By Rocio Ferro-Adams 25 July 2024
(Published August 2024)
The end of one Political Era 2010-2024: Published as comment.
Capability became an issue for the Conservative Government soon after the 2010 Election. Once Brexit began to arise as a policy, the definitive choice by the electorate and the legislative reality from 2014-16, caused panic, and fear. The tests forced on the Government civil service and the pressures on parliamentary capacity soon became evident, due to the lack of information and impact assessments of public policy changes, which began to test and stretch existing policy capacity limits. It became obvious that the argument was the impossibility to fully forecast the cost to the public of some major policy changes including Constitutional Reform, such as Lords Reform. Legislation which was considered necessary or helpful by the House of Lords, was later cast aside after the Deputy PM, Nick Clegg presented the Bill to Parliament in June 2012. It was put firmly on the backfoot and withdrawn by 3 September 2012. It was no longer a priority and ignored after the collapse of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Coalition dissolution on 8 May 2015.
Instead legislation was brought in by ballot, and via a Private Members Bill, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, to deal with ‘when a member can resign’, and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, on ‘when a Peer can be removed’, in response to being subject to an offence in the courts – this was also introduced by Private members Bill.
The Appointments Commission seemed cast aside from any monitoring role. Institutions like this needing democratic transparency and accountability were beginning to be ignored. The Government seemed distracted by something and populism had begun to take a grip, unbalancing democratic argument, debate in and out of Parliament, leaving room for UKIP and further Euroscepticism and some chaotic disorder to follow. The numbers in the House of Lords in 2000 after the House of Lords Reforms in 1997-9, were 690 members, which rose to 706 in 2009-10 under Labour. These numbers were not controlled and unelected membership rose to 827 by 19 July 2023. The House of Lords had grown to reflect the populist discourse, and ‘all change attitude’ of position.
Brexit dominated the agenda, despite David Cameron’s Remain agenda, it was a hidden issue of little government control, and there was great divergence of political opinion on almost every aspect of Brexit. In January 2013, he promised to hold a Referendum on whether to stay ‘in or out’ of the European Union. We know that history tells us, that he took the risk on a Referendum and did not win the public opinion vote. As Tim Bale pointed out in October 2022, in an article for the UK in a Changing Europe, Lord David Cameron did not predict “how the Leave campaign could mobilise its supporters to turn out and vote”. He was unable to do two things which was to secure a deal, that was not perceived to be to complex, and he ,relayed on colleagues who were pro-European to oppose Euro-scepticism and to win. He also underestimated the difficulty and dangers of identity politics mixed, with issues created about immigration, which became a toxic poison for the Conservative Party, (both within and outside of Government) who were loyal to traditional Conservatism. He also expected, Cross-Party support, and for this he can be forgiven, from the Labour Party members who were also Pro-European. He underestimated feelings about Europe and tensions on Party Loyalty. MPs loyalty was split and so were voters at the Referendum in 2016.
Following his resignation in 2015, and the General Election which followed (with a majority of 330 MPs), Theresa May was appointed Prime Minister. She contained the legacy of her stewardship at the Home Office (2010-2016), as Prime Minister. Key social indicators began to arise soon after she left that post, that all was not well. British families and those of immigrant or mixed backgrounds and those from lower socio-economic groups, and those with disabilities and the unemployed, the underemployed; in comparison to the already wealthier members of society, were impacted negatively by decisions on immigration at the Home Office whilst Theresa May was in office as a Minister. This later became anti-immigration rhetoric and separately turned into the Windrush Scandal. Poor and discriminatory policy decision were also visible in later high profile cases at the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP), which oversaw the withdrawal of benefits to people who were very vulnerable. She seemed unaware of the impact of policies at the time. It was unclear whether any doubts were raised by Cabinet.
This was a divisive time and one which tested the goodwill of many people. Zero-hours contracts were later deemed exploitative, and economically unstable towards an economic outlook for future generations. Exaggerating the inequality between these groups of people for generations. The ‘immigrants go home’, rhetoric created at the Home Office was damaging to relations between multicultural groups and internationally impacted views of Britain, amongst liberal Europeans; as a safe place for migrants to work and live. This view was exaggerated by more recent street protests and riots, lead by the Far-right in the UK which began to rise from 2014. National Action for instance, was already a proscribed terrorist organisation by December 2016. Far-right extreme groups become a threat to national security from around 2022, raising the seriousness and level of threat to the UK’s national security.
