Why Westminster Apologises and Washington Moves On

Until September, Angela Rayner was a key figure in the British government, serving as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and Deputy Prime Minister. This was until Rayner resigned after she was found to be underpaying a property tax on her second home. By American standards, the scandal is relatively minor. In fact, Rayner is one of several British politicians to have stepped down over matters that would barely raise eyebrows in the United States. Matt Hancock, who served as Health Secretary under Prime Ministers May and Johnson, resigned after being caught on video kissing a colleague in violation of COVID-19 social distancing guidelines. 

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, President Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in New York and faced further prosecutions over his role in the January 6 Capitol attack, attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and the mishandling of classified documents. President Trump is an extreme example and, in my opinion, an easy target; however, many others who arguably should have resigned have managed to retain their offices and influence. Florida Congressman Randy Fine once stated that, “If you’re not an Islamophobe, you’re a fool”. Border Czar Tom Homan was under an investigation for accepting a $50,000 bribe from undercover FBI agents which has now miraculously closed. In New York City, former Governor Andrew Cuomo collected significant endorsements, including from former President Bill Clinton, in his campaign for mayor despite previously resigning following accusations of sexual harassment by over a dozen women. Stock trading amongst legislators runs rampant with Congressman Rob Bresnahan making over 180 total trades shortly before June’s tariffs announcement. 

This raises the question: why do American politicians often weather far larger scandals, while their British counterparts tend to resign over comparatively minor offences? While both British and American political systems value integrity in principle, U.K. politics prizes the appearance of integrity as a source of legitimacy, whereas U.S. politics prizes survival. 

The United Kingdom is often touted as operating on a “gentlemanly model of politics” which has historically placed the utmost importance on stability and integrity. Furthermore, the nation maintains a media and parliamentary culture that demands visible accountability and wherein politicians must be seen to uphold standards. A study by researchers at the University of Southampton found that while both citizens and politicians place the greatest emphasis on traits of integrity, journalists also value integrity but place even greater importance on competence. This culture extends further than electoral politics as Dr. Hannah Wright, of the London School of Economics and Political Science, found in British national security policymaking. Regarding the most necessary qualities and behaviours to be taken seriously, policymakers responded by describing, “an expectation to perform in a way that included being confident, decisive, and assertive but not verbose; emotionally reserved, measured, and level-headed; comfortable with confrontation and debate; and to speak concisely but not too quickly”. An example of how an appearance of integrity signals legitimacy can be seen in Boris Johnson and Partygate where his downfall was catalyzed by a public perception of hypocrisy rather than directly illegal actions.

In the United States, power comes directly from the electorate rather than party confidence. Additionally, a significantly polarised media ecosystem and tribal partisanship tend to reduce ethical pressures. This can be seen in both President Trump and former President Clinton’s impeachments where both survived by maintaining popular support and political dominance. Moreover, integrity is more instrumental rather than a dominant grounds for legitimacy as seen in the United Kingdom. 

As hinted to before, the main reason for this distinction can be interpreted through the differences of American and British institutions. In the U.K., most political power resides in the major parties and the House of Commons. Within this parliamentary confidence model, moral legitimacy depends on maintaining the respect of fellow MPs. By contrast, under the American system of separated powers, moral judgment is ultimately delegated to voters rather than fellow lawmakers.

Of course there exists examples of survivalism in British politics, as we’ve seen in Boris Johnson blaming his demise on political opponents, and of image-conscious resignations in American politics, such as Senator Al Franken’s resignation. Yet, now it will be interesting to see whether the United Kingdom moves toward a more American-style politics of resilience, influenced by social media and a wave of populism that has boosted support for Nigel Farage and Reform UK.

Image: Flickr/Trump White House (Shealah Craighead)

Licence.

No image changes made.