The Johnson-Cummings affair was always likely to end badly. Johnson is a "Bullingdon radical": you smash the pub for fun, then write a cheque to fix the damage. Cummings is a revolutionary who wants to burn the pub down. Their alliance has done lasting harm to UK politics. THREAD
2. Johnson is a rowdy, not a revolutionary. He's the schoolboy who rags the teachers but wants to be Head Boy; who drops stink-bombs in class but loves the old school. Soaked in privilege, he upsets the bathtub for the sheer joy of flooding the dorm below - & Matron will mop up.
3. Johnson's radicalism is about disrupting the system, not replacing it. He'll throw bottles at Parliament, the Courts & the EU, & thrill to the sound of glass smashing. But when the debris has been swept up he still wants frictionless trade, privacy laws & banks of cheering MPs
4. Cummings is not a Bullingdon man. He's a Jacobin: perhaps the first real constitutional radical to run a British govt. His blog rages against MPs, judges, civil servants & the whole apparatus of the state. He foresees a time when "we will be able to remake human nature itself"
5. Johnson might fling bread rolls at "the Establishment", but he does so from the comfort of the members' dining room. Cummings looks like he'd cheerfully dynamite the whole building.
6. Whatever their personal relations, this was always a marriage of convenience. Johnson got a ruthless campaigner who could win an election and take the decisions he shirked. Cummings got the helm of Number 10 & a chance to turn the guns of the ship of state onto its own decks.
7. The alliance between the Bullingdon Club & the Jacobin Club always had an expiry date. The only question was how much damage Cummings could do before Johnson got cold feet. And as we weigh up the scale of the destruction, we should never forget where responsibility really lies
8. It was Johnson who let Guy Fawkes into the building. It was Johnson who supplied him with matches and gunpowder, and gave him the run of the parliamentary estate. Cummings at least believed in what he was doing. Johnson seems to have done it for a lark.
9. Like a vengeful poltergeist, Cummings may return. In the meantime, Parliament, the rule of law, the conduct of elections & Britain's reputation overseas have all taken serious harm. The economic fuses are yet to detonate. And the responsibility for all of it is on Johnson. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Important lecture by the Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, warning of a fear "that those in public life no longer feel obliged to follow the so-called Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty & leadership".[1/8]
2. The speech offers a stark warning of the direction of travel in British politics: "a democracy without ethical standards ... where those elected make decisions solely in the interests of their supporters or paymasters".
3. The outsourcing of public services to private companies poses a particular challenge to the Nolan Principles. Even before the pandemic, 1/3 of public expenditure went on services delivered privately. Post-Covid, that figure will now be much higher.
Britain's uncodified constitution seems more vulnerable to manipulation today than it was in the past. Why? The answer, I suggest, is about two ideas that were once central to British politics - one of which has gone Absent Without Leave. [THREAD]
2. The Victorians embraced two key ideas about the constitution. The first was that it should not be "fixed" or "rigid" but "flexible" & "organic". It should evolve with changes in society, constantly reworked -as Lord John Russell put it- like a sculptor with a favourite statue.
3. Political writers praised the "elastic adaptability" of the constitution & its "irresistible instinct" for "the constant development of its institutions". The history of the constitution, wrote Macaulay, was a tale of "constant change in the institutions of a great society".
This is an excellent article by @davidallengreen. Whatever the merits of a written constitution, it's not going to happen any time soon. So we need achievable changes that can be carried now - like those set out in this article.
There are two things that are unquestionably worse than *not* having a written constitution:
- (1) Having a *bad* constitution, that's hard to change;
- (2) Having a constitution that doesn't command widespread consent. (Imagine a 52%:48% vote in a constitutional referendum...)
Constitutions set the rules within which we argue. When they themselves become the point of contention, the state is in danger. As a highly-polarised society, with powerful interests that wd certainly aim to nobble the process, the UK is not well set-up for constitution writing.
Proxy voting during parental leave or sickness is one thing. But its use on this industrial scale is concentrating power in the hands of the Whips, grotesquely strengthening the Executive & making a travesty of parliamentary govt. We urgently need a return to electronic voting.
Interestingly, there's also a smaller left-caucus of 15 MPs, who have all given their proxies to Bell Ribeiro-Addy. They include: Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Jeremy Corbyn, Ian Lavery, John McDonnell, Jon Trickett, Zarah Sultana, Claudia Webbe and Caroline Lucas.
Powerful letter from the Commissioner on Standards in Public Life, Peter Riddell, warning of ministerial attempts to "pack" interview panels and reward political allies with public appointments, in ways "expressly barred" by the Cabinet Office Code. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
The letter also warns of an increase in unregulated appointments, and the rewarding of political allies with seats on the Boards of Government Departments.
"Some at the centre of government want not only to have the final say but to tilt the competition system in their favour to appoint their allies". Leaking favoured candidates for jobs (eg BBC Chair) discourages others from applying. Letter summarised here: civilserviceworld.com/news/article/w…
This is a dazzling piece of writing. It's also one of the few critiques of Boris Johnson that thinks seriously about why he appeals to so many voters, and what that means for the future of British democracy.
@RoryStewartUK on Boris Johnson: Britain's "carnival lord of misrule".
This is a crucial point. Voters aren't fooled by Johnson: they know exactly what he is, but they vote for him anyway. Understanding why may be the key to defeating him in future.
Johnson's model isn't Pericles; it's Loki. It's probably no coincidence that the rogueish trickster remains one of the most loved villains in the Marvel universe.