Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Boris Johnson

  • Democracy Café: July

    Meeting of the Democracy Café, July 2022

    This meeting was held following the week in which Boris Johnson was forced to resign as prime minister of Great Britain and the start of the selection process for a new PM. The final straw was the revelations about Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip, and when and how much the prime minister knew of his unwelcome groping of other men. Johnson was found to have lied about the matter and this prompted a series of resignations which rapidly grew to a flood resulting in his departure, although he was still in Downing Street as we speak, and he had formed a new cabinet. The uncertainty surrounding his departure led to the first question we debated: Do we need a written constitution? This is not the first time we have debated this.

    Peter Hennessy, a writer on the UK political scene, called our system the ‘good chaps’ model, a kind of echo of Victorian times when gentlemen ran things and there were rules – some unwritten – about they were to behave honourably. This point was made along with the point that one problem with a written constitution was that changing it was difficult. Ireland has such a constitution and they have been able to change it so perhaps it is possible. Mary Dejevsky, writing in the Independent, has argued recent events demonstrate that reliance on the gentlemanly way of running things was no longer tenable and that we needed a written constitution.

    The point was made however, that we did have a wide range of rules and procedures governing behaviour, including precedent, but if they were to be brought together who got to decide? If it was parliament then they are likely to do it to suit themselves.

    We were brought up short by the question: what is the purpose of a constitution, written or otherwise? Later in the debate the question, what problem does a written constitution solve? I suppose it is fair to say we circled these questions in our debate. We were reminded that we do have a constitution of sorts and that is Magna Carta. Later we had the Great Reform Act. The same speaker noted that Germany’s constitution was written by the Allies after the war. Chile was given as an example and the country, post Pinochet, is engaged in constitutional reform following a period of unrest. Consultations, rather like citizens’ assemblies, have taken place with a wide range of groups including minorities and native Americans. It is about to finish and to be voted on by the people.

    Other influences were discussed. These included the old favourite, the media, but also the judiciary and the role of a small group of public schools. If we do have a written constitution, who will police it? The Judges? Apart from the fact they are drawn from a very narrow section of society, who appoints them? They could rule on what was legal, but not necessarily the right thing which was more a matter of judgement. It was noted that Russia has a constitution but it has effectively been ignored by Putin. The media, as we have discussed on many times before, wield enormous power yet are run in the main by individuals who live abroad. It is they who inform the people so it is vital that this duty is carried out as fairly as possible and that the information they provide is as honest and balanced as possible. Are they doing that? Any system – written or otherwise – would require a well informed citizenry.

    On this point, it was said that it would be important that any such constitution was available for schools, by implication that it would be written in a plain fashion and jargon free. Someone with young children said they were looking at surveys on line which asked questions about their beliefs and ideas on various issues of the day. This then suggested a political party which most fitted those beliefs. Encouraging, and a shift away from just looking at personalities.

    Human rights should be at the heart of any constitution, a sensitive issue at present with the government bent on abolishing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights. This point was not really pursued.

    Finally, we got onto discussing the role of the monarch. After a discussion about King Charles who had argued he could not be tried for treason since he was the king (so could not commit treason against himself I think was the point), we got onto the role of the current Queen in the light of the events of this week. Some commentators had apparently opined that Her Majesty should not be ‘dragged into’ the row over Johnson’s will he/won’t he? shenanigans this week. What then was the point of the monarch? Why have one when it could be argued, there was a pressing need for some kind of final arbiter?

    In the second half we moved on to our second question which was the psychology of leadership. It turned out to be closely linked to the first debate. It started naturally enough, with the question of Johnson’s personality. People voted it was said, for politicians like Johnson, who had charisma: the word ‘machismo’ was mentioned. Keir Starmer’s problem was that people thought he lacked it.

    This led to a general discussion about personality. To sum up this point, people simply voted for people with a likeable personality. They were not turned on by ‘men in grey suits’ (interesting – we do not have a phrase ‘women in grey skirts’). It was also noted that Johnson was lucky in his opponents: Corbyn and Livingstone.

    There has also been a move towards TV debates which favoured those who were good at this kind of activity (products of Oxford University perhaps where they have a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons). But were they the right people to run things? A highly regarded prime minister was Clem Atlee for example would have been extremely unlikely to get anywhere near No: 10 in today’s climate of celebrity politicians yet was an extremely effective and highly regarded prime minister.

    At this point the idea of psychometric testing was introduced. This led onto a discussion of teams and the point that a good team has a variety of personality types. There are various models and tests surrounding this to establish an individuals best place in a team according to their personality.

    Various disasters in the armed services had led to a thorough appraisal of leadership and a variety of tests and training to determine leadership skills. Young recruits for example are given various tasks in a group to see how they perform and one of the centres is based in Westbury.

    Back to our parliamentary system and the difference is immediately obvious. An MP is selected, not on leadership skills or how they would perform in a team but on how they performed in front of a selection panel. That was often influenced by whether the candidate was seen to be ‘one of us’. Once in parliament they might be selected to become minister following, in some cases, a brief period of ‘training’ as a PPS. There was no training offered for this ministerial role and it is immediately apparent that many individuals are simply not up to the task. Indeed, many who were appointed did so on the basis of their loyalty to the leader not necessarily on their abilities or relevant experience. Since many MPs nowadays were career politicians and many never have had what might be referred to as a ‘real job’, there was precious little of that experience anyway. Is it any surprise then we get the results we do? It’s a wonder it’s not worse in fact. Why cannot the system sort out ‘flaky’ people someone ruefully asked?

