Submission to select committee inquiry on a new Magna Carta

Posted on April 20, 2015 by Andrew Defty

Shortly after the 2010 general election the Political and Constitutional Reform select committee of the House of Commons began an inquiry into the question of whether or not Britain should adopt a codified or written constitution. Their report, A New Magna Carta?, was published in July 2014. The report set out the arguments for and against codifying the constitution and provided a blueprint for constitutional change with three alternative approaches:

  • a Constitutional Code (the status quo option): a document agreed to by Parliament, but without involving an Act of Parliament, which would set out the essential existing elements and principles of the constitution and the workings of government;
  • a Constitutional Consolidation Act (the tidying-up option): this would be a consolidation of existing laws of a constitutional nature in statute, the common law and parliamentary practice, together with a codification of essential constitutional conventions;
  • a Written Constitution: this would be a document of basic law by which the United Kingdom would be governed, setting out the relationship between the state and its citizens, an amendment procedure and elements of reform.

The committee also launched a public consultation seeking comments on its report, and the three proposed models for codification.

The document below comprises a submission to the consultation by students on the University of Lincoln, level 1 politics module, Who Runs Britain? The submission was debated and drafted in a series of workshops between September and December 2014.

The committee published its response to the consultation in March 2015, and this submission has now been published on the committee’s website.

 

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

‘A new Magna Carta?’ consultation

Submission by students from the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lincoln

  1. This is a submission from first year students in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln. It is the result of a series of workshops and polling which took place as part of our first year politics module, Who Runs Britain?Students on this module are studying for degrees in politics, international relations, and social policy, and joint honours programmes combining these subjects.
  1. Who Runs Britain?is a core first year politics module which aims to provide an introduction to the principal actors, institutions and processes of the British political system. The topics covered in the first term are largely the same as the ten main themes outlined in the committee’s A new Magna Carta? report, beginning in September with the constitution and concluding in December with local government. This year the programme was augmented by the addition of a number of workshops designed to facilitate further discussion around the proposals included in the committee’s report. These focused on: responses to the broad question of whether Britain should adopt a codified or written constitution; examining the ten main themes identified in the committee’s report; and the process of drafting a new constitutional document.
  1. The information presented in this submission represents our views, the students on the Who Runs Britain? module. While tutors acted as facilitators in this process, introducing key themes through lectures and guiding discussion in seminar debates, the responses below reflect those of the students involved, and do not necessarily correspond to those of our tutors.The large number of students involved meant that it was not always possible to arrive at an agreed position in relation to all of the questions considered.Nevertheless,an attempt has been made to reflect the debate and the balance of opinion in each case. 

Should Britain adopt a codified constitution?

  1. We were polled on the broad question of whether Britain should adopt a codified constitution early in the term. This followed a lecture on the British constitution which included an overview of the arguments for and against codifying the constitution along the lines set out in Part 1 of the committee’s report.
  1. The results of this poll were decisive with a large majority of 34 out of 41of us stating that we did not believe that Britain should adopt a written constitution. Only 6 supported the idea, while 1 was undecided, see table 1 below. The poll was combined with a poll of voting intention, which revealed that supporters of the Green Party were the only group to express significant support for a written constitution.

