Who governs? Knowing your Secretary of State from your Parliamentary Private Secretary

govIf one were to ask a random selection of the public on any high street in the UK, who they think runs the country, while the answers would be varied and perhaps laced with a healthy dose of scepticism about whether anyone was steering the ship at the moment, it is likely that a large proportion of people would offer answers including the Prime Minister, the Cabinet or the Government. If asked who occupied those positions, while most could probably name the Prime Minister and perhaps a handful of Cabinet Ministers, although probably no more than that, it seems doubtful that many would have a clear idea about who makes up the Government or indeed about how many people this comprises.

Any confusion is understandable. With the exception of the Prime Minister, even the most senior offices of state can vary over time. Some ministerial positions come into and out of existence with increasing regularity, while others are more than a little obscure. Few, I suspect, know the difference between a Parliamentary Under-Secretary and a Parliamentary Private Secretary, although to those occupying these positions the difference is clear and important. Nevertheless, the positions which make up the Government and also the number of people holding these positions is a matter of public record, and is, in some respects, defined by law. It does not constitute every MP in the governing party; but is perhaps larger than many people realise and extends some way beyond those who sit around the Cabinet table with Theresa May.

The Prime Minister

The Prime Minister sits at the head of the Government. The Prime Minister is, in general, the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons. Following a general election, the leader of the largest party in the Commons is invited by the Queen to form a government. If no party commands an overall majority in the House of Commons, by winning more than half of seats, the incumbent Prime Minister will be given the first opportunity to form a government. For example, following the 2010 general election in which no party won a majority of seats, Gordon Brown remained as Prime Minister while talks took place between the three main parties over who would form a government. Only when it became clear that he would be unable to form a coalition government or govern as a minority party, did Gordon Brown resign as Prime Minister, leaving the way open for the Queen to invite David Cameron to form a government and become Prime Minister.

Although the Prime Minister is the most powerful minister in the government, their powers are significantly constrained by the need to retain the support first of their Cabinet and of parliament.

The Deputy-Prime Minister or First Secretary of State.

There is no constitutional requirement, or indeed expectation, that Prime Ministers in the UK appoint a deputy. In the period since the second world war Britain has not had a Deputy Prime Minister more often it has had one, although in recent years the office has been occupied for long periods. Most notably by John Prescott, who served for ten years as Deputy Prime Minister under the Tony Blair, and the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg held the post for five years as part of the coalition agreement.

Prime Ministers have also, on occasion, appointed a senior Cabinet minister as First Secretary of State. This is an honorary position, which implies the holder is more senior than other Cabinet ministers, and has often, but not always, been held concurrently by the Deputy Prime Minister. Crucially, however, neither the Deputy Prime Minister or First Secretary have any particular statutory powers and they do not attract a higher salary than that for other Secretaries of State. The existence of both roles is at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

The current Prime Minister, Theresa May, has not appointed a Deputy Prime Minster or a First Secretary of State.

The Cabinet

Once the Prime Minister has been appointed he or she is expected to form a Cabinet. This is comprised of the most senior Ministers in the Government. Ministers who run government departments are known as ‘Secretary of State’. Although not every department has a Secretary of State at its head, the most important departments, such as the Home Office, the Foreign Office, Ministry of Defence and the Departments of Health & Social Care, Transport and Education, are all led by a Secretary of State who sits in the Cabinet. There are currently 18 Secretaries of State in the Cabinet.

Secretaries of State are powerful Ministers with considerable resources at their disposal which can, in some respects, make them more powerful than the Prime Minister. A Secretary of State sits at the head of a team of Ministers and can also draw upon the administrative resources of their own department. In contrast the Prime Minister does not have a government department or a ministerial team at their disposal. The Prime Minister does head the Cabinet, but once Cabinet ministers return to their own department they are masters in their own domain.

The Prime Minister can invite whoever they like to join the Cabinet, as long as they are members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and Cabinet ministers do not all run Government Departments or hold the title of Secretary of State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to all intents and purposes, including salary, the Secretary of State for the Treasury. The second most senior Minister in the Treasury, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has also often been a Cabinet minister, although this is not currently the case. The Leaders of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are also, usually, Cabinet ministers, although at the moment only the Leader of the Lords is a permanent member of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister may also choose to appoint other ministers to the Cabinet, perhaps as a means of bolstering their support around the Cabinet table. David Lidington, Minister for the Cabinet Office who also holds the honorary title, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is Deputy Prime Minister in all but name. He sits beside the Prime Minister in Cabinet and often deputises for her at PMQs.

The size of the Cabinet is limited by legislation to 21 members, excluding the Lord Chancellor, a post which is now combined with that of Secretary of State for Justice. There are, however, currently 23 members of the Cabinet. As we shall see, while there are statutory limitations on the number of ministerial salaries, the ministerial ranks have been padded out at all levels by the addition of unpaid ministerial appointments. The unpaid member of the current Cabinet is Brandon Lewis, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, who has the rank of Minister of State.

Ministers attending Cabinet

While the size of the Cabinet is limited by law other Ministers can be invited to attend Cabinet meetings, as and when they are needed. There are currently 6 Ministers listed as also attending Cabinet, these include the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Leader of the House of Commons, Attorney General and the Chief Whip. Interestingly, with the exception of Attorney-General, these are all positions which have in the recent past been full-Cabinet posts. They have been moved out of the Cabinet in part to allow for the appointment of new Secretaries of State responsible for the two departments handling Britain’s exit from the European Union: the Department for Exiting the EU and the Department of International Trade.

