UK Politics Thread

[Pannonian]

In 2019: Daniel Kawczynski says he is a fluent Polish speaker.
In 2020-21: Daniel Kawczynski claims £8,244 in expenses for Polish language lessons.

And yeah, this is the same Daniel Kawczynski who pimped for supplementary paid work for the Saudis on the basis that he was one of the most pro-Saudi MPs around. The same Daniel Kawczynski who tried to sabotage Parliament's discussion of Brexit by asking the Polish government to veto the extension of article 50. Still, that last bit is good right, even though it involved asking a foreign government to override Parliament's freedom of action.

Source: Daily Mail. Yeah, even the Mail was disgusted enough at Kawczynski's hypocrisy on that last bit.

[Furunculus]

What do you mean by damage?

by attempting to re-integrate to areas of the EU that really make no sense from a power/autonomy PoV.

like fetishising the customs union, when 85% of regulation that impacts on inspection disruption comes from the single market not the customs union. customs-unions became a demand on top of the EEA model because we had to 'think of the peace process in NI'. power politics is ugly.

like attempting to gain single market access while pretending that the flanking-policies the EU will demand don't exist, which will bleed into management of growth industries like AI, data, energy, banking, gmo, biotech.

to put it at its most fundamental: to leave the EU but keep the 'precautionary principle' as the regulatory method, stunting the very industries above that would most benefit from 'demonstrable harm'!

joining CPTPP locks in many of these british 'preferences', as it will be politically difficult for labour to sell-the-pass to europe when negotiating to reintegrate (on tough terms - "yes, but only if you also do this..."), without becoming non-compliant with CPTPP. according to Sam Lowe CPTPP does not entirely preclude a SPS agreement on trade in food goods, but CPTPP will limit its reach into the anti-competitive behaviour the EU requires in basing its decision making on (subjective) safety rather than (objective) risk

don't get me wrong, there are definitely areas where reintegration would be a good idea - REACH chemical regs for integrated supply chains FYI - but you have to understand why there was a single-market+customs-union+flanking-policies vs clean-break dichotomy.

i.e. i'll take REACH, but not at any price.

there will be a strong compulsion on any incoming labour gov't to get a quick-win on the 'sensible brexit' and the EU will be polishing their knives in anticipation.

i don't trust labour, not least since I contend that we ended up with brexit precisely because blair sold-the-pass on the social chapter last time. so, bring on CPTPP asap before this shambles of a gov't collapses.

[Pannonian]

by attempting to re-integrate to areas of the EU that really make no sense from a power/autonomy PoV.

like fetishising the customs union, when 85% of regulation that impacts on inspection disruption comes from the single market not the customs union. customs-unions became a demand on top of the EEA model because we had to 'think of the peace process in NI'. power politics is ugly.

like attempting to gain single market access while pretending that the flanking-policies the EU will demand don't exist, which will bleed into management of growth industries like AI, data, energy, banking, gmo, biotech.

to put it at its most fundamental: to leave the EU but keep the 'precautionary principle' as the regulatory method, stunting the very industries above that would most benefit from 'demonstrable harm'!

joining CPTPP locks in many of these british 'preferences', as it will be politically difficult for labour to sell-the-pass to europe when negotiating to reintegrate (on tough terms - "yes, but only if you also do this..."), without becoming non-compliant with CPTPP. according to same lowe CPTPP does not entirely preclude a SPS agreement on trade in food goods, but CPTPP will limit its reach into the anti-competitive behaviour the EU requires in basing its decision making on (subjective) safety rather than (objective) risk

don't get me wrong, there are definitely areas where reintegration would be a good idea - REACH chemical regs for integrated supply chains FYI - but you have to understand why there was a single-market+customs-union+flanking-policies vs clean-break dichotomy.

i.e. i'll take REACH, but not at any price.

there will be a strong compulsion on any incoming labour gov't to get a quick-win on the 'sensible brexit' and the EU will be polishing their knives in anticipation.

i don't trust labour, not least since I contend that we ended up with brexit precisely because blair sold-the-pass on the social chapter last time. so, bring on CPTPP asap before this shambles of a gov't collapses.

If you principally care about autonomy, why do you want to lock us into another organisation that we won't be able to get out of? Why is it that your lock is good, but the other guy's lock is bad? Shouldn't we be keeping out of CPTPP and other such organisations that lock us into anything that we can't practically exit?

[Furunculus]

If you principally care about autonomy, why do you want to lock us into another organisation that we won't be able to get out of? Why is it that your lock is good, but the other guy's lock is bad? Shouldn't we be keeping out of CPTPP and other such organisations that lock us into anything that we can't practically exit?

This is essentially the same as your question to me about why I believe Nato is good but EU is bad, and the answer is the (practically) the same:

One is an intergovernmental treaty with very limited treaty based obligations that don't touch on domestic societal management, where the other is a ceaseless iteration of further integration via supranational means that has an explicitly political ambition and touches deeply into how society functions.

Of course labour could abrogate CPTPP, parliament is sovereign, but it would pay a political price to do so and would need to make its compromises with the EU openly. Good, the Social Chapter was a disaster in my opinion (both for me and for you), and I don't want a repeat of that.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053827013&viewfull=1#post2053827013


there will be a strong compulsion on any incoming labour gov't to get a quick-win on the 'sensible brexit' and the EU will be polishing their knives in anticipation.

i don't trust labour, not least since I contend that we ended up with brexit precisely because blair sold-the-pass on the social chapter last time. so, bring on CPTPP asap before this shambles of a gov't collapses.

[Pannonian]

This is essentially the same as your question to me about why I believe Nato is good but EU is bad, and the answer is the (practically) the same:

One is an intergovernmental treaty with very limited treaty based obligations that don't touch on domestic societal management, where the other is a ceaseless iteration of further integration via supranational means that has an explicitly political ambition and touches deeply into how society functions.

Of course labour could abrogate CPTPP, parliament is sovereign, but it would pay a political price to do so and would need to make its compromises with the EU openly. Good, the Social Chapter was a disaster in my opinion (both for me and for you), and I don't want a repeat of that.

Does this mean that Brexit will indeed be a principal driver for how you vote? Ie. any attempt at, say, joining a customs union, will bring any party too close to the EU for your tastes and thus prompt a vote for the Tories.

[Furunculus]

Does this mean that Brexit will indeed be a principal driver for how you vote? Ie. any attempt at, say, joining a customs union, will bring any party too close to the EU for your tastes and thus prompt a vote for the Tories.

It means that any incoming government proposing joining the customs unions in order to reduce "the border chaos by reducing regulatory checks" is either incompetent or mendacious, as 85% of the burden of border checks relate to single market regulations, not customs union regulations.

I would struggle to vote for an incompetent/mendacious gov't that also seeks to govern in a way antithetical to my preferences.

I have already said I would be happy with reintegration in some areas, e.g. REACH.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053827013&viewfull=1#post2053827013


don't get me wrong, there are definitely areas where reintegration would be a good idea - REACH chemical regs for integrated supply chains FYI - but you have to understand why there was a single-market+customs-union+flanking-policies vs clean-break dichotomy.

i.e. i'll take REACH, but not at any price.

[Pannonian]

Lady Mone referred her husband's company to the VIP lane (whose members skip due scrutiny, supposedly meant for companies with a long history of relevant expertise) before it was even formally registered as a company. That company got £200 million in covid contracts in the end, despite civil servants being reluctant to include it in the VIP lane.

Does this level of corruption mean anything to Tory voters? Or will "Get Brexit done" override all other concerns?

[Furunculus]

Is that a rhetorical question, or do you expect responses here in the backroom?

[Pannonian]

Is that a rhetorical question, or do you expect responses here in the backroom?

One might have thought it would be rhetorical, but there is plenty of evidence to indicate that it's not, and that Johnson sees continuing the Brexit debate as a winning tactic.

[Furunculus]

personally, i'm not so sure as i see the exit of frost as acknowledgement that a resolution is sought for NI - accepting the good enough rather than seeking the perfect.

[Pannonian]

So there were parties at 10 Downing Street. 100 invitations sent for a "Bring Your Own Booze" party after the rule of no gatherings of more than 12 people allowed. Even some invitees were dubious about the propriety of this. 2 MPs recounted how they weren't allowed to visit dying relatives because they were following rules set by the PM, which the PM wasn't observing.


Downing Street staff were advised to “clean up” their phones by removing information that could suggest lockdown parties were held at No 10, The Independent has been told.

Two sources claim a senior member of staff told them it would be a “good idea” to remove any messages implying they had attended or were even aware of anything that could “look like a party”.
....
One said they were “told to clean up their phone just in case” they had to hand it in to the investigation.

A second said: “I was being leant on [during the discussion with a senior colleague] and told to get rid of anything that could look bad.”

Both sources told The Independent they felt under pressure to delete communications and images.

The claims that a senior member of staff directed junior colleagues to remove potential evidence contradicts an email, also sent in December, that instructed staff not to destroy any material that could prove pertinent to an investigation, criminal or otherwise.

This was meant to refer to emails, WhatsApp messages, and calendar invitations, but it was allegedly not observed by some staff, many of whom conducted discussions via WhatsApp on their personal phones as well as work devices.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/partygate-phones-clean-up-investigation-sue-gray-b1991055.html

Isn't this illegal?

[Pannonian]

The Metropolitan Police say they will not investigate the Partygate affair unless directed to do so by Sue Gray, the government-appointed investigator (the previous investigator having resigned when it emerged that he was party to the affair). NB. the head of the Metropolitan Police is a family friend of the PM.

Corruption is endemic in this government, with even the law being unwilling to hold them to it. Still, it matters not, as the government has a majority and that's all you need.

PS. in addition to the PM saying that he didn't know it was a party (having previously denied its existence), now Jacob Rees Mogg, the (Tory) head of the Commons, argues that the rules weren't reasonable anyway and needn't have been followed. Is this a sufficient defence for any law breaker in the future, or does it only work for a government following the will of the people?

[rory_20_uk]

At the risk of being accused of "whattaboutism" yes this government is riddled with corruption. But that seems to be a reoccurring theme with both parties doing similar things when in power. Prior to (Sir) Tony, getting any information out of government was nigh on impossible since there was no mechanism to get any; after he initially instigated the FOI he very quickly adapted to his own rules by just not taking minutes at important meetings so there was nothing to provide when asked. Now of course departments rely on the loophole that if they think collating the information will be too hard they just don't have to do it. The only thing that can do anything about this is strategically focused on self preservation and tactically severing all ties to "Andy the child fu*ker".

Basing everything on the Rule of Good Chaps and self-censoring is demonstrably not working now - this might just be that more information is being shared to the ruled rather than this being new. Personally I think that with power being removed from both the Lords and the Monarchy there is effectively unfettered power as long as you aren't seen as a liability at elections. Whether having a system where the only oversight was the Monarch and the Lords is a different question. I would say it is a rather risky one - but seemed to work better before one was neutered and the other was stacked full of ex-politicians.

Will of the people? I'm sure you know that the last time the ruling government had a majority of people voting for them was in the 1950's. The whole concept of the police "policing by consent" is now just a phrase with no real meaning. Of course, with society becoming less homogenous in how it collectively thinks this was always going to be increasingly difficult but the approach seems to be increasingly to ignore everyone.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Prior to (Sir) Tony, getting any information out of government was nigh on impossible since there was no mechanism to get any; after he initially instigated the FOI he very quickly adapted to his own rules by just not taking minutes at important meetings so there was nothing to provide when asked.
on the general theme of a lack of mechanisms to hold the gov't to account; i wonder how much of this is the responsibility of labour and liberal constitutional tinkering?

labour in getting rid of the old lords created a second chamber of placemen who owe their advancement to the executive. improving their 'legitimacy' to act on the one hand, while hugely eroding their ability to act with the other.

lib-dems in creating the fixed-term-parliament act ripped out the role of the queen in dissolving a parliament. fixed terms have of course been repealed (thank god!), but the legitimate authority to oversea dissolution remains a deafening void.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[rory_20_uk]

The Monarch never dissolved Parliament unless instructed to do. The Monarch is instructed on practically everything which in essence means the roles of President and PM are in one person.

Reform of the Lords was the right thing to do. If the Monarch had as a consequence of this then ensured that those that were enobled were "deserving" in a meritocratic sense rather than stooge sense this would have been a step forward - a competent, technocratic chamber of experts. But our Monarch has spend decades doing nothing. Oh yes she is widely praised for her inaction as of course the Commons rather likes the lack of oversight and accountability.

The road to hell might well be paved by good intentions but the road is walked is when those with power idly sit by and allow corruption to spread.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

It [does] matter.

The problems you mention are real, and I accept them, and yet the problem I highlight remains valid: if you're problem is a lack of checks and balances then you have to give [real] consideration to snipping out bits of what is a highly interdependent constitutional settlement:

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/08/03/dancing-queen-the-fixed-term-parliaments-act-and-the-return-of-the-royal-prerogative/


In 1950, the King’s private secretary, Sir Alan Lascelles, set out three scenarios in which a monarch might refuse a general election.
Text Description automatically generated

These became known as the “Lascelles Principles”, but we could imagine other scenarios in which an election might properly be denied.

For example, when the Opposition is in the middle of a leadership contest; or when it was intended to side-line Parliament during a moment of national crisis; or when there was reason to suspect electoral fraud or foreign interference.

Under this system, the monarchy became the ’emergency brake’ of the constitution. It could not exercise these powers itself, but, in exceptional circumstances, it could prevent a government from deploying them. In effect, it could deny a Prime Minister access to the ‘nuclear weapons’ of the constitution, such as the power to declare war or to suspend Parliament.

This was never a very satisfactory brake. It relied on a single individual, with no democratic authority, who might be inept, corrupt or Prince Andrew. It required a monarch to put their throne at risk, to defend institutions in which they had little personal stake. And, as Britain evolved from a ‘constitutional’ to a ‘ceremonial’ monarchy, it became more important to shield the monarch from political controversy than to protect the constitution from political harm.

The reluctance of the monarchy to intervene in politics is broadly welcome. A democracy should not be dependent on an unelected, hereditary institution to protect it from the abuse of power. But it raises an important question: who, if anyone, should take over its constitutional functions?

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1714/0125_Bk.pdf


A. V. Dicey states: “The necessity for dissolutions stands in close connection with the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty… Where Parliament is supreme, some further security for such harmony is necessary, and this security is given by the right of dissolution, which enables the Crown or the Ministry to appeal from the legislature to the nation.”

Elsewhere, Dicey refers to examples of dissolution in 1784 and 1834 as examples of such a convention and argues this is a democratic necessity in a sovereign parliament, to argue that “the Cabinet, when supported by the Crown, and therefore possessing the power of dissolution, can defy the will of a House of Commons if the House is not supported by the electors.”

https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bagehot/constitution.pdf


“The English system, therefore, is not an absorption of the executive power by the legislative power; it is a fusion of the two. Either the cabinet legislates and acts, or else it can dissolve. It is a creature, but it has the power of destroying its creators. It is an executive which can annihilate the legislature, as well as an executive which is the nominee of the legislature. It was made, but it can unmake; it was derivative in its origin, but it is destructive in its action.”

In this arrangement, while Parliament has, in Dicey’s words, “the right to make or unmake any law whatever,” the Executive has ample powers as well. Rigid statutory requirements for exercising dissolution powers risk triggering actions that might escalate a political crisis into a constitutional crisis.

For instance, by making dissolution and calling an election more difficult the Fixed Term Parliament Act might make using alternative prerogative powers, such as prorogation, more attractive to government. Whilst the prerogative power for dissolution was removed, the Fixed Term Parliament Act explicitly avoided the topic of prorogation of parliament, as Section 6(1) explicitly states: “This Act does not affect Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament.”

[Pannonian]

A government minister was sacked for being Muslim. A number of PPSes (Parliamentary Private Secretaries) have said that the government is a mess. The chancellor has written off over 4bn of covid fraud.

Oh well, at least they will get Brexit done. That's the only thing that matters.

[rory_20_uk]

Blair joined an illegal war where he helped create fake evidence.
His funding of the NHS using off the books private loans cost billions.
Brown told the market he was going to sell a glut of gold the price went down and he still sold, costing us billions
But hey! At least they're not Tories...

And the alternative, basically the only alternative, that the British people were given was Corbyn.

Boris has approval ratings of -50. Why you keep with this drone it is all OK because of Brexis when the papers are saying there's about to be a leadership contest, one MP has already defected and the ethics lead is talking to the police makes me wonder if you inhabit some alternative reality.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Blair joined an illegal war where he helped create fake evidence.
His funding of the NHS using off the books private loans cost billions.
Brown told the market he was going to sell a glut of gold the price went down and he still sold, costing us billions
But hey! At least they're not Tories...

And the alternative, basically the only alternative, that the British people were given was Corbyn.

Boris has approval ratings of -50. Why you keep with this drone it is all OK because of Brexis when the papers are saying there's about to be a leadership contest, one MP has already defected and the ethics lead is talking to the police makes me wonder if you inhabit some alternative reality.

~:smoking:

The most important difference between this government and the above Labour figures is that this government are in power, these Labour figures are not. You might as well talk about Attlee.

Why is it that I point to Brexit? Because it was, along with Corbyn, the most important factor in why people voted Tory (cf. Ashcroft polls). And as can be seen in Furunculus's posts stating that he'd vote Tory again to safeguard it, it's still an important factor. People will still vote Tory to keep Brexit, no matter what else happens.

[rory_20_uk]

If all parties choose to not rescind one of the few times the population are directly asked their opinion then this won't be an option.

I mention them since when they were in power these were the things they did - sadly the disaster Boris is causing isn't exactly an abberation - people are probably worried we get all the crap from our politicians and then an additional layer of expensive Beaurocrats and laws bieng created that are mindful of the Dictators the EU let in.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

If all parties choose to not rescind one of the few times the population are directly asked their opinion then this won't be an option.

I mention them since when they were in power these were the things they did - sadly the disaster Boris is causing isn't exactly an abberation - people are probably worried we get all the crap from our politicians and then an additional layer of expensive Beaurocrats and laws bieng created that are mindful of the Dictators the EU let in.

~:smoking:

See what Furunculus has been touting though. A system in place that's completely incompatible with the EU, so as to prevent any drawing back of Brexit. So that even if the voters change their mind, future governments will be unable to. How is that protecting the UK from EU legislation? At least EU membership had the mechanism of article 50 allowing withdrawal. What Furunculus favours is an equivalent of EU membership, but without even that mechanism.

[rory_20_uk]

We should base all future UK laws on their compatibility with the EU? How odd. If voters were to change their mind, should we then have further votes every 10 years or so to ensure they don't change their minds again? Should all countries in the EU not all have a similar mechanism to ensure that this remains the will of the people?

Perhaps we could focus on every other trade group on the planet since they all are trade pacts without the additional baggage.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

We should base all future UK laws on their compatibility with the EU? How odd. If voters were to change their mind, should we then have further votes every 10 years or so to ensure they don't change their minds again? Should all countries in the EU not all have a similar mechanism to ensure that this remains the will of the people?

Perhaps we could focus on every other trade group on the planet since they all are trade pacts without the additional baggage.

~:smoking:

Or alternatively, maybe those who are anti-EU should live up to their principles and apply their arguments across the board. If it's a bad thing to be shackled to other countries inside the EU, why is it a good thing to be shackled to other countries outside the EU, as Furunculus and the theorists he follows advocates? He's said that he'll be voting Tory to ensure this happens, until such a point that it's irreversible.

[Furunculus]

And as can be seen in Furunculus's posts stating that he'd vote Tory again to safeguard it, it's still an important factor. People will still vote Tory to keep Brexit, no matter what else happens.

What i actually said is that i had voted for an explicitly anti-brexit party, right in the middle of the nastiest domestic element of the brexit argument:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053827005&viewfull=1#post2053827005


I have voted Lib-Dem dem in 2017, may well do so again if the tories persist in showing a lack of 'grip'.

[Furunculus]

See what Furunculus has been touting though. A system in place that's completely incompatible with the EU, so as to prevent any drawing back of Brexit. So that even if the voters change their mind, future governments will be unable to.

What i actually did is recognise the enormously destructive influence of Continuity-Remain in perpetually sabotaging any prospect of a coherent negotiating stance in a foreign policy problem, how these people still exist 'inside the system', and how CPTPP would force them to openly acknowledge the costs in their 'sensible' concessions rather mislead people into a fait-accompli of deep regulatory alignment and political integration:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053827015&viewfull=1#post2053827015


Of course labour could abrogate CPTPP, parliament is sovereign, but it would pay a political price to do so and would need to make its compromises with the EU openly. Good, the Social Chapter was a disaster in my opinion (both for me and for you), and I don't want a repeat of that.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053827013&viewfull=1#post2053827013


by attempting to re-integrate to areas of the EU that really make no sense from a power/autonomy PoV.

like fetishising the customs union, when 85% of regulation that impacts on inspection disruption comes from the single market not the customs union. customs-unions became a demand on top of the EEA model because we had to 'think of the peace process in NI'. power politics is ugly.

like attempting to gain single market access while pretending that the flanking-policies the EU will demand don't exist, which will bleed into management of growth industries like AI, data, energy, banking, gmo, biotech.

to put it at its most fundamental: to leave the EU but keep the 'precautionary principle' as the regulatory method, stunting the very industries above that would most benefit from 'demonstrable harm'!

joining CPTPP locks in many of these british 'preferences', as it will be politically difficult for labour to sell-the-pass to europe when negotiating to reintegrate (on tough terms - "yes, but only if you also do this..."), without becoming non-compliant with CPTPP. according to sam lowe CPTPP does not entirely preclude a SPS agreement on trade in food goods, but CPTPP will limit its reach into the anti-competitive behaviour the EU requires in basing its decision making on (subjective) safety rather than (objective) risk.

