This week saw ‘Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability’ Rishi Sunak pass the 100 day mark of his administration (sorry but I can’t call it ‘premiership’) and besides those three mission statement keywords being undermined on a daily basis it does look as if his regime is fast unravelling. It was widely predicted that Zahawi wouldn’t last the course, though he had a good go at brazening it out for some time, but news of his sacking surely would have sent shivers down the spines of others in the frame for breaking the ministerial code. His resignation letter was striking – arrogant to the end, no apology or hint of contrition and even having the nerve to blame the ‘4th estate’, aka the media which outed him. It reveals an assumption of not being found out or ever paying the price. Perhaps worse for Sunak, though, is the question it poses, besides others, around his judgement, as it’s now clear he knew both about Zahawi and Raab allegations (surely soon next for the chop) long ago but still appointed them to high positions.
We’re used to hearing the Zahawi background story trotted out by the media (penniless Kurdish refugee fleeing Iraq speaking not a word of English etc) but there’s another version which challenges this media-assisted mythology and which gives a very different impression. I was only recently thinking back to another Conservative Party Chair, who years ago was several times disgraced and who was given a custodial sentence: ironic to later learn that it was Jeffrey Archer who gave Zahawi a considerable leg up and who schooled him in the art of ‘fixing’ and deal making.
The position of the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister is looking increasingly untenable as more allegations of bullying emerge – now at least 24 and the political campaigner Gina Miller recently added to the pile. Of course, there’s a separate process to investigate him (this splitting of investigations is yet another undermining of democracy) but he’s still in post despite more senior Tories saying he should stand aside until the investigation has concluded. Not surprisingly, Raab himself has said the allegations are baseless and ‘malicious’. Yes, all 24 and more of them. But it’s not a good look for him when even former party chair Jake Berry said he should step aside. While we have the usual accusations from some, including Jacob Rees-Mogg, of victims’ ‘snowflakery’, this is a dismissive response totally lacking in understanding as to how a difficult boss can blight lives. The Times de tails how staff felt scared and that their mental health was damaged because of Raab’s behaviour.
We hear that champagne corks were popped when Raab was sacked from the Ministry of Justice by Liz Truss but when he was reinstated weeks later ‘anxiety levels shot through the roof’. One member of staff who has since left the department said they regularly witnessed staff in his private office “in floods of tears” and “physically shaken” after meetings and interactions with Raab….. Civil servants said that even when Raab did not leave staff in tears he relished the “imbalance of power” between him as a secretary of state and officials — often in their twenties and at the start of their careers’. This suggests an even more unsavoury aspect to his behaviour yet quite a few continue to say that a boss should be able to ‘bang the table’ etc. But why should they have to? Surely we should expect a mature individual to express their views and expectations without behaving like a toddler and resorting to shouting and bullying. Meanwhile, the PM continues to express his confidence in his Justice Secretary, often seen in retrospective as the kiss of death to someone later sacked.
The latest is that evidence is piling up more substantially even than was previously thought, because at least one official complaint has been found to have involved the accounts of 27 staff. ‘The group of Ministry of Justice officials are understood to be represented by a memo warning that some colleagues had been forced to take time off for “extended periods” as a result of having to deal with Raab. It states that others affected felt they needed to stay at work to stop extra pressure being placed on their colleagues’.
Then we get the usual defensive fiction from the MoJ ‘spokesman’: There is zero tolerance for bullying across the civil service. The deputy prime minister leads a professional department, driving forward major reforms, where civil servants are valued and the level of ambition is high. There is an independent investigation under way and it would be inappropriate to comment further on issues relating to it until it is completed’.
But these aren’t the only problems Sunak has to contend with, a major one being the ongoing strikes, the coinciding ones this last week almost approaching a general strike. He and ministers continue with their ideological intransigence in not meeting the unions or not meeting them to contribute anything meaningful to the discussions. It doesn’t seem very bright of him not to realise that the ‘pay rises are unaffordable’ schtick is untenable given how much this government has wasted over the years and how much they earn themselves, not to mention expenses and undeclared payments. On Wednesday it was reckoned 475,000 were on strike, the single biggest day of industrial action for more than a decade, covering teachers, civil servants, border force staff, university lecturers, security guards and train drivers. It’s quite staggering that not only were 1m working days lost in December, the worst month since 1989, but some have admitted that it’s cost far more to keep the strikes going than make better pay offers. It’s also appalling that the media continues to collude with the Tory narrative, constantly alluding to ‘walkouts’ etc.
But perhaps a worse threat to Sunak, insufficiently covered by the media in my view, is Boris Johnson’s narcissistic and potentially damaging freelancing in Ukraine and Washington. This grandstanding loose cannon has been meeting with various US politicians, spouting views which cannot have been approved by or run past the PM, eg, extraordinarily, that Ukraine should join the EU. There’s also the significant question as to who is paying for all this – it all adds to the impression of a weak prime minister unable to act. Another question is why this is even allowed given Johnson should be at home attending to his own constituents, many of whom have voiced extreme dissatisfaction and annoyance at his behaviour.