Crucially, however, and no matter how often they attend Cabinet, Ministers ‘also attending’ Cabinet are not Cabinet ministers and are not paid the same salary as a Cabinet minister. This is significant, in particular when one considers the gender balance in the Cabinet. Theresa May was criticised for the reduction in the number of women in her Cabinet following the 2017 general election. There are currently 5 women in the Cabinet including the Prime Minister, compared to 8 immediately before the 2017 election. In response to this criticism, it has been argued that that the total number of women attending Cabinet has actually increased, due to the fact that 4 of the 6 Ministers ‘also attending’ Cabinet are women. However, having women in positions which may involve the same work and responsibility as Cabinet ministers, but which do not attract the same status or salary, is contributing to a gender pay gap at the heart of government.

Ministers of State

There are a large number of other ministerial posts below the level of Cabinet minister. Each Secretary of State can draw on a team of junior ministers comprised of members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. These are generally known as junior Ministers although a distinction should be made between Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State.

Ministers of State are the next rung down the ministerial ladder from Secretary of State. There are usually three or more Ministers of State in each government department. Ministers of State are powerful and may be very experienced ministers with considerable responsibility. They usually have individual responsibility for particular policy areas, and this varies depending on how departments are organised. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office for example, currently has four Ministers of State responsible for different geographical areas: Europe and the Americas; the Middle East; Asia and the Pacific; and Africa, as well as one Minister of State responsible for the Commonwealth and the UN. The Home Office has four Ministers of State with different functional briefs based on the work of the department: immigration; security and economic crime; policing and the fire service; and countering extremism. The Minister of State for Immigration, Caroline Nokes, also attends Cabinet, because immigration is considered to be a particularly important issue at this time.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act, 1975, caps the number of paid ministerial posts, although it does allow for some differentiation between ministers at different levels. The total number of paid ministerial posts at the Minister of State level and above must not exceed 50. If there are 22 Cabinet ministers, including the Lord Chancellor, this leaves 28 other paid Ministerial posts. There are in fact currently 33 Ministers of State, across both Houses. This is achieved by having 5 unpaid Ministers of State.

Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State

Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State are the most junior Ministerial rank. There are usually one or more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in each Ministerial team but the balance between Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries varies from department to department. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office currently has no Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and the Home Office has only one. In contrast, the Ministerial team in the Ministry of Defence comprises a Secretary of State, two Ministers of State and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.

Like Ministers of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries may be given responsibility for particular policy areas, although they often have a much broader brief covering a range of issues or activities and generally have less personal responsibility for the development of policy. They are more junior and often less experienced Ministers and their decision-making powers are usually more constrained than those of Ministers of State. Parliamentary Under-Secretaries would be expected to consult before making any significant policy changes or announcements.

Ministerial teams provide a thin layer of political direction in each government department and may be crucial in helping Secretaries of State to steer the administrative machine. They also have a crucial parliamentary function. Departmental questions take place each sitting day in the House of Commons, on a rotating basis. This means that each government department will be subject to an hour of parliamentary questions about their work, every five weeks or so. On these occasions, while the Secretary of State will clearly play a leading role, questions are usually answered by different members of the ministerial team depending on the subject. Working in this way, effectively as a tag-team, can help to reduce the parliamentary pressure on individual ministers and the Secretary of State in particular.

One member of each ministerial team is usually a member of the House of Lords. This is because the government needs Ministers to be able to answer questions and make statements in the Lords as well as the Commons. However, because there is usually only one member of the House of Lords in each ministerial team, Ministers in the Lords do not enjoy the parliamentary comfort blanket of a team of ministerial colleagues when answering question on the floor of the House and can appear somewhat isolated.

As with Ministers of State the number of paid positions as Parliamentary Secretary is dependent on the number of ministerial appointments at other levels. The total number of Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and other Ministers including Parliamentary Secretaries must not exceed 83. If the maximum number of 50 Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State are appointed, then the total number of Parliamentary Secretaries should be 33. There are currently 35 Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, 2 of whom are unpaid for their role.

Law Officers

There are 3 law officers, these are legal advisors to the government who are also parliamentarians. The Attorney-General for England and Wales is the Government’s principal legal advisor. The Attorney-General is assisted in this role by the Solicitor-General. These are both political appointments held by Members of Parliament, albeit individuals who usually have a background in the law. By convention these are not Cabinet posts, in order to avoid a conflict of interest between those making political decisions and those offering advice on the legality of those decisions. They may, nonetheless, be asked to attend Cabinet if their advice is being sought.

Since 1999 following the devolution of justice matters to the new Scottish Parliament, a new department was created in Whitehall, the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland, and a new ministerial position of Advocate General for Scotland was created. The post is currently held by a member of the House of Lords and is combined with the post of Ministry of Justice spokesperson in the House of Lords.


Although their role is primarily to ensure party discipline, party whips are paid members of the government. There are in fact quite a lot of whips and they are assigned a range of obscure and largely honorary titles which enable them to be paid for their work. Five government whips in the House of Commons are paid as Junior Lords of the Treasury, they are supported by 7 assistant whips, who are somewhat more helpfully titled, assistant whips. There are 4 more whips in the Commons, including the Chief Whip and 3 others who go under the respective titles of Treasurer, Comptroller and Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household.

The Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip in the House of Lords enjoy the even more ostentatious honorary titles of Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms and Captain of the Queen’s Bodyguard of the Yeoman of the Guard. Somewhat bizarrely while government whips in the Commons go under the title of Junior Lords of the Treasury, whips in the House of Lords, who are full members of the House, are known as Baronesses and Lords in Waiting.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act allows for 22 paid whips (excluding the Chief Whip who is paid as a Parliamentary Secretary): 16 in the House of Commons and 7 in the House of Lords. However, as with Ministerial posts there are a number of unpaid whips which means the number of whips across both Houses is currently 26.

Parliamentary Private Secretaries

The bottom rung of the ministerial ladder is occupied by the Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPS). These are unpaid ministerial aides. The role of the PPS is to support ministers in carrying out their role. They rarely get the opportunity to speak in Parliament, or indeed the media, and are not expected to answer questions, but can often be seen sitting behind ministers in Parliament, from where they can provide information and support. Most government departments have two PPSs. One is usually assigned to support the Secretary of State, while the second has a more general responsibility to support the ministerial team, although a small number of Ministers of State also have their own PPS.

Although they are not paid a ministerial salary, PPSs are expected to support the government in the same way that a Minister would. If a PPS wishes to challenge the government by speaking out publicly or voting against government policy in parliament, they would be expected to resign their position. In doing so they would forgo the possibility of elevation to ministerial ranks.

There has been a significant increase in the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries in recent years, leading to accusations that governments are seeking to pack the House with guaranteed supporters by offering the prospect of ministerial office later. Although these are unpaid positions, when combined with the massed ranks of paid ministers these are usually known as the ‘payroll vote’. According to the latest list, which was published in September 2018, there are currently 46 Parliamentary Private Secretaries.

So how big is the government?

As should by now be clear, government is comprised of a large number of people, and there are more government posts than appear to be allowed for by legislation. This is because the legislation dealing with the number of ministerial appointments is primarily based on an assessment of the acceptable number of ministerial salaries which can be paid, rather than any notion about the acceptable size of the government. The Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, limits the number of paid ministerial posts, including whips to 109, across both Houses. The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, provides that not more than 95 minsters may sit and vote in the House of Commons, but there is no limit for the House of Lords.

There are currently 120 individuals occupying posts as ministers and whips across both Houses, 95 in the House of Commons and 25 in the House of Lords. This is achieved by creating unpaid ministerial posts of which there are currently 11: 6 in the House of Lords and 5 in the Commons, this is two more than when the government was formed following the 2017 general election.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are in fact 138 separate posts for ministers and whips. This is because, at all levels, there are individuals occupying more than one role. In some cases, ministerial responsibilities are combined with other parliamentary roles. Ministers in the House of Lords for example, usually combine a specific ministerial brief with the role House of Lords spokesperson for their entire department, while five government whips in the Commons also hold ministerial posts. Other individuals carry two full ministerial roles, Penny Mordaunt for example, combines the role of Secretary of State for International Development with that of Minister for Women and Equalities. She is assisted in this by Victoria Atkins who is Minister for Women and a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Home Office with responsibility for crime, safeguarding and vulnerability. Similarly, the recent announcement of a new Minister for Suicide Prevention, did not involve the appointment of a new minister but was added to the portfolio of Jackie Doyle-Price who already holds the position of Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Mental Health and Inequalities. Once again it is unfortunate that so many of these combined roles, in which individuals carry out two jobs for one salary, are held by woman.

With 120 individuals holding government posts as ministers and whips in percentage terms the May government is now larger than any government since 1979, and quite possibly than at any point in history. This is all the more remarkable when one considers that Theresa May has fewer MPs on which to draw than any Prime Minister since 1979. When the 46 Parliamentary Private Secretaries are added to the 95 Ministers and Whips in the House of Commons there are 141 Conservative members of the House of Commons currently holding government posts. This amounts to 45% of MPs on the Conservative benches and 22% of the total number of MPs elected to the House of Commons. This central core of loyal MPs, who would need to resign their position in order to vote against the government, is of course vital if one is seeking to govern without a majority.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Choosing a politics textbook

booksChoosing a textbook for your first year politics course can be a daunting prospect, as much for those delivering the course as for students embarking on a degree in politics. As I write this a pile of no less than eight different politics text books totters on the edge of my desk, many of them in multiple editions. Most are designed as broad introductions to British government and politics and cover broadly the same ground. Alongside them sits an, albeit smaller, pile of politics dictionaries, and a diverse assortment of general introductions to recent developments. Selecting a single volume from this ever growing pile is no easy task.

Keeping up with events

One simple and effective criteria is to select the most recently published textbook on the basis that if a week is a long time in politics then the years between editions of most standard textbooks amount to a political epoch. The pace of political change in the UK over the last few years means that most politics textbooks are out of date long before they hit the bookshops. Publishers generally attempt to keep up with the electoral cycle so that new editions of established titles appear after each general election. But with two general elections in a little over three years, interspersed with a referendum on EU membership, the demands of keeping pace with events is has posed a particular challenge to publishers and those responsible for writing textbooks.

politics ukThis year’s students have the benefit of a new edition of the of the popular Politics UK textbook by Bill Jones, Philip Norton and Oliver Daddow, the 9th edition of which was published in the spring of 2018. Although this is a long-established franchise the latest edition has been substantially revised to reflect recent developments. The strains imposed by Britain’s impending exit from the EU is woven through many of the chapters, notably Deacon’s chapter on devolution and Norton’s chapters on government and parliament. The book also benefits from an excellent new chapter, ‘From Euroscepticism to Brexit’, by Bill Jones. The impact of the Trump Presidency on British politics and policy is also examined, particularly in the chapter on British foreign policy, while the idea of ‘fake news’ is scrutinised in the chapter on the mass media.

