Gove on the warpath against experts again

Yesterday I went to see my surgeon for a sign off meeting after my recent successful knee replacement operation. We discussed the operation for the other knee, but it occurred to me afterwards that I could have saved myself a lot of money. I was conscious during the operation and it involved a lot of sawing and hammering. Why not get a carpenter in to do the second op?

In his latest column for The Times Michael Gove takes it upon himself to write the speech the prime minister should give on Brexit next week. His basic premise is that 'All our policies from now on must reflect the common sense of the majority, not the preoccupations of the privileged.' Moreover, 'The public [52%] have told us what they want. We must get on with leaving the EU. Completely. In months not years.'

Apparently this will be possible if we ignore the attempts of experts to make things more complex than they really are. Above all, we don't need to hire more people with PPE degrees. (I admit that I am particularly guilty here having taught on such a degree until recently and serving as the external examiner for another one).

Gove doubts that 'negotiating a new trade deal is fiendishly difficult, will take ten years and require men of great experience to see things through.' Has Gove ever read the text of a trade deal or a US trade act? Has he followed the negotiations on the Uruguay Round or those on the Doha Round that didn't even come to a conclusion? Why did it take so long to agree a trade pact between the EU and Canada that is still not operational?

He also argues that doing a deal with the EU on trade would be easy because we have tariff free trade at the moment. He overlooks the fact that the most complex issues surround non-tariff trade barriers. See this helpful guide from the Institute for Government: Non-tariff trade barriers

Fraser Nelson in the Spectator has the lead story in this week's issue, 'The End of Experts': The End of Experts His a more measured piece with a narrower target, economists and political scientists, whom he accuses of a failure to predict. He does, of course, have a point because of the so-called 'Oedipus effect': making a social science prediction can affect the outcome.

Tristram Hunt quits

Labour MP Tristram Hunt has quit as a Labour MP to become director of the V & A: Resignation

So yet another able moderate Labour MP quits. A democracy needs a properly functioning opposition which looks like a credible alternative government. We don't have it.

Could Henry VIII help us with a train crash Brexit?

It now looks as if the choice for the UK is between a hard Brexit that takes us outside the single market and probably the customs union and a train crash Brexit in which the negotiations break down and we exit the EU without an agreement. The Government thinks it will be possible to negotiate a series of trade agreements with the EU, but the mood in Brussels has hardened in recent months.

How could the Government deal with the problems produced by a train crash Brexit? Step forward, Henry VIII. In 1539, in one of his more absolutist moods, he issued the Statute of Proclamations which allowed him to govern by royal decree. The so-called Henry VIII clauses are still in place and occasionally used, conferring extensive powers on the executive: Henry VIII clauses

The kite that is being flown is this: the Government would be given powers to replicate functions carried out by EU bodies without further parliamentary scrutiny. This would mean a big increase in quangos. And would a 'sovereign' Parliament allow the executive to assume so much authority? It could be a very disorderly Brexit.

Have we had enough of experts?

For me one of the most striking comments of this turbulent year was that by Michael Gove, 'The people of this country have had enough of experts.' Given the referendum outcome, and the election of President Trump, he was clearly on to something. We have entered an era of 'post factual' or 'post truth' politics.

New Labour formally celebrated the arrival of evidence-based policy-making in a white paper. A whole academic cottage industry grew up around this concept, including a specialised journal.

I always had a few reservations about this rather technocratic concept. It seemed to me that it did not allow much room for values, beliefs and, yes, ideology, which in my view are at the core of democratic politics.

To take an example from my research, how should one deploy fire service assets (stations, appliances)? At one time in the UK. we prioritised commercial and heritage property. Thus, I found in the National Archives elaborate plans for deploying appliances as quickly as possible to the various properties of the Duke of Devonshire. If one prioritised saving lives, resources would be used differently.

Evidence-based policy-making can also be difficult when the evidence is incomplete and contested and there is disagreement on the lessons to be drawn from it. Bovine Tb, one of the most intractable policy problems I have ever encountered, is the classic example from my work.

Having said that, some evidence is better than no evidence at all. However, it is no match for a resonating emotional narrative that may be completely false, e.g., the 'birther' accusations made against President Obama by Trump among others.

In its spoof Christmas adverts Private Eye asks, 'Need a plumber, but had enough of experts?' The answer is to be found in the Gove yellow pages that will bring a guaranteed non-expert to your door, scratching their head and saying 'I dunno, mate, sorry no idea.'

Preparing for Brexit

A very interesting report from the Institute for Government on how government is prepared, or rather not prepared, for Brexit: Preparation

The basic message is that all the cutbacks in staff, not least in Defra, have left government unable to cope with its normal tasks, as well as the complex challenges posed by Brexit.

Strictly Come Dancing star calls for curbs on Bank independence

Strictly Come Dancing star Ed Balls was the chief architect of UK central bank independence. Now, taking a break from learning the cha-cha-cha, he has called for the Bank of England's independence to be reined in.

The paper he has written two colleagues at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard makes a key distinction between operational and political independence. The former has brought benefits in terms of price stability, but the latter does not bring any such benefits, and there is a need for greater political accountability: Bank independence

It is argued that the assumption that the more independence given to a central bank the better no long holds.

Of course, there are limits to the Bank of England's independence. The Chancellor sets the inflation target and appoints the Governor and key personnel.

The paper from Balls is very much in line with the political wind with prime minister Theresa May making implicit criticisms of the Bank's monetary policy and Donald Trump's criticisms of the Federal Reserve.

The grant of operational independence to the Bank of England formed a central underpinning of academic depoliticisation narratives, but recent political developments favour repolitcisation.

The Continental Partnership proposal

One interesting proposal for Britain's future relationship in a post-Brexit world has been the idea of a 'Continental Partnership' put forward by a group of six senior policy makers and scholars and published by the Brussels think tank Bruegel: Continental Partnership

They 'propose a new form of collaboration, a continental partnership. The UK will want to have some control over labour mobility, as well as leaving behind the EU’s supranational decision-making. The proposed continental partnership would consist in participating in goods, services, capital mobility and some temporary labour mobility as well as in a new system of inter-governmental decision making and enforcement of common rules to protect the homogeneity of the deeply integrated market. The UK would have a say on EU policies but ultimate formal authority would remain with the EU. This results in a Europe with an inner circle, the EU, with deep and political integration, and an outer circle with less integration.'

Britain would continue to pay into the EU budget which would allow it access to key areas of the single market. The blueprint would leave the UK free to impose quotas on EU workers, so addressing one of the key concerns of Brexiteers, but Britain would have to make major concessions in other areas. The acceptance of case law from the ECJ would be particularly difficult for Leave supporters to swallow.

However, the UK would have a voice on matters affecting its shared market with the EU which would go beyond the consultation currently offered to Switzerland and Norway.