No Answer Andy’s Circus of U-Turns, Missing Millions and the Great British Balancing Act.
Welcome back, dear readers, to another riotous week beneath Westminster’s Big Top of Blunders, where No Answer Andy is back in the ring, the Cabinet contortionists are tying themselves in knots, the Treasury jugglers are throwing taxpayers’ millions into the air, and the political clowns have somehow managed to turn another perfectly ordinary week into a spectacular festival of confusion.
Sixteen weeks into Burnham’s Labour circus, the tent is looking decidedly shabby. The immigration magician has misplaced his deterrent, the energy clown is preparing to shut down another North Sea attraction, the defence acrobats are wobbling on their high wire, and the Chancellor is still insisting that the nation’s finances can be balanced with enough optimism and a sufficiently large collection bucket.
The week’s opening act belongs to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, whose immigration proposals have reportedly suffered a substantial retreat following opposition from Labour’s own ranks. Critics have attached a potential £10 billion price tag to the consequences, although that figure depends on assumptions about future migration, eligibility and public spending rather than representing an established bill. Nevertheless, the political spectacle is remarkable. Labour promises tougher immigration controls, Labour MPs object, and Labour’s immigration policy promptly performs a magnificent backward somersault. No Answer Andy watches from the sidelines, apparently hoping nobody notices the immigration elephant trampling through the scenery.
And while ministers wrestle with immigration policy, they remain unable to provide a comprehensive count of foreign national offenders whose removal has been prevented by human rights claims. There are legitimate legal protections against unlawful deportation, but the absence of clear, comprehensive figures makes it harder for the public to assess how the system operates. The Government is perfectly capable of announcing new policies with enormous fanfare. Producing the numbers needed to judge their effectiveness appears to be a rather less popular circus act.
Over in the policing ring, the chief constable of Cheshire Constabulary, Mark Roberts, has warned that proposals to merge England and Wales’s 43 police forces into a much smaller number of large organisations could weaken neighbourhood policing. Bigger is not automatically better, particularly when the public wants officers who know their communities rather than another enormous administrative headquarters. Labour’s solution to almost everything seems to involve making the organisation larger, the management structure grander and the local connection rather more difficult to find. At this rate, the neighbourhood bobby will require a telescope to locate his nearest superintendent.
Then comes energy, where No Answer Andy’s commitment to British energy independence is facing an uncomfortable examination. Labour is pursuing restrictions on new North Sea oil and gas exploration while Britain continues to rely on fossil fuels, including imports. Ministers argue that the transition to cleaner energy will improve long-term security and reduce exposure to volatile international markets. Critics question whether restricting domestic production before demand has fallen sufficiently could increase reliance on overseas suppliers. It is a serious strategic argument, but the circus imagery is irresistible. The energy clown proudly announces that Britain must become independent, then wanders off to ask another country whether it has any spare oil.
The spectacle becomes even stranger with reports that an exemption affecting certain fuel products derived from Russian oil will remain in place until January, while ministers have not supplied the requested import figures. Sanctions arrangements are complex, and an exemption does not establish that Britain is directly purchasing prohibited Russian crude. But the public is entitled to understand what is permitted, why the exemption exists and what quantities are involved. Another announcement about standing firm, another question about the small print.
Meanwhile, Birmingham Labour has supplied a particularly extraordinary performance. The city is wrestling with the consequences of its financial crisis, continuing disruption from the bin strike and severe pressure on local services. Yet councillors have found time to approve a review of financial relationships connected with Israel. Councillors are entitled to debate international issues, and the motion itself does not establish that investments have been withdrawn. But residents waiting for rubbish collections might reasonably wonder whether the immediate business of running Birmingham deserves a little more attention. The bins are overflowing, the council finances are strained, and the political circus has decided to rehearse its foreign policy act.
Back in Westminster, Labour’s week of political acrobatics produced arguments about whether employers count as working people, renewed questions over defence spending commitments, suggestions of closer European integration and discussion of a possible apology for Britain’s historical involvement in slavery. They illustrate a Government struggling to maintain a clear message. One Cabinet performer announces the direction of travel, another begins walking backwards, and No Answer Andy is left attempting to convince the audience that the entire routine was carefully choreographed.
The Treasury ring has also produced another eye-watering spectacle. Reports suggest that around £2.7 million a year is now being paid to a small group of exceptionally highly pensioned former public officials, against a wider public sector pension bill approaching £60 billion. Those pension entitlements arise from established schemes and service, and the overall figure covers far more than a handful of senior officials. Nevertheless, the contrast between substantial retirement benefits at the top and the financial pressures facing ordinary households is bound to attract attention. The Treasury clown has apparently discovered a new circus attraction, the Amazing Golden Pension, guaranteed to keep performing long after its owner has left the stage.