[Furunculus]

Or alternatively, maybe those who are anti-EU should live up to their principles and apply their arguments across the board. If it's a bad thing to be shackled to other countries inside the EU, why is it a good thing to be shackled to other countries outside the EU, as Furunculus and the theorists he follows advocates? He's said that he'll be voting Tory to ensure this happens, until such a point that it's irreversible.

You don't actually listen to what people say to you, Rory has in the very text you quote answered the question you then go on to pose:


Perhaps we could focus on every other trade group on the planet since they all are trade pacts without the additional baggage.

It is the very essence of what we call 'dialogue' to listen to what people say, and respond on the basis of what they said.

I too have answered this very same question at your behest in the last week or so:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053827015&viewfull=1#post2053827015


If you principally care about autonomy, why do you want to lock us into another organisation that we won't be able to get out of? Why is it that your lock is good, but the other guy's lock is bad?


One is an intergovernmental treaty with very limited treaty based obligations that don't touch on domestic societal management, where the other is a ceaseless iteration of further integration via supranational means that has an explicitly political ambition and touches deeply into how society functions.

this perpetual fight to interpret opposing views in the least charitable light must be exhausting for you. i have to confess the burden of correcting you - with a quote, a corrective explanation, a link to the original post, and a quote of the relevant text in that post - is more than i feel should be necessary in regular debate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You lot are now sounding as polarized as "us'ns" on this side of the pond. And nearly as bereft of effective governance.

[rory_20_uk]

You lot are now sounding as polarized as "us'ns" on this side of the pond. And nearly as bereft of effective governance.

It might well sound that way, but far less in the UK are as psudo-religious about who they support as in the USA - and if anything the number is dropping; that Boris's approval ratings had something like a 50 point drop demonstrates that we are mainly free of the "fake news" / "alternate facts" schtick - almost everyone is of the view there were parties had in and around Number 10 and that the excuses are pathetic; in or out of the EU is probably somewhat different but interestingly this equally spit the main parties.
In terms of government and its effectiveness, due to the PM having all the power, things do happen as effectively as they've done for decades.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rory, I take your points.

And pseudo-religious is sadly all too apt a label. There are roughly 35.7 million registered Republican voters as of December 2021, and a poll conducted over the last month estimates that 53% of them want him to run in 2024. I cannot fathom a logical reason for a conservative thinker to support this man at this juncture of history. I really think Trump was "annointed" by Limbaugh and literally millions of my fellow Americans still see halos and hear seraphim when they view him.

Stunning.

[Furunculus]

As Rory said, it is not as bad as it appears on the surface:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Society fundamentally functions, we just get to see a magnified view of the disagreements.

[edyzmedieval]

I find it hilarious that it's a drunken party that brings down a government. It's not actual problems, it's a drunken party, something everyone does once in a while.

[Furunculus]

it will indeed be hilarious, if the navel-gazing fascination of the media does indeed bring down the government, but it is yet to be seen that it does.

as someone who works in marketing told me: "we used an outside garden for work meetings throughout the lockdown, because it was safer. and yes, it did involve drinks."

if this sentiment is common, and people remember they voted for the anti-manager - after their experience with the hyper-managerial May - then the general electoral sentiment might be: "who cares?"

[Pannonian]

it will indeed be hilarious, if the navel-gazing fascination of the media does indeed bring down the government, but it is yet to be seen that it does.

as someone who works in marketing told me: "we used an outside garden for work meetings throughout the lockdown, because it was safer. and yes, it did involve drinks."

if this sentiment is common, and people remember they voted for the anti-manager - after their experience with the hyper-managerial May - then the general electoral sentiment might be: "who cares?"

So deceiving Parliament should have no consequences?

[Furunculus]

Sure, and if 'politics' decrees his position is untenable then i will wave goodbye without a tear.

But, i do agree with Edzy that it will indeed be amusing if its a few parties that brought him down, and i do wonder whether the offence itself will really bother people.

[rory_20_uk]

Sure, and if 'politics' decrees his position is untenable then i will wave goodbye without a tear.

But, i do agree with Edzy that it will indeed be amusing if its a few parties that brought him down, and i do wonder whether the offence itself will really bother people.

The offense is more offensive to people as it is something everyone can understand. Almost everyone has had to cancel parties, whereas many of the other things governments do is rather technical and somewhat unreal.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Sure, that might be the case.

I merely point out the example i have actually had personally, as opposed to the hyper-frothing we get in social media, and wonder if our expectation of what will actually happen will be wrongly coloured by the latter.

[Pannonian]

Sure, and if 'politics' decrees his position is untenable then i will wave goodbye without a tear.

But, i do agree with Edzy that it will indeed be amusing if its a few parties that brought him down, and i do wonder whether the offence itself will really bother people.

So popularity overrides the constitution, or what semblance of a constitution we have. It used to be that a minister caught in a direct lie would be expected to step down, with a Yes Prime Minister episode dedicated to exactly this subject, where the protagonist's offence was far less clear than this. The few formal checks and balances that we have are that the PM has to face up to PM's questions, and that if the PM deceives Parliament, then their position is no longer tenable. If this is no longer the case, why have Parliament at all? Why not just electors as in the US system, with the combo head of state/head of executive elected every few years and then untouchable for their term with no need for accountability. No need for an Official Opposition as the PM won't need to answer questions, since democracy has made their support clear.

[Furunculus]

It used to be that a minister caught in a direct lie would be expected to step down, with a Yes Prime Minister episode dedicated to exactly this subject, where the protagonist's offence was far less clear than this.

Let's see what Sue Gray's report has to say.
If he has lied to parliament i imagine there will be sifgnificant presure for him to step down, and i will support it.

[Pannonian]

The offense is more offensive to people as it is something everyone can understand. Almost everyone has had to cancel parties, whereas many of the other things governments do is rather technical and somewhat unreal.

~:smoking:

Including at least a couple of MPs who've had relatives die without the opportunity to be there for them. The Labour MP sat in the car park as his mum died, which was as close as he was allowed to get. I think the DUP MP had to explain to his mother in law why she had to die alone.

[edyzmedieval]

So deceiving Parliament should have no consequences?

Yes, it should, but as things stand, the past 5 years or so have shown us that what we consider actions that should have sanctions are not sanctioned. Or are sanctioned but only mildly.

Drunken revelry should not be the reason a government goes down. The decisions taken should be the only judge, the performances, not the fact that you're having a booze party.

EDIT: To be more specific - people are upset because of the actual party in itself, rather than the lockdown measures.

[Pannonian]

Yes, it should, but as things stand, the past 5 years or so have shown us that what we consider actions that should have sanctions are not sanctioned. Or are sanctioned but only mildly.

Drunken revelry should not be the reason a government goes down. The decisions taken should be the only judge, the performances, not the fact that you're having a booze party.

EDIT: To be more specific - people are upset because of the actual party in itself, rather than the lockdown measures.

People are upset because of the hypocrisy, where people who make the rules don't follow them, while people who didn't make the rules followed them.

DUP's Jim Shannon breaks down over mother in law who 'died alone' from Covid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSfPy1e3ShM)

Afzal Khan's mother died and he was not allowed to hold her hand, while it is alleged the government held various 'gatherings'. (https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-labour-mps-anger-at-government-arrogance-over-christmas-parties-12490703)

[edyzmedieval]

Which, unfortunately, proves my point. People are upset because someone government mandated broke lockdown measures and of course, the ugly optics of enforcing harsh measures and then not following them. Which is entirely understandable and a very fair point.

Why is it such an uproar, particularly now? To an outsider that is subscribed to a dozen paying international news outlets, the constant bombardment of stories about the drunken booze parties is bizarre. There's a bazillion other important issues that deserve an uproar, such as the breakdown of relations with the EU, bad trade relations, shortages of medical equipment, fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in, wealth disparity, acrimonious political divide, Scotland threatening to break away, Ireland talking again of Troubles... issues which have a huge impact in both societal level and personal level.

That deserves an uproar, a constant one even, these are heavy heavy issues which both sides should care about.

And yet... we're talking about a booze party. And the fact that they sent for more wine. Which many other people have done, breaking the rules as well. Endless scores of politicians have broken rules and very few have been in the constant news over a party like this.

Please, I am all open to hearing ideas and opinions, because to me - as an outsider, but one who is glued to international & national politics 24/7 and who even works in politics in a way - it is odd. I feel like I'm not fully understand.ing

[Pannonian]

Which, unfortunately, proves my point. People are upset because someone government mandated broke lockdown measures and of course, the ugly optics of enforcing harsh measures and then not following them. Which is entirely understandable and a very fair point.

Why is it such an uproar, particularly now? To an outsider that is subscribed to a dozen paying international news outlets, the constant bombardment of stories about the drunken booze parties is bizarre. There's a bazillion other important issues that deserve an uproar, such as the breakdown of relations with the EU, bad trade relations, shortages of medical equipment, fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in, wealth disparity, acrimonious political divide, Scotland threatening to break away, Ireland talking again of Troubles... issues which have a huge impact in both societal level and personal level.

That deserves an uproar, a constant one even, these are heavy heavy issues which both sides should care about.

And yet... we're talking about a booze party. And the fact that they sent for more wine. Which many other people have done, breaking the rules as well. Endless scores of politicians have broken rules and very few have been in the constant news over a party like this.

Please, I am all open to hearing ideas and opinions, because to me - as an outsider, but one who is glued to international & national politics 24/7 and who even works in politics in a way - it is odd. I feel like I'm not fully understand.ing

Answering questions in Parliament is supposed to be the most effective check on the power of the government, with ministers (particularly the PM) required to answer questions. They are expected to tell the truth, and if they lie, they are expected to step down. That's supposed to be the sunlight into the power of government. If ministers (particularly the PM) can avoid questions (which Johnson did aplenty during his initial pre-election stint), or lie without consequence, there are no checks on government.

As it is, the person doing the inquiry has had her remit set by the PM, and reports to the PM before the PM releases the report at his discretion. Any inquiries as to whether or not a minister has deceived Parliament has to go through the PM. The head of the police force overlooking all this is the daughter of the PM's tutor. The individual police officer in charge of the Met's investigation is the brother of the health minister.

If we take away consequences from PMQs as well, what checks are there on government?

[edyzmedieval]

Answering questions in Parliament is supposed to be the most effective check on the power of the government, with ministers (particularly the PM) required to answer questions. They are expected to tell the truth, and if they lie, they are expected to step down. That's supposed to be the sunlight into the power of government. If ministers (particularly the PM) can avoid questions (which Johnson did aplenty during his initial pre-election stint), or lie without consequence, there are no checks on government.

As it is, the person doing the inquiry has had her remit set by the PM, and reports to the PM before the PM releases the report at his discretion. Any inquiries as to whether or not a minister has deceived Parliament has to go through the PM. The head of the police force overlooking all this is the daughter of the PM's tutor. The individual police officer in charge of the Met's investigation is the brother of the health minister.

If we take away consequences from PMQs as well, what checks are there on government?

And this is where, again, I agree with you 100%.

If there are no strong checks and balances between branches of government, then democracy in that country is flawed and not working properly. If you take away the consequences, then what's the point, if someone can do as they please. But why is the question barrage directed with this drunken party in mind, and not with Ireland talking of Troubles again (to give an example)? Brexit is an extremely polarising topic, so we can ignore that for a second, but talks of Troubles starting again should make both sides of the backbench shudder and yell in horror.

[rory_20_uk]

Which, unfortunately, proves my point. People are upset because someone government mandated broke lockdown measures and of course, the ugly optics of enforcing harsh measures and then not following them. Which is entirely understandable and a very fair point.

Why is it such an uproar, particularly now? To an outsider that is subscribed to a dozen paying international news outlets, the constant bombardment of stories about the drunken booze parties is bizarre. There's a bazillion other important issues that deserve an uproar, such as the breakdown of relations with the EU, bad trade relations, shortages of medical equipment, fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in, wealth disparity, acrimonious political divide, Scotland threatening to break away, Ireland talking again of Troubles... issues which have a huge impact in both societal level and personal level.

That deserves an uproar, a constant one even, these are heavy heavy issues which both sides should care about.

And yet... we're talking about a booze party. And the fact that they sent for more wine. Which many other people have done, breaking the rules as well. Endless scores of politicians have broken rules and very few have been in the constant news over a party like this.

Please, I am all open to hearing ideas and opinions, because to me - as an outsider, but one who is glued to international & national politics 24/7 and who even works in politics in a way - it is odd. I feel like I'm not fully understand.ing

Let's go through the list:

The breakdown of relations with the EU - for a relationship to break down requires both parties to cause it to do so. Half the country blames the EU and the other half the UK for doing it in the first place. This has been going on since the vote.
Bad trade relations - these also require two parties to agree.
Shortages of medical equipment - yes, I agree that this one is very odd across the whole of the West. I think it is because it is both the incompetence of Civil Servants as well as politicians which means they're covering each other's back and making it out to be a completely unforeseeable, global issue, as opposed to out of date emergency supplies and incompetence.
Fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in - Fuel in the UK is in the hands of private companies. So sending the Army in was solving a problem caused by private enterprise (apparently fuel stations are on average 40% full of fuel as that is most efficient)
Wealth disparity - not new and the wealthy continuously blame the poor for not trying hard enough or just ignoring it. Making it the middle class vs the poor as opposed to who has the bulk of the money
Acrimonious political divide - given the chamber in the Commons is two sword lengths apart, this isn't new.
Scotland threatening to break away - don't they always? I wish they would. Who cares?
Ireland talking again of Troubles - Terrorists talking about starting terrorism again. I'm not sure how that's the governments fault.

Most of the list are big picture, technical things that are generally long term, extremely complex and have no clear sides with no one party having complete agency. Holding boozy parties is short term, very simple, has clear sides and one party has compete agency and chose to break the very rules they set which also affected many other people.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

And this is where, again, I agree with you 100%.

If there are no strong checks and balances between branches of government, then democracy in that country is flawed and not working properly. If you take away the consequences, then what's the point, if someone can do as they please. But why is the question barrage directed with this drunken party in mind, and not with Ireland talking of Troubles again (to give an example)? Brexit is an extremely polarising topic, so we can ignore that for a second, but talks of Troubles starting again should make both sides of the backbench shudder and yell in horror.

Democracy in the UK was never really intended for all, no more than it was in the USA or Athens - so it is working exactly as it is supposed to with as a rule a vote every 5 years or so to demonstrate how we are all enfranchised as well as some other figureheads we can choose to mix things up a bit. Those with the leavers to power have the invisible leavers which work now as they did a few hundred years ago. True, those with the power has morphed over time, but it steadfastly remains outside the grasp of most people.

"The Troubles" starting again would be a group of criminals choosing to commit terrorist acts - if there was a hard border across Ireland the checkpoints would be attacked - phrased as if that would be the fault of the UK for building them. Or more broadly two groups with diametrically opposing views since the Unionists would also start killing people - mainly the British as well for leaving them. I think - what passes for logic in the minds of irish terrorists isn't clear.

Rather than the terrorists being castigated by the EU, USA etc as y'know they're Terrorists for some reason (oh yes - votes) the USA tends to almost look fondly at this plucky bunch of killers and the EU seems to just ignore it all together.

Elsewhere and previously such situations have been "solved" by drawing a line and then forcibly deporting all the people from the area (Greece and Turkey in 1919 and Germany post WW2) If the end game is that Norther Ireland returns to the welcoming bosom of the rest of Ireland then that's fine with me, especially if the Unionists start planting bombs in Dublin rather than the IRA in London and Manchester.

So, apart from yelling in horror, what can back benchers or indeed the government do regarding a group of Terrorists? Send in the SAS?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

(Rory) Stewart recalled his unsuccessful campaign to be Tory leader while speaking to GMB, and said he would tell voters on doorsteps not to support Johnson because “he’s completely incapable of focusing on detail, that he will be a terrible prime minister”.

However, Stewart added: “The answer was always, ‘yes, but he can win, he’s very popular’.”

He continued: “And I think the time has come in British politics to reconsider that and accept that maybe there are things that matter apart from your ability to win elections.

“And one of those things is can you run the country well.

“Maybe people should vote for politicians who might not get such huge majorities but can actually do a good job of running things.

“Lying is a very, very bad thing in a leader because you can’t get the civil service or anyone to get behind your policies.”


Lol.

[Furunculus]

Lol.

The problem with Rory's argument is that we had already experienced the hyper-managerial eficiency of May and her dynamic duo.

Which was not an insignificant accomplishment, and not an insignificant factor in her own leadership victory. People were genuinely quite impressed that she had survived and thrived in the home office for five+ years, a dept that is famously branded "the death of political ambition". Her tenure in the Home Office faced a number of difficult social problems, that almost always result in unpopular policy the Minister then has to own.

But managerial efficiency - being on top of the detail - was not a solution to the problem of brexit.

The problem was simply too massive for any one person to be 'on top of', and the divides too large for a mere manager to paper over.
This is why you have Chairman, to manage the social temperature of the 'organisation', and for better or worse that is what people hoped boris might achieve in the ruins of May's failure.
And, as an explicitly 'not a detail person' he had built a reputation in london as an effective delegator who brought in good people and gave their head to get on and do what he wanted them to do.

None of the above speaks to boris's wider suitability for the job of prime-minister, but the idea it just needed a "focus on detail" manager has been tested to destruction.

[Pannonian]

With all the excuses of "Lets' wait for Sue Gray's report", her report is now delayed, and the Met have asked her to make minimal reference to the events in Downing Street. Yup, her report into the goings on should make minimal reference to what she's supposed to be reporting on, and we shouldn't draw any conclusions until this delayed, minimal report comes out.

They're not even pretending to follow the rules any more. Still, they win elections, which is all you need in a democracy.

[Furunculus]

With all the excuses of "Lets' wait for Sue Gray's report", her report is now delayed, and the Met have asked her to make minimal reference to the events in Downing Street. Yup, her report into the goings on should make minimal reference to what she's supposed to be reporting on, and we shouldn't draw any conclusions until this delayed, minimal report comes out.

They're not even pretending to follow the rules any more. Still, they win elections, which is all you need in a democracy.

with the quoted text above and the the suggestion that "they're note even pretending to follow the rules any more" you seem to be drawing a direct inference between me and a conspiracy in the the deep-state to pervert the course of justice.

i'm flattered, but i'm really a nobody, and the truth might be a lot more prosaic:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/28/why-on-earth-would-the-metropolitan-police-ask-sue-gray-to-redact-key-parts-of-her-independent-report/
https://twitter.com/BarristersHorse/status/1487298083272675330

in contrast to the implication above, i did in fact say:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053827306&viewfull=1#post2053827306



If he has lied to parliament i imagine there will be sifgnificant presure for him to step down, and i will support it.

[Pannonian]

A "FRAT house" atmosphere in Boris Johnson's flat and laxness around security led to restrictions on where top-secret papers could be viewed, it has been claimed.

Highly classified material was left lying around in 11 Downing Street where it could be read by any visitor, reported The Times.

Sue Gray, who is investigating lockdown parties held in Downing Street, found that some of Carrie Johnson’s friends had access to a Pin code giving access to the private flat above 11 Downing Street, according to claims being made in Whitehall.

Then top adviser Dominic Cummings is said to have found “STRAP” material lying around the flat in early 2020 – highly classified documents which only named individuals can view often requiring security clearance above Top Secret.

The papers can easily be spotted as they are printed on pink paper, and were also allegedly found at the upstairs quarters in Chequers, the Prime Minister’s country house.

Cummings and Johnson’s principal private secretary Martin Reynolds responded by having Johnson sign sensitive papers in his office before they were returned to a safe location.

One source told The Times that Johnson’s ministerial box with crucial documents was left outside his flat’s door on Saturdays, “often” from the morning until evening.

Another described the scene in 11 Downing Street where Carrie entertained friends as “a frat house”.

A former No 10 official said: “Cummings was dismayed that very highly classified STRAP material was not kept in the PM’s box but was lying around the flat, and upstairs in Chequers, in such a way that Carrie could see it and potentially her journalist friends and other guests when they were invited to the flat and Chequers. There had been a series of leaks of national security issues.”

A spokesman for No 10 did not say whether the extra security measures around the papers were still in place.

He said: “We do not comment on security matters.”

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19885124.fears-top-secret-papers-left-strewn-boris-johnson-revealed/

Wouldn't this be grounds for summary sacking in any other job, let alone the job with supposedly the highest security rating in the country?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wouldn't this be grounds for summary sacking in any other job, let alone the job with supposedly the highest security rating in the country?