NMC Poll1

  1. In order to examine the attitudes which underpinned this poll, aIMG_1014 workshop was held in which we were asked to identify the single most important reason for codifying the constitution and the single most important argument against. When asked to identify the most important argument in support of codifying the constitution, the majority felt that a codified constitution would better protect rights, with responses including: ‘protects the rights of the individual’, ‘to protect and entrench citizens’ rights’, ‘the people create their rights outside and separate from government’ and ‘limits a government’s ability to make laws against minority interests’. In this group, several students also noted that further protection would come from having rights written down and accessible in a single document. After the protection of rights, the next most frequent response related to limiting the power of the government, but without any specific reference to individual rights. This was described in terms of ‘holding the government to account’, ‘providing checks and balances’ and in several cases preventing ‘elected dictatorship’. There were a range of other responses with several stating that the most important benefit would be in providing an easily accessible source or a set of guidelines for consultation on constitutional matters, such as the election of a hung parliament, while other responses included ‘it’s symbolic’, ‘securing democracy’ and ‘spreads power’.
  1. When asked to identify the single most important argument against codifying the constitution responses fell largely into three categories. The majority of respondents identified the flexibility of the current arrangements as the principal argument in favour of maintaining the status quo. The next most popular response, which also related to the flexibility of the current arrangements, was the desire to not constrain future generations by the values of today, with comments such as ‘it’s fluid, governments are not held back by past governments’ and ‘democracy affects the living, not the dead, a constitution shouldn’t bind us to values of the past’. The third most popular response was the simple assertion that the current arrangements ‘work’ and that there is therefore no need for change. Finally, two respondents raised a philosophical objection to limiting the power of a democratically elected government. Interestingly, while we were clearly aware of the arguments, none of us felt that the practical difficulties involved in drafting a written constitution was the most important barrier to codifying the constitution, with several expressing the view that if it was something which had sufficient support then the practical difficulties could be overcome (see also paras. 10-14 below).

Themes for a ‘new Magna Carta’IMG_1017

  1. A workshop was held in which we divided into small groups to look at the common themes identified by the committee. Groups considered how the three blueprints outlined by the committee might apply to each theme, and if possible sought to arrive at a preferred option. The results of this exercise are set out in table 2 below. Interestingly, while those taking part were overwhelmingly opposed to the adoption of a written constitution, when asked to consider which of the three options might be applied in relation to the particular themes identified by the committee,there was,nevertheless, support for codification of some aspects of the current arrangements, either through a consolidation act or a written constitution. In only one case, that of the Head of State, was a constitutional code unequivocally the preferred option.NMC Table2
  2. The following comprises a brief summary of discussion in relation to each of the themes:

i) Head of State: there was strong, although not unanimous, support for retaining the monarch as Head of State, but also a strong belief that the current powers of the Head of State should not be changed in any way. There was some support for clarifying the constitutional powers of the monarch, most notably in relation to the exercise of prerogative powers, but it was felt that in this case the necessary clarity could be encapsulated in a constitutional code.

ii) Prime Minister: in contrast, there was considerable concern at the lack of a clear constitutional role for the Prime Minister or sufficient codified limitations on the power of the Executive. The prevailing view was that the Prime Minister was, notionally at least, if not in practice, too powerful and that certain elements of Executive power should be codified, such as the existence and operation of the Cabinet, and the requirement, rather than the expectation, that the Prime Minister consult with it.

iii) Elections: in relation to elections there was support for standardising some of the current arrangements, for example, in relation to constituency sizes, and boundaries. There was a strong feeling that electoral arrangements should be lifted above political debate, and not be subject to parliamentary approval which led the group examining this issue to support the case for a written constitution.

iv) House of Lords/second chamber: there was considerable debate about the future of the House of Lords, and the group considering this issue was,perhaps unsurprisingly,unable to arrive at a preferred option. There was, however, consensus that the current House of Lords was too large and that the size of the second chamber should be fixed at a significantly smaller size than at present. While there was disagreement as to whether the second chamber should be partly or wholly appointed, there was also agreement that the remaining hereditary peers should be removed, and that if religious representation was to be a feature of the House it should encompass a range of religions.

v) Ministerial conduct: as with the office of Prime Minister, it was felt that the current statutory arrangements relating to ministerial conduct were too limited, and it was agreed,in particular,that the Ministerial Code should be enshrined in law as part of a Consolidation Act. The codification of the Ministerial Code was also seen as a means of imposing a statutory duty on the Prime Minister to ensure it is applied ‘in a sensible way’.

vi) Devolution and local government: one group looked at the issues of devolution and local government. In both cases it was observed that these issues had been dealt with in significant legislation in recent years, and there was, therefore, little need to codify what was already enshrined in law. However, in the case of local government it was felt that this was an area in which the body of legislation was so large and diverse that there was a strong case for consolidating this in a single Act, although the challenges involved in doing so should not be underestimated. Interestingly, whilst it was recognised that considerable forces had been mobilised recently in relation to the state of the Union, and also the devolution of power to local government in England, the fluidity of the situation was seen as an argument against entrenching arrangements in a written constitution, which would then be difficult to amend should opinions change.