And speaking of money, taxpayers have reportedly committed £751 million to British Steel while Labour ministers have yet to publish a comprehensive long-term plan explaining the company’s future. Protecting strategically important steelmaking capacity and jobs is a legitimate objective. But spending hundreds of millions without providing a sufficiently clear account of the intended outcome invites obvious questions. The ringmaster has purchased the elephant, paid for its food and built an enormous enclosure. Unfortunately, nobody seems entirely certain what the elephant is supposed to do next.
Nor is British Steel the only expensive mystery. Ministers have declined to explain in detail what an additional £48 million in payments to Serco for electronic monitoring services covers. Commercial confidentiality can sometimes justify withholding particular contractual details, but taxpayers deserve meaningful scrutiny of substantial public expenditure. When the Government spends another £48 million and cannot provide a sufficiently informative public explanation, the political magician might as well replace his traditional top hat with a giant shredder.
Whitehall’s new in-house Civil Service training school provides another charming example of bureaucratic ingenuity. The Government has opened its own training operation while major consultancy firms, including KPMG and EY, retain training contracts. Existing contracts may serve different purposes and cannot automatically be treated as duplication, but the arrangement deserves scrutiny. Britain now appears to have a school to teach civil servants how to do their jobs, while continuing to pay outside experts to teach them as well. Perhaps the next course could be entitled How to Save Money by Not Paying Twice.
The Government is also considering new biometric powers following a consultation that attracted around 12,000 duplicate responses. Duplicate submissions do not automatically invalidate the views expressed, and biometric technology raises genuine questions about security, privacy and proportionality. But the episode adds another peculiar twist to Labour’s growing collection of administrative controversies. The Cabinet clown is apparently proposing new ways to identify everybody while Whitehall is still trying to work out how many times the same person answered its consultation.
British farmers, meanwhile, face another potential consequence of Labour’s closer relationship with Brussels. Reports suggest that alignment with EU rules could result in restrictions on 36 pesticides currently authorised in Britain. Supporters of regulatory alignment argue that common standards can facilitate trade and protect health and the environment. Farmers warn that losing approved products without effective alternatives could increase costs and make food production more difficult. Once again, the Brexit contortionists are performing their extraordinary routine, bending British rules towards Brussels while insisting that everybody should admire the flexibility.
Then come two particularly sensitive matters where the circus should perhaps lower the music and allow a serious debate. Church leaders have expressed concerns that proposed legislation on conversion practices could be drafted too broadly, potentially affecting ordinary prayer or pastoral conversations. Supporters of legislation argue that coercive and abusive practices require effective protection, while critics want clearer safeguards for religious freedom. The precise wording of any law matters enormously, and concerns about unintended consequences deserve proper parliamentary examination rather than slogans from either side.
And finally, the Labour Government has declined to commit to changing the law requiring drivers to report certain road collisions so that cats are included, despite a campaign attracting more than 189,000 signatures. Campaigners argue that cats deserve recognition comparable to dogs, while ministers have not agreed to the proposed legal change. It is hardly the largest issue confronting Britain, but for grieving pet owners it matters deeply. After a week of billions, bureaucracy and constitutional contortions, even the family cat has apparently found itself waiting for an answer from Whitehall.
And so ends Week Sixteen beneath Westminster’s Big Top of Blunders. Immigration proposals are being revised, police mergers are facing criticism, energy policy is provoking questions about security, British Steel has absorbed hundreds of millions in public funding, and ministers face demands for greater transparency over contracts, pensions and public administration. Meanwhile, farmers are concerned about regulatory changes, church leaders are questioning proposed legislation, and cat owners are still waiting for the Government to address their campaign.
No Answer Andy remains in the centre ring, naturally, dressed in his finest clown costume and promising that everything is proceeding according to plan. Behind him, the immigration contortionist is performing another U-turn, the policing clown is trying to squeeze 43 forces into eight enormous clown cars, the energy magician is searching overseas for the oil he does not want Britain to explore, and the Treasury jugglers are throwing £751 million at British Steel while another £48 million disappears into the electronic tagging tent.
The welfare elephant is eating the budget, the Civil Service trainers are attending a course on how to train the trainers, and the Brexit balloon modeller has produced a magnificent inflatable Brussels sprout labelled BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY.
Sixteen weeks into Burnham’s Labour circus, the promises are still enormous, the costs are still mounting and the ringmaster is still assuring the audience that the next act will explain everything.
Unfortunately, the audience has run out of patience, the clowns have run out of excuses, and the Treasury appears to be running out of other people’s money.
Same circus. More contortionists. Bigger bills.
And No Answer Andy still hasn’t found the answer.
READ ALL ABOUT IT: Links to this week’s top Labour circus acts below:
