14/10/2025 09:09
The Guardian
PM due to give statement on Middle East and India trip but opposition MPs likely to try to ask about claims of government interference in China case Parents who turn to TikTok influencers and Instagram gurus for advice on everything from potty training to childhood vaccination are at risk of falling victim to misleading and poor quality information, Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has warned. Sally Weale has the story.In the Commons yesterday Kemi Badenoch quoted Mark Elliott, a public law professor at the University of Cambridge, as one of the many experts who have queried the government’s account of why the China spy prosecution failed. On the basis of what was said in the Commons yesterday, Elliott has now written a new blog, highlighting what he says are ongoing inconsistencies in the government’s story and setting out possible theories as to what went wrong. The blog is worth reading in full, but here is his conclusion.We can, then, add a fifth possible explanation to the four set out above: that ministers prevailed over decision-making arrangements concerning highly consequential national security-related matters that afforded individual officials a wholly inappropriate degree of unilateral discretion, and that ministers failed to put in place a framework for ensuring that such decisions were appropriately stress-tested before being finalised. Like the first four possible explanations outlined earlier in this post, I do not claim that the fifth explanation necessarily describes what actually happened — but it is arguably the most likely.The overwhelming message conveyed by the security minister [Dan Jarvis – the minister making a statement in the Commons yesterday] was that this is matter for which ministers bear no responsibility because it was handled wholly at official level. But that will not wash. Whatever uncertainties there might be about the nuances of the constitutional doctrine of ministerial responsibility, if ministers are responsible for anything, they must be responsible for ensuring that the way in which national security-related decisions are made is fit for purpose. If, then, it turns out that this is a story of official failure, it is also necessarily, and more importantly, a story of ministerial failure.This government keeps trying to make apolitical decisions about a policy that is deeply political, and in turn essentially makes political choices but doesn’t take ownership of them. Continue reading...
Continua a leggere su "The Guardian"