Another valuable feature of recent editions of Politics UK is the inclusion of short think pieces at the end of each section under the tagline, ‘And another thing…’ These provide valuable commentary on key issues and events. The 9th edition includes interesting pieces by Simon Jenkins on the future of the UK, Bill Jones on fake news and Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett on equality. The only problem with these short commentaries is that one can no longer simply dispose of the earlier edition when a new one is published and students would be well advised to seek out earlier editions. While students embarking on a degree in 2018 will be well served  by the 9th edition of Politics UK, I would also recommend that they read the short end-pieces from earlier editions such as Mark Garnett on the 2011 riots, Peter Riddell on the decline of the mainstream media and Michael Moran on whether it is possible to buck the markets from the 8th edition, Andrew Gamble on the legacy of empire and Chris Mullin on the parliamentary expenses scandal from the 7th edition and Hugo Young’s excellent essay in the 6th edition.

One solution often adopted by publishers to accommodate rapidly changing events is to issue supplements or append additional chapters to popular texts covering recent events. The best recent example of this was Michael Moran’s Politics and Governance in the UK, Although the 3rd edition was published in August 2015, Palgrave rushed out an updated edition in 2017 reflecting recent changes to coincide with the start of the new academic year. This was not a new edition but largely comprised the addition of a new preface by Moran covering the EU referendum and the 2017 election. Nevertheless, Moran’s textbook which was published after the 2015 election also has much to say on other recent developments. The debate over Scottish independence, for example, is treated in considerable depth and reflects the book’s overall aim to expand our understanding of British politics and governance beyond the dynamics of Westminster and Whitehall.

It is also worth noting that even the most recent editions of textbooks rarely offer an entirely new perspective on events. One of the reasons that textbooks can go through many editions in a relatively short space of time is that recent developments are generally absorbed into an existing, usually successful, framework. It is the nature of textbooks that they rarely present cutting edge, original research but provide a distillation of current received wisdom on particular issues, and at best, an introduction to key debates in the wider literature. In the case of the latest edition of Politics UK, for example, the chapter headings and indeed the content is broadly the same as in previous editions.

Partly as a result of this, another criticism of many politics textbooks is that they often focus too much on explaining the relatively unchanging systems of government, but provide less effective commentary on the more dynamic politics which takes place within them. While most will provide an introduction to the principal actors and institutions of the British political system they can, at times, read like guidebooks or manuals, which explain how the system works but not why it operates in a particular way. Rather like a Haynes car manual they often adeptly explain how the machine operates but don’t consider the impact of whoever is driving it. This is a point well made in this review from The Times Higher in which Eric Shaw observes that some politics textbooks, including an earlier edition of Politics UK, can:

…leave one with the impression of analysts with a solid mastery of British politics intent on delivering learning in a cool, precise and scholarly manner. Equally [they] exhibit a somewhat Whiggish view of the British political system and never prod the reader in querying fundamentals.

In many of these books the answer to the question ‘who runs Britain?’ often begins something like ‘Britain is a parliamentary democracy….’ which perhaps somewhat misses the point. In response to this, in previous years I have recommended Dearlove and Saunders excellent Introduction to British Politics, which covers much the same ground as many of the other textbooks but in many areas offers a more thoughtful and critical edge. Sadly, the most recent edition was published in 2000 and is unlikely to meet the needs of students starting their degree in 2018. The previous edition was published in 1991, and was a set text on my own undergraduate degree, so the prospect of another edition any time soon are remote.

Joint or single-authored?

Another worthwhile consideration is whether textbooks are single-authored or include chapters by a range of different authors. It is the nature of academic research that most scholars tend to develop depth of knowledge over breadth. The advantage of books with multiple authors is that individual chapters are usually contributed by experts on each subject. Single-authored books in contrast reflect the expertise, but also the limitations, of a single author’s knowledge. Writing a textbook which encompasses in some depth every aspect of British government and politics is a tall order, even for the most accomplished scholar, as this article in The Time Higher observed.  Nevertheless, some, including Michael Moran, have done so with some success.

Moreover, books by a single author can sometimes display a coherence and consistency of purpose which can be lacking in those written by multiple authors. There is also often an appealing quirkiness which can make single-authored textbooks somewhat more readable. While nobody sits down and reads a textbook in one sitting, if forced to do so I would choose something like Moran’s Politics and Governance in the UK or John Kingdom’s Government and Politics in Britain over Politics UK.  A new edition of Kingdom’s book, now jointly authored, with Paul Fairclough, author of several A level politics textbooks, was published in 2014, and is well worth a look. The chapters on ‘Social Context’ and ‘Mind Politics’ are particularly valuable and I have long admired Kingdom’s, at times amusing, recommendations for further reading, and particularly viewing, at the end of each chapter.

