Enough

Ben Wildsmith

The sense of chaos surrounding governance from Westminster is mounting at an alarming rate.

Two issues over the last 48 hours have such an air of dysfunction about them as to cast doubt not just on the competence of our politicians, but the viability of the system they are supposed to serve.

Firstly, we have learned that a mistakenly sent email resulted in thousands of Afghan soldiers and their families being granted UK residence, along with their families, with this decision being subject to secrecy granted by a super injunction.

There are two contending strands of ethics in play here, and between them lies the nature of the UK to come. On one side, we see that the previous Conservative government did feel a sense of obligation towards Afghans who had aided the failed UK mission in their country. In more civilised times, you would think that such basic decency was a given but now, with blood and soil nationalism on the rise, such paternalism is out of favour on the right. So, the decision to firstly admit these people, and then to cloak their arrival in secrecy would certainly have ended Rishi Sunak’s government had it been known at the time.

Extreme risk

These Afghans were, of course, at extreme risk because of their service to the UK and yet more so because of the leak. So, the granting of a super injunction was, in the narrow terms of the case, seemingly justified.

Politics, however, is not the law, which is meant to exist above our contemporary squabbles. Politicians are supposed to be responsive to the values of the electorate, and this affair raises the question of whether the last election was run on false pretences.

This decision which, according to some reports, has led to 100 000 migrants arriving at a cost of £7 billion was actively barred from discussion as we chose our new government.

We heard a great deal about an unexplained fiscal ‘black hole’ which, after the election, was used as justification for cuts in public spending. Now, regardless of your political affiliation, you must concede that making cuts when a £7 billion spending commitment has not been disclosed to the electorate is an offense to democracy. You or I may argue that the expenditure was justified, but to keep its existence from the electorate is a retreat from honest debate.

We must wonder, I’d say demand to know, whether this legal instrument has been used by government to keep other matters from us. It is murky enough that public figures are able to use the law to conceal affairs and consequent children from electors who may disapprove of their behaviour. If we find that our governance itself can be conducted in secret by the same means, then it reduces our status as voters to puppets.

Full retreat

Separately, Keir Starmer’s brittle management style plumbed new depths when he withdrew the whip from four more rebellious MPs. Given that his front bench is in full retreat from backbenchers who refuse to back cuts to benefits, this seems like desperation from a Prime Minister in crisis. The policies have already been surrendered so humiliatingly that this heavy-handedness towards obviously decent politicians like Rachael Maskell must be seen as a power play from Number 10.

Having lost the argument, it is seeking to assert control via bullying and threats.

The dysfunction of this Westminster government is of a piece with the antics of its immediate predecessors. Unaccountable, spiteful, secretive, and self-interested, it is hated by nearly everybody and trusted by almost nobody.

As a cohered nation with a political structure, Cymru can reject all this. We can point at it and say, ‘No more.’  Failure to do so now looks like recklessness.