Since taking office, Keir Starmer has used his opening answer at Prime Minister’s Questions very differently from his predecessors. In this post, Ruxandra Serban and Tom Fleming explore how Starmer’s approach to opening PMQs compares to that of other post-1997 Prime Ministers.
Continue readingThe Freedom of Information Act 2000 was enacted just over 25 years ago, and has now been fully in force for two decades. Ben Worthy uses Unit research to contradict assertions that the Act was a mistake in principle or is simply a tool for journalists, and outlines five ways in which it has changed things for the better.
Continue reading
The parties contesting the general election have now published their manifestos, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this fourth post in a series on the manifestos, Patrick Thomas examines the commitments on devolution, and considers what these might mean for the future of the UK.
It has now been a quarter of a century since the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were established. Twenty-five years on, devolution remains a live issue in all but one of the 2024 manifestos. But this inclusion of the constitutional questions around devolution is where the commonalities largely stop.
The 2024 manifestos present four different visions and approaches in the area of devolution. The Conservative Party displays a hesitancy and even hostility towards devolution, and an instinctive desire to assert Westminster power. The Labour Party, on the other hand, clearly likes the system it created in 1998 and so sets out a vision for reasserting the status quo. The Liberal Democrats seek to take devolution much further, by making the UK a federal state. And the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru share a vision of ever greater devolution, at least partly in hope that it will further their end goal of independence from the UK. Two other manifestos do not present a vision for devolution, but in very different ways. The Green Party manifesto acknowledges the importance of devolution but seeks to stay out of the debate, while supporting freedom of choice. Reform UK, on the other hand, simply ignores devolution entirely.
Continue reading
Recent events have led to renewed discussion about the convention that parliament should have a formal role in authorising military action, which Keir Starmer at one point proposed to codify in legislation. Robert Hazell argues that placing the existing convention on a statutory footing is unwise, and calls on parliament and the government to work together in creating a ‘shared vision’ of how the convention should operate.
Tony Blair’s decision to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has cast a long shadow over every subsequent leader of the Labour party. Keir Starmer opposed the Iraq war, and one of ten pledges he promised as part of his 2020 leadership campaign was to introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act. He subsequently specified on The Andrew Marr Show: ‘I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons’.
Starmer was reminded of this pledge when he was interviewed about the UK airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. He told Laura Kuenssberg on 14 January that his proposal for military action to require the support of the Commons only meant sustained military action involving troops on the ground, rather than targeted airstrikes like those in the Red Sea:
If we are going to deploy our troops on the ground, then parliament should be informed: there should be a debate, the case should be made, and there should be a vote… What I wanted to do was to codify the convention: the Cabinet Manual has a convention… it could be in a law or it could be by some other means.
Continue reading
Alan Whysall discusses the prospects for the return of the Northern Ireland political institutions this autumn. He finds limited grounds for optimism and concludes that the responsibility for salvaging the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement settlement may now fall to the next British government. This post picks up themes from the author’s two most recent papers for the Constitution Unit, called Northern Ireland’s Political Future (NIPF) and The Agreement at 25.
As the July issue of Monitor recorded, visits from US President Joe Biden and other notables to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement had little apparent effect on Northern Ireland politics; nor did local government elections, at which Sinn Féin emerged triumphant. The principal Agreement institutions remained in abeyance, vetoed by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which remains concerned about the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework. At the time of writing, tensions are growing over policing, potentially deepening the political standoff. Northern Ireland meanwhile is being governed without government by civil servants who have very limited authority, together with occasional interventions from London.
Will devolution come back?
Before the summer, many commentators believed that the DUP would reach a deal in the autumn, claiming credit for aspects of the Windsor Framework, to bring back the institutions. This remains possible – many DUP careers depend on their existence. There have been suggestions of progress behind the scenes in the last few days. But it is now harder to be confident. Stasis until the UK general election seems possible, while the political, social and economic fabric of Northern Ireland deteriorates. Why?
First, the DUP may find compromise over the Protocol difficult. Negotiations are apparently going on between the party and the government, informed by a private 18-page DUP wish list. Its public demands for action on the Protocol, and on the threats it sees in it to Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, have been vaguely expressed, but the implication is that they are substantial. It seems unlikely that London can do very much to satisfy them without reopening the Protocol or the Agreement itself: and it has warned that it cannot do significantly more. So DUP supporters may be disappointed in any feasible compromise, and according to polling, they largely endorse the hard line taken so far. Senior party figures may be obdurate too, whatever the leader, Jeffrey Donaldson, wants: the former deputy leader, Lord (Nigel) Dodds of Duncairn, spoke vehemently of the ‘many unresolved and outstanding problems’ created by the Framework, suggesting London was merely peddling spin.
Continue reading