A slightly different kind of politics textbook is represented by the multi-authored or edited collections which don’t seek to explain how the political system works but instead provide informed commentary on the most recent developments. These books won’t help one to understand, for example, how parliament works or the relative merits of different electoral systems but they will help to explain what impact recent governments have had on political institutions and processes. By seeking to be current, these books have a built in obsolescence but they are vital and thought-provoking and should be read alongside the standard textbooks. The most prominent example of this genre is the Developments in British Politics series which is currently in its 10th edition, imaginatively entitled Developments in British Politics 10. Anthony Seldon and Mike Finn’s edited collection, The Coalition Effect, 2010-2015 is another valuable example, from a series which has charted the ‘effect’ of every Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher. Sadly there is not as yet a single volume on the Cameron ‘effect’, although Cameron’s brief period as Prime Minister of a majority government may well preclude this.

Study guides

Recent years have seen a growth in the publication of study guides. Some of these such as the Palgrave Study Skills series are designed for students across disciplines. Of these, Stella Cottrell’s  Study Skills Handbook is still the best, but there are now a bewildering array of other guides in the series covering subjects such as essay writing, undergraduate research and critical thinking.

polircompDiscipline specific study guides are less common. The 2nd edition of Robert Leach and Simon Lightfoot’s excellent Politics and IR Companion, was published in 2018, and is probably the most useful volume to sit alongside Politics UK on the politics student’s bookshelf. This invaluable reference work combines short dictionary-type summaries of key concepts and key thinkers with more subtantive chapters outlining the evolution of the study of politics and a truly excellent section on study skills which will support undergraduate students from their first lecture to their final exam. The inclusion of a chapter on employability encompassing advice on applying for jobs and internships is a significant addition to this edition.

Another recent example of a student focused guide is Doing Politics by Professor Jacqui Briggs, the sadly departed head of the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln. This short guide not only provides an introduction to the subject but also invaluable commentary on what one is likely to encounter when studying for a degree in the politics, with details of the likely content of a politics degrees, teaching methods and employment prospects.

In defence of a dictionary

dictFinally, a word about dictionaries. It may seem somewhat obstinate in the days of the internet and Wikipedia to recommend that students buy something as antiquated as a dictionary but a good dictionary of politics will be an invaluable addition to the politics student’s bookshelf. It is important to remember that studying politics at degree level is a specialist pursuit in the same way as engineering or medicine. One would not expect a medical student to Google a patient’s symptoms, and similarly a politics student confused about the single transferable vote or the nature of multiculturalism would do well to reach for a good dictionary of politics rather than their iPad. The latest of edition of the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics was published in 2018 and, in a welcome development, has been expanded to encompass international relations. There are other dictionaries on the market. Bill Jones’s, Dictionary of British Politics  is dated but still useful and distinguished by the fact that it focuses solely on British politics, which may or may not suit, while the Routledge Dictionary of Politics contains fewer but often more substantive definitions and is particularly strong on concepts and ideologies. While politics dictionaries are periodically updated, having the most recent edition is less important than with textbooks which deal with events, and older or previous editions can often be relatively inexpensive.

Nobody needs eight politics textbooks, not least me, a single edition of the most recent will generally suffice, as long as one understands that each has its limitations and there is much to be gained from dipping into the others from time to time. Having a copy sitting on the edge of one’s desk will be a considerable source of information, a useful prompt to do some reading and an occasional cure for insomnia. For much else the library beckons.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Lord Carrington – NATO Secretary-General 1984-1988

Some years ago I wrote the entry on Lord Carrington for a planned encyclopaedia on  NATO which never went to press. Lord Carrington’s death this week at the age of 99 provides an opportune moment to publish the entry in full here.

IMG_1087Carrington, Lord Peter (6th June 1919 – 9th July 2018)

NATO Secretary-General 1984-1988. Lord Carrington was the sixth Secretary-General of NATO and the second Briton to hold the post. He took up the post on 25 June 1984, succeeding the Dutch Dr Joseph Luns, and served until June 1988.

A Conservative Peer in the British House of Lords, Carrington had held various Ministerial positions in the Conservative Governments of Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher, most notably as Secretary of State for Defence from 1970 to 1974, and as Margaret Thatcher’s first Foreign Secretary, from 1979 to 1982. Carrington’s Ministerial career came to an end in April 1982, when he resigned over the Foreign Office failure to predict the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. A subsequent parliamentary inquiry concluded that no blame or criticism could be attached to anyone in the government for failing to predict the invasion, and cleared the way for Carrington’s return to international politics as the British candidate to succeed Luns, as Secretary-General of NATO.

Carrington’s candidature was not welcomed by everyone in the Alliance and was opposed in particular by many in the Reagan administration, most notably US Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who had clashed with Carrington in the past and openly expressed his opposition to his appointment. Carrington’s position was not helped by a speech he delivered shortly before his appointment in which he criticised the ‘megaphone diplomacy’ employed by the United States in its dealings with the Soviet Union. However, opposition from the Pentagon and the State Department was overruled by President Reagan following a phone-call from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher urging the President to support Carrington’s appointment.