vii) Human rights/Bill of Rights: as was indicated in paragraph 6 above, when we were asked to identify the most important reason for adopting a codified constitution, this was the one area in which there was considerable support for entrenching arrangements, and there was therefore strong support for a written constitution in this group. Moreover, it was agreed that the rights involved should include positive as well as negative rights, whereby particular rights and entitlements would be codified, rather than citizens’ rights simply being those things that parliament has not passed laws preventing them from doing, as has historically been the case, and that there should be a high threshold for changing them.

viii) The Judiciary:attitudes were divided on the role of the judiciary. Although there was strong support for the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, it was also argued that there would be some benefit in codifying the relationship between the judiciary and parliament to some extent, either through a constitutional code or a consolidation act.

ix) European Union: with regard to Britain’s relationship with the European Union, codification was seen as a more effective means of defending British sovereignty than allowing the subject to be the issue of ongoing political debate. In particular it was agreed that subsequent treaty changes should be subject to a referendum, and codification was seen as a means of entrenching this, either through a consolidation act or a written constitution.

The preparation, design and implementation of a codified constitution

10. A further workshop considered Part III of the committee’s report which relates to the preparation, design and implementation of a codified constitution. In addition to the committee’s report, we were also provided with background information on constitutional conventions, including that of the United States and more recent examples from Iceland and the Republic of Ireland.

11. Reflecting our general opposition to the idea as a whole, there was considerable skepticism about the possibility of overcoming the practical challenges involved in drafting a new written constitution for the UK. The view of one of us that drafting a written constitution for the UK, ‘would be the longest process in the history of humanity’ was not untypical. Nevertheless, we were able to identify a number of key principles which should underpin the process, if the decision was taken to adopt a written constitution.

12. How should the process be initiated? It was not felt necessary for Britain to wait for a notional ‘constitutional moment’ before embarking on a process of codification. However, we strongly feel that the process should be initiated with a national referendum to determine whether there is public support for codification. Such a referendum should not take place at the time of a general election, but should, ideally, take place in a period of relative political stability in which the issues could be properly considered without the political parties seeking to gain short–term electoral advantage.

13. Who should be involved? There was broad consensus that the public should play a central role, not just in initiating and approving a codified constitution, but also in helping to draft it. While the Icelandic and Irish models provide admirable examples in this respect, it was also accepted that there would be a need for a wide range of expert opinion to be consulted, with lawyers and academic experts, in particular, playing a central role. In contrast there was a strong feeling among many of us that politicians should play only a limited role in the process.

14. How should they be involved?There was no consensus on what the process would involve. Although the Irish and Icelandic models were viewed as good examples, it was also noted that these involved relatively small and considerably less diverse nations than the UK, and adopting a similar model for the UK might be significantly more challenging. With this in mind, there was considerable support for a written constitution to be drafted in the first instance by a panel of experts before opening it up to public consultation.This might take the form of a national consultation exercise,and there were a number of suggestions as to what form this should take including: mini-referenda on key issues, online consultation (crowdsourcing), or meetings across the country. As with initiating the process, there was consensus that a referendum should also take place at the end of the process and that this should be binding, and not subject to parliamentary ratification.

Conclusion

15. This submission represents our considered response to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s various proposals for a new Magna Carta. We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in this debate. We would like to reiterate the view of the majority of this group,that Britain should not seek to adopt a new written constitution, that there are significant barriers to doing so and that in the view of some of us at least it is simply not necessary. This does not mean, however, that certain aspects of Britain’s current constitutional arrangements would not benefit from codification. We believe that there is considerable scope for improving British democracy by providing transparency and greater accountability through, for example, establishing a more clearly defined role for the Prime Minister and a statutory ministerial code, by further reform of the House of Lords and providing for greater fairness in elections. It is also the view of many of us that there are certain civil and human rights which should be enshrined in such a way as to lift them above everyday political debate, so as to make them, if not impossible, at least very difficult, to dispense with. Finally, whilst we would argue that there are significant practical barriers to the adoption of a written constitution, we do feel that the committee’s consultation on these issues and the process whereby we have debated them at the University of Lincoln, is indicative of the potential for broad and inclusive debate on important and complex issues relating to our democracy, and should be welcomed.

