Politics explained

One of the more curious parliamentary trends in recent months has been the increasing animosity between the speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, and the government. Although electing Hoyle last November to replace John Bercow was designed to reserve relations and ease tensions, Hoyle is proving to be nobody’s poodle. As a popular figure on all sides with no pretensions and a man of the world, he asserts the rights of the house with arguably more authority than his predecessor. He is having to do so more often.  The speaker seems to have particular problems with the prime minister and with health and social care secretary, and his annoyance turned to a mild fury when the news about the “rule of six” was released before the Commons got to hear of it. This undeniably important story, affecting the lives of so many of the constituents of MPs representing English seats wasn’t even unveiled at a Downing Street press conference or in a Department of Health Social Care media statement. Rather it was scooped by ITV’s political editor Robert Peston, on Twitter of all places. Prompted by points of order by Tory MP Desmond Swayne and by Matt Hancock’s Labour shadow, Jonathan Ashworth, the speaker made little attempt to disguise his anger, or the potential retribution.“It was all over Twitter as this was going on. Obviously somebody decided to tell the media rather than this house,” he said. “What I would say is that I expect the secretary of state to apologise to members and make sure that this chamber knows first. He was fully aware – fully aware – of what was  going to be said later. Let me say that if this minister wants to run this chamber ragged, I can assure you now that I am sure an urgent question every day might just begin to run him ragged.” More

The prime minister’s desire to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement has caused something of a storm. Boris Johnson’s critics question why he did not previously spot any flaws in his “oven-ready deal”; moreover, whatever the problems, to unilaterally try to amend an international treaty would be a breach of international law, with all that implies.The prospective assault on international law has been confirmed by the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis. Mr Lewis told the House of Commons that the move will indeed break international law “in a limited and specific way”. He has claimed precedent in the 2013 Finance Act making provision to deal with tax dodging and vary international agreements unilaterally. That has been denied by George Osborne, the chancellor of the time. People on both sides have offered interpretations of various clauses in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement that might justify the government’s actions. However, some of the arbitration procedures have still to be agreed.There are, in fact, a number of ways the government’s bid to override the withdrawal agreement can be stopped. More

The UK-EU withdrawal agreement is the “divorce settlement” for Brexit, and was finally signed last October, endorsed by the British electorate in the December general election, and approved by the new House of Commons in January. It was also endorsed by the EU authorities (it did not need to be ratified by all regional and national assemblies, as any further trade deal will be). It came into force on 1 February. It covers the transition arrangements due to end on 31 December, plus some continuing aspects of UK-EU relations, such as citizens’ rights and the Irish border, and maintains the Good Friday Agreement.Boris Johnson famously dubbed it his “oven-ready deal” to “get Brexit done”. Even if that were correct – and of course the new trading relationship has not yet been determined – the withdrawal agreement, and thus Brexit itself, is now coming under renewed pressure, mainly because of the failure, so far, of the trade talks. The withdrawal agreement has the settled legal status of an international treaty, and is the “prerequisite”, according to the EU, if a harmonious future relationship. It has legal force in the way the political declaration which accompanied it did not. Neither party can alter the withdrawal agreement unilaterally.Nonetheless, there are two ways in which the British are seeking to make the UK-EU withdrawal agreement work in Britain’s interests, and they are getting a little mixed up. One is mostly legitimate, the other mostly not. More

One thing on which most economists are agreed is that now is not the time to be raising taxes. After the shock caused by the response to the coronavirus pandemic, people need to be encouraged to spend; money needs to be pumped into the economy, not taken out of it. So why are the news headlines full of speculation about new taxes?Part of the explanation is that the Treasury is doing its job. It always has to be working on possible new sources of tax revenue, and especially in the run-up to a Budget, so that it can give the chancellor a range of options. Rishi Sunak presented a series of fiscal statements in the early stages of the coronavirus crisis that were far bigger than most budgets, but now he is preparing for the actual Budget, in November or early December, in which he wants to set out a credible path for a return to sustainable government finances.
In the medium term, that will mean higher taxes. So even if he doesn’t intend to raise taxes in this Budget, he may want to prepare the ground for doing so later. However, any work done in the Treasury – and especially any options that are shared with No 10 – is likely to find its way into the public domain. Sometimes, this is deliberate briefing in order to try to kill a particular idea, or to discredit the person who advocated it. More usually, it is seepage: gossip and showing off by people in the know that finds its way to journalists. More

With five of the most senior civil servants pushed out of their jobs in a matter of months, including Sir Mark Sedwill, the head of the civil service and Cabinet secretary, plus a few sackings from public sector agencies, much has been written about the rapid, and dangerous, politicisation of the traditionally independent and non-partisan administrative machine. Covid and Brexit has, it’s alleged, revealed weaknesses in the structure of government (though others say it just revealed ministerial incompetences).However, history suggests that to a large degree some of those concerns about politicisation are misplaced. As Simon Case, at 41 a youthful replacement for Sir Mark, takes over he will face the challenge of balancing the best traditions of the civil service with the novel demands of a government unusually suspicious of, if not hostile to, Whitehall’s very ethos and sense of duty. Dominic Cummings, chief adviser to Boris Johnson, in particular is keen to reshape what he sees as the “blob” of the civil service and quangocracy into a more mission-focused affair; it would be strange indeed if the prime minister and those closest to him hadn’t satisfied themselves in advance that Mr Case was up for the task of shaking things up.The first thing to get clear, then, is that prime ministers have always tried, and usually succeeded, in surrounding themselves with officials who are politically and personally congenial to them, even if others find them abrasive or outright evil. These personalities can emerge from the traditional ranks of the civil service, be appointed to roles as special advisers or to conventional jobs done by officials, live in in-house think tanks or policy units, or indeed have no official standing whatsoever, or be merely party officials. In many cases it soon becomes irrelevant as to their background, if their competence and loyalty is sufficiently sound. More