Despite early misgivings, Carrington was highly regarded as Secretary-General. His recent position as Foreign Secretary, provided him with the necessary stature for the job, and meant that he was already familiar with many of the Alliance Foreign Ministers. Moreover, his experience as both a Defence and Foreign Minister meant that he had experience of both the Atlantic Council, and the Defence Planning Committee. Carrington also adopted a markedly different style from his predecessor, Luns. Whereas Luns had relied mainly on his private office, Carrington adopted a consultative style which led him to draw upon expertise from across the NATO secretariat, and endeared him to the staff in Brussels.

Like many Secretaries General Carrington spent a great deal of time seeking to reconcile the diverse national interests within the Alliance, although he was cautious about the extent of consensus that could be realistically achieved. He was fond of saying that unlike the Soviet bloc, the Western allies, ‘sing in harmony, not unison.’ Carrington’s efforts to reconcile European and American interests within the Alliance meant that despite their early concerns, Carrington enjoyed more support from the Americans than he had as British Foreign Secretary. Nevertheless, his position was not always comfortable and he once remarked that as the role of the Secretary-General was to maintain a position somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic, ‘as you would expect, I am cold, I am wet and I’m very, very lonely.’

Carrington’s tenure as Secretary-General was dominated by arms control negotiations between the superpowers, and unease among the European partners about the US development of space based defence against nuclear attack, the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Carrington was a strong supporter of arms control, and was instrumental in securing European support for the American position in advance of the Geneva Summit in November 1985. He also appreciated that arms control was an important ingredient in enhancing NATO’s appeal to the electorates of member nations, and in 1984, held an unprecedented meeting with the General-Secretary of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Whilst supporting arms control Carrington was also a strong advocate of building up the defensive posture of the member nations. He was more forthright than many of the NATO governments in support of SDI, and achieved unity within the alliance on the basis that: research was prudent; there should be a clear distinction between research and development; and that any further action would be a matter for negotiation with the Russians. At the same time Carrington warned that the Alliance should not be dazzled by the ‘sex appeal’ of new weapons technology and he consistently argued that the Alliance should do more to strengthen its conventional forces. He also pleased the Americans by stating that the European partners should bear most of the cost of improving conventional defence. Carrington’s championing of a greater European defence identity was also in line with plans to strengthen the European pillar of the alliance through the reactivation of the Western European Union in 1984.

Carrington also worked throughout his tenure to help resolve the difficulties between Greece and Turkey, making an early visit to Greece in July 1984 for discussions with the Greek government. In March 1987, towards the end of his tenure as Secretary-General, following an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council, Carrington offered to use his good offices to help resolve a dispute between Greece and Turkey when Turkish oil exploration in disputed territory in the Aegean almost led to conflict.

Since leaving the post of Secretary-General Lord Carrington continued to take an active interest in European security. From 1991 to 1992 he served as Chairman of the European Community Peace Conference on Yugoslavia, and acting as the EC’s peace envoy he made several attempts to broker a ceasefire in Yugoslavia. In 1999, Carrington was openly critical of the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia. In articles in the British media at the time of the Kosovo crisis and after, Carrington questioned the wisdom of branding the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic as a war criminal, argued that NATO air-strikes had served to harden the resolve of the Serbian leadership and caused rather than prevented the exodus of Kosovo Albanians, and consequently undermined the integrity of the Alliance.

Suggestions for further reading:

Carrington, Lord. Reflect on Things Past: The Memoirs of Lord Carrington. London: Collins, 1988.

Cosgrave, Patrick. Carrington: a life and a policy. London: Dent, 1985.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why Labour’s defeat on the Windrush motion was a victory for Parliament

DSCF2733This post first appeared on the blog of the Political Studies Association Specialist Group on Parliaments. It was a follow-up to my earlier post about Labour’s use of an obscure piece of parliamentary procedure to force the government to release it’s Brexit impact assessments. Labour continued to use the same tactic in a number of subsequent debates but were eventually defeated in an opposition day debate on 2nd May 2018. Despite this defeat, it is argued here, Labour’s tactic did have the affect of forcing the Conservative government to engage with opposition day debates in Parliament.

The opposition was defeated in a vote in the House of Commons this week. This is not particularly noteworthy, despite its lack of a majority, Theresa May’s government has lost very few votes in the House of Commons. Wednesday’s vote was nonetheless significant because this was the first time in this parliamentary session that the government has contested a vote in an opposition day debate.

Labour was defeated on a vote on its own motion tabled in an opposition day debate on the Windrush affair. There are twenty opposition days in a parliamentary session. They provide an opportunity for opposition parties to table a motion for debate on the floor of the House of Commons. Although opposition day motions are non-binding even if passed by a vote, opposition days provide a rare but important opportunity for the opposition parties to set the parliamentary agenda, raise important issues and seek to put pressure on the government. A government Minister must come to the House and respond to the motion and they are usually contested in a vote.

The Conservative government’s approach to opposition day debates

In the current parliament, however, the Conservative government has adopted a strategy of not contesting opposition day motions. As a result, motions have generally been passed without a vote. From the government’s perspective this has avoided the possibility of an embarrassing defeat in the division lobby and denied the opposition parties the satisfaction of defeating the government in a vote. In their frustration, opposition members have occasionally sought to force a vote by resorting to the tactic of shouting both in support and opposition to their own motion in the chamber, before walking through the division lobby in support of the motion. Although this tactic did lead to defeats for the government in two votes in late 2017, with the government, nonetheless, refusing to contest the vote, such victories might be seen as somewhat pyrrhic.