One of my wife's favorite complaints. Private sector folk working with classified information can end up fired or even jailed for failing to secure classified materials. Our leadership cadres, by contrast, get to read globs of it and even leak some of it to the press and seldom if ever receive even a reprimand.

More equal pigs and all that....

[Pannonian]

One of my wife's favorite complaints. Private sector folk working with classified information can end up fired or even jailed for failing to secure classified materials. Our leadership cadres, by contrast, get to read globs of it and even leak some of it to the press and seldom if ever receive even a reprimand.

More equal pigs and all that....

The problem is no one even knows if it's been leaked. At least a leak is by definition controlled. The classified materials were left lying in the open while his wife's friends had access to areas where the materials had been lying in the open. Under this PM, state secrets have been a buffet, where you help yourself.

It should be noted that, when Johnson was foreign secretary under May, the security services warned May not to give her foreign secretary the usual access to secure information, as he couldn't be trusted.

[Montmorency]

Which, unfortunately, proves my point. People are upset because someone government mandated broke lockdown measures and of course, the ugly optics of enforcing harsh measures and then not following them. Which is entirely understandable and a very fair point.

Why is it such an uproar, particularly now? To an outsider that is subscribed to a dozen paying international news outlets, the constant bombardment of stories about the drunken booze parties is bizarre. There's a bazillion other important issues that deserve an uproar, such as the breakdown of relations with the EU, bad trade relations, shortages of medical equipment, fuel shortages when you had to bring the Army in, wealth disparity, acrimonious political divide, Scotland threatening to break away, Ireland talking again of Troubles... issues which have a huge impact in both societal level and personal level.

That deserves an uproar, a constant one even, these are heavy heavy issues which both sides should care about.

And yet... we're talking about a booze party. And the fact that they sent for more wine. Which many other people have done, breaking the rules as well. Endless scores of politicians have broken rules and very few have been in the constant news over a party like this.

Please, I am all open to hearing ideas and opinions, because to me - as an outsider, but one who is glued to international & national politics 24/7 and who even works in politics in a way - it is odd. I feel like I'm not fully understand.ing


There's a kernel of truth (https://twitter.com/evanewashington/status/1481261677958025221) to it.


every time i hear about UK current events it's incomprehensibly bonkers. it's always like "Secretary of Finance Lord Billy Frumpton is under fire for allegedly eating toffee"


But I would expect the long strand of reporting on general Conservative malgovernance, also passim, played a role in sensitizing the British public. It would be one thing for a government's approval to crash over wounded decorum, but it's never just one thing.

My knowledge of the world suggests that discrete events can't linger in polled public memory for long however, and two years is a very long time.


On the subject of British institutions, perhaps this is accountable to my terrible ignorance of British history, but I would ask to be updated on the concrete record of the Lords and monarch acting as government ombudsmen without being ombudsmen.

I can't think of any theoretical mechanism of how that would operate - the purifying aura of the essential nobleness of the aristocracy? My understanding of the universal process in societal proscription of corruption is that changes in law and culture must combine with the establishment of explicit anti-corruption authorities to oversee government and taxation, a process unsurprisingly familiar (http://www.transparency.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/Old-Corruption-Web-Mark-Knights-Case-Study_0.pdf) to Britain.

The connection to Lords or monarch remains unclear to me, whereas you have on the record such cases as the slave-interested Lords leaning into their conflict of interest to strike down dozens of parliamentary campaigns to curtail British slavery over half a century.

What would the Lords or Queen be doing about Tories stealing government money had they more, unspecified, authority? By default the norm is, if one enjoys vulgar cynicism, them all being in on it, but again assuming the interest to act as Special Individuals, what is the mechanism by which the Lords or the Queen would act against malfeasance? The Queen has self-preservation (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59916864) as an imperative, but neither have good government.

Was there ever a past mechanism, no-longer-extant, that could be imputed to the British system?

It should be more than the enormous power of persuasion (https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/work-of-the-house-of-lords/what-the-lords-does/) the House lof Lords currently attributes to itself.


Holding government to account
Members scrutinise the work of the government during question time and debates in the chamber, where government ministers must respond. In the 2016-17 session, members held the government to account with 7,380 oral and written questions and 154 debates on topical issues and public policy ranging from the role of libraries and independent bookshops to the impact of Brexit on the NHS and social care. The public is welcome to visit and sit in the galleries overlooking the chamber during business.

What has the Lords changed?
Making a difference in recent years, the House of Lords has persuaded the government to make policy changes on a diverse range of issues. These include:

delaying cuts to tax credits until protections for low paid workers are in place
relocating unaccompanied refugee children from Europe to the UK
safeguards for immigration-related detention of vulnerable people, particularly pregnant women
electronic voting for industrial action ballots
protecting landlord and tenant money in a client money protection scheme for property agents
banning smoking in cars that carry children
ensuring that children with special educational needs are afforded the same legal protection in academies as in other mainstream schools.



On the other hand, the fact that the public gets to expose, probably avert or diminish, many episodes of ongoing corruption feels preferable to a system in which nothing rises to the surface unless it happens to impinge on someone else's racket and thereby violate the elite Omerta. Even Israel somehow managed to evict an authoritarian goon and is finishing up the fraud, bribery, etc. trial against him, and the Israeli electorate and parliament are at least as diseased as any.

The stability and success of political systems is well-known to be built on citizen-built and secured public institutions, and the impulse to succor in the bosom of technocratic/aristocratic 'virtue' is more likely a failure state, not a solution.



Ultimately the best defense against corruption or other antisocial behavior in the public realm is for it not to happen in the first place.

[Pannonian]

There's a kernel of truth (https://twitter.com/evanewashington/status/1481261677958025221) to it.




But I would expect the long strand of reporting on general Conservative malgovernance, also passim, played a role in sensitizing the British public. It would be one thing for a government's approval to crash over wounded decorum, but it's never just one thing.

My knowledge of the world suggests that discrete events can't linger in polled public memory for long however, and two years is a very long time.


On the subject of British institutions, perhaps this is accountable to my terrible ignorance of British history, but I would ask to be updated on the concrete record of the Lords and monarch acting as government ombudsmen without being ombudsmen.

I can't think of any theoretical mechanism of how that would operate - the purifying aura of the essential nobleness of the aristocracy? My understanding of the universal process in societal proscription of corruption is that changes in law and culture must combine with the establishment of explicit anti-corruption authorities to oversee government and taxation, a process unsurprisingly familiar (http://www.transparency.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/Old-Corruption-Web-Mark-Knights-Case-Study_0.pdf) to Britain.

The connection to Lords or monarch remains unclear to me, whereas you have on the record such cases as the slave-interested Lords leaning into their conflict of interest to strike down dozens of parliamentary campaigns to curtail British slavery over half a century.

What would the Lords or Queen be doing about Tories stealing government money had they more, unspecified, authority? By default the norm is, if one enjoys vulgar cynicism, them all being in on it, but again assuming the interest to act as Special Individuals, what is the mechanism by which the Lords or the Queen would act against malfeasance? The Queen has self-preservation (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59916864) as an imperative, but neither have good government.

Was there ever a past mechanism, no-longer-extant, that could be imputed to the British system?

It should be more than the enormous power of persuasion (https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/work-of-the-house-of-lords/what-the-lords-does/) the House lof Lords currently attributes to itself.





On the other hand, the fact that the public gets to expose, probably avert or diminish, many episodes of ongoing corruption feels preferable to a system in which nothing rises to the surface unless it happens to impinge on someone else's racket and thereby violate the elite Omerta. Even Israel somehow managed to evict an authoritarian goon and is finishing up the fraud, bribery, etc. trial against him, and the Israeli electorate and parliament are at least as diseased as any.

The stability and success of political systems is well-known to be built on citizen-built and secured public institutions, and the impulse to succor in the bosom of technocratic/aristocratic 'virtue' is more likely a failure state, not a solution.



Ultimately the best defense against corruption or other antisocial behavior in the public realm is for it not to happen in the first place.

The Lords aren't the aristocracy. They used to be, until they were cleared out under Blair. There are some left, but not many, and chiefly those who are motivated to be involved in politics. The Lords is overwhelmingly appointees by the Commons government.

The recent record, ie. under the Tory government since 2010, sees the Lords as nearly always on the progressive side of the government. While we have a Trumpian government in the Commons, the Lords is politically somewhere around the Democrats/liberal Republicans.

As for what mechanism the Lords has for ensuring good governance: a belief in good government. I've bemoaned how the Tories jettison custom and abuse the system. The Lords still believes in responsibility and holding the country together. The One Nationers are still there, finding more common cause with the opposition than they do the Commons government.

[Pannonian]

Is there any good reason why Johnson is refusing to commit to publishing the full report? Other than because he can, that is.

[Pannonian]

Hah! The PM previously refused to answer questions because the report was undergoing, now refuses to answer because there is an ongoing police investigation. The civil servant is not allowed to write too much in her report because there is an ongoing investigation. And the police have promised that the investigation won't take more than a year.

It must be nice for a PM not to have to answer questions because he can hide behind his mates. Do we even need checks and balances any more?

[spmetla]

Assuming he does resign at some point who would be the likely Tory nominee for PM? I assume that there won't be demand for fresh elections just now.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/who-could-take-over-boris-22877621

Chancellor Rishi Sunak is the current favourite to be the next prime minister, and has been for some time now.

Earlier this month, a poll of Conservative members suggested nearly half believe Mr Sunak would make a better leader.

The YouGov poll of 1,005 Tory members for Sky News suggested 46 per cent believe the chancellor would be a better leader and could win more seats at the next general election.

After the PM issued his apology for attending the No 10 garden party, Mr Sunak's hours of silence were seen by some as a suggestion that he was not fully behind the prime minister.

What do you folks think of this guy? As an American I've got zero clue as to who he is.

[rory_20_uk]

Dear old Rishi is a man with a brilliant career in Finance for many years and he's done a decent job in the Treasury. His wife's family is worth hundreds of millions.

I think he'd be a much better PM. But then I think a random person in the UK would probably be a better PM. It took a man such as Corbyn to propel Boris to high office.

My only concern is that he hasn't proved himself outside of Finance, that he is where he would excel and he would almost be "wasted" as PM. But which politician doesn't want the top job if they could grab it? He might not have proved himself, but he seems erudite, affable and a positive step in the right direction.

I still think on balance I'd rather have Sir Kier though.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Is libel applicable in Parliament? Johnson has made an allegation which factcheckers have established is baseless, which relevant sources have called a disgrace to Parliament and the office of PM, and which Johnson's own advisors asked him not to make. So the PM is guilty of lying to Parliament, hypocrisy in setting rules that he doesn't follow himself, and now libel as well. Does his office protect him from everything?

[Montmorency]

The Lords aren't the aristocracy. They used to be, until they were cleared out under Blair. There are some left, but not many, and chiefly those who are motivated to be involved in politics. The Lords is overwhelmingly appointees by the Commons government.

The recent record, ie. under the Tory government since 2010, sees the Lords as nearly always on the progressive side of the government. While we have a Trumpian government in the Commons, the Lords is politically somewhere around the Democrats/liberal Republicans.

As for what mechanism the Lords has for ensuring good governance: a belief in good government. I've bemoaned how the Tories jettison custom and abuse the system. The Lords still believes in responsibility and holding the country together. The One Nationers are still there, finding more common cause with the opposition than they do the Commons government.

My commentary regarded the yearning toward aristocratic governance. I didn't say that the Lords are nobility. But speaking of them, what is your expectation for the future of the House of Lords in mitigating Conservative government? What if the members come to act differently than you prefer? And what role does or should your new Supreme Court have in all this going forward?


Hah! The PM previously refused to answer questions because the report was undergoing, now refuses to answer because there is an ongoing police investigation. The civil servant is not allowed to write too much in her report because there is an ongoing investigation. And the police have promised that the investigation won't take more than a year.

It must be nice for a PM not to have to answer questions because he can hide behind his mates. Do we even need checks and balances any more?

The report can't be revealed because it's being audited by the IRS.

[Pannonian]

My commentary regarded the yearning toward aristocratic governance. I didn't say that the Lords are nobility. But speaking of them, what is your expectation for the future of the House of Lords in mitigating Conservative government? What if the members come to act differently than you prefer? And what role does or should your new Supreme Court have in all this going forward?

The report can't be revealed because it's being audited by the IRS.

The Lords won't be acting radically differently in the near to medium term because its members are there for life. There won't be a drastic turnover to change its character. So I can judge its future behaviour by its past behaviour. In the past decade, which will have involved the same people who will be involved in the future, it has been on the progressive and moderate side of the Tory government, and has pretty much always been on the side of dealing with factual argument, precedent, legality both domestically and internationally, and just about all I'd expect from good non-partisan governance.

During this period, the democratically elected Commons has been breaking agreements all over the place, lied to get into power, and with this particular PM, has been lying in Parliament as a matter of course.

And you want me to get all het up about the undemocratic Lords.

BTW, our wonderful media which has spawned our beloved democratically elected government called dissenting judges "Enemies of the People (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline))", a few months after one of our MPs was murdered whilst campaigning. IIRC a poster dismissed this headline as unrepresentative of the government. Some time after that dismissal, the government (under the current PM) employed the journalist as communications director. So that kind of political intimidation of the judiciary is approved of by this government. The question is not what kind of role I think the judiciary should have going forward. The question is what kind of role will the judiciary be allowed by the government going forward. Since the government has the authority of the people, whereas the judiciary only has the authority of the law.

[Furunculus]

Thought this was quite good:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/02/01/boris-johnsons-luck-enemies-tactics-backfire/



Gosh, Boris Johnson is a lucky man. If only his opponents both inside and outside his party were more disciplined and less self-righteous, they would be much deadlier. Yesterday in Parliament, the Prime Minister benefited greatly from the double apparatus of civil service and police inquiries which his enemies had called for because they believed it would discredit him.

Sue Gray’s masterly report made disapproving noises – “serious failure”, the need for “significant learning”, “excessive consumption of alcohol” – but announced it could not go into any specifics “without detriment to the overall balance of the findings”. She just had to wait for the police, she said.

This made it easy for Boris to say he was very sorry without having to say what for, to accept Ms Gray’s report “in full”, when there was nothing full about it, and to get back to “the issues that matter to the British people” (a phrase beloved of politicians when in a tight spot).

So poor Sir Keir Starmer was trapped. He could not mount the sort of forensic attack for which his legal career prepared him, because the evidence is locked up by the police. He therefore attempted an assassination of Boris’s character. There are plenty of takers for that, of course. But when you attack a man for things you claim he has done “all his life” (Sir Keir’s words), you cease to persuade waverers and become merely insulting. As Tony Blair recalled after watching Mrs Thatcher survive an attack by Neil Kinnock in the great 1986 debate over the Westland crisis, “She thought the guillotine was going to come. Instead she got the reprieve.”

Whether Boris actually deserves the reprieve is a question which clearly still puzzles some of his colleagues; but yesterday he survived, and looked slightly stronger than before.

[Pannonian]

There you go. A right wing piece on how the government have locked up the process, and thinking how amusing it is rather than identifying it as an abuse of the system.

[Pannonian]

And the PM admits that what he said in the Commons to smear the Labour leader had no factual basis whatsoever, after several days of his spokesperson saying that he stood by what he said. Probably because he knows (and everyone else does), that if he said it outside Parliament, he'd have his butt sued off for libel. Still, it's done his job, and the right wing lunatic conspiracy theory is out in the mainstream.

Meanwhile, the leader of the SNP's Westminster contingent is kicked out of the Commons for calling the PM a liar (something which Johnson's previous employers have all known and sacked him for). Parliament's rules were designed when it was assumed that all members were gentlemen who may be mistaken, but would not knowingly lie. How does it deal with a PM and party who will knowingly lie whilst hiding behind Parliament's privileges, as long as it gets votes?

[Furunculus]

Boris's brain resigns over the slur:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/exclusive-boris-s-policy-chief-quits-over-jimmy-savile-slur

[Pannonian]

In Northern Ireland, the First Minister has resigned due to the UK government's failure on Brexit. Jeffery Donaldson says Boris Johnson promised him there would be a revised deal with Brussels in 3 short sharp weeks of negotiations. 4 months, and it was time to act.

Oh, and the bloke in charge of stats on UK crime has rebuked the PM for misleading use of stats in PMQs. Crime has not decreased as the PM claims, it has increased.

And the headcount is 4 so far tonight. The policy head says she resigned over his slur, but the current agreed line amongst Tory MPs (as someone screenshotted on Whatsapp) is that Johnson is being decisive in firing his aides.

[Furunculus]

The policy head says she resigned over his slur, but the current agreed line amongst Tory MPs (as someone screenshotted on Whatsapp) is that Johnson is being decisive in firing his aides.

you don't fire the likes of Munira Mirza - she was the brains of the outfit.
the only sensible view is that she resigned, and did so for the reasons she stated in her resignation letter.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/munira-mirza-dougie-smith-powerful-couple-downing-street/


"Mirza, Boris Johnson’s policy chief and, some would say, his political muse, co-wrote the Conservative Party manifesto that delivered a landslide win for Johnson (also killing the Corbynite dream of a socialist Britain) and shapes the Government decisions that dictate everything from your liberties to your taxes."

[rory_20_uk]

you don't fire the likes of Munira Mirza - she was the brains of the outfit.
the only sensible view is that she resigned, and did so for the reasons she stated in her resignation letter.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/munira-mirza-dougie-smith-powerful-couple-downing-street/

If she's the brains she'd rather the narrative be she resigned over principle rather than was fired over attending a series of parties.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Apparently there is concrete evidence that there was a party at Downing Street and that the PM was actively participating, which makes his 8th December denial a case of knowingly lying to Parliament, with documentary evidence. Not just any old evidence either. Photos taken by his official photographer. Who the hell has an official photographer?

The chancellor was there too.

[Montmorency]

you don't fire the likes of Munira Mirza - she was the brains of the outfit.

Johnson fired his other brains, Dominic Cummings.

[Pannonian]

It's just occurred to me, watching the latest Jonathan Pie, that our Lords is mostly Commons appointees, while the leader of the elected Commons is the descendant of a Turkish aristocrat.

[Furunculus]

Johnson fired his other brains, Dominic Cummings.

i think we can all agree that Cummings is in a class all of his own.

brilliant, yes, but a loose cannon with no concept of discretion.

[Pannonian]

i think we can all agree that Cummings is in a class all of his own.

brilliant, yes, but a loose cannon with no concept of discretion.

Maybe not brilliant, but our PM is also known to be a loose cannon with no concept of discretion. The security services advised our then PM (Theresa May) not to give her foreign secretary the normal access to state secrets, as he couldn't be trusted.

[Pannonian]

Keir Starmer rescued by police after being mobbed by anti-vaxxers outside Parliament (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-keir-starmer-rescued-police-26163353)


Officers were forced to step in and take the Labour leader to safety as the crowd shouted abuse and false claims about Jimmy Savile

This is the kind of politics the PM has brought to the UK. Despite people urging him not to use that attack line because it was false. How long will Johnson remain PM?

[Pannonian]

The PM's new director of communications is a Huawei lobbyist, who's directly lobbied no.10 before for that company. Security clearance for that level normally takes weeks even when accelerated, but it's been waived for someone who works for a company that the security services deem a threat to the country.

Do people really hate the EU that much that they'd rather sell out the country to China than to have any kind of links with Europe?

[rory_20_uk]

The PM's new director of communications is a Huawei lobbyist, who's directly lobbied no.10 before for that company. Security clearance for that level normally takes weeks even when accelerated, but it's been waived for someone who works for a company that the security services deem a threat to the country.

Do people really hate the EU that much that they'd rather sell out the country to China than to have any kind of links with Europe?

The first paragraph - completely valid. Not exactly a new problem - and one that has not been addressed for decades. We celebrate the Queen being present for 70 years. But she was present for this entire time. Perhaps she might not have been able to stop the rot - but as things stand it appears she hasn't even tried.

Second paragraph - aaaaaand you're back.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Ian Paisley Jr: "Maybe the Conservative and Unionist Party is actually a nationalist party. An English nationalist Party."

Ian Paisley Jr, DUP MP, speaking on the lack of concern of the British PM for the divided Northern Ireland community.

[Furunculus]

Keir Starmer rescued by police after being mobbed by anti-vaxxers outside Parliament (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-keir-starmer-rescued-police-26163353)



This is the kind of politics the PM has brought to the UK. Despite people urging him not to use that attack line because it was false. How long will Johnson remain PM?

we can accept that it was a crass remark without needing to jump the shark in suggesting that he coordinated it with 'the fascist right', otherwise we'll have to blame Boris for the same thing happening to Gove'y last year:

https://twitter.com/PetroNicolaides/status/1491014495979728897

[Pannonian]

we can accept that it was a crass remark without needing to jump the shark in suggesting that he coordinated it with 'the fascist right', otherwise we'll have to blame Boris for the same thing happening to Gove'y last year:

https://twitter.com/PetroNicolaides/status/1491014495979728897

It's what insiders, including "Boris's Brain", said happened. Should we dismiss these primary sources?