Fozia Ahmed, Hamid Akhavan-Hezaveh, Eden Anin-Adjei, Bennadine Antwi, Francine Baron, Jamie Bartch, Adam Bennett, Sophie Bennett, Mae Brooksbank, Joshua Charles, Aoife Costello, Philippa Cowley, Max Crouch, Tom Curley, James Dorling, Hafrica During, Thomas Eason, Samuel Emerson, Thomas Farr, Isaac Firestone, Philip Fletcher, Benjamin Gardner, Joshua Grinsell, Simona Guzmanova, Abigail Hammond, James Heap, Lauren Henderson, Coletta Ikusi, Rosemary Kennedy, Ciara Kerr, Sophie Korolewicz, Jake Lodge, Jake McCarthy, Jordan McGuffie, Benjamin Moores, Matthew Mosey, Umar Mulla, Ciaran O’Reilly, Thomas Rimmer, Sebastian Rowlands, Sebastian Puszkarek, Mat Seldon, Kayleigh Scott, Ellie Smith, Oliver Smith, Adam Stark, James Sutherland, Gerard Taggart, Ross Temple, Rio Watanabe, Charley White (students on the first year politics module, Who Runs Britain?)

Dr Andrew Defty, Reader in Politics, Dr Ben Kisby, Senior Lecturer in Politics.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Submission to select committee inquiry on a new Magna Carta

A New Magna Carta: Constitutional Preamble Competition

Posted on November 6, 2014 by Andrew Defty

IMG_1002As part of it’s consultation on codifying the British constitution, which is being conducted under the banner  A New Magna Carta, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons is running a public competition to find who can write the best preamble for a modern written constitution for the UK.

A constitutional preamble is a short introductory statement. However, while most states in the world have written constitutions the form and composition of constitutional preambles varies considerably. Indeed, some constitutions have no preamble at all, most notably those of the Scandinavian states. Those that do vary dramatically in length, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, for example, is only 52 words long, while the Iranian constitution, in translation at least, has a preamble of more than 3000 words which includes an essay on the history of the establishment of the Islamic Republic. As this suggests there is also considerable variation in the content of constitutional preambles. Preambles often seek to establish the source of authority for the constitution, with some reference to the people, a monarch or a deity. They may also aim to summarise the main legal principles of the constitution or more often encapsulate the values which underpin it. In some cases this might involve a history or explanation of the formation of the constitution or the state itself, while in others it may be little more than a set of aspirations. While this can lead to high-flown rhetoric, constitutional preambles also often include rather banal details such as a list of the territories to which the constitution applies.

Perhaps the most famous constitutional preamble is that of the Constitution of the United States of America. This states that:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Considerable attention has focused on the precise meaning of this short preamble, and also the power which it embodies, to the extent that in 1905 the US Supreme Court ruled that the preamble is not a source of state power or individual rights, but that the legal power lies in the articles and amendments which follow it. Nevertheless, the US preamble has considerable symbolic force. There is a strong sense of common endeavour and of unity in this preamble, although the appeal for perfection is qualified somewhat with reference to a ‘more perfect Union’, rather than one which is absolutely perfect. The appeal to justice, tranquility, welfare and liberty may seem to suggest the state has considerable responsibility for its citizens, but is often interpreted at as refering to the individual’s right to freedom from state intervetion, enshrining negative rather than positive rights.

The first three words, ‘We the people…’ are perhaps the most significant, and well known words of the entire US constitution. The preamble clearly establishes that power will reside with the people. This was deliberately designed to distinguish the US from the old world from which it was seeking break free, in which power lay with the monarch. The US preamble, and indeed the constitution which  follows it, is about making a clean break with the past and establishing a new and better way of doing things in which people had rights and the power of government should be restrained.

We can also see this in the preambles to the constitutions of other states which have undergone fundamental or revolutionary change. The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany for example was written in the aftermath of the Second World War when Germany was occupied by the Allies. As with the preamble to the US Constitution it invests considerable power in the people. It also establishes clear commitments to world peace, freedom and self-determination.

Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law. Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.