The impact on International Relations and Britain’s image overseas, under Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary, was damaging to relationships with Europe and may have made negotiations over ‘a more worthy EU-UK Deal’ more difficult. He snatched the next Election away from then Prime Minister Theresa May, by resigning and weakening Government support for her. She suffered an enormous number of resignations, with 60 Ministers leaving posts, 42 were officially split over her negotiations on the ‘Withdrawal Agreement’ on the UK-EU relations. This resulted in an open refusal by ministers to continue under her Premiership, and support dwindled from within her own Party. This forced her heartfelt resignation on 24 July 2019.
Despite Boris Johnson’s large majority in the 2019 General Election, winning 365 Seats of 650, he had much to do to bring the ‘Withdrawal Deal’ and the ‘Northern Ireland backstop’, or NI Protocol, to a conclusion. He was prepared at all costs to conclude on a Deal which he and his Government could manage, and which affected Northern Ireland trade with the EU and UK. His ‘Withdrawal Agreement got Brexit done’, and it came into force on 1 January 2021. He faced huge criticism and judicial reprimand, after he was found to be acting unconstitutionally on Proroguing Parliament, to last until the next Opening of Parliament ( just 17 days before the UK was scheduled to Leave the EU, on 31 October 2019); meaning that there would be no time to continue with normal proceedings. This was seen as an attempt to prevent government scrutiny over his plans on Brexit and he was forced into a much shorter prorogation.
He was sadly despite, some leadership qualities, seen as a Prime Minister of mischief caught, in some difficulties as Foreign Secretary under Theresa May as Prime Minister, at parties with friends who had connections to former KGB agents in Italy – this was covered by investigative journalists at the time. Then during the Covid Party-gate, investigations into Boris Johnson and that of his advisors’ behaviour, the PM came under more heavy criticism.
Boris Johnson was pivotal to the management of the Covid pandemic. The capture of British assets by external forces and questions about foreign influence as well, arose during his time at Number 10, whilst he was Prime Minister and despite his popularity, it was ultimately Party-gate, which brought about his demise as a Prime Minister. Then following his resignation on 6 September 2022 and there was a Conservative Leadership contests in July -September, which saw Liz Truss beat Rishi Sunak. It was the death of the Monarch and the chaotic nature of the decisions of Liz Truss as PM and the inability of Her Chancellor to fully gage the financial and social impact (on human well-being), of poor economic decisions, and on the wider state and international economy, which led to Liz Truss’ shorter Premiership of 45 days. She was Prime Minister for a very short time.
In retrospect, David Cameron’s government as early as 2010, could have taken a different approach to the Brexit Referendum, drafting the questions differently and leading the process through a set of questions, giving time for the population to better understand what it was voting for, and allowing government to assess the consequences of voting to Leave the EU, the European Union, forecasting any economic shocks on retail and British businesses, the finance and banking sectors and more importantly the practical implications on many families who lived across borders (parts of the year) – living in mixed marriages splitting – their time in Europe and the UK. Would this have produced a better outcome? Ultimately, probably yes. But not necessarily turning the final vote on EU Membership, as the electorate seemed fixed on issues around immigration which were not resolved. Little was said against the idea that immigrants were the problem, instead voices where whipped up by UKIP and its Leaders. Migrants and the EU were scapegoated for the crisis arising and voters led by populist ideas, populist rhetoric; without evidence or academic foundations. Britain began to fall into the fands of people with more extreme political views.
Assessments from academics were largely reactionary from 2010-2014 and Think Tanks and Charities also failed to publicly predict and publish on the dangers of the policies being implemented, possibly due to prior political affiliations and historical experiences of Conservative Government; as process, over which they had and should have no control. Better reporting and monitoring began after 2014-16. This had changed by 2019-21, after the Executive was seen to have flexed its muscle too far in Parliament, rushing through hundreds more pieces of secondary legislation and some skeleton bills, which tried to hide the realities of a single dominant political issue from a knowing population. Government institutional functions began to slow down on new legislation, whilst Brexit related legislation dominated.
