Boris Johnson may have been appointed British Foreign Secretary, but has new Prime Minister Theresa May handed key parts of the job to David Davis as Brexit Secretary and Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary?
Being foreign secretary is one of the big jobs in British politics, but some of the central elements of foreign policy don’t appear to be in Boris’s portfolio.
Europe minister job at foreign office axed?
It’s interesting that former Europe minister David Lidington has now been appointed Leader of the Commons and as yet his job at the foreign office hasn’t been filled. The role is not listed, currently, on the foreign office’s website.
The ‘real’ Foreign Secretary – David Davis
With the appointment of former Europe minister David Davis as Brexit Secretary it perhaps make sense to no longer have a Europe minister. But if the Europe minister job is axed, it underlines that Boris doesn’t have the negotiation of exiting the European Union in his remit. It could be seen as a real actual sign of his wings being clipped by the new prime minister.
Mr Davis is Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – a job so new in fact that the official UK government website doesn’t even have a department. It’s the same for Liam Fox, who has got a new role as well.
Former Labour minister Tony McNulty has tweeted this:
Oh look, it’s the real Foreign Secretary – and they’ve also given him a clown to play with….. https://t.co/ZCpoWz1U0Q
Mr Johnson will also doubtless be out of the UK rather a lot, so out of sight and perhaps mind for Tory activists. Mrs May may not have to worry about her erstwhile rival for the Tory leadership making popular appearances on the domestic stage.
His role as London mayor and jolly attitude could also yet be invaluable as foreign secretary.
The outgoing prime minister was charming and well-mannered whenever I met him, and gave the impression of being calm under pressure.
He might not have had Tony Blair’s incredible ability to make you feel like you were the only person in the room, which I saw first hand in the 2005 general election. But neither did he have the brooding character of Gordon Brown.
Right! Good!
David Cameron has an easy affability, he’s a good sort of chap. The type that your mum would love to be your friend (unless they’re die-in-the-wool opponents). The outgoing prime minister was also fond of the quip, but perhaps his character was given away by his announcement today that he would be gone by Wednesday!
David Cameron: “Thank you very much……………………doo, doo, doo, doo. Right…Good.” (The End) pic.twitter.com/Z1zHgSlkLf
At that first Rose Garden press conference with coalition partner Nick Clegg, there was something of a bromance and joshing, and ribbing between the pair. He was a huge contrast when he arrived in No 10 to Gordon Brown in the dog days of the last Labour government.
I always got the feeling that Mr Cameron was a liberal conservative, so his support for gay marriage was telling.
Libya
As a political editor based in Westminster for several years, I remember well a lunch for political journalists based in the UK parliament that Mr Cameron was the guest speaker at. It was interrupted by news that Gaddafi had been captured by rebel forces in Libya. The prime minister obviously had to leave as the news filtered through.
Subsequent events following his decision to join the international intervention against the Libyan dictator have led some to question the effectiveness of Mr Cameron’s actions.
Europe
For all his initial attempts to re-position the Tories, it was Europe that ultimately led to his downfall as it had for previous Conservative prime ministers. His decision to call a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, seen partly as an attempt to stave off the electoral threat from Nigel Farage’s Ukip party, will go down as a defining moment in history.
After getting his deal from Brussels, Mr Cameron fought from the front in the referendum campaign – which is perhaps to be admired rather than lowing low as other leading lights of the UK cabinet chose to do.
Ultimately, he lost the referendum and his job. Whether he could have got a better deal, and thus won the referendum, will forever be a what if deal.
But there’s no doubt that Mr Cameron will be an historic prime minister, leading a coalition government and then calling a fateful referendum.
Theresa May – the ‘Ice Maiden’
Britain’s next prime minister Theresa May is definitely a different character to Mr Cameron. The current home secretary, who I’ve met, is recognised as not being particularly clubbable.
Mrs May’s attitude could be seen as aloof, but maybe she was wisely keeping her distance and simply didn’t feel the need to be over-friendly. Can you see her getting the moniker, call me Theresa like Call me Tony?
She didn’t appear too bothered to curry favour. Just take a look at the police, when she urged their union that they had to change. Nick Clegg reportedly even reportedly called her the ‘Ice Maiden’, so you get something of the impression that Mrs May portrays.
‘There’s an obvious reason why I’m not part of the old-boys’ network — I’m not an old boy. I’ve always taken the same approach in every role I’ve played, which is I’ve got a job to do, let’s get on and deliver,’ she told London’s Evening Standard a few days.
