Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Interesting and impressive effort by the green groups within the Tories to get all candidates signed up to the current NDC and net zero target. Probably not expected at the start of the contest and, apparently something Johnson considers important to his "legacy".

[The Larch]

The Economist doesn't seem very keen on the Tory method to select a new leader either.

Britain's prime minister becomes a rotten presidency
MPs alone, not party members, should choose the next prime minister

Boris johnson can claim to be Britain's first president. The votes of 92,153 members of the Tory party, not those of its mps, put Mr Johnson in Downing Street in 2019. As the debate about his place in history starts, the fact that he was the first prime minister to be directly elected by voters, even if by only a handful of them, is barely mentioned.

After Mr Johnson's announcement on July 7th that he would step down, the Conservative Party is sticking with this method to find his successor. Since 2001 Conservative mps have reduced themselves to choosing two candidates and then letting the 180,000-strong membership of the Conservative Party have the final say over their leader, even when they are also choosing the head of the government. That risks turning the role of prime minister into a rotten presidency.

An ersatz presidential race will take place in July and August. Two Conservative candidates will roam the country begging for the votes of a tiny, self-selecting electorate. Candidates will unleash campaign slogans, smear each other and face off at hustings, just like any other presidential election. Where suffrage was once limited to propertied men, today it is limited to those who paid £25 ($30) to join the Conservative Party. Imagine a National Trust membership—except, rather than free entry to stately homes, you may get to choose the prime minister every few years.

The problem is not the electorate. Conservative mps often think their membership is nuts. Thankfully, they are wrong. Although they may be older, richer and more male than the electorate as a whole, views of Tory members are roughly in line with bog-standard centre-right opinion. They are a bit more forthright than mps when it comes to law and order, and a bit more left-wing than the typical Tory mp on economics, according to one study. But they are not rabid headbangers waving "Eat The Poor" placards.

Likewise, mps do not have a monopoly on wisdom. They often lack it. In 2016 Theresa May was chosen by her fellow mps after the slapstick implosion of her rivals meant there was no one left to run against; she won by default, without the need for a vote among party members. In less than a year, she had blown her majority.

A neo-Gothic palace by the Thames is a terrible place to gauge the mood of voters. In contrast, Conservative members are canny. In 2005 David Cameron was a far-sighted choice. The former Conservative leader pledged a socially liberal, tieless form of Conservatism to compete with the slick managerialism of Labour. Likewise, choosing Mr Johnson as party leader was a gamble that paid off, in the short term. The Tories began 2019 with the worst polling in decades; they ended it with their biggest majority in 30 years.

The problem with the system is the principle rather than the end-product. For starters, an mp could have the support of only a minority of the parliamentary party and still become prime minister, if they are able to charm enough Rotary Club members from Witney. Across the chamber, Labour activists thrust Jeremy Corbyn onto an unwilling Labour parliamentary party twice. Misery ensued. Safeguards do exist: Conservative mps can remove their leader with a simple confidence vote. But far better to pick someone with guaranteed support in the first place.

Defenders of the system argue that mps will put only well-qualified candidates in front of the membership. But Conservative mps prefer victory to competence. If a candidate proves surprisingly popular with members, mps—aware that their careers depend on backing the right person—will follow. There is no point in backing someone good if you know they will be beaten by inept rivals who have spent years greasing up association members in Solihull.

Indeed, rather than allow a thoughtful interrogation of their colleagues, Tory mps have opted to rattle through their part of the voting process. The final two candidates will have been chosen by mps by July 21st. Not only must Conservative members then make the final decision on who to pick. They must also stress-test any future prime minister, grilling them on everything from tax policy to Ukraine. In opposition, this method is fine. The winner of any contest, whether members' ballot, trial by combat or a coin-toss, is put before voters in a general election before they can lead a government. Picking prime ministers should be a different matter. It is not right that the votes of the upstanding members of Richmond's local Tory party association determine who gets handed the nuclear codes.