[Pannonian]

New Brexit Opportunities Minister is major shareholder in company that would be a major beneficiary of policies to be decided by the Brexit Opportunities Minister.

Cutting out the middle man. Don't need lobbyists if you're directly channelling money to yourself.

[Montmorency]

It's what insiders, including "Boris's Brain", said happened. Should we dismiss these primary sources?

I'm pretty sure the paeadothilliae (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/why-are-right-wing-conspiracies-so-obsessed-with-pedophilia/) meme is of American origin. Unfortunately our brain worms have contaminated the far-rights of the world over the past few years (e.g. the popularity of Q-Anon among the right in Germany and Japan.)

[Pannonian]

I'm pretty sure the paeadothilliae (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/why-are-right-wing-conspiracies-so-obsessed-with-pedophilia/) meme is of American origin. Unfortunately our brain worms have contaminated the far-rights of the world over the past few years (e.g. the popularity of Q-Anon among the right in Germany and Japan.)

Our far rights used to hark back to the European far right: fascists, Nazis, and so on. It was easy to discredit these hankerers after a vision that we'd fought against. Nowadays, our far right looks to the American far right for inspiration. Their supporters dismiss any description of them as far right by pointing out that they are nothing like neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, and so on. No they're not. It's Q-Anon, Proud Boys, Trumpians, etc. that are their model.

[Furunculus]

This is really good - well worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g75OIszvopk

Complicated stuff - definately not reducable to a soundbite.

[Pannonian]

And the Tories' Attorney General (their top legal advisor) confirms that democracy trumps law. If the PM is found to have broken the law, we should recognise that democracy is the foundation of law, she says.

"I would just say that fundamental to the rule of law is also democracy: and I'm very proud to be supporting this prime minister, a prime minister who's honoured democracy by delivering Brexit."

So delivering Brexit absolves the PM from breaking the law if he's found to have broken it, says the Tories' top legal expert. I wonder if rory rolls his eyes whenever the Tories hold up Brexit as a thing to be proud of, whatever the question actually was. Or whether the mockery only pertains the other way.

[rory_20_uk]

And the Tories' Attorney General (their top legal advisor) confirms that democracy trumps law. If the PM is found to have broken the law, we should recognise that democracy is the foundation of law, she says.

"I would just say that fundamental to the rule of law is also democracy: and I'm very proud to be supporting this prime minister, a prime minister who's honoured democracy by delivering Brexit."

So delivering Brexit absolves the PM from breaking the law if he's found to have broken it, says the Tories' top legal expert. I wonder if rory rolls his eyes whenever the Tories hold up Brexit as a thing to be proud of, whatever the question actually was. Or whether the mockery only pertains the other way.

It is possible to share the same view as someone whilst viewing them with contempt. As I've said repeatedly, I was for Brexit but not for the Tories; equally there is nothing in the EU that would have stopped Boris doing what he's done.

Politicians failing to answer questions is hardly a new phenomenon, nor the senior lawyer making the law fit the demands of the PM - as Tony Blair's stooge showed us.

As we celebrate 70 years of the Queen passively allowing the rot to worsen I do wonder why living a long time is more highly thought of than trying to make the state fu ctuon better.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

It is possible to share the same view as someone whilst viewing them with contempt. As I've said repeatedly, I was for Brexit but not for the Tories; equally there is nothing in the EU that would have stopped Boris doing what he's done.

Politicians failing to answer questions is hardly a new phenomenon, nor the senior lawyer making the law fit the demands of the PM - as Tony Blair's stooge showed us.

As we celebrate 70 years of the Queen passively allowing the rot to worsen I do wonder why living a long time is more highly thought of than trying to make the state fu ctuon better.

~:smoking:

I didn't say that the EU would have stopped Johnson from doing what he was doing. I merely pointed out that you rolled your eyes when I said that, in the eyes of the Tories, Brexit justifies everything. I didn't make everything about Brexit, as you were implying. I was pointing to how the Tories think, and the AG Braverman demonstrated in her own words what I was saying. Law is trumped by the will of the people, which is founded on Brexit.

[rory_20_uk]

That is what one person said, not what a judge found. A soundbite, not a ruling.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

That is what one person said, not what a judge found. A soundbite, not a ruling.

~:smoking:

You mean governments should not respect the law until it's imposed on them by the courts? One would expect governments to work within the law, not do whatever they think they can get away with until grown ups force them to recognise that they can't get away with it any more. Especially since the one person saying it isn't any random person, but supposedly the top legal brain in government. If it's ok for the chief legal advisor to advocate doing whatever they can until the courts stop them, I don't see how it's any better than what Giuliani and co were doing.

[rory_20_uk]

You mean governments should not respect the law until it's imposed on them by the courts? One would expect governments to work within the law, not do whatever they think they can get away with until grown ups force them to recognise that they can't get away with it any more. Especially since the one person saying it isn't any random person, but supposedly the top legal brain in government. If it's ok for the chief legal advisor to advocate doing whatever they can until the courts stop them, I don't see how it's any better than what Giuliani and co were doing.

As I have been bemoaning for some time this is surely a point where the Monarchy should step in given every other part of our bodge job of a system has failed.

Failing that the police should investigate and arrest if required. Which - with extreme reluctance - they are.

So I yes it is a media statement and holds no weight. Does anyone believe them?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

As I have been bemoaning for some time this is surely a point where the Monarchy should step in given every other part of our bodge job of a system has failed.

Failing that the police should investigate and arrest if required. Which - with extreme reluctance - they are.

So I yes it is a media statement and holds no weight. Does anyone believe them?

~:smoking:

I hope the system corrects itself and the British voters start believing that the top politicians should be held accountable. The problem is I see the US far right has brought their politics here, gaming the system by solidifying a base and then manipulating everything surrounding the democracy to get enough votes to win, and then using that to further manipulate the system and so on.

I think one of the things that needs to be looked at is the right wing news media, which have pretty much completely abandoned journalistic standards, and strengthening the BBC to question the establishment without fear of extinction. If the Tories, who have shown themselves completely unbound by ethics, have complete support from most of the right wing media in their dissemination of lies, we don't have an informed electorate. And a democracy without an informed electorate isn't a functioning democracy.

[Pannonian]

More from the top legal mind in the UK government:

"our Parliament must retrieve power ceded to another place – the courts" (https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/01/suella-braverman-people-we-elect-must-take-back-control-from-people-we-dont-who-include-the-judges.html) - Suella Braverman, currently Attorney General.

Another gem (https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1479470007113371654?). Braverman defends the democratic credibility of the European Research Group, pointing out that it's funded by public money and everything. She then refuses to reveal who's in it, meaning the ERG is funded by public money but is not publicly accountable. According to our current Attorney General.

Does accountability and democracy begin and end with the size of the Commons majority?

[rory_20_uk]

More from the top legal mind in the UK government:

"our Parliament must retrieve power ceded to another place – the courts" (https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/01/suella-braverman-people-we-elect-must-take-back-control-from-people-we-dont-who-include-the-judges.html) - Suella Braverman, currently Attorney General.

Another gem (https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1479470007113371654?). Braverman defends the democratic credibility of the European Research Group, pointing out that it's funded by public money and everything. She then refuses to reveal who's in it, meaning the ERG is funded by public money but is not publicly accountable. According to our current Attorney General.

Does accountability and democracy begin and end with the size of the Commons majority?

Sadly she seems too knowledgeable for this to be ignorance. And is more Operation Red Meat as opposed to reality - the Courts can only rule on the law. If the Commons want they can make new laws. Y'know, as they do when the GCHQ etc break the law, they appeal it and in the meantime pass another law.

I would even go as far as to say with our "unwritten" hodgepodge of common law, it is an accepted norm that the interpretation of existing laws does slowly drift over time - decades ago swearing at the police would be a crime, now such language is common enough that this (generally) is not itself an offence; [insert group] shaming, however, is increasingly being found to be a crime; where free speech ends and offense of other starts is another arena where the courts have given their view but of course the Government is within its rights to specify more concretely.

In essence, this whole issue is basically a symptom of the Commons passing poorly thought out and poorly written laws over a course of years often with more eyes on headlines than what exactly they will do or how they fit with existing laws.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Boris Johnson is expected to appoint his own private lawyer if he receives a questionnaire from the police over alleged breaches of lockdown rules.

The lawyer will focus on his ‘unique’ legal situation – that No 10 is both his home and workplace, according to the Times.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/11/boris-johnson-will-hire-private-laywer-if-met-quiz-him-over-partygate-16089867/

Fair enough. There can't have been many people working from home during the lockdown period. Apart from the rest of the country, that is.

[Pannonian]

PM gives thumbs up from cockpit of RAF jet in yet ANOTHER photo op that appears straight out of North Korean ruler's propaganda playbook (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10523905/PM-gives-thumbs-cockpit-RAF-jet-Kim-style-photo-op.html)


Boris Johnson was today caught pulling yet another Kim Jong-un style pose, as he gave a thumbs up from the cockpit of an RAF fighter jet.

The Prime Minister has a long back catalogue of shots that appear to be straight out of the North Korean ruler's propaganda playbook... tempting the moniker 'Kim John-son'.

Today he was on a visit to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, where he met with servicemen and discussed the approach of Storm Eunice.

Wearing a suit and tie, he took the chance to try out some of the military hardware himself - just like Kim himself on a visit to an airfield in 2014.

It was another heavily stage-managed photo opportunity with an army of apparatchiks that serves the same purpose whether you are a dynastic Communist dictator or the elected leader of the United Kingdom.

Kim, in his role as Supreme Leader of the so-called Hermit Kingdom, is fond of 'field guidance' visits in which he is typically shown walking around a construction site, field or factory while issuing diktats to obliging lackeys.

Boris may not enjoy the same level of obedience from his aides, but is never-the-less partial to site visits of his own and is regularly photographed in factories and field giving his own form of 'guidance' to workers... as MailOnline's gallery below shows.

From wiki, RAF Waddington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Waddington):


Royal Air Force Waddington otherwise known as RAF Waddington (IATA: WTN, ICAO: EGXW) is a Royal Air Force station located beside the village of Waddington, 4.2 miles (6.8 km) south of Lincoln, Lincolnshire in England.

The station is the RAF's Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) hub and is home to a fleet of aircraft composed of the Shadow R1, RC-135W Rivet Joint and operating base for the RAF's MQ-9 Reaper.

NB. RAF Waddington is a station dedicated to surveillance. It serves surveillance aircraft. Johnson climbed into a Typhoon fighter on a visit to Waddington. Which meant the Typhoon was specially flown to Waddington so that the PM could have his photo op. At a time when Russian planes have been buzzing our air space.

And yet he endures, and people will still find excuses to vote for him.

[Montmorency]

I haven't heard many good things about Starmer's Labour, and this certainly doesn't help.


Steve Reed interview: Labour 'cared more about criminals than victims' under Corbyn (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/steve-reed-interview-labour-cared-26216833)

Labour “cared more about criminals than their victims” under Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s new justice chief claims today.

Steve Reed, a shadow minister under the last leader, branded the Tories “soft on crime” as he launched a bid to harden Labour ’s message on law and order.

Keir Starmer said last month he is against decriminalising drugs, despite calls to relax the law on substances like cannabis.

Mr Reed highlighted a scheme naming and shaming people who are convicted of buying drugs, that ran in Brixton while he was leader of Lambeth Council.

Asked if the same could happen under a Labour government he replied: “We’d absolutely look at it. It’s important you do it with each locality because they understand what their needs are.

“We wanted to send out the signal that, if you think it’s acceptable to come and buy drugs here, and leave behind you the trail of destruction the drugs trade causes on our streets, we will do everything we can to stop you and we will let your friends, family and employers know what you’ve done.”


‘Shoot terrorists first and ask questions later’, says Labour’s Angela Rayner (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-rayner-shoot-to-kill-terrorists-b2017139.html)

Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner has said Britain’s terror police should “shoot first” and “ask questions second”, as the party sets out its credentials on law and order.

The senior figure distanced herself from Jeremy Corbyn’s approach to criminal justice issues, saying she was on a “different page” to the former Labour leader.

“On things like law and order I am quite hardline. I am like, shoot your terrorists and ask questions second,” Ms Rayner told Matt Forde’s Political Party podcast.

Apparently taken aback by the audience reaction at the live event, the Labour deputy added: “Sorry – is that the most controversial thing I’ve ever said?”

Sir Keir Starmer’s party is using this week’s parliamentary recess to set out a tougher approach on crime.

Earlier this week the Labour leader has accused the Conservatives of being “soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime” by failing to tackle violence and to provide enough opportunities for young people.

She added: “I want you to beat down the door of the criminals and sort them out and antagonise them. That’s what I say to my local police … three o’clock in the morning and antagonise them.”

Ms Rayner said she was “plagued by anti-social behaviour” when she was growing up. “It’s the usual suspects … I want the police to annoy the hell out of them until they realise disrupting lives is not OK. I am quite hardline on that.”


Isn't this just insulting to the intelligence of all and sundry?

[Pannonian]

I haven't heard many good things about Starmer's Labour, and this certainly doesn't help.

Isn't this just insulting to the intelligence of all and sundry?

It depends what colour rosette you wear. If you wear red, then what Raynor said is an offence to human rights and will lose the support of all right minded liberals. If you're wearing a blue rosette, then it's reaffirming the party of law and order and will win the votes of the working class.

What I can tell you is that the political talking class will take offence at what Raynor said, and declare that Labour is no longer the party for them. But they are outnumbered by the casual voters, who won't vote Labour unless they take the view that Raynor is espousing.

[Montmorency]

Is it that you think of the policies implied by the rhetoric as effective and appropriate means to reducing crime, or that the casual voters who currently reject Labour will interpret it as a dealmaking answer to their problems rather than as comical pandering?

Because I'm unsure if contemporary Republicans would take such messaging seriously, and their elected officials are currently demonizing as a murderer someone who worked to exonerate wrongful convictions.

[Pannonian]

Is it that you think of the policies implied by the rhetoric as effective and appropriate means to reducing crime, or that the casual voters who currently reject Labour will interpret it as a dealmaking answer to their problems rather than as comical pandering?

Because I'm unsure if contemporary Republicans would take such messaging seriously, and their elected officials are currently demonizing as a murderer someone who worked to exonerate wrongful convictions.

What do you think of this phrase? "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."

The liberal left has a reputation for caring more about the rights of criminals than victims. The previous Labour leader has a deserved reputation for siding with other countries in disputes involving Britain. Including with terrorists.

To be considered electable, Labour has to stand tough on crime, those who perpetrate it, and so on. Those who argue on theoretical rights don't like it, and frequently say that this is a line crossed. But it is accepted political reality, demonstrated in practice, that Labour has to take that stance in order to be considered acceptable by the majority of voters. See that line above for a more nuanced take on it, but which contains that hardline approach all the same.

[Pannonian]

NB. RAF Waddington is a station dedicated to surveillance. It serves surveillance aircraft. Johnson climbed into a Typhoon fighter on a visit to Waddington. Which meant the Typhoon was specially flown to Waddington so that the PM could have his photo op. At a time when Russian planes have been buzzing our air space.

And yet he endures, and people will still find excuses to vote for him.

The above has been confirmed. One of the planes was flown from a nearby base, another was flown in from Scotland, so that the PM could have his photo op. How much money has been wasted, and how much is our security being compromised, to shore up Johnson's political fortunes?

[Montmorency]

What do you think of this phrase? "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."

The liberal left has a reputation for caring more about the rights of criminals than victims. The previous Labour leader has a deserved reputation for siding with other countries in disputes involving Britain. Including with terrorists.

To be considered electable, Labour has to stand tough on crime, those who perpetrate it, and so on. Those who argue on theoretical rights don't like it, and frequently say that this is a line crossed. But it is accepted political reality, demonstrated in practice, that Labour has to take that stance in order to be considered acceptable by the majority of voters. See that line above for a more nuanced take on it, but which contains that hardline approach all the same.

You didn't answer the question, and I very much doubt that making counterterrorism an extra-free-fire operation, police going out of their way to "annoy" "anti-social" people, publicly shaming drug users, or doubling down on marijuana criminalization can seriously be argued as either tough on crime or tough on its causes.

But maybe one would argue that regardless of the integrity of such rhetoric, it is something most voters are eager to hear. In which case the folly of the public is to be exploited to electoral advantage. Now, to the extent you would hold this presumption (for argument's sake let's treat it as correct), I detect a basic tension between it and your lament that "And yet [Johnson] endures, and people will still find excuses to vote for him."

Don't you think?

If it is "accepted political reality" that the aforesaid rhetoric is demanded by the majority of voters, then why would you be surprised that they prefer what the Conservatives have to give them regardless of their record? Any voter so softheaded as to entrust their security to a politician on the basis of such a frivolously-spiteful farrago as unleashed by the shadow government already has what they need from the genuine article currently in government.

:thinking2:

[Pannonian]

You didn't answer the question, and I very much doubt that making counterterrorism an extra-free-fire operation, police going out of their way to "annoy" "anti-social" people, publicly shaming drug users, or doubling down on marijuana criminalization can seriously be argued as either tough on crime or tough on its causes.

But maybe one would argue that regardless of the integrity of such rhetoric, it is something most voters are eager to hear. In which case the folly of the public is to be exploited to electoral advantage. Now, to the extent you would hold this presumption (for argument's sake let's treat it as correct), I detect a basic tension between it and your lament that "And yet [Johnson] endures, and people will still find excuses to vote for him."

Don't you think?

If it is "accepted political reality" that the aforesaid rhetoric is demanded by the majority of voters, then why would you be surprised that they prefer what the Conservatives have to give them regardless of their record? Any voter so softheaded as to entrust their security to a politician on the basis of such a frivolously-spiteful farrago already has what they need from the genuine article currently in government.

:thinking2:

Erm, 1997. You post some pointed questions and wonder if the voters are so soft-headed to fall for this and that. I point to past successful electoral strategy. I have no idea whether the arguments I've posited make sense to you (or me for that matter). I only know that they make sense to British voters.

[Montmorency]

Erm, 1997. You post some pointed questions and wonder if the voters are so soft-headed to fall for this and that. I point to past successful electoral strategy. I have no idea whether the arguments I've posited make sense to you (or me for that matter). I only know that they make sense to British voters.

It's best not to introduce too many different questions. In this reply alone, we're adding:

1. What role did Blair Labour's rhetoric or platform on crime play in its 1997 victory?
2. If there was a successful strategy previously, is the quoted rhetoric from Starmer's Labour credibly instantiating it?

These are deep questions, to add to those of good policy and good platform across the board today. But I don't get the impression that Labour leadership is trying to position itself in a calculated rather than reflexive way. I'm no longer so naive as to think that identifying social problems and proposing well-constructed recourses against them will garner recognition, but this conceit of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" as a frontpiece is just Labour whistling past the graveyard. Lemme lay down a real political reality on you: When anyone can see that the government is not doing jack diddly about crime (promising to shoot terrorists gooder is not an anti-crime proposal), people notice, and it's left-wing, not right-wing, parties get blamed. They can have identical policies to their right-wing counterpart, but only they will be blamed for the lack of effect.

But let's drill down to the only question I want you to answer, here. The sentences I quoted from Labour are ludicrous. You attest that they are popular. Why should one expect people allegedly comforted by the obviously insubstantive and condescending posturing undertaken in the quotes not to be more impressed by Boris Johnson's fighter jet photoshoot or clubby ramblings, or rather to be fatally offended by his... indiscretions? He's much better poised in this territory you know.

[Pannonian]

It's best not to introduce too many different questions. In this reply alone, we're adding:

1. What role did Blair Labour's rhetoric or platform on crime play in its 1997 victory?
2. If there was a successful strategy previously, is the quoted rhetoric from Starmer's Labour credibly instantiating it?

These are deep questions, to add to those of good policy and good platform across the board today. But I don't get the impression that Labour leadership is trying to position itself in a calculated rather than reflexive way. I'm no longer so naive as to think that identifying social problems and proposing well-constructed recourses against them will garner recognition, but this conceit of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" as a frontpiece is just Labour whistling past the graveyard. Lemme lay down a real political reality on you: When anyone can see that the government is not doing jack diddly about crime (promising to shoot terrorists gooder is not an anti-crime proposal), people notice, and it's left-wing, not right-wing, parties get blamed. They can have identical policies to their right-wing counterpart, but only they will be blamed for the lack of effect.

But let's drill down to the only question I want you to answer, here. The sentences I quoted from Labour are ludicrous. You attest that they are popular. Why should one expect people allegedly comforted by the obviously insubstantive and condescending posturing undertaken in the quotes not to be more impressed by Boris Johnson's fighter jet photoshoot or clubby ramblings, or rather to be fatally offended by his... indiscretions? He's much better poised in this territory you know.

Firstly, and I don't think I explained well enough in my previous answer, much of UK politics is box ticking. The Tories by default have some boxes ticked, Labour by default have some other boxes ticked. The Tories have the advantage of having their boxes deemed more important by the voters, and a super majority of the media are also heavily biased towards the Tories. The party that has the most boxes ticked, weighted by importance, will have the advantage with swing voters.