For quite a different constitutional preamble, see the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which was passed by the Westminster Parliament to give Australia something which the UK still does not have, a constitutional document. In contrast to those examples cited above, the people hardly feature at all in the Australian Constitution Act, but the monarch looms large:

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :-

Both the Australian and German preambles also include some indication of the territories to which the constitution will apply.

Another modern constitutional preamble which seeks to deal with a difficult past, and establish a new more positive vision of the future is the remarkable preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which was drafted in 1996:

We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past; Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to- heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations. May God protect our people.

Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso.

One notable feature of the US constitutional preamble is that there is no place for God.  Many other constitutions, however, do assert or appeal to the authority of some higher being. The (very long) preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic State of Iran begins, ‘The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran advances the cultural, social, political, and economic institutions of Iranian society based on Islamic principles and norms, which represent an honest aspiration of the Islamic Ummah.’ Similarly, the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland begins with an appeal to ‘the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred. We, the people of Éire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial.’ The constitution of Greece invokes the ‘ name of the Holy and Consubtantial and Indivisible Trinity’.

The ommission of God from the preamble of the US constitution is deliberate and is sustained throughout the rest of the document. Other states are even more explicit in excluding God. The preamble to the Constitution of India, for example, begins by asserting that ‘We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic…’ Of course, the exclusion of God from a state’s constitution does not mean that religion may not play a central the state. There are very good reasons for excluding religion from the constitution of a country in which several different religions have significant numbers of followers.

There are then many things to consider when drafting a preamble for a notional UK constitution: the status of the people, the monarch, religion; the description of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom; the inclusion of some historical element, and/or a vision of the future; the inclusion, or not, of some reference to the machinery of government, or the sovereignty of parliament; the establishment of national values or aspirations; or the inclusion of fundamental rights or expectations. While constitutions tend to limit themselvs to the state to which they apply, there may now also be a case for acknowledging, perhaps particularly in the preamble, a state’s wider responsibilities to for example, respect international law, the sovereignty of other states, or protect the environment.

This is an interesting intellectual exercise but the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s competition to write a preamble for a modern written constitution offers a real opportunity to influence a debate which is gaining traction. Entries which should be no longer than 350 words can be submitted through the Committee’s website. The closing date is 1 January 2015. Entries will be posted on the PCRC website, where a number can already be read. A prize will be awarded to the best entry under three categories the best entry by a member of the public, a young person under the age of 18, and by a journalist. So get writing!

There are number of excellent websites and databases comparing constitutions including:

The Comparative Constitutions Project

The International Constitutional Law Project

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

Was the election of Police and Crime Commissioners the most expensive election in history?

Posted on November 1, 2014 by Andrew Defty

This is an old post which I posted on another site following the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in 2012. Reposting here in the light of this week’s election of a new Police and Crime Commissioner in South Yorkshire.  Turnout in South Yorkshire at 14.7% was slightly less than the 15.1% turnout in the national PCC elections in 2012.

[19 November 2012] Last week’s elections for the new posts of Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales was marked by a record low turnout. With only 15% of voters going to the polls this was markedly lower than the previous lowest turnout for elections in the UK which was 23% for the European Parliament elections of 1999, and is significantly lower than the lowest general election turnout of 59% in 2001.

The low turnout may also mean that these were the most expensive elections in history. The cost of organising the PCC election was £75million, and the total number of valid votes cast was around 5.3 million. This amounts to a whopping £14 for every vote cast. This is a significant sum in itself, but if we put this figure into some kind of context the PCC elections begin to look like very poor value for money indeed. The 2010 UK general election cost the public purse around £99 million, which amounts to around £3 for every vote cast. Perhaps more remarkably, observers on this side of the Atlantic often look askance at the massive sums spent in US Presidential Elections and the re-election of Barack Obama two weeks ago was no exception. The BBC estimates that almost $6 billion were spent in the 2012 Presidential Election which amounts to around $18 per vote cast. At the current rate of exchange this comes in at around £12 per vote, slightly better value for money than the PCC elections. Of course the bulk of US election spending is generated by private finance, whereas the £75million spent on the PCC elections represents the cost of these elections to the public purse.