Perhaps, just perhaps that’s a good thing in these times . Oh, and there’s a Labour leadership election happening too…
Photo: David Cameron gave a speech outside Number 10 Downing Street on 24 June 2016, following the EU referendum announcement that the UK had voted to leave the European Union. Photo: Crown Copyright Credit: Tom Evans
But what about “unoffical” information – well that’s what conspiracy theorists may ask.
A freedom of information website has recorded a person asked No 10 Downing Street for “all documentation relating to the prime minister’s meetings and communication with alien entities not from our planet”.
The request also sought information on documents forwarded to prime minister David Cameron’s office relating to ETs, along with discussions and meetings the government has held in relation to aliens plus any material relating to “any contact whatsoever between this government and entities from elsewhere other than Earth”.
This is the response: “The Prime Minister’s Office does not hold any official information in relation to your requests”.
Depending on your viewpoint, this confirms the truth is really out there…
* This out-of-this-world request was recorded on WhatDoTheyKnow.com, a freedom of information website.
Using the site, people can select the public authority they want information from and then write a brief note describing what you want to know.
The site then sends the request to the public authority, with any response received automatically published on the website.
Proposed UK 25% stake in rescue of Tata Steel’s UK operations echoes Thatcher’s actions over industry in the 80s.
Rewind history
Granted, the headline might seem far-fetched. But my interest was piqued when looking at the history of industrial nationalisations in the UK – and seems to suggest that civil servants might possibly have leafed through what governments did in the past when it came to trying to assist the steel industry at times of crisis.
Consolidation in the steel industry
I spotted a very interesting BBC article from 2008 about what the last nationalisation was in the wake of Northern Rock being nationalised by the then Labour government.
It explained that a programme of consolidation was begun in the steel industry in a bid to achieve a successful privatisation after Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979.
And the article quoted a Professor David Parker, of Cranfield University – appointed by the government to be the official historian of privatisation in the UK – who said that “Mrs Thatcher had to swallow a minor “nationalisation” or two” as part of this consolidation.
The article went on: “Troubled specialist steel firms entered joint ventures with the nationalised steel industry and effectively passed into public ownership.
“”Mrs Thatcher didn’t like it, she didn’t like nationalisation by the back door,” said Prof Parker.”
What Mrs Thatcher said in parliment
This little bit of industrial history intrigued me – so I did a bit of digging and found comments made by the then Conservative prime minister in the House of Commons during an exchange with a Sheffield Labour MP Martin Flannery in 14 April 1981.
They were crossing swords about the “great steelworks” of Hadfields in Sheffield, which Mr Flannery said was about to close – and that the workforce wanted to know “what will be done about the private sector”.
Mrs Thatcher replied: “I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman standing up for the private sector.
“Perhaps we could stand up more for the private sector if we were having to spend a little less on the public sector.”
Public private ventures
And here’s the interesting quote: “In the steel industry we are trying to form a number of companies into what is called Phoenix II, which is part British Steel Corporation and part private sector companies, such as Hadfields, with a view to its eventually coming into the private sector.
“That would be a great advance on the present situation.”
So, just perhaps the current Consevative government’s offer to support the rescue of Tata Steel UK – largely made up of the remaining parts of the country’s steel industry – does have Thatcherite credentials…
Ukip leader Nigel Farage and former Conservative MP Mark Reckless (Photo credit Twitter/Nigel Farage)
David Cameron has suffered a fresh defection to Ukip just before the Conservatives gather for their annual conference. Former Tory MP Mark Reckless announced his switch at Ukip’s conference in Doncaster.
It’s the second defection from Tory ranks after Clackton MP Douglas Carswell defected to Ukip. The move by both former Tory MPs have triggered by-elections. Here’s a selection of the reaction from Twitter:
“To lose two MPs to Ukip looks Reckless” – reaction from Twitter
As I’ve been blogging over the past few weeks, the Scottish independence referendum was going to have a historic effect on the UK – whatever the result.
The promise of new powers for Scotland within the UK won the day in the independence referendum – but it also means changes to how the UK is governed.
And now UK prime Minister David Cameron has set out his plans on how to begin the process of far-reaching constitutional change.
Please take a look at my previous posts on some of the issues now facing the UK:
Whatever happens in the imminent Scottish independence referendum, the UK as we know will soon be no more.
What future for the UK?
“Wither the UK, arise the Federal United Kingdom?”
If Scotland votes yes to independence, then the UK as we know it will stagger on for a short while longer before being laid to rest on the day that Scotland becomes an independent nation.