Johnson has the huge advantage of being a shameless liar. Which means he will promise everything to everyone, thus ticking all boxes. Does it matter that he is a liar and repeatedly and concretely proven so? I don't know. I've asked many, many times, why he is not held to account for promises like 350 million per week for the NHS, but you can see for yourself how excuses are made, that other, more nebulous issues that can never be measured are somehow more important. Is this representative of the British voters? I don't know.

Also, I'm told that Rayner's quote was part of a wider interview, that the quote was meant to illustrate how people can't simply be categorised as left or right. I don't know myself, not having listened to or read the entire interview.

[Furunculus]

Johnson has the huge advantage of being a shameless liar. Which means he will promise everything to everyone, thus ticking all boxes. Does it matter that he is a liar and repeatedly and concretely proven so? I don't know. I've asked many, many times, why he is not held to account for promises like 350 million per week for the NHS..

tee-hee:

https://youtu.be/0kZ03v019rg?t=353

[Montmorency]

Firstly, and I don't think I explained well enough in my previous answer, much of UK politics is box ticking. The Tories by default have some boxes ticked, Labour by default have some other boxes ticked. The Tories have the advantage of having their boxes deemed more important by the voters, and a super majority of the media are also heavily biased towards the Tories. The party that has the most boxes ticked, weighted by importance, will have the advantage with swing voters.

Johnson has the huge advantage of being a shameless liar. Which means he will promise everything to everyone, thus ticking all boxes. Does it matter that he is a liar and repeatedly and concretely proven so? I don't know. I've asked many, many times, why he is not held to account for promises like 350 million per week for the NHS, but you can see for yourself how excuses are made, that other, more nebulous issues that can never be measured are somehow more important. Is this representative of the British voters? I don't know.

Also, I'm told that Rayner's quote was part of a wider interview, that the quote was meant to illustrate how people can't simply be categorised as left or right. I don't know myself, not having listened to or read the entire interview.

I understand the principle of it. What I'm trying to say is, it doesn't make sense to worry about the British voter being susceptible to cheap talk and bluster, obtuse to scandal and corruption, if you're also trying to win them over with cheap talk and bluster - that nevertheless the other side has a provably superior competency in. If one expects the British people to crave bullshit of the sort the Deputy Leader indulged in, Boris Johnson is a vastly-superior bullshitter than Starmer and team has ever been revealed to be. Labour can't out-Brawndo Boris Johnson (though perhaps they could stick him sufficiently unlikeable, but that's a grassroots matter).

Imagine:

John Q Public: "What will the government do about crime?"
Politician: "Let's out the dirty weed-huffing hippies on the village square. For the greater good (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTeTK57sCQ)."
JQP: "I am reassured by this reasoned and well-developed answer to our problems."

If the above is taken as an accurate reflection of the electorate's condition (or an influential segment thereof), one can hardly expect JQP to be in the market for staid, accountable government in other contexts.

You should really be hoping this isn't an accurate picture of boxes to tick, not in this manner. Or you're... whatever the British slang for 'not in a good condition' is.



tee-hee:

https://youtu.be/0kZ03v019rg?t=353

As the video alerts us, the extra funding (mostly temporary pandemic stimulus AFAIK) is unrelated to Brexit, and is barely keeping pace with growth in demand and population, let alone reversing Cameron/May cuts to the NHS, which has become infamously overburdened. And - I can't help but note that the Blair era, for all the criticisms of its healthcare policy, saw hefty funding increases pushed to the NHS. Leaving this as a promise kept at Johnson's feet is a bit like giving Trump credit for vowing to put less priority on cutting Medicare and Social Security than the Republican establishment did.

[Pannonian]

I understand the principle of it. What I'm trying to say is, it doesn't make sense to worry about the British voter being susceptible to cheap talk and bluster, obtuse to scandal and corruption, if you're also trying to win them over with cheap talk and bluster - that nevertheless the other side has a provably superior competency in. If one expects the British people to crave bullshit of the sort the Deputy Leader indulged in, Boris Johnson is a vastly-superior bullshitter than Starmer and team has ever been revealed to be. Labour can't out-Brawndo Boris Johnson (though perhaps they could stick him sufficiently unlikeable, but that's a grassroots matter).

Imagine:

John Q Public: "What will the government do about crime?"
Politician: "Let's out the dirty weed-huffing hippies on the village square. For the greater good (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTeTK57sCQ)."
JQP: "I am reassured by this reasoned and well-developed answer to our problems."

If the above is taken as an accurate reflection of the electorate's condition (or an influential segment thereof), one can hardly expect JQP to be in the market for staid, accountable government in other contexts.

You should really be hoping this isn't an accurate picture of boxes to tick, not in this manner. Or you're... whatever the British slang for 'not in a good condition' is.


Box ticking is not necessarily a bad thing. Done in the right way, it can be a good thing. Hence my citing of "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." Labour has to be seen to be tough on criminals and not favouring them in the justice system. In the case of Rayner, who grew up in a rough area (as did I), people would be justifiably peeved with any politician who favoured theoretical discussions of rights over safeguarding them from harm. But Blair paired that with being tough on the causes of crime, ie. working on the economic and social deprivation that fostered crime in working class communities. And thus the numbers of police grew under Labour, crime fell under Labour, and poverty fell under Labour. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, measurable by metrics.

If you disregard these successes, and demand that Labour offer a plarform that's philosophically sound and consistent to you, you're demanding something that most of the population has no interest in. Especially if you dismiss the tough on crime bit, which most of the population are definitely interested in. Go to a council estate, and ask them whether they're more interested in civil rights or less crime.

[Furunculus]

As the video alerts us, the extra funding (mostly temporary pandemic stimulus AFAIK) is unrelated to Brexit, and is barely keeping pace with growth in demand and population, let alone reversing Cameron/May cuts to the NHS, which has become infamously overburdened.

Sure, but the framing of the argument against boris/brexit isn't nuanced [in any way], it starts and stops with the shrill wailing of:

"LIAR, WHERE IS THE THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION? LIAR!"

Nothing more need be said when the question is framed thus.

"There is your money."

I have no problem with the nuance of the matter, but we are beyond such petty considerations in the public realm.

[Pannonian]

The PM lies, again, this time about Roman Abramovich. Labour MP tries to correct him, and asks the PM to stay for just a moment longer for this. PM gives one look back, then continues walking out.

Do we have a Parliamentary democracy?

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1496125761870340104

Boris Johnson walks out on Chris Bryant.

"I hope the PM can just stay for a brief moment, as it relates to what he said about Roman Abramovich. (Johnson looks back, then continues walking) I don't think that's a courtesy to the house when the Prime Minister leaves in that way... "

Is there any excuse for this?

[Pannonian]

Layla Moran names 35 Russian oligarchs who should be sanctioned, including one that the PM lied about yesterday. 7 cabinet members have received Russian money, including the deputy PM (the supposed no.2) and the chancellor (the actual no.2). Foreign secretary excuses it by saying that Russian influence is part of the UK political system.

Just how compromised is this government by a country which we should have been suspicious of, and that is now openly showing to be hostile?

[Furunculus]

Just how compromised is this government by a country which we should have been suspicious of, and that is now openly showing to be hostile?
Compared to who?

To be clear - i want to see an end of this money too, if only because i don't want london to facilitate the accumulation of money sourced from russian corruption.

But the implication here is that this money is buying influence in foriegn policy with regards to Russia, and I simply don't see any evidence of that. UK is among the the most hawkish of european nations when it comes to actions that hinder Russia's own foriegn policy goals.

[Pannonian]

Compared to who?

To be clear - i want to see an end of this money too, if only because i don't want london to facilitate the accumulation of money sourced from russian corruption.

But the implication here is that this money is buying influence in foriegn policy with regards to Russia, and I simply don't see any evidence of that. UK is among the the most hawkish of european nations when it comes to actions that hinder Russia's own foriegn policy goals.

Russia's primary foreign policy goal in the past 10 years is to weaken the western bloc so that it is free to do whatever it likes. Detach individual western states from their alliances so Russia does not face a unified opposition. The UK, and in particular the Tories, are more hostile towards the EU than towards Russia.

[Pannonian]

Photo of the current foreign secretary and then PM May with Russian donor who gave 1.8 million to the Tory party, making her one of the biggest female donors to the Tories. Said donor is married to man with close links with Kremlin. Several other (former and current) female cabinet members in that photo.

Back in the day, this would be a matter for resignation. Certainly a matter for surveillance and should be nowhere near cabinet.

[Montmorency]

Compared to who?

To be clear - i want to see an end of this money too, if only because i don't want london to facilitate the accumulation of money sourced from russian corruption.

But the implication here is that this money is buying influence in foriegn policy with regards to Russia, and I simply don't see any evidence of that. UK is among the the most hawkish of european nations when it comes to actions that hinder Russia's own foriegn policy goals.

To address the substance of your question, with donations being toward party organizations in the UK and not typically toward individual candidates (IIRC), it's doubtful that oligarchs, lobbyists, or anyone else are trying to induce formally pro-Russian foreign policy out of UK governance. Russia's priority has instead repeatedly been to sustain corruption and undermine political stability (though if the pro-Russian domestic constituency were as large as the anti-EU one in the UK of course the Russians would have leveraged it by now). Russian commercial interests must care more about special visas and loose money laundering rules than Ukraine policy, which is more transparent (and also inconsequential to them personally). Sustaining a certain behavior rather than changing course

(Maybe Starmer could up his game and accuse Johnson of defunding the police for allowing the National Crime Agency's real budget to decline and financial crime prosecutions to plummet.)

And it's pretty likely the specified Russian priorities can be better enabled by supporting Conservatives over Labour. What happens with the Economic Crime Bil, huh? Lack of action from this point on would implictly affirm the governing party's ideological or self-interested stake in maintaining the 'free port' of the UK's financial and property markets.

[Pannonian]

To address the substance of your question, with donations being toward party organizations in the UK and not typically toward individual candidates (IIRC), it's doubtful that oligarchs, lobbyists, or anyone else are trying to induce formally pro-Russian foreign policy out of UK governance. Russia's priority has instead repeatedly been to sustain corruption and undermine political stability (though if the pro-Russian domestic constituency were as large as the anti-EU one in the UK of course the Russians would have leveraged it by now). Russian commercial interests must care more about special visas and loose money laundering rules than Ukraine policy, which is more transparent (and also inconsequential to them personally). Sustaining a certain behavior rather than changing course

(Maybe Starmer could up his game and accuse Johnson of defunding the police for allowing the National Crime Agency's real budget to decline and financial crime prosecutions to plummet.)

And it's pretty likely the specified Russian priorities can be better enabled by supporting Conservatives over Labour. What happens with the Economic Crime Bil, huh? Lack of action from this point on would implictly affirm the governing party's ideological or self-interested stake in maintaining the 'free port' of the UK's financial and property markets.

One of the EU laws coming in at the time that we took ourselves out of the EU was one requiring transparency of finance. Which strikes at the money laundering that benefits much of the super rich in the UK or who conduct their operations in the UK.

Brexit primarily concretely benefits the dirty money economy. Which is good for Russia two-fold: firstly it makes the UK a safe place to dump their money, and secondly it weakens both the UK (severely) and the EU. Hence the willingness of Russia to invest in this (cf. Aaron Banks and those bot factories operating from Russia). Although I'd call the willingness of UK agents to take their money and hide their impact treasonous. The Commons committee on intelligence and security found that the UK government found no evidence of Russian involvement in Brexit because they actively avoided looking for it. Be wary of any explanation that's worded along the lines of "I am not aware that..."

[Furunculus]

Russia's primary foreign policy goal in the past 10 years is to weaken the western bloc so that it is free to do whatever it likes. Detach individual western states from their alliances so Russia does not face a unified opposition. The UK, and in particular the Tories, are more hostile towards the EU than towards Russia.

How has Russian money achieved this?

[Pannonian]

In British PM race, a former Russian tycoon quietly wields influence (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-johnson-russian/)


Publicly, industrialist and Conservative Party donor Alexander Temerko presents himself as an opponent of Brexit and a dissident critic of Vladimir Putin. In conversations with this reporter, he’s voiced strong support for Boris Johnson’s bid to lead Britain out of the EU, praised senior Russian intelligence officials and spoken about his past work with the Kremlin.

For almost a decade, Alexander Temerko, who forged a career at the top of the Russian arms industry and had connections at the highest levels of the Kremlin, has been an influential figure in British politics. He’s one of the Conservative Party’s major donors. He counts Boris Johnson, the frontrunner to be Britain’s next PM, among his friends.

Temerko, born in what was then Soviet Ukraine, presents himself in public as an entrepreneur who opposes Britain’s departure from the European Union because it’s bad for his UK energy business, and as a dissident critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But in more than half a dozen conversations with this reporter, conducted over the past three years as part of research for a book, he showed a different side of his career and views.

Temerko revealed himself to be a supporter of Johnson’s bid to lead Britain out of the EU, describing the 2016 public vote to leave the bloc as a “revolution against bureaucracy.” He praised senior Russian security officials, including the current and former heads of the Federal Security Service (FSB), successor to the KGB, and proudly recalled his past work with Russia’s Defence Ministry.

These new insights into Temerko’s private thinking about Johnson, Brexit and Russia come as the ruling Conservative Party is choosing its next leader, and as some British MPs are increasingly wary of possible Russian influence over British politics.

How compromised is our government?

[Furunculus]

In British PM race, a former Russian tycoon quietly wields influence (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-johnson-russian/)



How compromised is our government?

Indeed, how compromised is it?

[Pannonian]

RT cites Nigel Farage as someone who doesn't lay the blame entirely at Russia's feet, but says that the west is partly to blame.

What's that about funding and influence?

[Furunculus]

RT cites Nigel Farage as someone who doesn't lay the blame entirely at Russia's feet, but says that the west is partly to blame.

What's that about funding and influence?

who cares what farage thinks?

-----------------------------

[UPDATE] - i keep asking what (foriegn) policy effect all that money sloshing around the british political system is having, and i have found it!

not foriegn policy directly, but its the british anti-fracking dilberts:

https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1497263130719760389

[rory_20_uk]

Europe is blocking removing Russia from the SWIFT payment system so they can continue to buy Russian oil and gas.

That is a far more important factor as currently the EU are directly paying for the war.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Europe is blocking removing Russia from the SWIFT payment system so they can continue to buy Russian oil and gas.

That is a far more important factor as currently the EU are directly paying for the war.

~:smoking:

Not much we can directly do about them. We're not part of them. Farage is a UK citizen who's been extremely influential in our politics, and it's clear that he's in Russian pay. Forgive me if I want to highlight Russian agents amongst us.

[Crandar]

Is it really worth it to pay a nobody like Farage? In my opinion, that's just his own initiative, a desperate attempt to become relevant again, by differentiating himself from the mainstream opinion and approaching the anti-establishment crowd. Obviously, sympathy towards Russia is a minority feeling in the United Kingdom, but for small fish like Farage, it might be better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

[Pannonian]

UK imposes sanctions on Russian banks. But gives their biggest bank 30 days in which to withdraw their assets.

What's the point? Does it really merit the label of "sanctions"?

[rory_20_uk]

UK imposes sanctions on Russian banks. But gives their biggest bank 30 days in which to withdraw their assets.

What's the point? Does it really merit the label of "sanctions"?

I'm not a banker but I would have thought that - just like with the 2008 crisis - it is equally liquidity that matters and if the banks can't trade with those outside the country it would still bite. And unless the banks have gold bullion or other physical assets, they can (and probably did) withdraw as much as they were able to within seconds of the S word was mentioned.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I'm not a banker but I would have thought that - just like with the 2008 crisis - it is equally liquidity that matters and if the banks can't trade with those outside the country it would still bite. And unless the banks have gold bullion or other physical assets, they can (and probably did) withdraw as much as they were able to within seconds of the S word was mentioned.

~:smoking:

Why afford them the gap at all?

[Pannonian]

So the oligarchs are allowed to keep their UK assets. It should be noted that the Tory party has been receiving money from those prominent Russian donors as recently as late last year, and Tory ministers (including the foreign secretary) have said that there is nothing untoward about it, and that they will not be handing that money back.

This Tory government is funded by Russian top brass, and unashamedly so.

[Furunculus]

what has Russia bought for its money?

i think this is about the fourth time i have asked.

[rory_20_uk]

So the oligarchs are allowed to keep their UK assets. It should be noted that the Tory party has been receiving money from those prominent Russian donors as recently as late last year, and Tory ministers (including the foreign secretary) have said that there is nothing untoward about it, and that they will not be handing that money back.

This Tory government is funded by Russian top brass, and unashamedly so.

Which law would enable the confiscation of these assets? Or is it just a crime to be a rich Russian? Does UK law apply in other sovereign state now? Bring back the Star Court... And this does raise the question of why the UK didn't do this in any other case where something illegal happened. The rule of law when it suits I suppose.

And then if these assets were to be taken, what would stop all UK assets being taken in Russia - not to mention court cases here and abroad.

Truly, an approach stolen from the headlines of the Daily Mail.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Which law would enable the confiscation of these assets? Or is it just a crime to be a rich Russian? Does UK law apply in other sovereign state now? Bring back the Star Court... And this does raise the question of why the UK didn't do this in any other case where something illegal happened. The rule of law when it suits I suppose.

And then if these assets were to be taken, what would stop all UK assets being taken in Russia - not to mention court cases here and abroad.

Truly, an approach stolen from the headlines of the Daily Mail.

~:smoking:

The UK government proudly announced sanctions against 5 Russian banks and 3 Russian oligarchs at the start of all this, so it's not a matter of principle; it was possible, as they'd shown. The French government is seizing assets I think, so it's not outlandish as far as western European law goes. And at the very least, those on the Navalny list should be targeted, with some of them already internationally sanctioned even before this.

Also, what do you think of the money from Russian oligarchs paid to the Tory party? Cleverly and Truss, among others, have said that there is nothing untoward about this, and that they're not handing it back. Is there a law against this as well, or a matter of principle? Chernukhin, she who paid 150k for a tennis match with Boris Johnson, and she who's married to a former Putin minister, donated something like 80k to the Tories late last year. Do you think this is completely above board? Or the other Russian donors to the Tory party, none of whom faced any sanctions at the time the Tory government boasted it was leading the way against Russia (but other oligarchs who hadn't recently donated to the Tories did face sanctions).

All completely above board, despite inconsistencies in application of nebulous principles. All is ok as long as you pay the Tory party.

[rory_20_uk]

The UK government proudly announced sanctions against 5 Russian banks and 3 Russian oligarchs at the start of all this, so it's not a matter of principle; it was possible, as they'd shown. The French government is seizing assets I think, so it's not outlandish as far as western European law goes. And at the very least, those on the Navalny list should be targeted, with some of them already internationally sanctioned even before this.

Also, what do you think of the money from Russian oligarchs paid to the Tory party? Cleverly and Truss, among others, have said that there is nothing untoward about this, and that they're not handing it back. Is there a law against this as well, or a matter of principle? Chernukhin, she who paid 150k for a tennis match with Boris Johnson, and she who's married to a former Putin minister, donated something like 80k to the Tories late last year. Do you think this is completely above board? Or the other Russian donors to the Tory party, none of whom faced any sanctions at the time the Tory government boasted it was leading the way against Russia (but other oligarchs who hadn't recently donated to the Tories did face sanctions).

All completely above board, despite inconsistencies in application of nebulous principles. All is ok as long as you pay the Tory party.

I'm unclear who exactly you are expecting to defend the Tory party. They're bad. I don't like them. What they did is only legal since they and their kind make the laws. They maintain power by being marginally more electable than labour. The same Labour who had eleven MPs who signed a letter blaming NATO on the situation in Ukraine. They are realistically the two options our system allows. And we celebrate our Head of State overseeing this for 70 years.

And doing a few illegal things is hardly a framework for doing many illegal things - Blair's war in Iraq hardly created a common law framework for what he did.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I'm unclear who exactly you are expecting to defend the Tory party. They're bad. I don't like them. What they did is only legal since they and their kind make the laws. They maintain power by being marginally more electable than labour. The same Labour who had eleven MPs who signed a letter blaming NATO on the situation in Ukraine. They are realistically the two options our system allows. And we celebrate our Head of State overseeing this for 70 years.

And doing a few illegal things is hardly a framework for doing many illegal things - Blair's war in Iraq hardly created a common law framework for what he did.

~:smoking:

So the Tory government gets to boast about the few sanctions they imposed, lying about their leading the world in this as they always do, whilst not laying a hand on those who've been giving them money. Party above country, supposed principles being held to explain their MO of helping their friends whilst screwing the country over.

The register of foreign owned property won't come into place until autumn 2023 at the earliest, plenty of time for oligarchs to dispose of their properties and move their assets back to somewhere unreachable. Thanks to Navalny, we know of at least some of these oligarch-owned properties. Which are untouched even now.

[rory_20_uk]

So the Tory government gets to boast about the few sanctions they imposed, lying about their leading the world in this as they always do, whilst not laying a hand on those who've been giving them money. Party above country, supposed principles being held to explain their MO of helping their friends whilst screwing the country over.

The register of foreign owned property won't come into place until autumn 2023 at the earliest, plenty of time for oligarchs to dispose of their properties and move their assets back to somewhere unreachable. Thanks to Navalny, we know of at least some of these oligarch-owned properties. Which are untouched even now.

How about we just take it for granted that the Tory government undertakes selfish acts for either survival or monetary gain and we can view things that diverge from this as "newsworthy". This is getting about as fruitful as posting about every single shooting incident in the USA.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Now they're preparing to seize oligarch assets. So not doing so before wasn't due to some inalienable principle after all, but just a matter of them choosing not to do so.

[Pannonian]

At Prime Minister's Questions, Boris Johnson told MPs the actions the UK had taken in response to the invasion of Ukraine "are having an effect in Moscow".

He said the UK had sanctioned "275 individuals already, a further 100 last week, the impact is being felt".

Mr Johnson has referred to the 100 figure several times in the past week. But when Reality Check asked for the names of the 100, the government could not provide them and said: "We'll let you know as soon as we have further details to add."

Instead, it sent a list of every person and company currently sanctioned by the UK, including people from Iran and North Korea. It shows that 15 individuals have been sanctioned in the past week:

BBC Reality Check (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60591547?)

Claim by PM in Parliament: 100
Reality as checked: 15

Nothing this Tory government says can be trusted.

[Pannonian]

So much for me taking the government's word at taking new action. It turns out the UK is one of the countries with the fewest effective sanctions against Russia. Despite the claims of the Chief Liar and his acolytes, the EU leads the way with sanctions against nearly 500 entities, with Canada, Australia and Switzerland also around 400. The US has sanctions against over 100. The UK has sanctions against 16.

The Tory government needs to answer questions on oath about the Russian money they've been receiving and any policies they've enacted favouring Russian oligarchs.

[Pannonian]

Chief liar: "The UK is way out in front in our willingness to help with refugees."

Number of Ukrainian refugees: over 1 million.
Number of Ukrainian refugees admitted into UK: 50.

Edit: You could probably house the whole lot in a confiscated oligarch mansion. That's if we actually confiscated that is, which we don't.

[Pannonian]

Ukrainian refugees admitted by UK: 50
Ukrainian refugees admitted by Ireland: 1800
Ukrainian refugees admitted by Canada: 6100

In related news, Boris Johnson overruled security services who advised against giving Evgeny Lebedev a peerage. Ministers have tried to excuse this by saying that Lord Lebedev has never made a speech or voted in the House of Lords. Meanwhile, Lord Lebedev has a pet dog called Boris.

[Pannonian]

The Media Briefing Room in Downing Street was renovated, at great cost, by a Russian-owned company. No security issues there at all.

[Pannonian]

Guido Fawkes is, in his own words, a close associate of a Russian spy. Not just that, he entered into a business relationship with him, after learning he was a Russian spy. The son of a KGB general, no less.

Just how much of the right who've shaped our government in recent years are traitors who've been bought by the Russians?

[Pannonian]

Evgeniy Lebedev, made a peer by Boris Johnson against the advice of the security service, repeatedly tried to meet the chief of MI6 at the MI6 HQ, which said head turned down, saying that he'd have no part in Lebedev's attempts to infiltrate the establishment. Johnson knew of this, and made him a peer anyway.

[Pannonian]

From October 2019

Brexit party MEPs vote against plans to tackle Russian propaganda (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/brexit-party-meps-vote-against-measure-to-combat-russian-propaganda)

[rory_20_uk]

Just how much of the right who've shaped our government in recent years are traitors who've been bought by the Russians?

I don't know. And as yet I've seen nothing apart from innuendo. Blair's close link to the USA cost a vast amount of money, lives and international reputation.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Just how much of the right who've shaped our government in recent years are traitors who've been bought by the Russians?

is this more of the tin-foil hat'ery that russians "bought brexit and own boris"?

heavy on insinuation, light on evidence.

for the fifth time:

"what policy influence have the russian's bought?"

1. Not training 20k ukranians over years in light anti-tank and sniper warfare?
2. Not supplying thousands of modern (non-mouldy!) light anti-tank weapons before (!), the war started?
3. Not building political coalitions across n. europe to support ukraine before (!) Russia had done 'bad things' that justified action?
4. Not outfitting their navy to protect odessa?
5. Not doing all the other things that have made UK an invaluable ally in the eyes of Ukraine (you know, the people who actually matter in this scenario!)?

[Pannonian]

is this more of the tin-foil hat'ery that russians "bought brexit and own boris"?

heavy on insinuation, light on evidence.

for the fifth time:

"what policy influence have the russian's bought?"

1. Not training 20k ukranians over years in light anti-tank and sniper warfare?
2. Not supplying thousands of modern (non-mouldy!) light anti-tank weapons before (!), the war started?
3. Not building political coalitions across n. europe to support ukraine before (!) Russia had done 'bad things' that justified action?
4. Not outfitting their navy to protect odessa?
5. Not doing all the other things that have made UK an invaluable ally in the eyes of Ukraine (you know, the people who actually matter in this scenario!)?

The Commons committee noted that no evidence was found because the government was actively looking away from the issue so as not to see anything. And the defence is still mounted that there is no direct evidence. Back in Cold War days, merely taking the Russian money and associating with high level Russian individuals would have been enough to make sure a politician were never allowed near high office. And the security services did indeed advise just this. Never mind the security services or their advice though. Democracy overrides any scruples.

[Pannonian]

I don't know. And as yet I've seen nothing apart from innuendo. Blair's close link to the USA cost a vast amount of money, lives and international reputation.

~:smoking:

As much as I'm sceptical about various US governments, I do not believe any of them, not even that of Trump (another politician bought by Russia), actively sets out to harm the UK as a matter of policy. The Russian government under Putin does.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Guido Fawkes is, in his own words, a close associate of a Russian spy. Not just that, he entered into a business relationship with him, after learning he was a Russian spy. The son of a KGB general, no less.

Just how much of the right who've shaped our government in recent years are traitors who've been bought by the Russians?At least your lot insisted on getting paid. Our previous administration's flunkies were shined on with fabricated promises and silly rumors.

[Pannonian]

At least your lot insisted on getting paid. Our previous administration's flunkies were shined on with fabricated promises and silly rumors.

At least you kicked out your lot. Our lot will be re-elected for the foreseeable on "Get Brexit Done". Which was a Russian funded campaign that our intelligence services were instructed to turn their eyes away from. If you keep your eyes shut, you can't see the evidence.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

At least you kicked out your lot.
For the nonce. Sadly 11/2022 is likely to bring out a lot of chest-thumping Trumpers claiming that the expected GOP gains are the beginnings of a great return.

[Furunculus]

Our lot will be re-elected for the foreseeable on "Get Brexit Done". Which was a Russian funded campaign

Just for clarity, are you claiming:

a) that Russia sought to influence the EU ref campaign in the direction of Leave
b) that the Leave outcome of the vote was substantially the result of Russia's work

One of those possibilities is reasonable, but who cares. Everyone chucked their twopenn'orth in: "back of the queue".
The other of those possibilities is tinfoil hat'ery from a quack.

[Pannonian]

DP World-backed Thames Freeport becomes first UK economic trade zone to open (https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/2021/09/15/dp-world-backed-thames-freeport-becomes-first-uk-economic-trade-zone-to-open/)


Sep 15, 2021

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak opened Britain’s first post-Brexit freeport – the UAE-backed Thames Freeport – on Wednesday as the nation looks to boost its trade ambitions after its exit from the European Union.


And more recent news from DP World.

‘Scandalous betrayal’: MPs condemn P&O Ferries for mass sacking of 800 staff (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/17/politicians-condemn-p-and-o-ferries-mass-sacking-staff)


Ministers and trade unions have condemned P&O Ferries’ mass sacking of 800 British seafarers to replace them with agency crew as shameful and “completely unacceptable”, amid furious calls for action against the company’s Dubai owners.
...
Staff were told by P&O to discharge passengers and freight before being sent a video message telling them P&O “vessels will be primarily crewed by a third-party crew provider … Your final day of employment is today.”

[Pannonian]

I've said that the Tories will be elected ad infinitum on Get Brexit Done. The next general election is due in 2 years time, and Johnson has started his campaign. What is he campaigning on? Ukraine and Brexit, explicitly drawing a parallel between Ukraine wanting freedom from Russia and Britain wanting freedom from the EU. Despite one of Russia's issues with Ukraine being Ukraine wanting to join the EU (whom they've now formally applied to join).

Get Brexit Done. Forever.

[Pannonian]

Tory MP suspended while he's being investigated for sexual assault and coking up. Oh, and this is completely legal and unactionable against, he's been taking money from a Russian businessman whose business (services for oligarchs) has since been banned, even before this recent Ukraine stuff.

Ah, but he has democratic backing, so everything is excused.

[Pannonian]

How committed does a politician have to be to their country to hold high office? Our finance minister, effectively no.2 in the government after the PM, was declared a permanent US resident while he was holding the office of chancellor. Are US veeps allowed to be permanent residents of other countries whilst being vice president? Oh, and the chancellor's wife was apparently indulging in tax fraud to the tune of millions.

But hey, at least the Tories got Brexit done.

[Furunculus]

'fraud'?

as in wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
do you actually believe this, to the extent you would willingly have it recorded on a public platform like social media?

[Pannonian]

US journalists now asking the White House about this (Sunak's green card). White House secretary points them to State Department and Homeland Security.

BTW, Furunculus, the Sunaks agreed to pay several million in back taxes that they should have been paying previously. If I used words incorrectly, can you explain to me, in terms that I can understand, what's been going on? I'm happy to withdraw what I said earlier if you can explain what's going on with those taxes.

[rory_20_uk]

It isn't fraud as she is using the utterly nonsensical non-dom status method that governments have studiously chosen not to close for decades. So she's effectively choosing to give a donation. She no more owes money than a company that was paying corporate tax at 19% 3 years ago and now is paying 25% - the law was bieng followed.

Our system requires the PM to do something as our head of state has refused to anything controversial unless it either serves herself or of course Prince Andrew. So yeah, nothing will be done since Boris doesn't see why his mates need to follow the law. And equally the Commons doesn't hold the PM to account.

Don't blame the player, blame the game.

Sadly, if in a democracy the populace is prepared to overlook events or even base their voting on historic events then that is allowed. My grandmother refused to vote Tory due to what Churchill - not Thatcher, Churchill - did to the miners. That he'd been dead for decades didn't matter.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

It isn't fraud as she is using the utterly nonsensical non-dom status method that governments have studiously chosen not to close for decades. So she's effectively choosing to give a donation. She no more owes money than a company that was paying corporate tax at 19% 3 years ago and now is paying 25% - the law was bieng followed.

Our system requires the PM to do something as our head of state has refused to anything controversial unless it either serves herself or of course Prince Andrew. So yeah, nothing will be done since Boris doesn't see why his mates need to follow the law. And equally the Commons doesn't hold the PM to account.

Don't blame the player, blame the game.

Sadly, if in a democracy the populace is prepared to overlook events or even base their voting on historic events then that is allowed. My grandmother refused to vote Tory due to what Churchill - not Thatcher, Churchill - did to the miners. That he'd been dead for decades didn't matter.

~:smoking:

Any observations on Sunak's green card? Should our no.2 politician be holding high office while simultaneously holding a status that disqualifies him for it?

[rory_20_uk]

Almost amusing - surely he was vetted by both the Tories and the Civil Service. But of course no one to blame.
Did he have to declare these thing and fail to do so? A breach of Ministerial Code? A sacking offence
Finally something the Monarch chooses to action?

The headline changes but everything else is the same. I look forward to my every 5 years opportunity to cast my vote in a safe seat which at most would change a handful of people at the top of the pyramid.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Almost amusing - surely he was vetted by both the Tories and the Civil Service. But of course no one to blame.
Did he have to declare these thing and fail to do so? A breach of Ministerial Code? A sacking offence
Finally something the Monarch chooses to action?

The headline changes but everything else is the same. I look forward to my every 5 years opportunity to cast my vote in a safe seat which at most would change a handful of people at the top of the pyramid.

~:smoking:

It's significant enough that a US journalist raised it to the White House rep, stating that he should not have been eligible for his green card from when he was elected MP in 2015 through to recently when he finally relinquished it (AFAIK you have to declare that you plan to make the US your permanent home in order to qualify for one). The US has complaints on that side, while on the UK side one would wonder whether there is a conflict of loyalty in a government minister second in power only to the PM, who has declared that they do not regard the UK as their home. If Sunak regards the US as his home, shouldn't he bugger off there instead of imposing himself on us as the arbiter of this country's finances?

[Furunculus]

BTW, Furunculus, the Sunaks agreed to pay several million in back taxes that they should have been paying previously. If I used words incorrectly, can you explain to me, in terms that I can understand, what's been going on? I'm happy to withdraw what I said earlier if you can explain what's going on with those taxes.

I'm pointing out that I haven't seen any sign of illegality, and i'd be careful making that assertion given the UK's libel laws.
Same as Rory's point about the non-dom laws, they aren't necessarily good but they are what they are, and we're were imfamous as being the home for defamation cases.

On the point about the morality of paying 'enough' tax... this is a fundamental principle upon which the UK tax law is built on:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
Lord Clyde in the case of Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764:

[Pannonian]

I'm pointing out that I haven't seen any sign of illegality, and i'd be careful making that assertion given the UK's libel laws.
Same as Rory's point about the non-dom laws, they aren't necessarily good but they are what they are, and we're were imfamous as being the home for defamation cases.

On the point about the morality of paying 'enough' tax... this is a fundamental principle upon which the UK tax law is built on:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
Lord Clyde in the case of Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764:

How should I word it then, given that I'm a simple person not au fait with the difference between tax fraud and tax dodger/evader/whatever? I've been paying via PAYE and whatever bills I receive.

[Furunculus]

How should I word it then, given that I'm a simple person not au fait with the difference between tax fraud and tax dodger/evader/whatever? I've been paying via PAYE and whatever bills I receive.

it is very simple:

1. Tax evasion (and fraud statute generally) is illegal - and you want to think very carefully about stating that someone is acting illegally lest you make defamatory statements which injures the reputation of another person:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm

2. Tax avoidence (and optimisation generally) is totally fine - and its absolute fineness and moral legitimacy is enshrined in Common Law since Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929]:
https://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-articles/general/the-ramsay-principle.html

[Pannonian]

Don't know how you would word it, but Sunak changed policy to benefit non-domiciles that would have affected his household income, and his wife's company was involved in numerous discussions with the government that resulted in government contracts worth millions. Is it libellous to say this?

[rory_20_uk]

Hence legal but immoral. He's asked to be referred to the oversight committee. Call my cynical but is this out of a sudden desire to get things review irrespective of outcome or is it so unlikely to do anything that he's happy to do it for the "optics".

Most of what Politicians do falls into this category as they set the laws and effectively have no oversight that has any teeth.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Don't know how you would word it, but Sunak changed policy to benefit non-domiciles that would have affected his household income, and his wife's company was involved in numerous discussions with the government that resulted in government contracts worth millions. Is it libellous to say this?

either "legal", or "illegal".

no more and no less than that.

[Pannonian]

It's now official. Johnson broke the law, and he lied to Parliament about it.

[Montmorency]

Amusing (https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1490641127212568576)[VIDEO]


Hence legal but immoral. He's asked to be referred to the oversight committee. Call my cynical but is this out of a sudden desire to get things review irrespective of outcome or is it so unlikely to do anything that he's happy to do it for the "optics".

Most of what Politicians do falls into this category as they set the laws and effectively have no oversight that has any teeth.

~:smoking:

There's oversight, it's just difficult to get it applied to prominent individuals (ask Trump) in any system that doesn't formally prioritize such.

Summary (https://www.thedailybeast.com/south-dakota-attorney-general-jason-ravnsborg-faces-republican-revolt-on-impeachment-over-killing-joe-boever): The South Dakota attorney general ran over a pedestrian lethally in the middle of the night, hit and ran (the victim's glasses were blown into his car), tried to brush it off as a misunderstanding or the result of the victim's intoxication or suicidality.

The AG was not indicted as a normal person would have been, but there was an expectation that he would resign. He did not resign and now is running for reelection, creating the scintilla of a possibility that his own party (one guess which) will impeach him in the near future.

What more "oversight" is needed in a clear-cut case of negligent homicide that state police thoroughly documented? Governmental actors need to have a willingness to 'pull the trigger' is all. It seems to me primarily a matter of creating incentive structures for the scalps of politicians and magnates...

Last year Mexico held a symbolic referendum on whether former presidents can be prosecuted for corruption. It won with 98% of the vote with 7% turnout. That seems perfectly representative of the underlying issue.

[rory_20_uk]

It's now official. Johnson broke the law, and he lied to Parliament about it.

So many firsts!

First PM to be convicted of a crime.
The most fines to be given out at one address - is it just the Members from numbers 10 and 11? Not to worry, several MPs have already backed the PM.
Boris always wanted to get into the history books and finally he's managed it - no one can be an earlier first.


Amusing (https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1490641127212568576)[VIDEO]

There's oversight, it's just difficult to get it applied to prominent individuals (ask Trump) in any system that doesn't formally prioritize such.

Summary (https://www.thedailybeast.com/south-dakota-attorney-general-jason-ravnsborg-faces-republican-revolt-on-impeachment-over-killing-joe-boever): The South Dakota attorney general ran over a pedestrian lethally in the middle of the night, hit and ran (the victim's glasses were blown into his car), tried to brush it off as a misunderstanding or the result of the victim's intoxication or suicidality.

The AG was not indicted as a normal person would have been, but there was an expectation that he would resign. He did not resign and now is running for reelection, creating the scintilla of a possibility that his own party (one guess which) will impeach him in the near future.

What more "oversight" is needed in a clear-cut case of negligent homicide that state police thoroughly documented? Governmental actors need to have a willingness to 'pull the trigger' is all. It seems to me primarily a matter of creating incentive structures for the scalps of politicians and magnates...

Last year Mexico held a symbolic referendum on whether former presidents can be prosecuted for corruption. It won with 98% of the vote with 7% turnout. That seems perfectly representative of the underlying issue.

In theory we do have such a system. But it so decrepit with no use (75 years and counting) that even though this is possibly the clearest time do do Something in decades, nothing will happen. Of course not exercising the power to remove the PM for any number of reasons - I realise that is fantasy. But even an anaemic statement that the Monarch is "disappointed" in what has happened and hopes that those involved will do the right thing for the country would be better than just arranging the next outing with Prince Andrew.

I do feel sorry for Sir Kier. He goes to PMQs each week and he must wonder what the point is. Nothing matters. What on earth can he say or do that will have any impact? And by the election it will all be a distant memory in any case.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

First PM to be convicted of a crime.


Entirely separate from the moral/professional/political pressure for him to resign - which he deserves however the chips fall - a FPN is not considered a conviction.
It is deemed a conviction up until it is paid, not once that event is achieved.

https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/about/a-guide-to-fixed-penalty-notices.html


As is the case with the FPNs discussed above, the incentive is for the offender to “pay up”, therefore, no criminal conviction or admission of guilt is associated with payment of the penalty.

[Pannonian]

So many firsts!

First PM to be convicted of a crime.
The most fines to be given out at one address - is it just the Members from numbers 10 and 11? Not to worry, several MPs have already backed the PM.
Boris always wanted to get into the history books and finally he's managed it - no one can be an earlier first.



In theory we do have such a system. But it so decrepit with no use (75 years and counting) that even though this is possibly the clearest time do do Something in decades, nothing will happen. Of course not exercising the power to remove the PM for any number of reasons - I realise that is fantasy. But even an anaemic statement that the Monarch is "disappointed" in what has happened and hopes that those involved will do the right thing for the country would be better than just arranging the next outing with Prince Andrew.

I do feel sorry for Sir Kier. He goes to PMQs each week and he must wonder what the point is. Nothing matters. What on earth can he say or do that will have any impact? And by the election it will all be a distant memory in any case.

~:smoking:

"Jeremy Corbyn."
"Get Brexit done."

The two biggest reasons given for not voting Labour. And the Tories will still push these arguments and the media will back them.

[Pannonian]

Entirely separate from the moral/professional/political pressure for him to resign - which he deserves however the chips fall - a FPN is not considered a conviction.
It is deemed a conviction up until it is paid, not once that event is achieved.

https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/about/a-guide-to-fixed-penalty-notices.html

And where does lying to Parliament stand in the list of definitions? What is the point of Prime Minister's Questions if they can give any false answer they want and nothing will be done about it?

And the Mail is now pushing the implied argument that it's unpatriotic to want the PM to stand down at a time of war, even though we're not at war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't know how you would word it, but Sunak changed policy to benefit non-domiciles that would have affected his household income, and his wife's company was involved in numerous discussions with the government that resulted in government contracts worth millions. Is it libellous to say this?

If the accusation is true it cannot be libelous. However, to be strict, SAYING something that is defamatory and untrue is slanderous, it is only libelous if it is printed.

[Pannonian]

Amusing (https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1490641127212568576)[VIDEO]



There's oversight, it's just difficult to get it applied to prominent individuals (ask Trump) in any system that doesn't formally prioritize such.