Ironically, the low turnout may in part be explained by the unwillingness of the Government to invest more in these elections. The Electoral Commission, the independent body which monitors UK elections, had highlighted the risk of a low turnout which would result from holding elections in November, for a post nobody had heard of, with candidates expected to canvas across districts more than ten times the size of parliamentary constituencies. Moreover, they were particularly critical of the Government’s decision not to allow candidates one postage free mail-shot to all electors, something which is made available to candidates in UK general elections. This would have added an estimated £35million to the cost of the PCC elections, however, if it resulted in an increase in turnout it may well have proved to be better value for money. Democracy is not cheap; elections, referenda, public consultations, and indeed parliament all cost significant sums of money. Nevertheless, investing in these things is not only vital for the health of our democracy, it may also be good value for money.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Was the election of Police and Crime Commissioners the most expensive election in history?

Excellent House of Commons Library Paper on Political Parties

Posted on November 1, 2014 by Andrew Defty

This excellent note from the House of Commons library, on membership of UK political parties includes up to date figures particularly on recent rises in membership for SNP and UKIP.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Excellent House of Commons Library Paper on Political Parties

Is it Yvette Harman? Frontbench recognition and leadership succession

Posted on October 28, 2014 by Andrew Defty

cabinetAt the beginning of each year I test my first year politics students by presenting them with a series of photographs of members of the frontbench teams of each of the three main political parties and asking them to identify them and their roles.

The roots of this ritual humiliation lie in part in my own experiences as an undergraduate student when in one excruciating tutorial, the late Professor Adrian Oldfield asked each of those present in turn to name various members of the then Cabinet. To our shame, and Professor Oldfield’s growing frustration, we were barely able to name any. The result of this exercise can be seen in the above photograph which is the list I went away and compiled after this tutorial, and which twenty five years later still sits at the front of my first year undergraduate politics folder.

There are a number of things to note about this list. Firstly, it is handwritten, access to personal computers was limited back then. More significantly, there was no internet in 1989, and as a result identifying members of the Cabinet was a good deal more complicated and time consuming than it is today. I distinctly remember trawling through recent editions of the broadsheet newspapers in the university library to find references to Government Ministers. Which also perhaps explains why this is a partial list, significant ommissions include Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Howe, and Defence Secretary, Tom King, and also why several first names are missing, because the newspapers tended to refer to Ministers either by their title or as Mr… I also included relatively minor junior Ministers who, while not members of the Cabinet, were presumably in the news that week. Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, the list is dated 16th November 1989, which was my nineteenth birthday. It now seems extraordinary to me that I spent at least part of that day searching the newspapers for references to Cabinet Ministers, the past truly is a foreign country.

So how did this year’s students do? In contrast to my own less technologically advanced experiences, I present students with a series of photographs on Powerpoint slides. In order to reduce the humiliation, I also allow them to work in groups, in this case three groups of five.

The first slide contains photographs of five prominent members of the Cabinet. Reassuringly every group was able to identify David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne, Theresa May and William Hague. All knew that Cameron is Prime Minister, Osborne is Chancellor, and May is Home Secretary. Everyone also knew that Nick Clegg was Deputy Prime Minister, although they were less clear about what this involved. William Hague, who moved from Foreign Secretary to become Leader of the House of Commons in the last reshuffle caused some confusion. One group correctly identified him as Leader of the Commons, while another, also correctly, added that he was First Secretary of State, which is a role he assumed in 2010 and did not give up on moving from the Foreign Office, the third group simply wrote ‘new job’.

The second slide includes six more Cabinet Ministers, holding perhaps less, but not very much less, prominent roles. Jeremy Hunt who has been on the television quite a lot lately, was only identified by one group. Nobody recognised the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, Ed Davey. In contrast all recognised Danny Alexander, although only one group knew he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a post he has held since 2010. Someone did recall that Harriet Harman had referred to him as a ‘ginger rodent.’ Nobody recognised the Northern Ireland Secretary, Theresa Villiers, and only one group recognised the new Cabinet appointees, Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon and Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, although another group did suggest she was ‘Gove jr.’