    Will there be a reaction to the cult of personality following the departure of Johnson? There were many angry people on both sides of the political divide.

    We ended with a comment by the journalist Peter Oborne who, speaking at an event in Salisbury some years ago, was asked about Johnson and his reply was ‘he is not a team player’. Greg Dyke was quoted as saying he would ‘not allow [Johnson] to run my bath’.

    Two interesting discussions broadly about how our country is run. We have a hotchpotch of a system based on the concept of good chaps who do the right thing when appropriate. Recent events tested this to the limit so maybe we do need some kind of constitution. The people who run it are not selected on their management or team skills but on loyalty to the party and to its leader. There is precious little training in ‘how to be a minister’. Three dysfunctional bits add up to a dysfunctional whole.

    Peter Curbishley

    Readers might like to read the book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman (Atlantic Books, 2019) which gives an interesting and quite sympathetic picture of an MP’s life.

  • Democracy Café: June

    Numbers were a bit down for this meeting which is probably to be expected on a nice June day. It didn’t inhibit our discussion however which was on the topic of should there be a different way of selecting our prime minister? This referred to the votes by members of the Conservative party on whether to keep Boris Johnson as their prime minister following the magic number of MPs who had submitted letters to Sir Graham Brady and the vote of no confidence in him.

    The point made by the proposer was that the prime minister represented all of us and was the prime minister of the country as a whole. Should it just be left to, in this case Conservative MPs, many of whose futures depended on party patronage or who were on what is termed the ‘payroll vote’ that is were part of the government in some form? The example was given of John Glen, the Salisbury MP and a Treasury minister, who claimed in the Salisbury Journal that he had ‘no discretion’ in the matter. This puzzled some as it was a secret vote.

    Some alternative suggestions were made and discussed including allowing the public to sue or involving the court system generally. People were not generally impressed by this partly because of its cumbersome nature and, who selects the judges? It was pointed out that the House of Commons as a whole can have a vote of no confidence which is likely to lead to the prime minister resigning and even the fall of the government. It was also pointed out that Boris Johnson is still very popular with the public and that many think that ‘partygate’ has been overdone. Many liked his style of leadership which was itself a worry. Involving the public in prime ministerial appointments brought us dangerously close to being a presidential system. We didn’t get the normal response of ‘do you want to have a president Blair?’ at that point but someone did quietly mutter ‘Donald Trump’ which serves as a terrible warning (Trump I mean although …).

    People still felt the current system intolerable but quite what to do about it was less clear. The role of the media (as ever) came into the discussion and their role in influencing public opinion either way. Big money interests support the Conservatives on the whole it was said.

    A general question was posed at this point: how do you select a leader of any group or organisation? Who selected whom should be the facilitator of this very meeting? If we didn’t like him how would we go about changing him? A profound question.

    We moved on to talk about the parliamentary situation as a whole and in particular the current two party system. Although ‘first past the post’ was not specifically mentioned, it was the point behind the comment that the winner takes all process encourages people who can cope with it. Those who might be more collaborative in their approach are discouraged by the party warfare – or should I say warfare between the parties. The two party system was thought not suitable for today’s world it was thought.

    A quirk of the system about voting for the prime minister was that it would only be the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip who get to vote for him (or not) in a general election.

    Towards the end of this session, the point that most politicians are not in it for the money was made (although this had not been suggested or inferred).

    Part two of the session moved on to whether at the local level, politicians should not be aligned to a national party. Salisbury was slightly unusual in having a party system – other councils in the area for example Wilton, weren’t. That we do was at the behest of Labour and LibDem leaders it was claimed.

    One of the advantages of people standing with a party label is that the public knew broadly what they stood for. It was a kind of short hand for their likely beliefs. On the other hand, it is likely to lead to assumptions by the public about how a politician will vote which might not always be true. It was also suggested that it also encouraged people to vote. Whether this was the case was challenged with the example of Frome in Somerset where a non-party approach had led to an increase in voter participation.

    It was pointed out that a great deal of council expenditure was determined by government policy and spending limits. Much expenditure was non-discretionary, social services and highways for example. The degree of discretionary expenditure was relatively small and declining: reductions in the support grants also imposed restrictions. One of the councillors present said that in fact most of his fellow councillors across parties, wanted the same sort of things but the disagreements were more about how.

    The second part, which touched on the same sort of areas, was the suggestion that Wiltshire should be split into two counties, north of the plain and south of it. The two halves of the county were very different (the saying ‘as different as chalk and cheese’ referred the two farming types in the county). The two parts looked to different areas: the north more towards Bath and Bristol and the south towards Southampton and Winchester. People living near the borders between counties often lost out because of the postcode lottery. There has always been a simmering resentment in Salisbury that Trowbridge was remote and that they was overlooked. However, it was noted that people in the north of the county similarly resented what they saw as Salisbury getting a bigger slice of the cake, so where did the truth lie?

    Those who wanted something like the District Council back were less keen to have social care back as well it was said.

    Why was voting for, and interest in, local government so low? One answer was that people often do not understand its importance. Well, couldn’t councils do more to explain it better? It was pointed out that some councillors had established surgeries to which no one came. When there was a local issue then perhaps then it was appropriate for councillors to engage with electors.

    Both topics shared a sense of frustration with the political system both national and local. For some, the failure of Boris Johnson to resign was outrageous although, as was noted, many thought the whole story was overblown and they were happy with his performance. The system relied on basic integrity and once that failed, the flaws in our uncodified system became all too evident. Many people were disengaged with local politics and part of this was a lack of understanding of its importance and the limitations on its powers.

    Peter Curbishley