The government’s refusal to participate in votes on opposition day motions has prompted considerable consternation on both sides of the House of Commons and also on the part of the Speaker. Following an opposition day debate on universal credit in October, the Speaker expressed his irritation at the government’s position, noting that while the government could not be compelled to take note of the result of a non-binding motion it should nonetheless take note of the views of the House:

If people choose not to take part in a Division, they cannot suddenly say, “Well, we didn’t lose”. We are elected to come to this place to debate and decide what our position is on motions. If people choose not to vote, that is perfectly in order, as I have explained, but the motion was carried… it is not for me to seek to compel. What I will say to occupants of the Treasury Bench is that it is blindingly obvious that this is an unusual situation about which there is strong opinion, and I think it would be respectful to the House if a Minister, sooner rather than later, were to come to the House – perhaps after due consideration and collegiate exchange with other members of the Government – to give an indication of the Government’s thinking. This institution is bigger than one party, and, frankly, it is bigger than any one Government. This place and what we do here matter very much.

Prompted by this, in an attempt to force the government to take note of opposition day motions Labour adopted a mechanism designed to turn a non-binding opposition day motion into a binding resolution of the House of Commons. By the use of an obscure piece of parliamentary procedure, known as a motion for a return, Labour drafted an opposition day motion in the form of ‘a humble address to Her Majesty’ requesting the release of papers to parliament. Based on parliament’s power to call for papers, a motion for a return is binding and requires action on the part of the government. The government was caught out by this when Labour used it in an opposition day debate in November to call for the release of the so-called Brexit sectoral analyses, causing considerable difficulties for the government in seeking to explain what form these assessments took and eventually forcing the release of the relevant documents to the select committee for exiting the European Union.

Labour’s continued use of a motion for a return

Having devised a tactic which forced the government to take note of opposition day debates and moreover, to agree to the release of potentially embarrassing papers, Labour has continued to use this tactic in opposition day debates since November. In December, Labour used a motion for a return to prompt the release of several government assessments on the operation of universal credit. In January, it was used to call for the release of risk assessments in relation to government suppliers following the collapse of the construction company, Carillion. Labour tabled a further motion in relation to Brexit in January, calling for the release of a widely-leaked cross-Whitehall Brexit analysis setting out three possible scenarios for Britain’s future relationship with the EU. This document was eventually released and published by the select committee on exiting the European Union. In each of these cases the government, while objecting to Labour’s demands in debate, did not contest the vote and the motions were passed without a division.

In its latest opposition day debate, Labour tabled a motion for a return calling for the release of papers relating to the treatment of the so-called Windrush generation. This has been a particularly difficult issue for the government in recent weeks leading, amongst other things, to the resignation of the Home Secretary. The debate was well-attended with many members from both sides of the House wanting to speak. When the motion was eventually put to a vote the government, for the first time in this parliament, chose to contest the motion in the division lobbies. The vote is seems was heavily whipped by the government and Labour’s motion was defeated by 316 votes to 221.

Whilst this was a rare defeat for a Labour opposition day motion, it was perhaps a victory for parliament. The government was forced to debate the issue on the floor of the House of Commons. It provided another early opportunity to test the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who was forced, for the second time in a week, to defend the government on the floor of the House of Commons, while the immigration Minister, Caroline Nokes, gave commitments to report regularly to the home affairs select committee on detentions, removals and deportations. Moreover, the debate concluded with a meaningful vote. Although Labour may have lost the vote, they can perhaps console themselves with the knowledge that for the first time in this session they forced the government to respond to their proposals and to engage fully with the parliamentary process.

Did Labour overplay its hand?

There are several possible explanations for Labour’s defeat. The government may have decided that it simply could not afford to suffer another parliamentary defeat, following several defeats this week on the EU withdrawal Bill in the House of Lords. The timing of the debate, the day before the local elections, may also have been a factor in prompting the government to contest the vote. Labour Whips may also have been caught out by the government’s decision to oppose the motion this time. Having been given free rein on opposition days during this parliament, they may have assumed the government would once again refuse to contest the motion. Moreover, the timing of the debate may have worked against Labour, with many Labour MPs on campaigning duties in advance of the local elections, while the vote was clearly strongly whipped by the Conservatives. While the Conservatives managed to mobilise the support of 308 out of their 316 MPs to oppose the Labour motion, Labour only managed to mobilise 180 of their 258 MPs in support. It is revealing that the 221 votes in support of the Windrush motion was significantly less than the 299 votes Labour had secured in support of an uncontested motion on universal credit in October.

Labour may also have overplayed their hand somewhat in seeking to deploy the same tactic for the fifth time in six months. The use of a motion for a return to press the government to release material was somewhat novel when Labour deployed it in relation to the Brexit sectoral analyses in November, but it could not hope to keep catching the government out with the same parliamentary trick.

Moreover, the Windrush motion was constructed in such a way that the government probably concluded that it simply could not be allowed to pass. On previous occasions on which the opposition has sought access material through a motion for a return, the motions have referred to a very specific and relatively limited body of material. In contrast, the material demanded in the Windrush motion was expansive in the extreme. The motion referred to:

all papers, correspondence and advice including emails and text messages, from 11 May 2010 up to and including 1 May 2018, to and between Ministers, senior officials and Special Advisers relating to policy decisions including on the Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016 with regard the Windrush generation cases, including deportations, detentions and refusal of re-entry, the setting of deportation and removal targets and their effect on the Windrush generation, and action taken within Government following the concerns raised by Caribbean Governments with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office including the original decision by the Prime Minister not to meet Caribbean Heads of Government and officials, and all copies of minutes and papers relating to the Cabinet’s Immigration Implementation Taskforce.