The third and final slide contained members of the Labour Shadow Cabinet, which by some way enjoyed the lowest levels of recognition. This did not include Ed Miliband, as a result the only Shadow Minister recognised by all three groups was Ed Balls, who all knew him to be Shadow Chancellor. Two of the groups failed to recognise any other members of the Shadow Cabinet, and all three groups failed to recognise Douglas Alexander (Shadow Foreign Secretary) or Rachel Reeves (Shadow Work & Pensions). The one, more well-informed, group did identify Harriet Harman (whom one group thought was Yvette Cooper).  However, this group did think that Harman was Shadow Education Secretary rather than either of the two roles she currently holds, Shadow Deputy PM or Shadow Secretary for Culture, Media, and Sports. They also correctly identified Andy Burnham as Shadow Health Secretary, and despite some quite spectacular misspelling, Chuka Umunna, who they suggested was responsible for shadowing Work & Pensions, rather than Business, Innovation and Skills.

Aside, perhaps, from revealing that politics undergraduates are no more well informed than 25 years ago, does any of this matter? The real reason for running this little test is to reveal something about the nature of Executive power in the UK. Although British Prime Ministers, unlike for example US Presidents, are not elected by a popular vote, Prime Ministers nevertheless enjoy considerable personal authority. This may be, in part, because they are the only, or at least one of only a very small number of, politicians that many people can actually recognise. The Prime Minister may be first among equals, but as this test shows one does not need to move very far around the Cabinet table to recede into the shadows. It is striking that some MPs will spend their entire political career trying to get a seat at the Cabinet table, the late Alan Clark being a prime example, but that the reality is that for most this will result in little, if any, increase in personal recognition. The elevated role of the Prime Minister may be the result of media attention which focuses overwhelmingly on the Prime Minister, and very little on other government Ministers. This is particularly the case during election campaigns which are increasingly presented as contests between Party leaders, something which has been encouraged by the introduction of Party leaders’ debates at the 2010 election. These developments have all contributed to what some have identified as a Presidentialisation of British politics.

Another interesting result of this test is that while most Cabinet, and indeed Shadow Cabinet, members bask in relative obscurity a small number do enjoy levels of recognition similar to those of their Party leaders. In short if Prime Ministers are first among equals, it is clear that when it comes to other Ministers some are more equal than others. This helps to illustrate one of the fundamental weaknesses of the British Prime Minister’s position which is that they owe their position not to the public or indeed the media, but to the support of their own Party and in order to stay in power they must keep that support. Moreover, those holding the most prominent positions with the highest levels of public recognition are those most likely to replace them, which means that for most Prime Ministers, potential successors, and indeed political assassins, are in all likelihood sitting around the Cabinet table next to them.

If we look at the positions held by leaders of the two main parties before becoming Party leader, since the second world war, all have been members of their Party’s frontbench team and most have held one of two posts – Chancellor/Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer or Foreign/Shadow Foreign Secretary. Three Labour leaders, Attlee, Kinnock and Blair were suceeded by their Chancellors, and four Conservatives, Eden, Douglas Home, Thatcher and Duncan Smith, while two each have been replaced by their frontbench spokesperson on foreign affairs, Gaitskell (notwithstanding the interregnum of Deputy Leader George Brown), Wilson, Churchill and Macmillan. Interestingly only two have moved directly from education to become Party leader, Kinnock and Cameron, which perhaps offers another perspective on the replacement of Michael Gove in this year’s reshuffle. Another intersting observation, about which I offer no comment, Ed Miliband was the Party’s energy spokesperson before becoming Labour leader, while his brother David, whom he defeated in the leadership contest was, of course, Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Of course all of this suggests that position is at least if not more important a factor than recognition when seeking elevation to the top job, but it is also clear that some Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet posts bring both, and these are the ones most likely to lead on to higher office. It may also be the case that parties are unlikely to select a leader who is not widely recognised both within the Party and beyond. By this logic, at present should either lose the general election the most likely successors to Cameron and Miliband are Osborne or Theresa May, or Ed Balls. The Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, did not feature in this year’s recognition test but I suspect is less familiar than his predecessor William Hague, while Labour contenders such as Douglas Alexander and Andy Burnham would appear to have some way to go.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment