Streamlined monarchy will be able to do less

Somewhat to his surprise, Robert Hazell appeared in the Netflix documentary on Harry and Meghan.  With his co-author he reflects on modern monarchy and points out that a streamlined Royal Family we be able to do less, creating an expectations management issue: https://theconversation.com/netflixs-harry-and-meghan-the-sussexes-are-not-unique-in-being-royal-victims-196738

Voters up for grabs

Rob Ford provides five lessons from the last election: https://swingometer.substack.com/p/5-lessons-from-the-last-election?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

He notes: 'Whatever comes next, there are more voters in play than ever. Traditional partisan alignments have been fading for decades, and the Leave and Remain tribal attachments forged in 2016 may also be losing their hold with Brexit off the agenda. Two of the three most volatile elections in modern history have come in the past decade, with almost half of voters switching sides at least once between 2010-17. '

What a state we're in

There are some great insights in this very well written review of the political year.  Sunak is described as an 'interim CEO coming in to manage a bankruptcy.'  Truss is described as offering 'Ladybird-style Thatcherism'.  The Government has been 'plagued by a profound incoherence'.   The underlying message is that we are in a parlous state, yet Labour has no plan for government: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/this-government-is-dying-what-comes-next-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer

Good news for Labour at Chester

Rob Ford analyses the City of Chester by-election result which is good news for Labour: https://swingometer.substack.com/p/the-city-of-chester-by-election?utm_source=substack&publication_id=1186392&post_id=88171032&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true

The Conservatives did badly despite the absence of a significant challenge for the right.   Recent opinion poll boosts for Reform UK were not reflected in the result.

Reforming the Lords

Lords reform is a hardy perennial - I can remember the failed attempt in the 1960s defeated by an unholy coalition of the left and right.   However, it is useful to have a review of the options by leading expert Meg Russell: https://constitution-unit.com/2020/02/23/lords-reform-is-back-on-the-agenda-what-are-the-options/

What does need to bear in mind is that an elected Lords would have much greater legitimacy and the risk of legislative deadlock would increase.   There is something to be said for a moderating and scrutiny chamber, although not on its present basis.

Cakeism 2.0

There is a real prospect of Boris Johnson returning as prime minister after a short break.   Many Conservative MPs think he is the only person who can save them from an electoral wipeout and he would certainly win a vote among Conservative activists.

He does have support among the electorate.   One lady said on Radio 5 this morning, 'So he had a party during lockdown.  Lots of people did.'   Leaving aside the fact that he should be setting an example, there were multiple parties.

He is an inveterate liar who is still under investigation by the Privileges Committee.  His mixture of bluster and boosterism is hardly what the country needs.   We have already had an extreme version of Cakiesm under Truss.  But could Boris live with Jeremy Hunt's attachment to fiscal prudence?

He certainly is shrewd.   Some think he backed Truss, betting that she would fail and he could come back.  But do these times demand a clown leading the country?

Why prime ministers and chancellors fall out

Relationships between prime ministers and chancellors can deteriorate quickly and often end in dismissal or resignation.   For the former, think Geoffrey Howe under Thatcher and Norman Lamont under Major.  For the latter, think Lawson and Thatcher and Sunak and Johnson.

It appears that Liz Truss initially resisted Kwasi Kwarteng's idea that the Treasury should issue a statement to calm the markets, but eventually gave way.

These two are, of course, ideological soulmates and are locked together because of their advocacy of a risky and controversial economic policy.  They also lack depth of support in the Parliamentary party.

The incentives to stay in step are therefore strong.   However, because economic policy has such an impact on a Government's standing, prime ministers often get involved (Tony Blair was an exception).

Examples of a harmonious relationship between a prime minister and a chancellor are rare, but they do occur: Healey and Callaghan is a prime example.   John Major did not have the authority to challenge Ken Clarke who went further on changing the Bank-Treasury relationship than the prime minister would have liked.

Truss and Kwarteng?   Watch this space.

The fate of takeover leaders

The lot of leaders who take over as prime minister mid-term is not a happy one and their tenure is shorter than those who come to office as the result of an election: https://constitution-unit.com/2022/09/07/prime-minister-liz-truss-and-the-short-unhappy-fate-of-the-takeover-leader/

A bleak prospect on Ukraine

My former colleague and lifelong Russia expert Mark Harrison gave a sobering presentation on the war in Ukraine to CAGE Warwick yesterday.  He could not see any good outcome.  It should be possible to listen to it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPg-SGzDjXc

Mark had to point out that he was on the edge of his expertise when asked military or strategic questions.  His central theme was about economic sanctions or 'economic war' as it is seen in Moscow. 

However, he pointed out that annual Russian war games always ended with the deployment of a nuclear option.  In Russian terminology this was 'de-escalation' as a potential adversary would not respond in kind.  Clearly there is room for miscalculation.

Russian thinking saw war as a whole rather than in separate compartments such as 'cyber', 'information' etc.   And although he didn't say this, one weapon was seen much like another.

Mark has devoted his life to the study of Russia and has many Russian friends.  He is clearly saddened by the turn of events.

I await with interest the next podcast from Nuclear Britain expert Julie McDowall on the risks associated with tactical nuclear weapons.  

It is important not to be too alarmist.   As was pointed out in the seminar, comparisons with the 1930s can be unhelpful.

What is clear that a nuclear deterrent is of limited help when one is faced with a conventional war on a large scale.  I would agree with (Lord) Daniel Finkelstein who argued in The Times that we need a serious debate about the nuclear deterrent (this is what Julie has been arguing since the mid 1980s).

The need for caution about economic sanctions

Someone made the point on Twitter that all the experts on Covid-19 are now posing as military experts.  I commented very little on Covid, although I had been involved as deputy PI in a substantial epidemiological project with a prominent member of SAGE.

What I can recommend is anything by my former teaching colleague Professor Mark Harrison who is an expert both on Russia and economic sanctions.  He warns that we should not rely on them too much: https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/expertcomment/ukraine_invasion_university?

Elsewhere he has made the point that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was prompted by the US cutting off their oil supply in 1940.  They decided to go for broke.

Ever since I served with the now dismantled United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation I have retained an interest in nuclear strategy, including President Putin's notions about credible escalation.  However, rather than offering amateur expertise, I recommend the excellent podcasts on the subject by Julie A McDowall.

She has a book on Nuclear Britain coming out with Bodley Head - there was actually an auction between three publishers!

A journey along the Red Wall

Interesting focus group report on Red Wall voters: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/understanding-the-red-wall-politics-and-identity-in-the-new-electoral-battlegrounds/

As the report freely admits, the results were affected by the time they were undertaken.  The attachment of new Conservative voters to the party seems to be shallow, but they will not necessarily revert to Labour but may seek another party to support.

There was little understanding of what 'levelling up' meant and scepticism when it was explained.

Why a progressive pact won't work

Convincing arguments from Peter Kellner about why a progressive pact between Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens is not going to happen at the next election.  As Kellner puts it, he would like to see Arsenal win the Champions League but that isn't going to happen any time soon either: https://kellnerpolitics.com/2022/01/05/a-labour-lib-dem-green-alliance-to-fight-the-tories-why-it-should-happen-and-why-it-wont/

As he notes towards the end of the article, informal local pacts are possible whereby a party puts up a candidate but doesn't campaign too hard to help the progressive party with the best chance of winning.