Boris Johnson continues to poison the body politic, with these ego-driven antics, threats of a comeback, the questions still hanging over the loan arrangements involving BBC Chair Richard Sharp (on which the media has gone very quiet) and the fact that the public will be paying huge amounts for his Partygate defence. It’s surely outrageous that not only will be public be paying a 6 figure amount, but that even more public money could be set aside to defend the charlatan. Why was this decision even made when Johnson is raking in huge amounts from public speaking engagements and the like?
‘Officials at the government’s spending watchdog are examining the controversial decision to provide £220,000 of taxpayers’ money to fund Boris Johnson’s legal defence for the inquiry into his Partygate denials. The National Audit Office (NAO) has yet to decide whether to mount a formal investigation, but one of its directors is planning to speak to the Cabinet Office about it. On top of the six-figure budget already established, sources have also indicated more money could be set aside to cover the former prime minister’s legal advice, given the privileges committee’s investigation could drag on into next month’.
‘This is not how Mr Sunak hoped to be assessed on his 100thday at Number 10. He looks a terrible judge of character, incapable of mastering his government and untrue to his promise to restore “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”. The scandals keep coming and he seems incapable of stemming them. Under Boris Johnson, it was “one rule for everyone else and no rules for us”. Under Rishi Sunak, it appears to be plus ça change.
New prime minister, same old stink’.
Added to all this is the tanking economy, few Tories prepared to admit the Brexit factor, the UK’s position forecast during 2023 to be worse even than Russia.
Analyzing Sunak’s weakness, particularly in relation to his erstwhile boss, Rafael Behr identifies ‘Long Johnson’ as a key factor. ‘The Zahawi episode is a symptom of long Johnson, the chronic, recurrent debilitation of government by a pathogen that still circulates in the ruling party long after the original infection has been treated. Too many Tories have forgotten how urgent it was that they change their leader last summer. Despair at Johnson’s misrule was overwritten with panic when his successor turned out to be even worse, although Liz Truss won the leadership as the candidate of Borisite continuity. This, too, seems to be forgotten by the faction that hankers for restoration of the great bloviator’. Behr also focuses on the (increasingly dawning) incriminating role played by top civil servant Simon Case, pointing up the way Sunak has so far avoided challenging Case on what he knew about certain key government figures and about the machinations around Johnson’s financial affairs, conflicts of interest and so on.
‘But if Sunak asked that sort of question he’d have to do something with the answer, which isn’t his style. He doesn’t want a detailed inquest into the probity of a regime in which he served for so long and to which a powerful Tory faction is stubbornly loyal. He can’t deliver integrity in government without naming the people who brought his party into disrepute. He is afraid to hold a postmortem on the reign of a leader whose career is far from dead. He should have finished it when he had the chance’.
An integral part of this situation is the privilege and entitlement exhibited by our narrow ruling class, leading to the ‘rules are for little people’ attitude. Although we’ve been aware of this syndrome for a while, it’s nevertheless alarming to reflect on the extent the UK is governed by a series of longstanding intertwined cliques, consisting of the wealthy and privately educated who ensure the retention between themselves of the advantages accruing from this chumocracy.
One author, based on personal experience, explains how these cliques ‘cohere’: on arriving at Oxford from a state school education, he realised how the current elite generation ‘had already come into being, long before the relevant people had entered higher education. There have been two recurring themes in recent political history. Johnson crystallised a sense of rich and powerful people acting with assumed impunity; Sunak, the weak prefect, seems so accustomed to such behaviour that he can’t figure out how to stop it. But this story blurs into something even bigger: a chain of people safely bound into absurd networks of privilege have taken endlessly stupid decisions, knowing that their wealth and connections mean they will never have to worry about the consequences.
Even as Britain tumbles, this conversation has barely begun. It ought to start with a blunt acknowledgment: that there is no way out of this country’s morass of failure and sleaze until all those circles of power and entitlement are finally pushed aside’. As many may agree, it’s not just these circles that need pushing aside, it’s the current inadequate systems underpinning our so-called democracy including the one whereby parliamentarians are selected. In my view nothing short of constitutional reform is needed.
But lo, on Saturday yet another problem for Sunak emerged following hints during the week, in the form of predecessor Liz Truss, rising like a phoenix from the ashes as she may imagine, to claim, with no hint of contrition, that she was brought down by a Left economic orthodoxy and that her plans had never been given a proper chance. And today loyal lieutenant ‘Sir’ John Redwood, long a public embarrassment, has been on the media claiming that the problem had been ‘mismanagement of the bond markets’. Surely the Sunday Telegraph has stooped to a new low in publishing her 4,000 word ‘essay’. A wag tweeted: ‘Two former failed Conservative prime ministers are mounting campaigns to replace the current failed Conservative prime minister, all of them shouting that voters will be convinced if only the right failed policies can be presented at the right volume’.
