The degradation of the U.K. s constitutional standards.

The United Kingdom Constitutional Monitering Group released its bi-annual report yesterday and it makes for sobering reading.

I have pasted some excerpts.

“The group is composed of key experts including former permanent secretaries of the Civil Service, professors of public law and a former lord chief justice of England and Wales.

The report highlights that despite Boris Johnson leaving office, the UK is witnessing the “continuing degradation” of constitutional standards under the Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak administrations. Worryingly, the group suggests this decline in constitutional standards may indicate that the constitutional abuses witnessed under the Johnson premiership marked only part of a wider and continuing trend.

almost 100 incidents of concern. These included the sacking of Tom Scholar, the rapid reappointment of Suella Braverman as Home Secretary following leaks of sensitive government information, issues surrounding the Northern Ireland Protocol, problems surrounding the selection of Prime Ministers, contempt by the UK executive towards the House of Commons, and sleaze and bullying scandals among Cabinet Ministers.”

The reports then talks about the high number of people being given peerages under Johnson.

“The authors also point to the continued reliance on so-called Henry VIII powers by ministers, which allow major legislation to be passed while bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill which introduces “sunset clauses” to phase out hundreds of pieces of EU legislation is a “further extension” of this power-grabbing tendency, the authors write, adding: “Immense legal changes can take place – either because a wide range of laws are simply allowed to lapse, or are replaced in some way – with a circumscribed role for Parliament.”

The government’s controversial Rwanda migrant deportation plans also receive little parliamentary scrutiny as there is no legislation backing the deal between the two countries.

The authors highlight the Truss premiership as an example of what can happen when Parliament is ignored, as she did not have the confidence of the majority of Tory MPs. Rishi Sunak had beaten her in the Tory MP ballot, but party members chose her in the final vote.

“This position called into question conventional conceptions of the UK government being formed out of Parliament. The final decision over who should become Prime Minister was transferred to a self-selecting group of Conservative Party members, numbering 173,437 in total,” the watchdog warns.

“Such an event was significant in itself, and also had further implications of a constitutional nature. The premier and administration arguably did not rest in the full support of the Commons, nor had there been reference back to the electorate. Yet a radical change in policy direction, initially in the fiscal area, followed,” the report adds.

Truss’ short premiership shows, in the view of the monitoring group, that it is possible for an individual or group to secure leadership positions within the UK executive without a mandate from the public in a General Election, nor from the House of Commons. A dangerous or even dictatorial PM could operate, the authors suggest, “at least for a time, subject to few effective constitutional constraints”.

Printed in the By-line Times