Evidence on which to base sound policy advice was lacking and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had been asked to review its statistical leadership in 2016. The period between 2016-2019 and early on in 2020 brought to light the reality of increasing debt amongst students; the increasing use of food banks by vulnerable groups, the Windrush scandal and the emerging number of tens of thousands of people affected, the increasing inhumanity of holding facilities for refugee applicants, and increasing homelessness across the UK. The cost of living for many families had risen without control.
The scandal published by the Local Government Association in 2023, of increasing numbers of young people in care, became scandalous as private providers thrived off the wealth created by privatising social care for young people and the dramatic increase in mental health issues and diagnosis, which journalistic probing suggests as high risk and an epidemic in diagnosis. This, along with the outcome of the pandemic and its institutional management, demonstrated an inability by Government to deal with real and modern problems. Why soo many over 50s declined to return to work and why carers continue to focus on care instead of economic activity, (those responsible for relatives), remains completely unresolved, but the Covid pandemic and the benefits system (encouraging people to remain at home), was said to be partly to blame, and the cause for slow growth in the economy. The reason why the economy failed to meet expected OECD growth is also largely blamed on the economic shocks of a pandemic, on a recovering fragile workforce and retail sector. One conclusion might be, that without these carers, families would suffer.
It was during this period that it became clear that Government couldn’t and wouldn’t deal with unaffordable rents and house prices as well, as very low and stagnant wages in the Public Sector, for long periods had been capped. Regular junior doctor, teacher and transport drivers strikes in 2022-24 were just a symptom of a greater societal problem, that had been created by a lack of care, and consideration for human aspects of civil society, which were also under attack and in crisis.
There was a clear incentive for those associated with successive Conservative Governments to seek opportunities to make lucrative private-public business work, to seek Party donations, to bring investments home, on consumables such as on PPE, but this included deals outside of the UK, with Russian Oligarchs (on property and oil) and attracting Middle East investors (newspaper independence has since become an issue for Parliament) and questions over China’s academic institutional support (cultural independence and an academia free from Chinese influence, has also become a more prominent issue). With little consideration as to the impact on the home economy, cultural tensions, and British Business needs and Financial Services – one of the few areas in which the economy was still growing and developing in this period from 2014-24. There was a need for soft diplomacy all round and it was failing to materialise.
Both Russia and China were considered countries of security concern to Western allies by the FCOD (the UK Foreign and Development Office) as early as 2018. It published findings and policy direction in its Integrated Review, ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (2 July 2021)’. It was updated as information was arising, as to the extent of possible external influence, from these countries; across UK universities, government relations and private business. It was not until Russia invaded Ukraine and when internationally agreed sanctions began to bite again, that these issues became refocused in 2022.
Large quantities of real estate were sold off to foreign buyers from the State Estates, as well as quantities of private land, whilst British people were unable to afford homes and where some British families were living, in some cases, in destitution and inadequate housing, now for generations. The problems are endemic, and the historical divide, irrespective of recent claims of improvement, are historically rooted in the UK, the divide continues between the wealthy and the poorer parts of the countries. It appeared to get better where local effort was exhausted to improve the regional cities, but these were not truly levelled-up communities. These historical legacies persist and can be traced back hundreds of years.
Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, as soon as Liz Truss was forced to leave, having lost to her previously unopposed through a party membership election. He was appointed, on 25 October 2022. His ability to negotiate quickly on the Northern Ireland Protocol and issues arising due to UK trade with the EU, resulted in the Windsor Framework, which resulted in adjustments to the Protocol that had not been working. Announced in February 2023 and adopted by March that year, it came into effect in October 2023. He was the PM to negotiate more easily with Europe post-Brexit and even negotiated adjustments to the Frameworks operation in January 2024.
Institutional capture is a real concern and it has identified as a problem independently by a number of UK universities and the Political Studies Association (PSA) in 2023. There was little detailed economic planning, rather just fiscal rules and policy, for which the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), was established to provide advice to HMT independently. It has found establishing the relationship between government and maintaining independence challenging. It may be different with a new Government. But whether a much needed Department for Economic Panning will ever be created, is yet to be seen,
The Conservative Government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, are handing over as significant political achievement in lowering inflation from 10.1% to 2%, it was this accumulated management of the economy by these two individuals, and the understanding that the public needed to live on affordable costs, and steady decision making processes through the pandemic, which has improved the cost of living in terms of food inflation. Some of Rishi Sunak’s key decisions which he made whilst Chancellor, were able to steer the country through otherwise very tough times. However, the management of the Covid Pandemic and decisions around ‘eat out, to help out’, damaged the Prime Minister, as the Covid Inquiry unfolded in 2022-23.