Take back control
Outsourcing the decision of who enters Downing Street is a dereliction of duty by mps. One of the more compelling arguments for leaving the eu was that it would compel mps to pay attention to the laws they pass, rather than rubber-stamping a directive from the eu's legislative machine. But if mps do not feel qualified to pick a prime minister, they should not feel qualified to vote on a law.

Creating a de facto presidency is a recipe for constitutional stress. Candidates to become prime minister end up appealing to a narrow caucus of self-selecting members, rather than lawmakers chosen by the electorate at large. This is a path to polarisation. And government in Britain is supposed to be a collective endeavour, with an executive ruled by a cabinet and held in check by Parliament. One of the least appealing parts of Mr Johnson's reign was his presidential manner.

Competing mandates poison the British constitution. Brexit turned into a mess partly because the principle of direct democracy crashed into the concept of parliamentary democracy. mps wrestled with a policy that the majority thought was a terrible idea; on the Labour benches, mps sat behind a man they thought was useless. A presidential prime minister, claiming a separate mandate, is the last thing the country needs. Parliamentary democracy is a fine thing. mps should, to coin a phrase, take back control. Why not start with who lives in 10 Downing Street?

[Sheilbh]

That's the constitutional conservative take - which I don't really agree with. And I really think the Presidential comparison in this case is nuts. Also the Corbyn comparison is specific to Labour because the Tories have better, more sensible rules on leadership elections precisely to stop a Corbyn.

Instead of presidentialism I think this is another step on Britain being a bit more of a party democracy than it was historically - and arguably another step of the Europeanisation of our system. I think a change from this is less likely to be that this power returns purely to the parliamentary Tory or Labour Party, and more that we formalise the role of acting or caretaker PM.

[Sheilbh]

Latest round:
115 Sunak (+14)
82 Mordaunt (-1)
71 Truss (+7)
58 Badenoch (+9)
--
31 Tugendhat (-1)

Sunak's a lock-in, but still 5 votes from guaranteeing a place in the final role which he'll get tomorrow. Feels more likely that it's him v Truss now - but I think Badenoch is probably the better candidate for the right. Not sure there's a route for Mordaunt

[crazy canuck]

That's the constitutional conservative take - which I don't really agree with. And I really think the Presidential comparison in this case is nuts. Also the Corbyn comparison is specific to Labour because the Tories have better, more sensible rules on leadership elections precisely to stop a Corbyn.

Instead of presidentialism I think this is another step on Britain being a bit more of a party democracy than it was historically - and arguably another step of the Europeanisation of our system. I think a change from this is less likely to be that this power returns purely to the parliamentary Tory or Labour Party, and more that we formalise the role of acting or caretaker PM.

The transition from a Parliamentary democracy in form and substance to government by the executive branch with members outside the Prime Ministers Office giving the semblance of parliamentary rule has been completed here in Canada.   And particularly under our current Prime Minister - which is ironic because in his first election, one of his main promises was to lessen the control of the PMO and return it to ministers and parliamentarians.  But he has done more than any PM to concentrate all decision making into the PMO.

I am not sure though that government by a wide group of ministers and their staff is any better.  The bench strength of modern parties isn't exactly stellar.

[Josquius]

Looks like Johnson is learning from Trump and doing a greatest hits tour before leaving office.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-deep-state-overturn-brexit_uk_62d59250e4b0f6913032c504

Boris Johnson has claimed the "deep state" and Keir Starmer will try to take Britain back into the European Union after he leaves office.

The outgoing prime minister made the bizarre comment as he defended his government's record.

Johnson will leave office on September 6 after being forced out by his own MPs.

But opening a debate on a confidence motion the government tabled in itself, the PM insisted he had achieved a great deal during his three years in office - including finalising the UK's exit from the EU.

He said: "Some people will say as I leave office that this is the end of Brexit, oh yes, and the leader of the opposition and the deep state will prevail in its plot to haul us back into alignment with the EU as a prelude to our eventual return, and we on this side of the House will prove them wrong, won't we?"

The "deep state" is a term often used by conspiracy theorists to describe shadowy government officials who carry out secret acts unbeknown to the wider public.

Johnson was a key player in the Vote Leave campaign which led to the UK voting for Brexit in the 2016 referendum.

Despite campaigning for Remain, Starmer insisted earlie this month that a future Labour government will not try to overturn that result.

He said: "There are some who say 'We don't need to make Brexit work. We need to reverse it'. I couldn't disagree more.

"Because you cannot move forward or grow the country or deliver change or win back the trust of those who have lost faith in politics if you're constantly focused on the arguments of the past.

"So let me be very clear: with Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union."

RELATED...

[Sheilbh]

There's no PMO here. The Institute for Government did a study looking at models for something like a PMO (I think with Canada, Germany, Sweden and New Zealand) and found the UK PM has an unusually low number officials and support compared to other heads of government. It reminds me of, I think, Dominic Cummings' most interesting contribution: 
"You might think somewhere there must be a quiet calm centre, like in a James Bond movie, where you open the door and there is where the ninjas are who actually know what they're doing. There are no ninjas. There is no door."

I think we should have one as in many ways we have presidential politics focused on leadership, but none of the structures to make it work. What you have instead is cycles of PMs expanding their staff/setting up structures that them get dismantled by their successor who subsequently finds it was helpful and recreates something similar. I think we've been through three iterations of Tony Blair's "delivery unit" since he left office and Brown got rid of it.

I think here power ebbs and flows based on politics. Everyone panicked about the presidentialism of Thatcher, Blair and Johnson - the reality is they won very good majorities so dominated their party and cabinet politically, until they didn't. Major and Cameron were both praised as a return to cabinet government - in reality they were just weaker politically and needed to negotiate for support more.

In theory everyone loves and says they want to return to cabinet government, practically I'm not sure how possible it is with 24 hour news cycles etc. it's more difficult to defer to the minister and wait for the relevant cabinet committee to agree a policy etc. Although maybe now with more videocoms, remote practices etc, the pendulum is swinging? And as you say the bench isn't exactly looking that great.

[Sheilbh]

Looks like Johnson is learning from Trump and doing a greatest hits tour before leaving office.

Yeah pound shop Trump - and I think what he'll be like as a post-PM (trying to make his successor's life hell - at least if it's Sunak).

Deep state is another of those conspiracies that has interestingly jumped from left to right, like vaccines, Bill Gates etc. Not fully sure why or what that means?

Edit: Incidentally I  don't think Johnson is prepared (intellectually, psychologically etc) for how unpopular he's become.

[Zanza]

There's no PMO here. The Institute for Government did a study looking at models for something like a PMO (I think with Canada, Germany, Sweden and New Zealand) and found the UK PM has an unusually low number officials and support compared to other heads of government. It reminds me of, I think, Dominic Cummings' most interesting contribution: 
"You might think somewhere there must be a quiet calm centre, like in a James Bond movie, where you open the door and there is where the ninjas are who actually know what they're doing. There are no ninjas. There is no door."

I think we should have one as in many ways we have presidential politics focused on leadership, but none of the structures to make it work. What you have instead is cycles of PMs expanding their staff/setting up structures that them get dismantled by their successor who subsequently finds it was helpful and recreates something similar. I think we've been through three iterations of Tony Blair's "delivery unit" since he left office and Brown got rid of it.

I think here power ebbs and flows based on politics. Everyone panicked about the presidentialism of Thatcher, Blair and Johnson - the reality is they won very good majorities so dominated their party and cabinet politically, until they didn't. Major and Cameron were both praised as a return to cabinet government - in reality they were just weaker politically and needed to negotiate for support more.