Added to all this is the tanking economy, few Tories prepared to admit the Brexit factor, the UK’s position forecast during 2023 to be worse even than Russia’s. We have to wonder whether (outside war time) this is the most serious set of challenges a PM has ever faced, the irony being that most of them are of Sunak’s own making.
News that so far seems to have gone under the radar is a piece in the Bolton Times to the effect that the ‘watchdog’ (the so-called Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme) has decided to discontinue its investigation of Tory MP Chris Pincher (the final catalyst triggering Boris Johnson’s downfall last summer) just because his alleged offences did not take place on the ‘parliamentary estate’. What nonsense. This matters for at least two reasons: the sheer volume of sleaze sticking to this Tory government and it demonstrating yet again the need for constitutional and parliamentary reform: 14 MPs, including Pincher, are operating without their party whips, when surely such situations should lead to by-elections.
As the battle of the royals (or perhaps more accurately that between various courtier factions) continues in the lead up to the Coronation, it seems there’s an ongoing effort to big up the Prince and Princess of Wales, the latest silo being the launch of the Princess’s Shaping Us initiative. No, it’s not a new diet or brand of underwear. It aims to raise awareness of the importance of the child’s first five years in shaping their development and trajectory ever after. That this fact has been well-known for years doesn’t seem to have detracted from the initial hype, the Princess at one event sporting a glamorous red trouser suit and vertiginous heels. But the Princess was apparently criticised by a member an early years sector campaign group who said that raising awareness just isn’t enough. Good for them for speaking up as the same goes for so many mental health campaigns which urge us to ‘talk’ or ‘have a conversation’ about mental health, when the services to help people simply aren’t there on the NHS.
No doubt Harry and Meghan have also been busy planning their next moves and at the same time we hear that King Charles is planning to ensure a key role for them at his Coronation. But however this pans out, Charles is likely to face further difficulties caused by his disgraced brother, Andrew. We hear that Andrew has been persuaded by the American lawyer who helped him previously to attempt to overturn the Giuffre judgement which had necessitated that huge payout and which further pushed him into the hinterland of royal life. As journalist Marina Hyde said: ‘…. a silent retirement for this lifelong self-saboteur would be in all interests, including his own. Charles doesn’t have long before important decisions have to be finalised about these issues.
Our mental wellbeing is naturally affected and put at risk by the prevalent feeling that nothing is working, the country is breaking down, etc, this echoed by the parlous state of much customer service, well described by Harry Wallop in The Times. Although he acknowledges they have their problems he’s not including the NHS or train network in his analysis but, personally, I would include them as so many anecdotes we hear cover the same ground. He says: ‘Have you noticed how ‘slightly rubbish’ many things are today? ….. I’m talking about ordinary businesses: banks, supermarkets, energy providers, call centres and so on’. He complains of such outfits still using Covid as an excuse to undercut customer service eg supermarkets and others dumping your delivery on the doorstep rather than bringing them inside as they used to, absurdly long waits for your calls to be answered, meanwhile hearing annoying ‘music’ or that perennial ‘your call is important to us….. we are experiencing heavy volumes of calls at present…’ etc. ‘And we’re still dogged by extra bureaucracy: council tips insist you book in advance, public art galleries and pools take your details (so they can send you spam). He acknowledges that companies had to reset how they did business during the pandemic but laments them sticking to this as ‘the new normal’. After 1.5 hours interacting with TalkTalk during the last fortnight, I couldn’t agree more, and this is just one example. Complaining seems fruitless, too, as so often we’re met with no reply or a defensive barrage of jargonesque blather.
Finally, as we enter February and as our thoughts might be turning to organizing breaks and holidays, an interesting article on the increasingly used Airbnb suggests some degree of disillusionment. The author says that at one time, ‘it seemed an economical and adventurous alternative to a hotel. But I doubt I’ll be using it again’ because ‘it feels like staying with a cheap, uptight friend – then paying for the privilege’. Besides her own experience the author cites evidence from other Airbnb users, who have complained of ‘the obscene cost’, the long list of rules which must be followed (one instructing guests not to put drinks on the coffee table!), the need to bring your own basics like washing up liquid and loo paper etc and the heavily priced pre-cleaning not having been done properly. It’s a tricky one, as Airbnb does give a quality of privacy which hotels don’t, but they also markedly reduce housing stock available to local renters so there’s a moral dimension to this as well which could be overlooked. It will be interesting to see how this business model evolves, as it now seems the cons of using Airbnb are emerging as strongly as the pros.
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 