Some Academic work published in 2023, ‘How did Britain come to this? By LSE deals with some related issues retrospectively, which is part of the problem in academic studies and political science. Like historians no one is any longer interested, in future projections, assessments of complex future economic planning over years, and there was little institutional investment to build resilience in Government and the civil service for the long-term on these terms. Planning in the UK is done around Cabinet Committees and collective agreement, and Spending Reviews, rather than through independent economic planning. In government administration, political and international relations theory, we lack great minds that talk about the future, without fear of getting it wrong.
We need more Political Theory for the future. As for Government Skills, the focus since 2010 has been to firefight, rather than to continue to build a world class civil service, which is not inward looking, but looks to develop skills and delivery, matching those of international standards, not because we say it meets them, but because others can see and assess externally, that Government has met those standards.
The FCOD has been one of few Departments willing to be self-critical. The Cabinet Office has not produced a review of the civil service as promised, as early as 2010, nor has it sought to look closely at its own behaviour and skills in any public or Parliamentary review. It has instead blamed the leadership of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. It is true that the civil service has been under extreme pressure and that it probably has delivered to the best of its ability under both Prime Ministers, but it has failed to reflect on its own failing to communicate enough outside of the Covid Inquiry and Scrutiny Parliamentary Committees, nor has it desired to create or implement change with fundamental professional change to increase policy capacity. Government did however, adapt to the pandemic and continued to work from home like the rest of the world. The UK showed it can be resilient, in terribly difficult and sad times.
The ability of diverse and minority groups to lead and join Government has been largely reduced, for a long period of time, but this is also a historical failing, based on an inherited 200 years of bureaucratic practise, and modern problems of geographical employment issues, which has brought talent from outside the capital to the City of London, for long periods of time displacing those people already skilled and knowledgeable of government. Where there are historically larger proportions of British multicultural communities living and working in London, there is now a concentration of graduates of around 72% in some areas, making any jobs highly competitive, displacing very qualified people into much lower paid jobs. It is one of the most diverse cities in the World outside of the United States. More needs to be done to sustain the Regions, Local Government employment and to support existing talent into lifelong carers.
But central government has not reflected its immediate community for long periods of time. Diversity as a ‘whole policy’ for driving change, is a feature of good management and leadership and addresses skills gaps and can redress economic isolationism. A more diverse Government would address some localised economic inequalities, which have become stagnant for decades. The Metropolitan Mayors of England have tried to work hard to develop local prosperity through skills and education, in the poorest regions in the North and Midlands, to retain and grow talent, and to grow the local economy both in the public and private sectors.
Boroughs across England now also face bankruptcy in local government spending, so Labour is now inheriting a very difficult and restrained resourcing tool-kit, for repairing the damage caused over 14 years – but critically we should not forget the many economic problems which arose from policy making in the last Labour Government (1997-2010) and to learn from those outcomes and any failings. Britain is not the only country at fault. The Global Economy had been a debt driven economy, selling government debt in the form of Government Bonds for decades and it has continued to became one of many-today examples, of old, that aids state economic management in political economy.
Deep human impact inquiry into failings over 14 years, is found in the case of inquiries into the behaviour by Parliament of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, and other Ministers, who’s Premierships where characterised by failing economic policies in the first case, which caused immediate market melt-down and in the case of Boris Johnson, the inability to manage an unforeseen, but devastating pandemic and to manage poor standards in behaviour in public life, at the same time, impacting those immediate civil servants working within and alongside No 10.
Despite this lack of consideration of the consequence of words and action, the deliberately hostile media messages from the right-wing media, which became extreme, endemic and horrific in their daily intensity, were about promoting an anti-immigration agenda. The media in Britain acts as the checks and balances to Government, where Parliament is slow or cannot work effectively under a majority or authoritarian Executive rule and where it has become paralysed to act. As in the case of debates over Brexit, the media have a duty of care to report accurately what is taking place. It did so over Brexit. It did not however, consider enough the impact of the tabloids press and its negative and aggressive media messages, negating the rights of British ethnic minorities and the impact on generations of British people, who come from immigrants backgrounds, nor the impact on their employment, livelihoods, security and peace of mind.