And even if Scotland rejects independence, the future UK will not look like it does today. The main unionist parties have signalled some form of “devo-max” – the handing over of more powers to the Scottish Parliament – is on the cards.
If Scotland has some form of “semi-independence” within the UK what impact will that have on the rest of the UK? What about Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall, the North of England for example?
Unstoppable momentum for change across the UK?
Imagine for a moment that Scotland decides to stay within the UK, and it gets a bunch of new powers – perhaps even to vary tax for competitive advantage, whether that’s over passenger air duty or more substantial responsibilities.
Who governs Britain after Scottish independence vote – that’s one hell of a hangover – click here to read
Now, if you are in the North East of England or Yorkshire you might fancy a slice of your own increased powers not only to compete with a further empowered Scotland just across the border but also have your own say over your future – rather than Westminster politicians in London.
The three regions of the North of England have a population of around 15 million. Scotland has around 5.3 million, according to official statistics.
Regional assemblies haven’t proved popular in England, but arguably they didn’t have sufficient powers and were seen as white elephants when put to the electoral test.
More powers for Scotland might just light the touch paper for demands for a radical change in how England is governed – the most populous nation of the UK – along with calls for greater powers to be handed to the devolved administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales.
Some might argue the time has come for devo-max for the North of England and a federal UK.
You are now entering the Federal United Kingdom…
Could the UK become like a federal country, with decentralisation of powers away from the national parliament in Westminster to nations and regions?
I’m not saying this will happen overnight, but if there was a form of “home rule” for Scotland, it will throw up major constitutional questions that will have to be addressed at some point.
A constitutional convention
As I have previously blogged, the Scottish independence referendum vote will leave a major hangover when it comes to governing the UK.
The role and function of Scottish MPs in the UK parliament may well be called into question in the run-up to Scottish independence, if that is what happens, and with even more devolution of powers if there is a no vote.
Perhaps, now is the time for the UK to have a big discussion about how it wants to be run – which could be in the shape of a constitutional convention.
Whatever the result in the Scottish independence referendum, where does that leave the UK and who governs it? As the title of this post suggests, that could be one hell of a hangover.
In the short-term
If Scottish voters do back independence, in the short-term there could be growing questions about the legitimacy of the UK government north of the border. A yes vote could be seen as a striking rejection of the British government in Westminster.
So, if there was a particularly controversial decision made by the UK government that the Scottish government did not like or the Scottish public what would happen? Would a newly empowered Scottish government, emboldened by a yes vote, simply say no – and where would that leave everything?
On the flip side, questions might be increasingly asked about the legitimacy of Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster. And that draining away of legitimacy would only increase in speed as the date of the actual break-up of the current UK neared.
What business would Scottish MPs – some might argue – have for example on deciding UK-wide legislation that was being discussed before Scotland left the union, but which only came into effect after Scottish independence?
The 2015 UK general election. Scottish independence = a headache for Ed Miliband
Fast forward to May 2015. This is the date when the next UK general election has been fixed.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party is the biggest party – and he is on track to become the British prime minister. (That is of course, if Mr Miliband is still leading the Labour party – see update below)
But there is a hitch.
A good number of the Labour leader’s MPs represent Scotland.
But say the date of 24 March 2016 is set for Scotland to become independent from the UK?
That’s little more than a year down the line – so what happens?
Voters in the remaining UK might be unhappy to see a prime minister who was helped to be put in Number 10 by people who won’t be part of the same country in less than 12 months.
And what if Labour did a deal with the Liberal Democrats – and some of their MPs also happened to represent Scottish seats in these circumstances?
Scottish independence: Conscious Uncoupling or messy divorce? Possible responses
1. Scottish MPs withdrawing from all debates and votes in the UK parliament apart from those relating to Scotland or UK wide issues
Such a move could see Scottish MPs, including Labour frontbenchers, limiting their functions at Westminster in the run-up to independence. But it could spark controversy about second-class MPs in the UK.
2. Delaying the UK general election until after Scottish independence
If 25 March 2016 was Scottish independence day, how about delaying the UK election by a year or so? There is the small issue of fixed parliaments and whether the UK public would agree to such a delay anyway.
3. No Scottish MPs elected to Westminster in the 2015 general election
Technically, Scotland would remain part of the UK until independence, so many would argue that it would still need representation at UK level until that date.
