In what I assume was a deliberate choice, on the first day of my holiday the PM issued a new ministerial code and appointed a new independent adviser on ministerial interests... so two weeks late, here are my thoughts on the announcement (what you've all been waiting for, I know) First up, the new adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, has accepted the job on exactly the same terms as Lord Geidt. This means he still requires Sunak's consent before beginning any investigation into allegations of ministerial misbehaviour (though this consent will "normally" be given)

Last night the House of Commons voted on changes to the parliamentary system of standards, as proposed by Chris Bryant's Committee on Standards. While the government didn't make all the changes called for, here's why I think it's a step in the right direction... The government supported 18 of 20 recommendations by the committee, deciding not to provide more specific definitions for the '7 Principles of Public Life' as they apply to MPs. The committee had called for this, saying extra detail on what is expected from MPs would be helpful

Hate to be all earnest, but journalists and MPs saying the PM has watered the ministerial code down need to correct themselves - the expectation of resignation if ministers mislead parliament is clearly still there. He “hasn’t changed the rules mid-game”… … what he has done is make explicit what was always the case - that differing breaches of the code attract different sanctions. Baroness Warsi broke the code in 2012 and Cameron accepted an apology from her.

So - some initial thoughts on the new ministerial code and the new job description for Lord Geidt, the adviser on ministerial interests...

1 - Lord Geidt's independence has NOT increased. He still has to ask the PM for permission to investigate. Anything else is bluster Yes, there is an expectation the PM will approve - but Geidt still has to ask. And the PM doesn't have to explain when he says no, if there's a chance that "this would undermine the grounds that have led to the investigation not proceeding"... which it surely would?

Right. The Geidt letters are out - here are some initial thoughts, in no particular order

gov.uk/government/pub… One - failures all round. Geidt should have pushed for more information the first time, officials should have been more proactive in keeping him informed and in looking at old phones, and the PM should have remembered he had been messaging Brownlow months earlier...

So discussion today will focus on the debate in parliament about MPs' second jobs, but I think the better insight into the government's attitude to standards in public life will come when the PM is in front of the Liaison Committee this afternoon

Here's what to look out for... On the second jobs point, as others have said, the govt's motion is vague - when will they make time in parliament to update the rules for MPs? How will they define 'political/parliamentary consultancy' roles? Will they put a time limit on second jobs?

For all the chat yesterday about 5 years since the referendum, for me it's always the 24th of June that's the big date. That was the day the result became clear - when Cameron announced he was resigning (ho hum)... ...when the value of the pound plunged (and the little bit of contingency planning that the government had been able to do - with the Bank of England - kicked into effect to shore up confidence)

Yday was a big day for select committees, with David Cameron and Lord Geidt, the new independent adviser on ministerial interests, giving evidence.

So what did we learn? A few thoughts on how both outings reinforced the need for clearer rules on standards in public life... Let's start with Cameron. Among all the detailed chat about his role with Greensill - which others are better placed than me to analyse - he used his appearance as an opportunity to big up the rules on lobbying and transparency that he introduced as PM...

A little slower off the mark than usual, it's time for today's (now habitual) ringing of the new department bell 🔔🔔🔔

Labour's manifesto is out and they have *lots* of ideas for new government departments...

Here's a few thoughts: First up, a full Dept for Women and Equalities - this ministerial brief already exists, but rotates around between secretaries of state, without being a fully-fledged role (currently Liz Truss also has this role)

Not clear if there's much new here, other than the higher profile

These attacks on civil servants by backbenchers and the press are an absolute disgrace. The insinuation that Sedwill and team are freelancing on a trip to China, working to their own agenda as opposed to serving the elected Govt, is bonkers and undermines how our democracy works

https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/1124771027697971207

We wrote about this lack of trust between officials and ministers in our recent report. Different context (Brexit, of course) but same problem - and the fact that it’s spreading to national security is deeply worrying

🚨More #nodeal advice🚨

Following the Government's admission yesterday that it hasn't got the message out to businesses about what they need to do, they've published more info on what no deal would mean for services providers

gov.uk/government/col… Inside the single market (and during any transition), services companies in the UK can provide their services across the whole EU. With no deal, that won't be the case:

- they'll need to comply with national regulations in each EU country they want to operate in

Govt is expected to lose the #meaningfulvote tomorrow – but what are MPs' objections to the actual deal? A few thoughts below on four main criticisms of the deal – which show MPs still don't understand (willfully or otherwise) what #Brexit really means

[1/12] 1: “The backstop cedes part of the UK”. No, it doesn’t. NI’s status will only change under the terms agreed in the 1998 Belfast Agreement – no possibility of an accidental unification of Ireland. Both sides reiterated this in letters today

gov.uk/government/pub…

[2/12]

When all the #Brexit chat is about parliamentary shenanigans it’s easy to forget that these decisions will have real-world impacts, including a potential #nodeal… here’s a quick look at where #nodeal planning currently stands: 1. First the good news: the Government has struck agreements with the USA, Canada and 8 other countries to ensure flights can continue even in the case of no deal (nothing yet on flights to/from/within EU countries though)

gov.uk/government/new…

So the next (and still not final?!) set of #nodeal notices is out. @instituteforgov will of course be diving into the detail so you don't have to - but that's a job for next week

First, here's a thread of some interesting things we've spotted from a quick scan of today's papers: 1 - first up, a line on the #CustomsUnion in the note on exporting mercury - clarification for worried backbenchers?

A few thoughts on today's #nodeal notices - as others have said, these are some of the really juicy ones...

gov.uk/government/col…

(1/8) This is the first time, AFAIK, that the Government has accepted in such stark terms that no deal will mean:

- disruption to supply chains
- potential for no flights or bus services between UK and EU, and between UK and other countries (including flights to US)

(2/8)

Few thoughts on the #ERG proposals for the Irish border, an issue @awstojanovic and I wrote about back in June: instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/i…

The paper stresses that the ERG support the principle of no hard border, which will be welcome to all sides

(1) Also says that customs checks won't be a problem - which is true if the Govt can swing the Facilitated Customs Arrangement, which both the EU and the ERG have problems with...

(2)

Interesting story in the Mail last week which didn't get much pick up - few thoughts below...

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6… 1. This says that the UK will negotiate bilateral deals with every EU country to ensure flights can continue if we leave without a deal. So, as @jl_owen says, no deal actually means 27 deals (plus all the ones we need with other countries that are currently negotiated by the EU)