The Cabinet Manual is an important guide to the workings of the UK’s uncodified constitution, providing an accessible roadmap for ministers, officials and the public. But the document has not been updated since its publication in 2011, despite some significant constitutional changes taking place. In this post, Lisa James argues that updating the Manual should be a government priority.
Continue readingA Constitution Unit report by Meg Russell, Hannah White and Lisa James, published jointly with the Institute for Government, provides a menu of constitutional reform options ahead of political parties’ manifesto preparation. Its chapters will be published in summary form on this blog throughout August, with this third excerpt identifying potential changes relating to the territorial constitution.
Recent years have been unsettled ones in UK territorial politics, with structural pressures following the Brexit vote, and other tensions between the centre and the devolved institutions. Meanwhile, the devolution arrangements for England remain an incomplete patchwork.
While wholesale reform may be complex and contentious, much can be done to mitigate the tensions that exist within the existing framework. There is widespread recognition that cooperation between the UK government and devolved institutions could be improved, and some positive steps in this direction have already been taken. With the fiercest battles about the implementation of Brexit now over, opportunities exist for strengthening interparliamentary arrangements. The governance arrangements for England could also be made more transparent and coherent.
Continue reading
With a general election expected sometime in 2024, political parties are increasingly planning their manifestos. A report published jointly today by the Constitution Unit and Institute for Government offers a menu of options for constitutional reform, from ‘quick wins’ to much larger-scale changes. Authors Meg Russell, Hannah White and Lisa James explain its importance.
A general election is legally required by January 2025, and is likely next year. This means political parties are increasingly focused on planning their manifestos. Among the many policy areas they must address is the future of the UK constitution.
Recent years have demonstrated numerous constitutional tensions. The Brexit period saw conflicts over the appropriate roles of parliament and executive, and the Covid-19 pandemic intensified long-running debates about how government freedom to act should be balanced with adequate parliamentary scrutiny. A series of standards scandals have highlighted weaknesses in the current systems for ensuring politicians’ integrity. There have been substantial pressures on the devolution settlement, while devolution within England remains a complex patchwork. Tensions between government and the legal profession, also a feature of the Brexit years, have continued, most recently over migration policy – and expert groups have expressed concern over government willingness to breach international law. Controversial changes to election law have also raised questions about electoral integrity.
Research by the Constitution Unit demonstrates that the public care about these topics, ranking the health of UK democracy alongside crime and immigration. Survey responses show very strong public support for high constitutional standards, and checks and balances.
Our new report – Rebuilding and Renewing the Constitution: Options for Reform – published today jointly by the Constitution Unit and Institute for Government, offers a menu of options for constitutional reform. It draws together recommendations from numerous expert bodies and parliamentary committees to lay out the options for reform across five key areas: the executive; parliament; the territorial constitution; courts and the rule of law; and elections and public participation. These include numerous modest changes that could be quickly and easily implemented – either by the current government, or a new government after the election – to improve the functioning of the constitution and make our democratic institutions more robust, but also some larger possible changes.
Continue reading
The Constitution Unit held an event in November at which three expert panellists discussed the potential constitutional impact of newly appointed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, discussing the problems posed by concerns about ministerial standards, the government’s decision to proceed with several bills that pose worrying constitutional questions, and the future of the devolution settlement. Alice Hart and Hashmath Hassan summarise the contributions.
On the day that the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament cannot legally hold another independence referendum without Westminster’s approval, the Constitution Unit held an event to discuss the potential constitutional impact of the new Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. The event was chaired by Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit, and brought together three expert panellists: Jill Rutter (a Senior Research Fellow at UK in a Changing Europe and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government); Dr Ruth Fox (Director of the Hansard Society); and Professor Colm O’Cinneide (Professor of Constitutional and Human Rights Law at University College London). The summaries below are presented in order of the speakers’ contributions.
Jill Rutter
Jill Rutter discussed the need to repair the damage done to the perception of standards in public life during Boris Johnson’s time as Prime Minister. Johnson suffered the resignation of two Independent Advisers on Ministers’ Interests in as many years, tolerated misbehaviour from his MPs and was ‘fast and loose with the facts’ in parliament. Sunak’s commitment to the integrity agenda is unclear, Rutter stated. He has made assurances that he will appoint an Independent Adviser (unlike his predecessor, Liz Truss, who indicated that she did not need one) and has appointed a barrister to lead an independent inquiry into bullying allegations against Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab. However, questions remain about Sunak’s approach to his new Independent Adviser, such as whether he will provide the postholder with sufficient resources (as promised by Johnson to former Independent Adviser Lord (Christopher) Geidt) and whether he will make any effort to ensure their independence in terms of both the publication of reports and initiation of investigations without the approval of the Prime Minister.
Other than these immediate actions, little is known about Sunak’s plans to restore integrity and trust in government. Clamping down on lobbying may be a good place to start, Rutter suggested: she noted that the Gordon Brown review of the constitution commissioned by the Labour Party is planning to propose limitations on MPs’ second jobs. She provided some examples of big ideas that Sunak could adopt, such as Labour’s proposal to establish an Integrity and Ethics Commission and the Australian government’s introduction of an anti-corruption commission. A key challenge for Sunak, Rutter suggested, is dealing with Johnson’s and Truss’ lists of nominations to the House of Lords – especially with regard to how they may affect trust in politics.
Continue reading
Boris Johnson’s time in Downing Street appears to be in its final days, but how it will end remains unclear. Robert Hazell examines the possibilities. How long will a leadership election take? Could there be a caretaker Prime Minister? What happens if Johnson tries to call a snap general election?
If Boris Johnson loses a confidence vote among Conservative MPs, he is not able to stand again. Any other Conservative MP can then stand for the party leadership. How long it will take for the party to elect a new leader will depend on the number of candidates standing, and whether the vote goes to a second stage ballot of all party members. Party rules prescribe that Conservative MPs vote initially in a series of ballots to select two candidates, who then go forward to a postal ballot of all party members for the final decision. In 2005 it took two months for David Cameron to be elected leader, defeating David Davis in the postal ballot. In 2019 it took six and a half weeks for Boris Johnson to be elected, defeating Jeremy Hunt. It therefore seems unlikely that we will know who is the new Conservative leader (and Prime Minister) until September. But when Cameron announced his resignation in June 2016, it took just 17 days for Theresa May to emerge as the new leader, because Andrea Leadsom stood down as the second candidate in the postal ballot.
Time is being finally called on Boris Johnson’s premiership. The initial trickle of ministerial resignations has become a steady stream; a delegation of Cabinet ministers has reportedly called on him to resign; if he doesn’t take the hint, the 1922 Committee seems likely to hold an early second confidence vote in his leadership. But what will happen if he does resign, or if he loses the confidence of a majority of Conservative MPs? How long might it take for the Conservative party to elect a new leader, and how will the country be governed in the meantime?
Continue reading