While parliament clearly has extensive powers to call for papers there would undoubtedly be a number significant challenges involved in producing this material. During the debate several MPs suggested that the motion was little more than a ‘fishing expedition’ which ran the risk of breaching the convention that parliament cannot ask civil servants to divulge their advice to Ministers. The practical difficulties involved in accumulating a body of records encompassing all forms of communications over a period of eight years are, perhaps, even more significant. Identifying and collating the relevant documents would clearly take many months and would, in all likelihood, comprise many thousands of pages. It is also somewhat strange that while, as with previous motions of this type, the motion asks that the material be released to the relevant parliamentary select committee, it seems that in this case the select committee concerned, the home affairs committee, does not appear to have been consulted about the motion. In the course of the debate on the motion, Yvette Cooper, the Labour Chair of the home affairs committee, perhaps mindful of the unrealistic nature of its demands remarked that the committee ‘have not instigated this call; nor have we had the chance to discuss or take a view on the motion, and we would of course decide how to respond. The motion itself is obviously a matter for the House, but we will continue to pursue our own questions as well.’

The treatment of the Windrush generation is an important issue on which many questions remain to be answered. However, in this case Labour’s opposition day motion was somewhat ill-conceived and did not achieve the same success which Labour’s previous attempts to deploy a motion for a return have undoubtedly secured. In future, Labour would, perhaps, be wise to be more circumspect and selective in their use of this tactic. At the same time Labour’s Windrush motion was successful in prompting the government to treat opposition day debates with the respect that they deserve. This is a welcome development and long may it continue.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Government transparency and the appointment of Parliamentary Private Secretaries

I have written in previous posts about the rise of the so-called payroll vote, those MPs holding government jobs who would need to resign their position if they wish to vote against the government. Although the number of paid Ministerial posts is limited by legislation, successive governments have used a variety of mechanisms to expand the cadre of loyal MPs, including the creation of unpaid Ministerial positions (currently 8) and also the appointment of a seemingly ever-increasing number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries – unpaid Ministerial aides, widely seen as the first step on the Ministerial ladder.

I have also written about the frustrations of trying to keep track of these appointments. Ministerial appointments are announced publicly, Ministerial teams are listed on the website of each government department and a full list can be found on the Cabinet Office website. In contrast the appointment of Parliamentary Private Secretaries is not widely publicised, except in some cases by the individuals concerned. In the past, numbers and lists have emerged in answer to parliamentary questions or through websites of parliamentary watchers such as Guido Fawkes. Prior to the 2010 election the Conservative Party was critical of the lack of transparency in government and following the election, for the first time, published a full list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries.

However, the turnover of PPSs is often high, and despite two significant Cabinet reshuffles in 2012 and 2014, and a general election in 2015, neither the Coalition nor the Cameron government published an updated list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. It was pleasing then that following the 2017 election, following the establishment of Ministerial teams the May government promptly published a list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. In a post written at the time I expressed the hope that this list would be updated following reshuffles and election.

Following the Prime Minister’s January reshuffle, a new list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries was indeed placed on the Number 10 website. Moreover, after a long period of seemingly inexorable rise in the numbers of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the January 2018 list indicated that there had been a slight fall in the number from 46 in July 2017 to 43 in January 2018. The list indicated that the number of PPSs supporting the Treasury’s Ministerial team has been reduced from three to two, while the Home Office, which previously and inexplicably had the support of four PPSs, has had that number cut to two. Three departments, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, have had their number of PPSs reduced from two to one. Although three departments have seen an increase in their complement of Ministerial aides. The number of PPSs supporting Ministers in the MoD and the Department for Education has increased from two to three, while the Wales Office has gone from one to two.

However, what appeared to be a welcome development both in transparency and a gradual reining in of the payroll vote, may in fact be neither. Two days after the government’s PPS list was published, Caroline Johnson, the MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham, tweeted that she had been appointed as PPS to the Treasury Ministerial team.


Several days later another tweet by Andrea Jenkyns, revealed that she had been appointed as PPS to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Neither Johnson nor Jenkyns were on the list published by Number 10 on 22nd January.

The appointments of Johnson and Jenkyns bring the total number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries to 45, only one less than in July 2017. Although in fact there may be more. The published list has not been updated to take account of these new appointments and it is perfectly possible, perhaps likely, that others have been made which have not come to my attention. That the compilation of a complete list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries is dependent on the serendipitous identification of tweets by new appointees is hardly a model of transparency. It’s also not clear why these appointments which followed only days after the list was published were not included on it. If the turnover of PPSs is significant then there may be some justification in suggesting that providing an updated list every month or two is not the most effective use of resources by staff at Number 10, although presumably such a list exists and is updated when there is a change. However, it is quite clear that the current list of Parliamentary Private Secretaries was published before the latest round of appointments was complete. It is unfortunate that as a result what might be seen as a welcome movement towards greater transparency on the part of government, begins to look like an exercise in obfuscation.

Bookmark and Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments