The Constitutional Colour Revolution

Sue Gray is going nowhere

Sue Gray’s brief tenure as Sir Keir Starmer’s head of staff is over - but she is going nowhere. In fact, her new role as “Envoy for the Regions and Nations” is, I believe, a strong signal that the Starmer government, after its shaky start, will accelerate its agenda for constitutional reform, and Gray will be a key member in this. As ever, the Westminster gossip and tattle should be ignored as the distraction it is. Neither is it a victory of the Blairites, as we shall see.

I said here, in the immediate aftermath of the election:

The concept of “political capital” - never defined, just assumed - is much talked about, and over-stressed. What really matters is political will. We will see whether Starmer’s Labour has it or not.

But before we address Gray’s likely new role, it’s worth uncovering a little about the new team at Number 10.

The consolidation of the Brownites

Morgan McSweeney, Gray’s replacement, has one striking similarity to his predecessor: an overwhelming interest in Northern Ireland. Unlike Gray, he was born in the Republic¹, and cites the Good Friday Agreement as being his motivation for joining the Labour Party. Before joining the Starmer team in 2020, his key role had been in leading the think tank Labour Together, essentially an anti-Corbyn outfit aiming at taking back the Labour party from the far left. Many of the key members of the current cabinet were associated with this: “Nearly all the MPs credited with building Labour Together since 2017 — Reeves, Wes Streeting, Shabana Mahmood, Steve Reed, Bridget Phillipson, Lucy Powell and Lisa Nandy — now sit in Starmer’s top team.”² McSweeney’s wife, Imogen Walker, was parachuted into a safe Scottish seat at the election and has immediately landed a role as parliamentary private secretary to Reeves.

Apart from anything else, Labour Together has been a key fundraising vehicle: initially for itself, then subsequently for Starmer’s leadership campaign, and then this year’s general election. The key donor from the start has been the (retired) hedge fund manager, “[Labour Together] approached Martin Taylor, a Mayfair-based hedge fund manager who, at 46, had just announced his retirement. Taylor made his fortune as founder of Nevsky Capital — a £1.5bn fund launched in the Cayman Islands known for investing in Russian companies such as Gazprom.”³ Taylor has been a significant Labour Party donor since the Ed Miliband years. Other significant donors have included Lord Hollick (the media mogul under who switched the Daily Express to support Labour), the late Lord Myners (formerly chairman of the Guardian Group), former Autoglass tycoon Gary Lubner (who donated £4.5 million to the Labour election campaign), and long-term Blairite Trevor Chinn.

Even in an election year, Labour Together has received donations of £1.92m – representing 56.5% of all political donations registered political donations (those made to groups or individuals, rather than directly to the parties). It is the financial powerhouse of Labour.

(As a side-note, McSweeney and Labour Together were fined and criticised by the Electoral Commission for failing to declare £730,000 in donations in advance of the 2019 election. Whether this was an administrative oversight, as they claim, or deliberate avoidance is questionable. The matter is well covered here.)

McSweeney has been Starmer’s chief adviser since his election as Labour leader, and ran the general election campaign. It is interesting to question how such a key figure was sidelined for the key Number 10 role in the first place.

It is clear that, in ousting the Corbyn project from the Labour party and delivering the election victory (albeit, as I always point out, on a vote of 20% of the electorate), the interests what might be called a resurrection of the Blair/Brown factions were united. These seem to be manifest through now through organisations as well as the individuals themselves: the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) and Labour Together, which, whilst not explicitly Brownite, certainly is more aligned.

Labour insider Andrew Marr puts the difference well here:

In very crude terms, the TBI people are fascinated by the possibilities of using tech, particularly AI, to reform public services, and are much closer to big business, particularly US technology firms. Some of them look to Wes Streeting as the natural standard-bearer; Liz Kendall and Peter Kyle are also more associated with modern Blairism.

The LT people are – and again I am crudely generalising – more old Labour-right, more statist, less impressed by the private sector, and more focused on reviving the core Labour vote. This is not a major ideological split; there is nobody in either group associated with the left. This is about instinct, nuance and style; the TBI radiates techno-optimistic chic, while one adherent of LT described it as “more homespun, more traditional Labour-right, to their corporate boardroom aesthetic”.

The two key appointments below McSweeney also have a distinct Brownite feel: Vidhya Alakeson worked in the Treasury as Senior Policy Advisor under Gordon Brown and at the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit working on policy for children, young people and families⁴. And Jill Cuthbertson worked for Brown (as well as Ed Miliband when he was Labour leader, and Cherie Blair⁵).

We are not - yet at least - seeing a return to Blair/Brown wars. The two sides have clearly been allied to this point - indeed, McSweeney’s deputy was ex-TBI staffer (and wife of Starmer’s “fixer” Pat), Marianna McFadden. But the heart of the Starmer project is clearly the Brownite, Labour Together faction.

Moving towards post-democracy

Starmer’s first hundred days have been a presentational disaster; from the riots to the winter fuel payments to the potential delay (or U-turn) on private school fees. There has been little in the way of a positive legislative programme to date. But even this early, there are signs that the Starmer regime, despite its record majority, is showing a blatant disregard for Parliament. Here are a few examples.

Firstly, the proposed Assisted Dying⁶ Bill: The Spectator noted: “While it’s a free vote, Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, has written to ministers to say they cannot take part in the public debate, as the government’s position is neutral." That position is remarkable in itself. Its effect (if true) is that the assisted dying bill will be "debated" between a load of fresh-faced Labour backbenchers and a Tory rump in the middle of leadership infighting. The real debate will not be on the floor of the House at all, and may even silence one of the bill’s key front-bench critics, Shabana Mahmood.

Secondly, Bridgit Phillipson is seeking to sideline the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, by simply revoking its commencement date, rather than repealing it through legislation, a move being challenged by the Free Speech Union. Phillipson’s move, if it succeeds, is a wonderful example of the Schmittian exception: simply ignoring to implement a law from a prior regime.

Lastly, highlighted here is the entire avoidance (with distracting language in the Lords) of any parliamentary scrutiny over the decision to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory (the Chagos Islands, including the Diego Garcia base) to Mauritius. Labour will undoubtedly claim national security issues would prevent debate, but the comments from Baroness Chapman surely verge on misleading.

Sue Gray herself of course is no fan of democracy: she “doesn’t regard the politically elected as leaders… To her, the leader is the Cabinet Secretary, the man who is the most senior civil servant in Number 10. Politicians come and go in Gray’s world.”⁷ She has praised the time of the Cameron coalition government, and she seems to have relished her role in the the Department of Finance (DoF) of Northern Ireland at the time when there were no ministers:

"As Permanent Secretary of DoF from April 2018 to May 2021, I led the Department during part of that period without ministers. I continued to fulfil my leadership responsibilities in terms of day-to-day management of DoF and its budget and provided leadership of the department and oversight of its agencies and arm's-length bodies. I was also the main spokesperson for the department, in the absence of a Minister."⁸

Also relevant is her support for devolution. Speaking at the Northern Irish Covid Inquiry she aired her wish for the devolved nations should be given more power at Westminster: “I think there would be real benefit in Northern Ireland, and in fact the other devolved governments in Scotland and Wales, being involved in discussions that take place in Westminster from a very early stage”⁹. These comments were specifically about Covid measures, but they may be read as a model more widely to be applied.

Also noteworthy is her support for “citizen’s assemblies”, where she cites their role in leading constitutional changes in Ireland:

She cited the “transformational” success of citizens’ juries in Ireland that had built consensus for constitutional changes including ending the ban on abortion and allowing gay marriage. But she said acknowledged that the plans were likely to face resistance from her former civil service colleagues, saying: “Whitehall will not like this because they have no control.”¹⁰

This fits hand-in-glove with the Brown constitutional agenda.

Brown’s New Britain

Two weeks ago the Government announced “devolution for all corners of the country, with a commitment to deliver full devolution across the North”; devolution will now cover 60% of the country.

The announcement also refers to “establishing the Council of the Nations and Regions, with more details to be announced in due course”.

This is all in line with the constitutional reforms set out in the “Commission on the UK’s Future” report, led by Gordon Brown and published in December 2022. The implications of this report has been superbly analysed here, and I would encourage all to refer to it. Briefly, the key constitutional changes suggested are:

• Replacement of the House of Lords with an Assembly of the Nations and Regions, “charged with safeguarding the institutions of self-government”

• This Assembly would have a role of “safeguarding the UK constitution” (no mention is made of its revising function

• The establishment of a “powerful institution to drive co-operation between all its governments – a Council of the Nations and Regions”

• A ‘solidarity clause’, a “legal obligation of co-operation between the different levels of Government and institutions across the UK.”