In theory everyone loves and says they want to return to cabinet government, practically I'm not sure how possible it is with 24 hour news cycles etc. it's more difficult to defer to the minister and wait for the relevant cabinet committee to agree a policy etc. Although maybe now with more videocoms, remote practices etc, the pendulum is swinging? And as you say the bench isn't exactly looking that great.

Our federal chancellor has about 600 staff in his office, most of which are civil servants with just a few political appointees.

Edit: But we have fairly powerful ministers and the faction leads in parliament also matter, although most power is in the executive

[viper37]

I do wonder since we are increasingly moving towards a presidential style system in appearance with TV debates, people voting for PM rather than local MP,

hasn't this been the case for a while now, even before tv?

I am speaking of the general election for Prime Minister.  I am well aware there are people voting for the candidate.

But I am quite certain most Prime Minister have been elected because of them and their party, not because a majority of the citizens in their parliamentary democracy voted specifically for the best candidate (in their eyes), totally independent of party and leader affiliation and this was true even before we had television.

Candidate speeches often pushed forward the merits of their party and their leaders, not specifically their own merits first, just like today.

A leader's debate would not have the same impact before the advent of radio and television, so I'm not sure if they did it in Canada, Britain and elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

[Sheilbh]

It's tough to get a number here because the civil servants in Downing Street operation are technically part of the Cabinet Office - some will report directly to the PM, but as the name indicates they're there to support the cabinet more broadly. This distinction has been emphasised as very important by former and serving Cabinet Secretaries (head of the civil service and the Cabinet Office).

Last estimates I saw was there's about 200 people in the PM's office (of which 10-50 will be non-civil servants) who report to the PM, plus around 100 Cabinet Office civil servants who work in regular direct support for Number 10, eg various secretariats but who formally/organisationally answer to the Cabinet Secretary. It also fluctuates because each PM will set up their office differently - because there is no "Prime Minister's Department" or formal structure, so they all start from scratch. In general I think most PMs start by cutting it back and having a lean team and as time goes on realise they need more support.

Ministers on the other hand have entire departments - again their actual strength will depend on their political situation. But a strong minister with the backing of their department can be challenging for most PMs.

Edit: And the slightly mad thing is how recent it is. Blair had a big office, as did Cameron who needed it for managing the coalition. But from what I understand, even as recently as Thatcher and Major, the PM's office was somewhere between 50-75 people.

[Sheilbh]

Very good campaign ad by Mordaunt - squarely aimed at Sunak...but, it's still just all vibes:
https://twitter.com/pennymordaunt/status/1549130737726767107?s=21&t=R8rSQO92zRNhtNYDDRa59w

Edit: Incidentally I kind of want a Mordaunt-Sunak contest just to see the meltdown in the Mail because they've been trying to stop/hurt them both all week.

Edit: Also with Tugendhat gone we've lost our chance for a dual British-French citizen PM (married to a French diplomat too) which is a shame

[alfred russel]

So if you are Sunak...you are all but certain to make the runoff. Considering the remaining candidates are very close together, why not get your supports to defect to the weaker candidate and then conquer in the runoff?

[crazy canuck]

Probably because its a high risk low reward proposition.

[Sheilbh]

So Badenoch knocked out - but she's established herself as a major figure on the right who will get a big job in cabinet. I also think she's perfectly positioned to run (and win) for leader if/when the Tories lose the next election. This was too early for her but I also think her skill set and brand would make for a good LOTO.

The vote counts are getting a little weird - a reminder that Tory contests are often as much about MPs blocking candidates they absolutely don't want as leader as they are supporting who they do. Also rumours of Sunak vote lending - it'll be interesting to see if he basically has the votes to choose his opponent and who that'd be.

It still feels far more likely to be Truss which will be a contest between someone the membership isn't keen on because of the tax rises and doesn't seem to have great political judgement v someone indebted to the worst elements of the party, who the public actively dislike and who has lashed herself to Johnson as the continuity candidate. Neither option seems great for the Tories.