4. Decide the 2015 UK election on rest of the UK lines
Under this plan, the UK government would be formed on the basis of who won the most seats in the rest of the UK. This could see the Tories and David Cameron (if he is still the party’s leader – see update below) returned to power as the largest single party.
5. Hold the 2015 UK election and then hold another election after Scottish independence
Another option might be to go ahead with the 2015 general election, but for the consequent UK government to only hold office until Scotland left the UK.
At which point, another UK election would be held based on the new borders.
Who governs Britain / the remaining UK
Taking a look at the latest analysis by pollster Peter Kellner from YouGov, Labour would be the biggest party after the 2015 UK election.
Ed Miliband would have 316 seats – just 10 seats short of an overall majority. But this tally includes Scotland.
Take Scotland out of the sums and the Conservatives would be the biggest party with 278 seats with Labour down to 274 seats.
The Lib Dems would change from 27 to 18 seats, while others would go from 27 seats to 21 seats in a Westminster parliament.
There’s also the potential impact of Ukip on the UK general election and how much that could change the electoral calculations.
Some protocols may well have been drawn up in Whitehall to deal with all these potential outcomes, but they may not account for events, human emotions and sentiment,and the politics of the near future.
New British flag design… if Scotland leaves UK
How about a UK caretaker government?
Given the electoral timetable and the huge issues that would need to be resolved if Scotland left the UK, would a caretaker government make sense?
So, hold the UK general election in May 2015 but then have a caretaker government in place for around a year while negotiations with the Scottish government were concluded.
Under this scenario, Scotland would then become independent and a new election for the remaining UK would then be held.
Of course, there might be worries about the caretaker government not being able to provide stability or do very much. But given the historic change that Scotland independence would involve, it might be a chance for the rest of the UK to take stock and think about its own future.
Even if Scotland votes no, there are questions. A federal UK?
(UPDATE 14.59 07/09/14) Scotland may get further devolution of powers even if it votes no. But even if that happens, the UK will have changed – and that leaves questions about the role of Scottish MPs, how the next UK government would be formed for example.
Another issue might be that of devolution for England – perhaps an English parliament or handing powers to regions/areas of England.
Could the UK look like or become more like a federal country? That’s a question to throw into the mix for another blog post.
Interesting views as well from Twitter including from top political journalist David Madddox – could a yes vote result in a Tory victory in the UK general election because of a fear of Labour being propped up by “foreign Scottish MPs”?
And would David Cameron and Ed Miliband both come under pressure to resign if they fail to “save the union”. That would add further fuel to the hangover for the UK if Scotland backs independence.
Of course, there would still be the issues of what to do with Scottish MPs and the UK general election if Scotland says yes to independence. Would it make the case for a caretaker government even stronger?
With the news that William Hague is quitting as British foreign secretary to become Leader of the Commons ahead of quitting Parliament in the 2015 general election, do you think he was the best PM that Britain never had? Have your say by voting below:
Other interesting stories
Forget the reshuffle, Britain is looking for technology that could lead to a “step change” in its military space-based capability. To read the story, click > here
Britain is looking for new technology that could lead to a “step change” in its military spaced-based capability.
Defence research officials have drawn up a list of “novel” technologies that they are interested in:
Technologies providing wide-area surveillance combined with ways of detecting small objects of interest.
Technologies providing very frequent or persistent coverage to observe short-lived events
Methods for detecting concealed objects
Technologies to provide secure communications using hand-held terminals from hard-to-reach locations
Secure use of existing commercial space infrastructures
They are also interested in cutting build and operating costs without reducing reliability of systems.
In terms of efficiency, the officials are interested in “novel” platform technologies, including on-orbit propulsion and power systems – but not including launch. There’s also interest in novel payload technologies, including deployable structures.
A competition for £1 million research funding into “affordable” space-based capability has been launched by the Centre for Defence Enterprise (CDE), which is part of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory – which in turn is an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence.
This is what the webpage states: “This CDE themed competition seeks proof-of-concept research proposals for novel technologies that could lead to a step change in UK military space-based capability or substantially reduce the cost of the systems.
“This competition will fund exploratory studies and demonstrations to develop concepts and technologies required for delivering a UK space-based military capability.
“A smaller number of successful projects will be taken forward for further development.”
The competition opens in October 2014 and closes in January 2015.
![A mouse (the parliamentary answer didn't detail what pests were dealt with) By George Shuklin (Own work) [CC BY-SA 1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](https://politicaleditor.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/512px-d0bcd18bd188d18c_2.jpg?w=300&h=158)
PoliticsEditor 