Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

A further thread on David’s analysis.

https://twitter.com/law_and_policy/status/1376551001252069380

In an earlier thread, I looked at how one might strengthen accountability.

https://twitter.com/georgeperetzqc/status/1376822258065408000

But let’s look at the current government’s attitude to accountability, to see where the dangers lie.

The current government’s hostile attitude to judicial scrutiny is a well-worn subject: lots about it on legal Twitter.

But its attitude to other kinds of accountability is revealed by @michaelgove’s Ditchley Park speech (which is a must read for anyone trying to understand the current government). gov.uk/government/spe…

What Gove say about accountability? Well, at first sight, he seems to think lack of accountability is a problem.

But note that he is not really talking here about ministers’ accountability: rather, he is talking about the accountability of “elites”; of “Whitehall”; of institutions.

Indeed, when he comes to bodies that hold *ministers* to account, he is scathing: -

The Gove vision is one where Ministers are free from such constraints. They can “innovate”. They can “fast track”. They can try new things and fail.

If you ask the question: “but to whom are Ministers accountable?” Gove’s answer isn’t clear. He doesn’t mention Parliament (apart from the scathing reference to @CommonsPAC and “self-righteous” select committee chairs). Or the courts. Or anyone else.

Accountable to the people in a General Election? But if that’s the *only* form of accountability you accept then you are arguing for elective dictatorship.

So what you get from the Ditchley speech is a picture of a government that is keen on the accountability of others, but not keen on its own accountability: indeed, existing checks on its accountability are attacked as hostile to innovation.

Nor is there any acknowledgment of the risks of the culture of innovation and disdain for traditional forms of accountability. The risk that ministers shut out unwelcome voices; hear only what they want to hear.

Gove argues that ministers should learn from failure: but without strong accountability, the tendency is to hide failure, not to learn from it.

And note the risk of corruption that comes with fast-tracking contracts and approvals for those who happen to have had the chance to persuade ministers that their project is wonderful and should be rushed through.

Democratic and legal accountability does slow things down. It can be frustrating. There is a price. But the dangers of reducing it are huge. And, ultimately, lack of accountability leads to lack of trust. And without trust, effective government is impossible.

And on the risks of corruption that follow from a disdain for rules and procedures and a reliance on a “but I’m not corrupt and this must be worth a try” culture, see by @CSC_barrington here.

https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1376807860244467714