Office away days – the heart truly sinks. Think dreary hotel conference rooms or, worse still, a muddy morning of paintballing followed by boozy ten-pin bowling. Once more with feeling: your cabinet colleagues are not your friends.
Undeterred, Rishi Sunak has taken his cabinet on a trip to Chequers, the prime minister’s grace-and-favour, 1500-acre retreat. Or for the Sunaks, just a little place in the country. Unfortunately, his political problems are not so easily dislodged.
Back in London, speaking before the Public Accounts Committee, the head of HM Revenue & Customs suggested that Tory Party Chairman Nadhim Zahawi would not have been given a penalty for making an “innocent” mistake in his declarations.
Jim Harra explained: “[I]f you take reasonable care but nevertheless make a mistake, whilst you will be liable for the tax and for interest if it’s paid on it, you would not be liable for a penalty. There are no penalties for innocent errors in your tax affairs,” (italics mine).
This is a problem for the former chancellor’s current holding position, which is that he has not done anything wrong but simply made a “careless” though not a “deliberate” mistake in his tax affairs.
Further grief lies with the deputy prime minister and justice secretary. Dominic Raab, who has reportedly been the subject of formal bullying complaints by at least 24 civil servants. Eight are currently being investigated, but The Guardian says all but two of the complaints involve multiple accusers.
Sunak himself is not implicated in either of these scandals. What is however at times puzzling is the way he responds to such events. The prime minister has a dangerous habit of defending his colleagues (think back to Gavin Williamson and those texts) only to then have to change his tune when the line becomes untenable.
And when it comes to questions about his own behaviour – think basic stuff like whether he uses private healthcare, the truth often comes out only in instalments. First, we are told it’s a personal matter, before eventually getting the answer everyone already suspects: yes, exceptionally wealthy people sometimes go private.
This dearth of political instincts is in fact a charge often levelled at Keir Starmer. Both men have only served in parliament since 2015. Neither can be said to be political to their fingertips, like a George Osborne or Tony Blair.
For sure, neither came to lead their party by accident. Sunak headed the Treasury during one of the most extraordinary periods in modern British history, while Starmer ran the Crown Prosecution Service and so has actual experience of making an important institution work. Their similarities make for fairly tedious sessions of PMQs, but so what?
Ultimately, the success of both men serves as a reminder that you don’t need to ooze Clintonian charisma to reach the top of British politics. You simply need to beat whoever’s in front of you. The problem for Sunak at present is that his side keeps scoring ever more improbable own goals.
Elsewhere in the paper, the home secretary’s decision to “backslide” on reforms designed to prevent another Windrush scandal has been branded a “slap in the face”. Suella Braverman has rowed back on accepting recommendations, including plans to establish the post of migrants’ commissioner, which followed a scathing review into the scandal.
In the comment pages, Tomiwa Owolade takes aim at the idea that every dissenting view is part of the ‘culture war’ and made in bath faith. While Emma Loffhagen considers what a higher retirement age means from the perspective of a 23-year-old.
And finally, step away from the everything store and check out 12 of the best independent bookshops in London.
