It is difficult to know what connections to make about the trajectory of the UK at the moment. I still think it’s fundamentally a path with a lot of risk – there is potential either for greatness or for ruin depending on who’s in charge of it.
The problem with correct interpretation and prediction is that it depends so much on the people. The chances that we would have a combination of people in charge who put pragmatism over political image was very low and remains tentative. Dominic Cummings (DC) seems to have pragmatism as what he sees as his guiding principle, though he also has his blind spots and personal flaws to which he is equally drawn. Boris Johnson (BJ) remains what I initially interpreted him to be – a man of image, energy and little interest in practical work. They could make a very effective combination, or they could self-combust. If BJ’s excesses get too high and DC micromanages too much without taking into account the human effects, it could all blow up in their faces. It’s so hard to tell the UK’s future precisely because that pair is so volatile.
Linked to that is the UK’s future as a union. There are two main paths here: if BJ/DC manage to do well, separatism will likely go down as generally political units stay together when the going is good; if they do badly, separatism will likely increase. The twist to this, however, is the way BJ/DC have approached Brexit. By treating it as a moment of celebration and undertaking it in the face of potential economic ruin – continuing to threaten no deal to force negotiations through (whilst conceding behind the scenes) – they’ve laid the path for separatism within the UK to follow the same arguments. Economic prosperity won’t necessarily be enough to keep Wales and Scotland on board and override sovereignty arguments, and BJ/DC won’t have a leg to stand on after making those arguments themselves. Scottish separatists in particular have just as much ire with England as England did with the EU.
One potential route out is simply to refuse to grant a referendum, which is what BJ/DC are currently doing. However, the court of public opinion at some point usually overrides rules and conventions, except in extreme circumstances such as Syria. Unless governments are willing to issue a crackdown on insurrection, that insurrection will overpower their ability to rein in unwanted change. Beyond a certain point, it may not matter that England holds the rules to the game if Scotland simply refuses to play.
On an English note, the moving of the House of Lords to the North may well turn out to be a political masterstroke: in a digital era, there is not necessarily a requirement to have both Houses together; the closing of the Houses for renovation is the perfect opportunity; the optics are very good for balancing power across England; moving elites up north could very well make them invested in the improvement of towns and infrastructure. Often, this kind of move is the only way to make the ruling authority seriously invested in regional renovation.
However, two potential downsides I can see are that, where Lords are also Ministers, this will make their job much more difficult and, give that the Houses are currently very near to one another, the amount of communication between the two will reduce. Regarding the first, it is possible that alternative department HQs can be located near the new HoL building which will enable Ministers to reach their offices. The second issue, however, has much deeper implications. There is no replacement for direct human communication, with all the microgestures, sensory communication and body language which goes with it. No replacement for having that mutual understanding or sense of cameraderie in the corridors of power. Moving the Lords north may enable a later demonstration of their functional irrelevance whilst also causing a lack of cooperation between the houses due to that sense of distance. This could even become an alternative and competing power centre if the North ever wishes to break away from the South. Whilst it may take decades, even centuries, this transition has been made many times in the past in both England and other countries.
Overall, the signs so far, though decidedly rocky and unnecessarily risky, have been positive. The UK is very fortunate that, for all the showmanship, pragmatism is generally being put above politics. It is the only way out of such a difficult and precarious situation. In this way, Boris is perhaps the perfect partner for DC – because BJ rarely if ever faces consequences for what he says or does, he allows DC to play hardball to get the path he wants without ever having to commit to it. It is the classic pairing of extrovert and introvert, found elsewhere in Apple’s founding duo. However, the significant downside of the BJ/DC combination is that neither has a true appreciation for human consequence, a dangerous flaw to have in politics. They are liable to make decisions to the detriment of too many without enough care for the reaction. The UK can only hope that fortune continues to attend the unlikely path of Boris Johnson and that the pair of BJ/DC don’t take one showy step too far, provoking a backlash which manifests and which they cannot simply disappear.
Global Retrospective 