advice when the going gets tough and policy challenges and political necessity are a hard combination to pull off. One such figure is Andrew Hood, now on Team Gove – and a (relatively rare) transfer between the  parties at Westminster.

Hood is a "Lexiteer" – part of the small tribe of Labour Leave supporters in high-level policy roles – and has advised ministers reaching back to the Blair government (his background, conveniently, is complex litigation). He was also general counsel under Cameron and a non-exec at the Department for International Trade. Now on Team Gove, Hood advises on the cat's cradle intricacies of the Northern Ireland protocol. That's the swottier end of the spad trade and it probably matters a lot more than who flatters the minister most or styles his hair.

On the other hand, it's not quite so exciting as being the person in the innermost sanctum of the after-party WhatsApp group, in the room where it happens, chewing over the latest juicy personal revelations – or helping make them happen.

Anne McElvoy is Senior Editor at The Economist

[Tonitrus]

Johnson's apparently giving a speech on "levelling up" - the only actual policy proposal I've seen is making it easier for pubs/cafes/restaurants to keep seats on pavements post-covid. That has powerful "cones hotline" vibes

Does this mean The Levellers are back!?