No one had addressed these issues because it is possible to look within the public sector at success stories, and they in turn are able to rise above the rhetoric through position, but this does not reflect the impact on communities and on civil society. Since 2016 The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) reported that some reporting on immigration, and the refugee crisis was “contributing to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection”. There is some academic responsibility to be met to describe and understand the impact on society of the press and its messaging, where it has been open to misinformation and where it has been courted, to influence published.
It was under Theresa May’s Government that the Home Office funded the ‘go home’ notices on publicly funded vehicles – little thought was given to how divisive and how long lasting in the memory of multicultural British society those notices have become, nor the consequences linked to the treatment of many groups who were not white. And how the publics taxes were used to fund that campaign. May herself was not reprimanded, or personally challenged in the courts and although she has only admitted wrongdoing in May 2024, after she was Home Secretary from 2010-2016 and then Prime Minister, all of this has weakened trust in government and its civil service who did not resist the policies but acted upon them blindly without common sense and integrity and were negligent to maintaining the nations full historical records for Windrush British Citizens. [1]
There is no guarantee that the Nolan Principles largely ignored over 14 years will be implemented in full and it is unlikely that the current Civil Service will on its own, seek to want a close watchdog on its performance and behaviours. The Civil Service Commissioners have few, if any powers of disciplining Senior Civil Servants, who may abuse their positions. This generation of civil servants have failed to respond to independent criticism and recommendations for reform, which highlighted need for skills and transparency. There is no Professional Body like the BMA, nor a Civil Service Tribunal to deal specifically with the civil service employment issues, complaints and poor bureaucratic behaviours. There are however, many inspirational civil service leaders who have challenged poor policy decisions and have been very dedicated and they should not be forgotten.
The Justice system can prosecute criminal behaviour on the grounds of negligence and in theory can prosecute those undermining the law of race equality legislation and discrimination, when they ignoring it. But it is only through Parliament that sometimes scrutiny takes place on niche issues. The Channel Four investigation into the culture of intimidation arising from behaviours by senior staff of more junior female staff, has yet to lead to any public conclusion, nor outcome during the pandemic. An earlier investigation and attempt to investigate it in 2018, did not prevent many further issues arising, especially just before Party-gate. The Covid Inquiry has uncovered some administrative problems and going forward recommendations are to prevent those from happening again. [2] How that will be done needs to be made clear.
After 2021, there was a more moderated and restrained approached, under Prime Minister Sunak, but not on illegal immigration and this time into the failures to address the criminality associated with ‘the boats’, and people smuggling – ignoring the issue through lack of policy, became an excuse for poor government for over 14 years. Under Labour, there can be no more excuses.
The Post Office scandal was just one too many failures of government to comprehend the need to focus on delivering a public service and on the impact of human error of continuing with a broken IT system, procured by Government and public servants, not listening to complaints, nor accepting, or learning from those continued repetitive issues. I would predict more failures, even with a new Government, without fundamental change and shakeup of the civil service, which may mean more than structural changes. Reinstatement of the Nolan Principles, longer retention, and training within posts, have been recommended by the Institute for Government in 2024. Emphasis on official skills assessments (technical drafting and knowledge of Government administration), gaining professional qualifications and striving for continuous learning about Government, diplomacy, economics, statistics, science, research, business and trade and international relations; must remain relevant, at all levels of the Civil Service, if it is to remain relevant, resilient and impervious to external influence.
@Research Capacity Ltd.
[further referencing to follow]
[1] Theresa May admits mistakes over migrant policies – BBC News Illegal immigration: Has the ‘hostile environment’ worked? – BBC News, Was Theresa May responsible for the decision to destroy Windrush generation immigrants’ landing cards? | The Independent | The Independent . Also see Windrush generation: UK ‘unlawfully ignored’ immigration rules warnings – BBC News. The former Prime Minister lost her seat at the 4 July General Election.
[2] Covid inquiry: Top civil servant Simon Case giving evidence after delayed appearance – BBC News
Source: Sky News How the Tories time in power unfolded.
Research Capacity Ltd 
Leave a comment