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.