Lammy’s Failure to answer

David Lammy’s first PMQs as deputy prime minister highlighted a striking failure of accountability. He was asked repeatedly about the mistaken release of an asylum seeker; a question he could not answer, not because he lacked preparation, but because he chose not to. Even with a prepared statement, he struggled to provide clarity, repeatedly deflecting and attempting to shift focus to past government failings. Yet the underlying problem remained: a system letting people slip through the cracks, and a government struggling to act transparently.

Hannah Arendt would see this as a classic example of thoughtlessness. In her work on totalitarianism and the nature of political action, she emphasised that evil and failure often arise not from malevolent intent but from an absence of reflective thought. When individuals follow procedures or routines without considering their consequences, they fail to exercise judgment. Lammy’s repeated inability to answer, despite having a prepared statement, mirrors this insight: the procedural safeguards of the justice system are not enough if human judgment does not intervene. Arendt also emphasised the importance of acting within a shared world where truth can be spoken and heard. By avoiding a direct answer, Lammy not only exposes the fragility of the system but contributes to the erosion of that shared reality, making it harder for citizens to trust the institutions meant to protect them. Her work reminds us that public responsibility is inseparable from active, reflective thinking; without it, even well-designed structures can fail catastrophically.

Michel Foucault might frame Lammy’s failure as illustrative of the fragility and performative nature of the disciplinary state. In his analysis of power, knowledge, and institutions, Foucault argued that control is maintained not solely through force, but through procedures, routines, and the constant observation and regulation of conduct. Prisons, schools, hospitals, and bureaucracies function as mechanisms to shape behavior and reinforce authority. When errors occur, and officials cannot answer fundamental questions, the façade of control collapses. The state’s authority depends on the smooth operation of these invisible procedures, and once they are disrupted, power is revealed to be contingent rather than absolute. Foucault would likely also note that the repeated evasion in Parliament highlights how discourse itself is a tool of power: Lammy’s inability to speak truthfully reflects both the limits of institutional control and the ways in which political actors attempt to manage perception when the system falters. In this sense, failure to answer is not simply a personal lapse but a symptom of systemic vulnerability.

John Stuart Mill would focus on the broader consequences for social trust and the moral contract between the state and citizens. In On Liberty and Utilitarianism, Mill argued that governments derive legitimacy not from coercion alone but from the perception that they act consistently to promote the greatest good. Repeated errors, coupled with the refusal or inability of public officials to answer direct questions, undermine confidence in justice and fairness. Even if the immediate harm of a single mistaken release is limited, the erosion of trust affects the wellbeing of society as a whole. Mill’s philosophy underscores that truthfulness, transparency, and accountability are not optional: they are essential to ensuring that the consequences of state action maximize societal benefit. A government that cannot be held accountable risks creating harm not through individual acts of malice, but through systemic neglect and the loss of confidence in its institutions.

John Dewey would emphasise the missed opportunity for learning that Lammy’s evasion represents. Dewey saw democracy and justice as practical, experimental processes: institutions should be capable of reflecting on failure, learning from mistakes, and adapting to prevent future harm. When a prepared statement is not deployed to confront the question directly, both the individual and the system lose the chance for reflective action. Dewey would argue that mistakes themselves are instructive if approached honestly; they allow society to reassess priorities, improve procedures, and restore public trust. Lammy’s inability to answer, combined with systemic failures, demonstrates how easily this opportunity can be squandered. For Dewey, active engagement, openness, and critical reflection are necessary not only for institutional reform but for maintaining the social cohesion and mutual understanding that make a democratic system resilient.

In short, the PMQs episode illustrates that the problem is both personal and structural. Lammy’s failure to answer, even when equipped to do so, reflects an absence of reflective judgment, while the justice system’s errors expose deeper systemic fragility. Philosophically, the lesson is clear: accountability requires thought as much as procedure, and without reflection, even the best-prepared institutions and statements are insufficient to maintain public trust.