The "Bad Chaps" theory of government

 When I first  began studying it in the mid 1950s we were taught that, while never formally codified into one document, the British Constitution really did exist and consisted of a mixture of historic documents (Magna Carta,1215; Bill of Rights,1689), Statute Law (the Reform Acts, Parliament Acts), Common Law, Case Law and a series of customs and conventions. 

 Above all, said our lecturer, a Mr Checkanovski (I may have misspelled that, it's a long time ago), it depended on the British sense of fair play.

As the historian Peter Hennessey, who I believe coined the phrase "the Good Chap theory of government," put it more recently: politicians "knew what was expected and would not cross the line.

Sadly, "crossing the line" has become frequent  in recent years. 

 In attempting to implement Brexit, designed, so we were told, to restore the sovereignty of parliament,  Mrs May tried to sideline parliament so that they had no say in its negotiation.  That attempt having been over-ruled by the courts, Mr Johnson tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny by dissolving it. That too was declared illegal.  

Despite that and other pieces of chicanery Johnson went on to win an election and a majority of 80+.

The British sense of fair play seems also have been trumped,  for in that election campaign the Conservative received, and presumably spent  £19.4 million in registered donations, Labour £5.4 million, the Liberal Democrats £1.3 million and the Greens £0.2 million.

Of the conventions in our "unwritten constitution" one of the least honoured in modern times was that if a government department made a cock-up then the minister responsible would resign. In my student days the only modern example which the test-books could give was that of Sir  Tom Dugdale, who, as Conservative Minister of Agriculture, had prevaricated of the resale of a piece of farmland  back to its original owners, finally gave in and resigned, in 1954.

A more recent example is that of Lord Carrington who resigned as Foreign Secretary  in 1982 for having sent the "wrong signals" to the Argentinians, which tempted them to invade the Falkland Islands.

So that our Education Secretary,  Gavin Williamson, is still in post having presided over the shambles of the "A" level results is not remarkable.  What is remarkable is that the "buck" has been passed, not to him, but to the civil servant Permanent Secretary of the Department, Jonathon Slater. 

Alarmingly Mr Slater is not the first senior civil servent to be sacked or "let go."

 

The Permanent Secretary of the Home Office resigned in February (and is to sue the government), the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service is to go in the Autumn, the Permanent Secretary to the foreign office early next year and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice some time this month.

The convention the our civil service is non-political, gives  advice, but  that ministers take the decisions and the responsibility for them is being torn up.

The sad thing is that flaunting  of the sacred tenets of our constitution is now so commonplace that the sacking of Mr Slater, which in normal times would have deserved front-page headlines, was relegated to page six of today's Guardian.