Today the Unit published Monitor 84, providing analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. In this post, which also serves as the issue’s lead article, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick argue that while Rishi Sunak promised to place constitutional propriety at the forefront of his government, he has failed to meet the standards he set.
When Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister in October, he made a noble promise to head a government of ‘integrity, professionalism and accountability’. These were welcome words, and they defined standards that all governments should be held to. Sunak’s government is performing better against those standards than did its two immediate predecessors. Nevertheless, there are increasing concerns that it is still falling short, with potentially harmful consequences for the quality of governance and for public confidence.
Sunak inherited a difficult legacy from Boris Johnson (and Liz Truss, whose time in office was brief but eventful), and a difficult and divided governing party. Johnson has continued to cast a long shadow in the months since the last edition of Monitor. Conservative Party divisions have come, if anything, even more to the fore.
The most dramatic single constitutional event has been Johnson’s conflict with the House of Commons Privileges Committee. Its investigation into whether he deliberately misled parliament over partygate attracted significant attention, first through the former Prime Minister’s appearance in front of the committee, and subsequently through events around the publication of its report. Apprised of the committee’s conclusions, Johnson chose to resign his seat rather than contest his case in parliament (and possibly with the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip), and he and his supporters chose instead to rubbish the committee. The shock of a former Prime Minister facing parliamentary sanctions for such behaviour was only heightened by this undignified response – which triggered the committee to issue a further damning report.
Alongside these events, Johnson’s long-awaited resignation honours list caused further ructions. Crucially, it also triggered at least one further by-election by one of his supporters (one of three taking place on the day Monitor was published, with others likely to follow). Johnson supporter Nadine Dorries threw fierce accusations of misbehaviour at Sunak for not appointing her to the Lords. Although Sunak hit back, insisting that he had properly followed recommendations from the House of Lords Appointments Commission, he crucially showed no public resistance to Johnson’s nominees – including some whose names had been connected to partygate, and others who went on to attack the Privileges Committee. Sunak himself was also painfully absent when the committee’s report was debated in parliament, arguing unconvincingly that he needed to be elsewhere. While 118 Conservative MPs voted to support its conclusions, including Leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt, he failed to stand alongside them.
These are not the only ways in which patterns set by the past Prime Minister hang over the present one. Multiple instances have continued of the government’s disrespect for parliamentary scrutiny, including over the Strikes (Minimum Service) Bill, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Repeal) Bill and Illegal Migration Bill. The last of these also raised serious questions about the government’s respect for international law, and its treatment of refugees. The bill was subject to multiple defeats in the House of Lords, stoking tensions between the two chambers.
The report into bullying allegations made against former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab offered another opportunity for Sunak to show his mettle. Raab did depart, but – in a response not wholly unlike Johnson’s – used the opportunity to lash out against his accusers, who in this case were civil servants. Again, likely for fear of angering the right of his party, Sunak stayed silent rather than defending a core constitutional institution.
Outside parliament, the government is proceeding with its controversial strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, though with modifications following criticism from parliamentary committees and the Commission itself. The Commission also presented initial analysis of the impact of the new voter ID rules in the Elections Act 2022, as applied to the local elections in May – unsurprisingly concluding that some voters had been denied their opportunity to cast a ballot.
Of course not all in the last period has been downbeat. Raab’s departure signalled the demise of the government’s Bill of Rights Bill which many had seen as threatening to undermine checks and balances. His replacement, Alex Chalk, soundly stated his commitment to defending the rule of law at his swearing-in ceremony. Attorney General Victoria Prentis has also been widely seen as a breath of fresh air – notwithstanding the problems over the Illegal Migration Bill. The King’s coronation offered a fillip to many, and the Scottish government has reaffirmed its commitment to greater use of deliberative mechanisms to involve citizens in policymaking.
With the general election increasingly looming, the Unit held its summer conference in June, with an emphasis on what positive changes can be made in future, rather than looking backwards at what may have gone wrong. A series of panels discussed ideas that could be pursued either by this government, or by a new government after the coming general election, including potential ‘quick wins’ that might be implemented immediately. These range from a simple change of tone, to measures such as empowering the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, reining back use of delegated legislation, or committing to a smaller House of Lords. In the medium term, there are many important changes that could be made, such as reforming electoral law, putting key regulators into statute, improving structures for intergovernmental relations, and developing devolution in England. All of these and more are discussed in the Unit’s latest report, published jointly with the Institute for Government, which sets out a full menu of options for this or a future administration.
Unit research on public attitudes shows that voters want stronger checks and balances, and greatly value honesty and integrity in politics. Sunak seemed to recognise this at the start of his term, but he has subsequently struggled to maintain those standards. That may not be his central problem, but it is one of a set of factors that are clearly damaging his government in the eyes of voters.
The latest edition of Monitor is available in both HTML and PDF formats. If you are interested in the subjects discussed in this post, then we recommend reading our latest report, Rebuilding and Renewing the Constitution: Options for Reform which was published yesterday, and watching/listening to the panels from our summer conference, entitled The Future of the Constitution.
About the authors
Meg Russell FBA is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCL and Director of the Constitution Unit.
Alan Renwick is Professor of Democratic Politics at UCL and Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.