Independent Premium

How much trouble will Lord Christopher Geidt make for the prime minister? Of course, the fairer way to put the question is to ask how much trouble the prime minister is prepared to make for himself. The evidence on that, looking at the record thus far, is abundant. A watchdog on standards, the role Lord Geidt is now taking on, can only do so much to restrain a wayward premier. Boris Johnson can only really be sacked by his party (or the electorate), and not by any appointed official. However, a compliant sort of establishment old buffer as adviser on ministerial standards, an obedient poodle, is obviously better than some sort of snarling rottweiler. In his evidence to the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Lord Geidt sought to assure him that, smooth and discreet as he may be, he is not afraid to sink his teeth into the prime minister’s bottom.On the immediate priorities, these are to publish the register of minister’s external interests, and of course the investigation into who paid for the refurbishment of the prime minister’s flat. And, whoever the finding channels, whether it was consistent with the ministerial code and the seven principles of public life set out by the first standards supreme, Lord Nolan more than a quarter of a century ago – qualities not always immediately associated with the name Johnson: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; leadership. More

If there is one measure in the Queen’s Speech that appears to be a more or less naked attempt at suppression of the Labour vote, it is the proposal for compulsory voter ID at polling stations. The many critics of the idea, again mostly on the opposition benches, argue it is as unnecessary as it is undemocratic. They note that in recent years there has been only one conviction for this particular type of election fraud, “personation”, as impersonation is known in this context. The Electoral Commission noted with some satisfaction in a 2014 review that there is “no evidence to suggest that there have been widespread, systematic attempts to undermine or interfere with recent elections through electoral fraud”. In the course of their discussions with election officials in town halls, the police and others, the Electoral Commission concluded this: “Electoral fraud is not widespread, and reports of specific fraud are focused on specific places in England in a few local authority areas”. Even in those cases, the type of fraud tended to be “harvesting” of postal votes by campaigners, rather than the very rare examples of personation. Outside Northern Ireland, where the old slogan was “vote early, vote often”, personation has never been an issue in UK elections. The problem of dishonesty, one might add, is more likely to lie with those who get elected rather than the electorate, given what we know about the MPs’ expenses scandal and various instances of hypocrisy and worse perpetrated by serving ministers. More

After his bruising first encounter with the voters and a botched first reshuffle, there are growing doubts inside Labour that Keir Starmer can turn the party’s prospects around.With all eyes on him, Sir Keir needs to put in a strong performance in the Commons on Tuesday when he responds to the Queen’s Speech. In fact, Sir Keir has done well in his recent weekly jousts with Boris Johnson at Prime Minister’s Questions. The big test for the former director of public prosecutions is not persuading the Commons judges, but the jury of public opinion.Sir Keir needs to explain urgently what he and his party stand for, so he will launch a policy review. But when the-then Labour leader Neil Kinnock did that in the 1980s, it took two years. Sir Keir doesn’t have that much time. More

It seems in bad taste to even contemplate such an idea, given the grievous loss of life, almost including his own, but it would seem that the Covid pandemic has – in purely political terms – served Boris Johnson well. While no doubt longer-term trends, long predating Covid-19, including the continuing aftershocks of Brexit, helped the Conservatives in the latest round of elections, it is still true that the Covid crisis was a special factor, and a lucky one for the PM.Imagine, for example, if many of the elections postponed from last year had somehow been held then, or, indeed, after Dominic Cummings affair. At that point, the government looked incompetent, hypocritical and worse, and Keir Starmer was starting to move steadily ahead of the prime minister in the polls. At least in some areas, there would have been an immediate protest vote, a gesture of no confidence in the government. Now, though, Johnson can take full advantage of the vaccine rollout, the relaxation of lockdown and a general feel-better factor.Second, the crisis allowed him to dismiss Labour attacks on “sleaze” and the SNP campaign for a second independence referendum as somehow trivial or irrelevant to the big task of dealing with Covid and returning life to normal. Again, this is not an argument that could have made by Tories with so much confidence last year, when they seemed to be anything but on top of things. More

To adapt a phrase, it would seem that some in the Labour Party believe that Keir Starmer’s difficulty is the left’s opportunity. While a Corbynite resurrection is unlikely, a poor election showing in Hartlepool and across the country – by what you might term Starmerite Labour – contains its own silvery-red lining. The reports are that the left – represented in parliament by the likes of Jon Trickett, Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon in the Campaign Group – is giving Starmer another year to make progress or make way for someone else. Already Burgon has urged the leader to include a “big” figure from the left in the shadow cabinet (whoever could he mean?), and there have been various coded threats about the way Starmer has been running things. Key concerns include the reversal of a Corbyn-era pledge to hike corporation tax (with Covid as the reason/cover); a suspicion that Starmer and Jonathan Ashworth’s “constructive criticism” over Covid leaves Labour looking weak and pointless; frustration at internal party disputes; and resentment about the way the drive to eradicate antisemitism has been handled, which is to say with sincerity and commitment. After all, the failure of Jeremy Corbyn to unconditionally welcome the Equality and Human Rights Commission report into Labour’s antisemitism problem has led to the former leader now sitting as an independent MP. Rebecca Long-Bailey, the once future leader, also left the front bench after an argument with the leader around antisemitism. More

Generally, it stands to reason that the larger you are, the more chance you will have of securing an advantageous trade deal. This certainly seems to be holding true in the case of the UK and the (rather larger) EU’s attempts to secure closer economic relationships with the United States and with the emerging global industrial superpowers of India and China. Britain finds it fairly easy to adapt existing EU deals with the likes of Kenya or Jordan, and the talks with New Zealand seem to be going well. But, with respect, they are not going to fuel the British economy as it loses its old advantages in continental Europe. Britain needs to hitch itself to bigger, more dynamic powerhouses. It is stumbling.So far the EU is well ahead of the UK in the race for China, partly for political reasons. With Joe Biden pursuing much the same protectionist agenda as his predecessor – his vast $1.9 trillion stimulus is firmly focused on American jobs – neither the British nor the Europeans are likely to make much headway. The most “available” prize is thus India. Here, the British are a few months behind. EU negotiators will be at work by the end of the week; the UK side will have to wait their turn in the autumn. No surprise, that, given that the EU market is around 10 times as large as the British, but a sobering corrective to the buccaneering dreams of “Global Britain” some still seem to cling to.Of course the British trade secretary, Liz Truss, is proud of securing some £1bn of Indian investment and the prospect of some 6,000 jobs being created (according to government claims) in the next year or so. Yet two hypothetical, but important questions, arise: how much of that investment would have materialised if Ms Truss and her department didn’t exist; and how much would have been precluded or delayed if the UK were still part of the EU, with all of its negotiating heft? It is at least possible that Indian companies, like the Japanese before them, would have preferred to have Britain as a base inside the EU single market, and would have invested more if that was still the case. More