• An “explicit constitutional requirement to rebalance the UK’s economy”. This is expressed in terms of geography, but could easily be extended to other “communities”

• The codification of “constitutionally protected social rights – like the right to health care for all based on need, not ability to pay – that reflect the current shared understanding of the minimum standards and public services that a British citizen should be guaranteed”

• A “greater role for the public in making and enforcing the rules followed by politicians” policed by an “anti-corruption Commissioner”

All this will, of course, involve a “ground-up conversation with the people of Britain” (if we haven’t been too ground-down by the clunking detail).

(The document also uses the “Nations and Regions” analogy to address the identity issues of what are now being called “our communities”: “Just as there is no inherent contradiction between Britishness and the identities of the four home nations, there is no contradiction between being British and being Jamaican, Pakistani, Indian, Turkish, Cypriot or any other national identity. So it is clear that our plural identities remain centrally important to our sense of ourselves.” This could indicate a potential constitutional basis for what I have elsewhere called the “milletisation” of society; although I would expect this only years, perhaps decades, down the line.)

The net effect of all this, if implemented, would be performative devolution to all parts of the country, limited by the “constitutionally protected social rights” and “solidarity clause”; baked in through the “safeguarding” role of the Assembly of Nations and Regions, and subject to the “powerful” Council of the Nations and Regions driving it all. All, of course, subject to the legalism of Blair’s Supreme Court.

Exactly where power, let alone accountability, would sit in all this is pretty much unknowable. That, no doubt, is the point.

Note, too, the role of “ethics” and “anti-corruption” - for many years Sue Gray’s cabinet office role. It is not hard to think that the only meaningful role of the voting public after all these changes will be to decide on the punishment for any politician daring to act contra the ethics of Brown’s New Britain.

It is summed up quite clearly in this statement:

So we set a path for how Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, alongside the towns, cities and regions of England can be respected voices in Britain regardless of which party is in Government, and how shared objectives can be delivered by shared institutions.

(Emphasis mine.) The design is for a permanent and unalterable constitutional change, and only shared objectives will be permitted.

The Éminence Grise?

Cardinal Richelieu’s right-hand man François Leclerc du Tremblay was the original Éminence Grise. His Capuchin robes were beige (or Brown?) but the colour was called Gray at the time¹¹.

The BBC informed us that, less than a week after her resignation:

As it happens, there is a Council of the Nations and Regions happening on Friday at which the first ministers of Scotland and Wales, the first and deputy first ministers of Northern Ireland, and mayors from around England will gather.

The prime minister will be there and so, I’m told, we should expect Sue Gray to be too.

In the event, Gray did not attend the meeting; not wanting to “be the story” as Westminster chat would have it. But no less a figure than Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham praised her, saying that she “has made a huge difference in terms of putting devolution at the heart of this new government.” And note that this “Council” meeting is still at this stage just a meeting; no constitutional footing is yet being proposed.

But I do not for a moment believe that Gray’s new position is a “non-job” (and maybe not even a demotion in any real sense), as mainstream media is seeking to portray it. It is a “direct ministerial appointment to the Cabinet Office, and therefore subject to pay. They are usually reserved for part-time projects, though Downing Street’s spokesman refused to say if her role is time-limited”.

Gray had been reported as having held “detailed discussions Brown over his review of the constitution” as far back as 2021 and 2022 - even whilst working in the Cabinet Office for the Conservative administration. Her job as Envoy to the Nations and Regions, if and when she takes it up, is a role to which she is entirely suited.

I take all this as a sign that the Brownite constitutional revolution is gearing up. The media (as ever) are distracted by gossip and incompetence, the Tories more irrelevant than ever with their endless leadership contest. The Starmer regime seems to have found its political will.

What we don’t know is the timeline, and whether any opposition can raise itself, inside Parliament or elsewhere.

If we are witnessing our own constitutional colour revolution, it is going to be a Gray/Brown one.

1. Some have questioned the birthplace of Gray, but I have seen no evidence to back up such claims

2. Quoted here

3. Quoted here

4. See here. The timing is not entirely clear and precise dates are not given, but this is my inference

5. See here

6. *Killing

7. Quoted here

8. Written statement to the Covid Inquiry

9. Quoted here

10. Quoted here

11. You couldn’t make it up. See here