Summary (https://www.thedailybeast.com/south-dakota-attorney-general-jason-ravnsborg-faces-republican-revolt-on-impeachment-over-killing-joe-boever): The South Dakota attorney general ran over a pedestrian lethally in the middle of the night, hit and ran (the victim's glasses were blown into his car), tried to brush it off as a misunderstanding or the result of the victim's intoxication or suicidality.

The AG was not indicted as a normal person would have been, but there was an expectation that he would resign. He did not resign and now is running for reelection, creating the scintilla of a possibility that his own party (one guess which) will impeach him in the near future.

What more "oversight" is needed in a clear-cut case of negligent homicide that state police thoroughly documented? Governmental actors need to have a willingness to 'pull the trigger' is all. It seems to me primarily a matter of creating incentive structures for the scalps of politicians and magnates...

Last year Mexico held a symbolic referendum on whether former presidents can be prosecuted for corruption. It won with 98% of the vote with 7% turnout. That seems perfectly representative of the underlying issue.

Democracy trumps rule of law. Democratically elected governments don't need to follow the law, because they have the backing of the people. Since the only oversight is Parliament, where they have a hefty majority and the iron rule of whips, it is the will of the people that the laws they set for others does not apply to the ones who set the laws.

[Pannonian]

The Tory government presents plans to "process" refugees in Rwanda, a country which the PM said, less than 12 months ago, does not respect human rights. The Mail proclaims, a majority of UK citizens support the proposal.

[Pannonian]

Remember all those government initiatives and plans, announced as proof that the government had everything in hand and critics claiming that government incompetence were out of order. The government announced a supply chain taskforce in September 2021, tasked with making sure that Christmas would not be cancelled. By the time the list of government agencies was next updated in October 2021, that taskforce no longer existed, and it may never have convened at all. So here's an example of a government initiative that never existed in practice, but only to occupy the headlines for the purpose of shoring up voter support.

For those who still support Brexit: what were the benefits again? Is there any concrete evidence of the benefits that were promised, or did they only exist in the same manner as this logistics taskforce; solely for the purpose of headlines and votes?

[Furunculus]

the desire for legitimate governance - deemed so principally on the basis that it is [both] representative [and] accountable.
free to succeed and fail based on ones own policy preferences.
i am perfectly okay with brexit so far, and fail to recognise (or understand) the disaster mavens:

is it the titanic unemployment we face vs our european peers? 3.8% vs 7.1%.
is it horrific the GDP growth vs the continental tigers?
is it suicidal business sentiment?
is it awful and shaming way we have a more positive view of migrants than the bloc of sunshine and kumbaya next door?
is the way that tech investment in the UK occurs at a rate of more than the next two biggest continental economies combined?
is it that irrelevant britain keeps building security partnerships with foolish nations like finland and poland (who should look to the EU instead)?
it is the way the british financial system teeters on the brink of collapse with quantitive easing and negative rate while inflation roars ahead at 7.5%? oops, that is the EU.

this brexit calamity meme is truly a wonder, can you explain it to me please?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

the desire for legitimate governance - deemed so principally on the basis that it is [both] representative [and] accountable.
free to succeed and fail based on ones own policy preferences.
i am perfectly okay with brexit so far, and fail to recognise (or understand) the disaster mavens:

is it the titanic unemployment we face vs our european peers? 3.8% vs 7.1%.
is it horrific the GDP growth vs the continental tigers?
is it suicidal business sentiment?
is it awful and shaming way we have a more positive view of migrants than the bloc of sunshine and kumbaya next door?
is the way that tech investment in the UK occurs at a rate of more than the next two biggest continental economies combined?
is it that irrelevant britain keeps building security partnerships with foolish nations like finland and poland (who should look to the EU instead)?
it is the way the british financial system teeters on the brink of collapse with quantitive easing and negative rate while inflation roars ahead at 7.5%? oops, that is the EU.

this brexit calamity meme is truly a wonder, can you explain it to me please?

I have been gathering the impression (it's rather under-reported-upon here) that the Brexit is nowhere near as smooth as its proponents had been selling it to be, but also nowhere near the economic meltdown and bread-lines fiasco that its detractors asserted would result.

[Furunculus]

I have been gathering the impression (it's rather under-reported-upon here) that the Brexit is nowhere near as smooth as its proponents had been selling it to be, but also nowhere near the economic meltdown and bread-lines fiasco that its detractors asserted would result.

that is correct:
brexiteers oversold the goodwill that might exist from the EU in recreating a deep trade partnership at the same time as we said we wanted a divorce from the economic, social, and fiscal measures.
remainers oversold how much we actually benefit from the single market, and as a generalisation dislike the demonstrable-harm regulatory principle that allow fin-serv, biotech, data, ai industries to thrive.

[rory_20_uk]

Remember all those government initiatives and plans, announced as proof that the government had everything in hand and critics claiming that government incompetence were out of order. The government announced a supply chain taskforce in September 2021, tasked with making sure that Christmas would not be cancelled. By the time the list of government agencies was next updated in October 2021, that taskforce no longer existed, and it may never have convened at all. So here's an example of a government initiative that never existed in practice, but only to occupy the headlines for the purpose of shoring up voter support.

For those who still support Brexit: what were the benefits again? Is there any concrete evidence of the benefits that were promised, or did they only exist in the same manner as this logistics taskforce; solely for the purpose of headlines and votes?

The last vote on the EU was when it was the EEC. That was what? 50 years ago now. And in fact, since then the populace have never been directly asked - and for good reason since no country has ever said yes to such a question on the first attempt - either the requirement to ask has been removed or the laws have been altered to get the right answer. And if this vote had been a "yes", there's no time frame that there might ever have been another. So the exercise isn't about the 5 year tactical about who is PM but rather the decades spanning strategy of who has final say over the UK.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The last vote on the EU was when it was the EEC. That was what? 50 years ago now. And in fact, since then the populace have never been directly asked - and for good reason since no country has ever said yes to such a question on the first attempt - either the requirement to ask has been removed or the laws have been altered to get the right answer. And if this vote had been a "yes", there's no time frame that there might ever have been another. So the exercise isn't about the 5 year tactical about who is PM but rather the decades spanning strategy of who has final say over the UK.

~:smoking:

And what will the 2016 vote be used to justify? It's been used to justify deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, which I do not remember being on the agenda in 2016.

Meanwhile, the PM accepted last month that he was wrong to have used certain employment statistics, and accepted correction by the watchdog. This means he now knows that these stats were wrong. And he's repeated them again. Does this count as knowingly misleading the House? What should be done about it? NB. In making these statements and not correcting them, he has been contravening the ministerial code.

[Furunculus]

And what will the 2016 vote be used to justify? It's been used to justify deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, which I do not remember being on the agenda in 2016.

Meanwhile, the PM accepted last month that he was wrong to have used certain employment statistics, and accepted correction by the watchdog. This means he now knows that these stats were wrong. And he's repeated them again. Does this count as knowingly misleading the House? What should be done about it? NB. In making these statements and not correcting them, he has been contravening the ministerial code.

Asylum processing in third countries may be a good or a bad thing, but it is not related to brexit or the absence of the loving embrace of compassionate EU social democracy:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/denmark-passes-law-to-let-it-relocate-asylum-seekers-outside-europe

Would the real employment statistics show the true scale of the UK's post-brexit employment catastrophe vis-a-vis our peer nation in the EU?
Like France for example...

[Pannonian]

Asylum processing in third countries may be a good or a bad thing, but it is not related to brexit or the absence of the loving embrace of compassionate EU social democracy:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/denmark-passes-law-to-let-it-relocate-asylum-seekers-outside-europe

Would the real employment statistics show the true scale of the UK's post-brexit employment catastrophe vis-a-vis our peer nation in the EU?
Like France for example...

Whether or not it's related, Tory MPs have been citing Brexit to justify it.

Dunno why you're dragging the EU into the employment stats. The PM used specific stats that were deceiving, and the watchdog notified him that they were deceiving, and he accepted their correction, meaning that he undeniably knew (by this point) that they were deceiving and should not be used. Yet he's gone and repeated them. Is knowingly misleading the House another issue that's justified by pointing at the EU? Is there no end to the amount of misconduct that cannot be justified by pointing at the EU, or will it forever be a politically effective scapegoat, even after we've left?

[Furunculus]

In fairness, the context provided forced me to guess at what employment stats you were talking about.

And on my presumption as to why the EU might be involved; that would be because brexit is your obsession:
"And what will the 2016 vote be used to justify? It's been used to justify deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda, which I do not remember being on the agenda in 2016."

[Furunculus]

entertained by this while we all get hot and sweaty about our leaders having 'illegal' lockdown parties:

https://twitter.com/cold957/status/1517758883347017728

if there is one lesson we should take from this (beyond not lying to parliament), it is that we must never have such a lockdown again where no one can realistically be expected to live up to it - because its provisions are beyond what is reasonable.

[Pannonian]

entertained by this while we all get hot and sweaty about our leaders having 'illegal' lockdown parties:

https://twitter.com/cold957/status/1517758883347017728

if there is one lesson we should take from this (beyond not lying to parliament), it is that we must never have such a lockdown again where no one can realistically be expected to live up to it - because its provisions are beyond what is reasonable.

I lived up to it. Why couldn't those who made the rules live up to it? After all, they told us what the rules were, so they should have been the most familiar with them.

Do you think those who make the laws should obey them? Or do you think that it's unreasonable, and prefer to point to everyone else instead?

BTW, I think you'll have a point if you support Boris Johnson becoming opposition leader so he'll be in an equivalent position to Keir Starmer. Will you be voting to make this so, so that Labour can have a go at making laws whilst not obeying them?

[Furunculus]

I do. I question whether those rules even apply to public buildings during a pandemic as a general point, and on a specific point i question whether a ten minute pause before a following meeting for people who work together anyway in order to present a cake should fall under the label of "illegal granny killing lockdown party".

I simply don't care about the event for which he has received a FPN.
I do care if he has misled parliament according to the definition adopted in parliaments procedures; which is a technical point made all the more uncertain given the general and specific points above.
If he has misled parliament then i have no sympathy for whatever political consequences befall him, yet i personally have no use for a labour party in gov't - they work against that which I wish to see done.

[Pannonian]

I do. I question whether those rules even apply to public buildings during a pandemic as a general point, and on a specific point i question whether a ten minute pause before a following meeting for people who work together anyway in order to present a cake should fall under the label of "illegal granny killing lockdown party".

I simply don't care about the event for which he has received a FPN.
I do care if he has misled parliament according to the definition adopted in parliaments procedures; which is a technical point made all the more uncertain given the general and specific points above.
If he has misled parliament then i have no sympathy for whatever political consequences befall him, yet i personally have no use for a labour party in gov't - they work against that which I wish to see done.

Going to technicalities now?

The last sentence sums it up. The Tories can do whatever they like, and you will continue to vote them in to keep Labour out. So much for supposed standards to hold the government up to. You will always find the decisive excuse to vote Tory: keep Labour out.

[Furunculus]

If the technicality involves public buildings being exempt from pandemic related restrictions, yes.
If the technicality involves gatherings of people in public buildings - subject to a risk assessment, yes.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-the-downing-street-party-break-the-law

On the last sentence - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Is the PM a criminal - no, a FPN does not imply a criminal conviction.
Has the PM broken the law - almost certainly not.
Has the PM broken parliamentary regs in intentionally misleading parliament - seems rather unlikely:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-boris-johnson-didn-t-mislead-parliament

[rory_20_uk]

If the technicality involves public buildings being exempt from pandemic related restrictions, yes.
If the technicality involves gatherings of people in public buildings - subject to a risk assessment, yes.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-the-downing-street-party-break-the-law

On the last sentence - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Is the PM a criminal - no, a FPN does not imply a criminal conviction.
Has the PM broken the law - almost certainly not.
Has the PM broken parliamentary regs in intentionally misleading parliament - seems rather unlikely:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-boris-johnson-didn-t-mislead-parliament

Let us go by first principles.

The FPN in question is in relation to a criminal law. To get one they had to have been proven to a criminal standard to have been guilty.
With any FPN one has two options - accept guilt and pay or challenge at the Magistrate's Court. Boris, Mrs Boris and Sunak all have payed so they are all admitting guilt - so they by their own admission broke the law.
Could they have challenged it? Of course. Perhaps even getting the Government to pay for a Barrister such as the one who penned the article to persuade the Magistrates that the gathering with alcohol was required for government to work; or that in fact the law didn't apply where the parties took place. And perhaps the Magistrates would have agreed. Or if not it could have been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

There was an episode of Yes Prime Minister where the PM stood up in the house to state that a certain MP in the Opposition was not being surveilled by MI5. Hacker was very pleased with himself. Of course the MP was being surveilled and Sir Humphrey explained that he PM was not informed just so he could tell such things to the house without intentionally misleading parliament. As is stated in this case, no one knows what the PM was thinking and as long as he can claim he's such an ignorant idiot that he thought that it was OK then apparently it is.

As always it is not the crime but the coverup that get politicians in trouble, so unsurprisingly he's handled this side well (experience helps I imagine).

Whilst I accept that from a purely legal standard it is not possible to prove that he intentionally misled government, his proved ease at lying is well documented and on the balance of probabilities I think he's no so stupid not to have known, he just continues to believe - just like his father - that laws shouldn't apply to persons such as him.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Let us go by first principles.

The FPN in question is in relation to a criminal law. To get one they had to have been proven to a criminal standard to have been guilty.
With any FPN one has two options - accept guilt and pay or challenge at the Magistrate's Court. Boris, Mrs Boris and Sunak all have payed so they are all admitting guilt - so they by their own admission broke the law.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053828112&viewfull=1#post2053828112


As is the case with the FPNs discussed above, the incentive is for the offender to “pay up”, therefore, no criminal conviction or admission of guilt is associated with payment of the penalty.



Whilst I accept that from a purely legal standard it is not possible to prove that he intentionally misled government, his proved ease at lying is well documented and on the balance of probabilities I think he's no so stupid not to have known, he just continues to believe - just like his father - that laws shouldn't apply to persons such as him.


I agree. And my stated position on this is well documented:



If he has misled parliament then i have no sympathy for whatever political consequences befall him...


Entirely separate from the moral/professional/political pressure for him to resign - which he deserves however the chips fall...

[Pannonian]

Let us go by first principles.

The FPN in question is in relation to a criminal law. To get one they had to have been proven to a criminal standard to have been guilty.
With any FPN one has two options - accept guilt and pay or challenge at the Magistrate's Court. Boris, Mrs Boris and Sunak all have payed so they are all admitting guilt - so they by their own admission broke the law.
Could they have challenged it? Of course. Perhaps even getting the Government to pay for a Barrister such as the one who penned the article to persuade the Magistrates that the gathering with alcohol was required for government to work; or that in fact the law didn't apply where the parties took place. And perhaps the Magistrates would have agreed. Or if not it could have been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

There was an episode of Yes Prime Minister where the PM stood up in the house to state that a certain MP in the Opposition was not being surveilled by MI5. Hacker was very pleased with himself. Of course the MP was being surveilled and Sir Humphrey explained that he PM was not informed just so he could tell such things to the house without intentionally misleading parliament. As is stated in this case, no one knows what the PM was thinking and as long as he can claim he's such an ignorant idiot that he thought that it was OK then apparently it is.

As always it is not the crime but the coverup that get politicians in trouble, so unsurprisingly he's handled this side well (experience helps I imagine).

Whilst I accept that from a purely legal standard it is not possible to prove that he intentionally misled government, his proved ease at lying is well documented and on the balance of probabilities I think he's no so stupid not to have known, he just continues to believe - just like his father - that laws shouldn't apply to persons such as him.

~:smoking:

It's not just a case of not knowing and thus unknowingly misleading Parliament. His use of employment stats has been explicitly stated to be misleading by the watchdog on this matter, which berated him and corrected him, and he accepted their correction, thus making it official that it was indisputable that he was no longer unknowing. Yet he repeated those stats anyway, as most of the mainstream media will back him against Labour no matter what, and what matters to the public is the headlines these media put out, not the legalities and details.

And, of course, there is the weasel argument Furunculus puts forward, that he supports whatever political consequences that come to Johnson. The ultimate political consequence is being voted out, and Furunculus also says that these misdemeanors aren't sufficient to make him vote them out. With the media supporting Johnson against Labour, and people like Furunculus always stopping short of voting the Tories out, political consequences amount to nothing. Ignoring Johnson's lies and voting Tory anyway is still a political consequence.

[Furunculus]

With the media supporting Johnson against Labour, and people like Furunculus always stopping short of voting the Tories out, political consequences amount to nothing.

I repeat - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Likwise, i am not the british electorate. They are adults of legally sound mind and will make their own decision (as is expected of adults). Which will no doubt result in the Tories losing power before long. Fine, this is called representative democracy. Be of stout heart, young man, your time will yet come.

[Montmorency]

I repeat - you cannot morally compel me to vote for people who intend to do things I believe to be wrong and bad. Life doesn't work like that i'm afraid.

Likwise, i am not the british electorate. They are adults of legally sound mind and will make their own decision (as is expected of adults). Which will no doubt result in the Tories losing power before long. Fine, this is called representative democracy. Be of stout heart, young man, your time will yet come.

Is this the "Greater Evil" theory of politics? Ironically the same was said by left-dissident opponents of Hillary Clinton in 2016, though they used the term "blackmail" rather than "moral compulsion." Also somehow the language of pro-Trump right-wing respectability-seekers of the same election. :sneaky:

[Furunculus]

Is this the "Greater Evil" theory of politics? Ironically the same was said by left-dissident opponents of Hillary Clinton in 2016, though they used the term "blackmail" rather than "moral compulsion." Also somehow the language of pro-Trump right-wing respectability-seekers of the same election. :sneaky:

I have no idea, never heard of it.

Far more simple: I am right wing.

.'. parties that seem to operate from my core philosophy and enact governance in ways I like will get my vote, whereas those who work from a philosophy I reject and use it to offer governance i dislike will not get that vote.

If there was some egregious moral failing (above and beyond the normal in politics), such that it would override philosophy and action then any person should reflect on that. I do not believe we have reached such a point.

Voting labour is inimical to my interests, cake does not override this.

[Pannonian]

The chancellor unveils plans to claw back ?8bn from Covid fraud. I wonder if that will include investigating Tory peer Lady Mone, who got Downing Street to mark her husband's company down for VIP status even before it was formally registered as a company, which then made 200% profit on PPE which was not used (bought substandard PPE from China for ?50m, was paid ?150m by government for it). A Channel 4 (?) investigation found packs of said PPE, bought by NHS for ?1000, on ebay for ?10 (it was ?50 when I looked).

This government specialises in channeling tax money to its friends and family. But I suppose this corruption and incompetence is democratically endorsed, so all these arguments hold no water. Because democracy excuses everything. You don't need to be competent when you have democracy behind you. You don't need to follow the law when you have democracy behind you.

Edit: autocorrect changes pound signs to question marks.

[Pannonian]

Was there any reason for revealing military secrets on Ukraine during a visit to India?

Boris Johnson ‘tempting evil’ by revealing Ukrainian soldiers trained in Poland (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland)


A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

[Furunculus]

Any observations on Sunak's green card? Should our no.2 politician be holding high office while simultaneously holding a status that disqualifies him for it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-nondom-green-card-b2066837.html


In a report published today, Lord Geidt ruled that the non-dom status did not breach the ministerial code of conduct. He revealed that Mr Sunak disclosed his wife?s tax arrangements and her holding in her father?s Infosys company ? as well as the green card and the blind trust which oversees the chancellor?s private financial affairs - when he first became a minister....

The ethics adviser said that holding a green card ? which requires an individual to pay tax in America and commit to eventually settling in the US ? was not ?an inherent conflict of interest? and ?could not reasonably be said to be in tension with the faithful discharge of his duties? as chancellor.

There were no policy changes since his arrival at the Treasury which were relevant to Mr Sunak?s green card status, he found.

And while there were two measures, relating to inward investment and non-dom status, which would impact on his wife?s position, Lord Geidt found that Mr Sunak took steps on each ocassion to avoid conflicts of interest by ensuring another Treasury minister took the lead on decisions of substance.

Meanwhile, it was not deemed necessary to publish details of Ms Murty?s Infosys holding in the register as the company had no contracts with the Treasury during her husband?s time at the department.

Lord Geidt concluded: ?I advise that the requirements of the ministerial code have been adhered to by the chancellor, and that he has been assiduous in meeting his obligations and in engaging with this investigation...

...Labour denounced the findings as a ?whitewash?, with deputy leader Angela Rayner saying: ?Downing Street has lost all ethical credibility.?

sometimes the p00p that was flung at the wall falls off, but that is exactly why we must always keep flinging more. :D

[Pannonian]

The chancellor unveils plans to claw back ?8bn from Covid fraud. I wonder if that will include investigating Tory peer Lady Mone, who got Downing Street to mark her husband's company down for VIP status even before it was formally registered as a company, which then made 200% profit on PPE which was not used (bought substandard PPE from China for ?50m, was paid ?150m by government for it). A Channel 4 (?) investigation found packs of said PPE, bought by NHS for ?1000, on ebay for ?10 (it was ?50 when I looked).

This government specialises in channeling tax money to its friends and family. But I suppose this corruption and incompetence is democratically endorsed, so all these arguments hold no water. Because democracy excuses everything. You don't need to be competent when you have democracy behind you. You don't need to follow the law when you have democracy behind you.

Edit: autocorrect changes pound signs to question marks.

An update on this. Lady Mone is indeed being investigated by the police. There were other companies with connections to Tory MPs who also got billions (up to 9 figure sums for individual companies) in non-tendered Covid contracts. The New York Times reported 33 billion in dodgy contracts.

[Montmorency]

I have no idea, never heard of it.

More elaborately, the idea of "why settle for the lesser evil?"


.'. parties that seem to operate from my core philosophy and enact governance in ways I like will get my vote, whereas those who work from a philosophy I reject and use it to offer governance i dislike will not get that vote.

If there was some egregious moral failing (above and beyond the normal in politics), such that it would override philosophy and action then any person should reflect on that. I do not believe we have reached such a point.

Voting labour is inimical to my interests, cake does not override this.

Of course those results are the rub. Against left-wing dissidents (cf. also French elections) the counter-argument was that effective abstention or defection is contrary to their stated principles in result. With the right that may or may not have been the case, the "not" being the more troubling scenario as we saw that it implies illiberalism. But no citizen is released from the duty to appraise results and interests according to the conduct of government in fact, not according to a high level of philosophical abstraction. "I am X, so I support X party" is not inherently satisfactory.

Thought you were a classical liberal* though.

[Pannonian]

More elaborately, the idea of "why settle for the lesser evil?"



Of course those results are the rub. Against left-wing dissidents (cf. also French elections) the counter-argument was that effective abstention or defection is contrary to their stated principles in result. With the right that may or may not have been the case, the "not" being the more troubling scenario as we saw that it implies illiberalism. But no citizen is released from the duty to appraise results and interests according to the conduct of government in fact, not according to a high level of philosophical abstraction. "I am X, so I support X party" is not inherently satisfactory.

Thought you were a classical liberal* though.

More relevantly, it doesn't make sense to hold the opposition, who do not make the laws, to higher standards than the government, who do make the laws. The point of liberalism, in its original form, was to radically reassess the establishment by asking difficult questions of the establishment. By holding the opposition to higher standards whilst constantly excusing the government, one goes against the fundamental basis of liberalism, by having a tendency against changing the establishment. It is the very definition of conservatism (Toryism even).

In related news, the government has passed a Bill that gives it power over the previously independent Electoral Commission. So in addition to having a government which disregards the constitution, media which will disseminate and support its lies, and voters who will back it no matter what, the government now has formal control of the electoral system too. One of the proposed measures is to address a problem which the Electoral Commission said does not exist in any meaningful form, by implementing measures that are known to discourage opposition voters, in a manner which would have disqualified me from voting in several previous elections.

[Furunculus]

"I am X, so I support X party" is not inherently satisfactory.

Thought you were a classical liberal* though.
You are correct; it is not a satisfactory position.

You are again correct; i don't find my politics maps in any way neatly onto modern british political parties. This too is unsatisfactory.


More relevantly, it doesn't make sense to hold the opposition, who do not make the laws, to higher standards than the government, who do make the laws.-

I do not do this. This is not a position I hold. It is not a position I have claimed to hold, nor too is it a reasonable inference from discussion around the topic.
The worst offence I can be guilty of is in failing to hold the gov't to a higher standard than the opposition - which you clearly would like me to do.
You persist in misrepresenting what i say, why do you do this?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was there any reason for revealing military secrets on Ukraine during a visit to India?

Boris Johnson ‘tempting evil’ by revealing Ukrainian soldiers trained in Poland (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland)

Our previous President had him Trumped on cavalier disdain for operational security -- but for now BoJo can shine forth.

[Pannonian]

Suella Braverman has advised that legislation to override the Northern Ireland protocol would be legal because the EU’s implementation of it is “disproportionate and unreasonable”.

Thus says the country's top lawyer. Does this mean, in her learned opinion, that individuals in the UK can do the same with the UK's laws too?

[Furunculus]

I mean, that depends on how it is done, doesn't it?

https://twitter.com/AlexanderHorne1/status/1524635518662754304


I hope that, when we get to see the detail, the Government is simply proposing to use Article 16 of the Protocol to (legally) disapply some practical aspects which are not working, rather than seeking to resile from the entire deal.

[Furunculus]

An expert view on what the UK might be aiming to do with the Northern Ireland Protocol:
https://mostfavourednation.substack.com/p/most-favoured-nation-what-does-the?s=w


Most Favoured Nation: What Does the UK Want Changed?

With the caveat that this list is mainly based on conversations and me piecing together disparate bits of information that has been briefed to friendly journalists/leaked to unfriendly journalists, these are the changes I think the UK wants to see made:

Reverse the burden of proof. As it stand, the default for goods entering Northern Ireland is that they are treated as if they are entering the EU’s customs and regulatory territory unless (in the case of customs duties) the importer can prove they will remain in Northern Ireland. The UK wants to flip this, so that all goods entering Northern Ireland are treated as if they will remain in the UK, unless there is a clear and obvious risk of onward movement to the EU. But how to achieve this in practice?

Expand the remit of the “not at risk” regime. At the moment, goods entering Northern Ireland can, subject to terms and conditions, avoid EU tariffs if they can demonstrate they will remain in Northern Ireland. Given this is acceptable for fiscal purposes, there is no reason, the UK argues, the same approach could not be used for the purpose of avoiding regulatory controls too. Food products entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain could avoid checks so long as they are sold to Northern Irish consumers. Of course the UK wants the remit of the scheme to be as wide as possible, and drastically simplified too. At its most permissive, the UK would also like the EU to actively identify the product types – for example citrus fruit – it is most concerned about from a bio-security point of view, and target checks accordingly.

And you know what, I’m kinda with the UK on this. In practice, the extension of the not-at-risk process has already happened: the grace period allowing for chilled meat preparations to enter Northern Ireland from Great Britain (yes, sausages) is only available to supermarkets in Northern Ireland, on the basis you have a clear, local, point of sale and heavily monitored supply chains. If you can prove it will stay in Northern Ireland, and it is not something that poses a major threat to EU biosecurity, then what’s the problem?

General expansion of trusted trader. Trusted firms should face minimal [see: zero] checks and bureaucracy; compliance would be policed via audit.

Use existing commercial data to identify product movements instead of customs declarations. At the moment, traders moving goods into Northern Ireland from Great Britain have to make customs declarations via the Trader Support Service. The UK wants to drastically simplify this process by reducing the amount of information asked for. It also wants to remove and the requirement for firms to work out the product codes (HS codes) of goods (something that is actually quite time consuming and difficult) by allowing them to rely on existing commercial information, which the UK argues already contains the required details (or at least the details can be deduced from what is there). Removing the need for HS codes has symbolic importance from a UK perspective, in that it removes one of the visible representations of the internal border.

I think this is all theoretically possible. And the EU has engaged with the UK on reducing the amount of information asked for. But I’m not sure the UK and the firms operating across the internal border are quite ready to implement such a scheme. For one it would require linking the disparate internal systems of various companies with, presumably, the TSS. Not at all impossible, but it would require investment, testing, and refining (and for the UK to share live data with the EU). Also a lot of EU-UK trust. But definitely possible in time. [Note: one of the reasons these sorts of innovative approaches are more feasible in this context than other trade borders is because the internal UK border is unique: while some rules might be different on each side, the UK remains the legal authority, allowing it to more effectively police compliance on both sides.]

Grace periods/easements. The first thing to say is that the protocol as applied in practice is nothing like the protocol as first envisioned. It has already evolved quite dramatically (most notably on medicines). There include a grace period that allow, for example, chilled meat preparations to continue entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain (under set circumstances) despite EU rules not allowing the import of chilled meant preparations and unilateral UK breaches of commitments that exempt small parcels being sold by businesses in Great Britain to consumers in Northern Ireland from customs formalities.

The UK wants these grace periods and derogations to be made permanent, arguing that, in comparison, some of the EU proposals to improve the protocol would in fact increase the burden on traders. And I’ll let you in on a secret: everyone, including on the EU side, knows that these grace periods and derogation are not going anywhere. The UK is never going to stop [mainly hypothetical] Great British sausages from entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain. This is all kinda a phoney war.

Fix VAT. Look, this is one of those things I don’t really understand. Export/import VAT is ridiculously complicated, and the Northern Ireland Protocol approach all the more so. If you want detail, go speak to Richard Asquith or someone like that. But the UK wants the UK VAT regime to apply in Northern Ireland.

UK standards. Northern Ireland is de facto within the EU single market for goods. This means goods placed on the Northern Irish market have to conform with EU regulations and standards. The UK wants businesses in Northern Ireland to have a choice, to either conform with UK regulations and standards (if placing the product solely on the UK market) or EU regulations and standards (if selling into the EU). Brexit hipsters might recognise this as Liechtenstein-style parallel marketability.

In the UK’s favour, at least for product standards, it is correct to say that such an approach is manageble without needing checks on the land border. Within the EU, compliance with European standards is rarely (not never) enforced at the border, rather legal liability for ensuring conformity is placed on the importer and policed in-market. However, knowing that the UK is 90 per cent of the time going to have the same underlying standards as the EU, given we have retained our membership of the European Standards Organisations and y’know gravity, there is a more obvious solution to ensuring the uniformity of the UK market: the UK could just, as a whole, continue accepting that products produced to EU standards and certified for the EU market are fit to be placed on the whole UK market … as the UK is currently doing anyway. Problem solved.

TRQ reform. I might be the only person who cares about it, but I’ll mention anyway. Importers of food in Northern Ireland currently cannot use UK tariff-rate quotas (either in free trade agreements or autonomous) because the UK tariff regime can only be used if the difference between the applied UK tariff and EU tariff is less than 3 percentage points. Because the in-quota UK rate (usually zero percent) is compared to the EU out-of-quota rate (usually a bazillion percent) the difference is always greater than 3. I wrote about just how this came to be so complicated last year.

I’m not quite sure what the new UK proposed fix for this is, but I assume it is along the lines of if you can prove it stays in Northern Ireland then you should be covered by the UK tariff regime (essentially scrapping the 3 percentage points criteria).

Standstill. The UK does not want any new EU rules coming into force in Northern Ireland. It is already the case, per the Northern Ireland Protocol, that brand new EU rules do not automatically come into force in Northern Ireland and have to be discussed in the joint committee, but updates to the existing rulebook do … and the existing rulebook is quite large. Divergence would then be managed on a case-by-case basis over time.

I think the UK is pushing its luck a little here. There are clear benefits to the Northern Ireland being in the EU’s single market for goods and I’m not sure why gradually eroding this over time would be helpful or put NI in a strong position to attract investment.

Replace subsidy rules with TCA rules. Pretty much what it says: the UK wants the EU subsidy rules in the protocol to be replaced with the provisions included in the trade and co-operation agreement.

Get rid of ECJ. The UK wants to get rid of the ECJ because it doesn’t feel good and it is a bit embarassing (no Northern Irish business group has raised this as an actual issue). Something I think is overlooked in this discussion is that the presence of the ECJ in the protocol actually serves as a safeguard against discrimination for Northern Irish businesses selling into the EU.

A complete rewrite. And of course all of the above requires the Protocol to be rewritten.

I’ve probably missed something, but the above is – to my understanding – what the UK is asking for. I’m broadly in favour of anything that improves the life of businesses and a lot more sceptical of the asks that are basically the UK having a retrospective temper tantrum. But the big question is, even if the EU agreed to 75% of the above … would it be enough for the DUP?

[rory_20_uk]

Either Northern Ireland is part of the UK and there's a border with Ireland or Northern Ireland isn't part of the UK and should be reunited with Ireland with a border down the Irish Sea.

These two things are clearly mutually exclusive. The Irish need to make a choice which they want and then live with it. Those who aren't happy can emigrate as has countless other times in Europe when Borders are redrawn.

I would very much like to see Northern Ireland cease to be our problem - perhaps England would vote if we want to continue transferring money to Northern Ireland?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Either Northern Ireland is part of the UK and there's a border with Ireland or Northern Ireland isn't part of the UK and should be reunited with Ireland with a border down the Irish Sea.

These two things are clearly mutually exclusive. The Irish need to make a choice which they want and then live with it. Those who aren't happy can emigrate as has countless other times in Europe when Borders are redrawn.

I would very much like to see Northern Ireland cease to be our problem - perhaps England would vote if we want to continue transferring money to Northern Ireland?

~:smoking:

Boris Johnson has said there will be a trade border down the Irish Sea "over my dead body" following Brexit. (https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2020-08-13/irish-sea-trade-border-over-my-dead-body-says-johnson)

[rory_20_uk]

Boris Johnson has said there will be a trade border down the Irish Sea "over my dead body" following Brexit. (https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2020-08-13/irish-sea-trade-border-over-my-dead-body-says-johnson)

Yeah, he's said marriage vows what, five times now?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Yeah, he's said marriage vows what, five times now?

~:smoking:

Should a prime minister's promises matter? Or does a majority excuse everything?

Please do not offer a smart arse answer like a majority means a government can do anything it likes. I'm talking about whether it should matter to voters whether the prime minister breaks his promises.

[Montmorency]

Caring about promises is what the political talking classes do. They are outnumbered by the casual voters, who won't vote for a party unless it espouses the conduct that the Conservative Party does, as is accepted political reality, demonstrated in practice.

If you disregard Johnson's successes, and demand he offer conduct that is philosophically sound and consistent to you, you're demanding something that most of the population has no interest in.

[rory_20_uk]

Should a prime minister's promises matter? Or does a majority excuse everything?

Please do not offer a smart arse answer like a majority means a government can do anything it likes. I'm talking about whether it should matter to voters whether the prime minister breaks his promises.

Politicians have time and time again stated that the only thing that matters is whether things will get them more or less votes. I have frequently said that I would like more rigour in the whole enterprise, from the party manifesto onwards so that voters have a better grasp of what they're getting and ideally some method of enforcement in cases of deviation. The weekly "punch and judy" show isn't sufficient.

Currently it seems no one expects politicians in general and Boris in particular to tell the truth with a system where they are 100% going in one direction until suddenly they're 100% going in a different one without any nuance or reason for the action.

For most voters the only thing that really matters is their quality of life - they loved Sunak when he was showering people with money and now they hate him when he stops and then starts clawing it back as apparently the fact the money was going to come from future taxes was not known at the time. Nor were there many concerns about the amount of money that this might have wasted. Again, this was only an issue when the spigot had been closed.

There should be a mechanism that the PM is held accountable outside of Parliament - which currently doesn't exist. In many countries the President appoints the PM (and that is almost their main executive role). Such a system is one thing amongst many that the Queen has not had the wit to implement over the last 70 years of her Glorious Stasis.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Politicians these days don't lie because they want to persuade or misdirect voters so much as because it is more useful for - some of - them when voters lose the sense that "truth" has any meaning.

[Pannonian]

Politicians have time and time again stated that the only thing that matters is whether things will get them more or less votes. I have frequently said that I would like more rigour in the whole enterprise, from the party manifesto onwards so that voters have a better grasp of what they're getting and ideally some method of enforcement in cases of deviation. The weekly "punch and judy" show isn't sufficient.

Currently it seems no one expects politicians in general and Boris in particular to tell the truth with a system where they are 100% going in one direction until suddenly they're 100% going in a different one without any nuance or reason for the action.

For most voters the only thing that really matters is their quality of life - they loved Sunak when he was showering people with money and now they hate him when he stops and then starts clawing it back as apparently the fact the money was going to come from future taxes was not known at the time. Nor were there many concerns about the amount of money that this might have wasted. Again, this was only an issue when the spigot had been closed.

There should be a mechanism that the PM is held accountable outside of Parliament - which currently doesn't exist. In many countries the President appoints the PM (and that is almost their main executive role). Such a system is one thing amongst many that the Queen has not had the wit to implement over the last 70 years of her Glorious Stasis.

~:smoking:

PMQs used to mean something because ministers couldn't directly lie in response to a question. Boris Johnson is the first PM to routinely and repeatedly lie, even after being formally reprimanded for specific lies, in PMQs. Yet he faces no sanction, because he disregards all customs and expectations, and all formal action is done at the discretion of the PM, and he won't do anything he's not forced to.

Given that the main thrust of his electoral campaign was "Get Brexit done", do you think he has satisfied the position of Prime Minister? I'm pretty sure Furunculus will be voting for him again. Will you?

[Pannonian]

Caring about promises is what the political talking classes do. They are outnumbered by the casual voters, who won't vote for a party unless it espouses the conduct that the Conservative Party does, as is accepted political reality, demonstrated in practice.

If you disregard Johnson's successes, and demand he offer conduct that is philosophically sound and consistent to you, you're demanding something that most of the population has no interest in.

The bulk of Johnson's campaign in 2019 was "Get Brexit done". There was no other substance promised. He declined to be interviewed, and actively hid when journalists pursued him.

You may get a different impression from the Brexit supporters here who claim that there was a whole raft of policies that people really voted for, as opposed to the singular issue of Brexit. You wouldn't have got that impression if you were here in the UK at the time though. Johnson got his majority through Brexit, and he retains support through Brexit. No matter what form that Brexit takes, the fact that the Tories represent Brexit gives them that support. And they use that support to do all manner of other things, such as give tens of billions worth of contracts to their friends and family. All of the corruption, all of the decline in quality of life, all of the increasing poverty, is justified because they're getting Brexit done.

NB. the symbol of the Tory/Brexiteer Right, Jacob Rees Mogg, currently Minister for Brexit Opportunities, says that fully implementing Brexit would be an act of national self harm. This wasn't in the Leave campaign.

[Montmorency]

The bulk of Johnson's campaign in 2019 was "Get Brexit done". There was no other substance promised. He declined to be interviewed, and actively hid when journalists pursued him.

You may get a different impression from the Brexit supporters here who claim that there was a whole raft of policies that people really voted for, as opposed to the singular issue of Brexit. You wouldn't have got that impression if you were here in the UK at the time though. Johnson got his majority through Brexit, and he retains support through Brexit. No matter what form that Brexit takes, the fact that the Tories represent Brexit gives them that support. And they use that support to do all manner of other things, such as give tens of billions worth of contracts to their friends and family. All of the corruption, all of the decline in quality of life, all of the increasing poverty, is justified because they're getting Brexit done.

NB. the symbol of the Tory/Brexiteer Right, Jacob Rees Mogg, currently Minister for Brexit Opportunities, says that fully implementing Brexit would be an act of national self harm. This wasn't in the Leave campaign.

So they wear the blue rosette to reaffirm the party of British sovereignty, and win the votes of the working class. What are the right-minded Opposition going to do about it?

The liberal left has a reputation for caring more about the rights of Europeans than Britons. The previous Labour leaders have a deserved reputation for siding with other countries in disputes involving Britain.

To be considered electable, Labour has to stand tough on Europe, those who identify with it, and so on. Those who argue on theoretical standards of honesty and results don't like it, and frequently say that this is a line crossed. But it is accepted political reality, demonstrated in practice, that Labour has to take that stance in order to be considered acceptable by the plurality of voters.

[Furunculus]

Given that the main thrust of his electoral campaign was "Get Brexit done", do you think he has satisfied the position of Prime Minister? I'm pretty sure Furunculus will be voting for him again. Will you?

You do love to personalise this, don't you?

We don't have a presidential system, so i won't be voting for a person. ;)




You may get a different impression from the Brexit supporters here who claim that there was a whole raft of policies that people really voted for, as opposed to the singular issue of Brexit.
Ooh! Me again.

Maybe the electorate deem it to be a really important matter then? And have little time for political parties that obsess about the shape of their navels on the presumption that voters won't mind if they try to do the exact opposite!

-----------------------------
Re: Eurovision result:

Loved all those 12point/10point scores for the UK from Russia-adjacent nations that.

Joint win for the UK between our boy and Saint NLAW.

[Pannonian]

So they wear the blue rosette to reaffirm the party of British sovereignty, and win the votes of the working class. What are the right-minded Opposition going to do about it?

The liberal left has a reputation for caring more about the rights of Europeans than Britons. The previous Labour leaders have a deserved reputation for siding with other countries in disputes involving Britain.

To be considered electable, Labour has to stand tough on Europe, those who identify with it, and so on. Those who argue on theoretical standards of honesty and results don't like it, and frequently say that this is a line crossed. But it is accepted political reality, demonstrated in practice, that Labour has to take that stance in order to be considered acceptable by the plurality of voters.

I'd personally reaffirm an economically left and culturally green agenda and tell the reds to either fall in or live with the Tories forever. Those reds who are ok with perpetual Tory rule are never going to compromise enough to remove the Tories anyway.

In related news, the rep for Northern Ireland manufacturing says that Brexit, as it is currently implemented, has been beneficial to Northern Ireland business. Mainly because they are practically in the EU, unlike the UK which is outside the EU and which is underperforming compared with Northern Ireland. He also dismisses the IEA, one of Furunculus's favourite sources, as being selective in their studies whilst overlooking the wider picture.

So the arch-Brexiteer Minister for Brexit Opportunities says that fully implementing Brexit would be an act of national self harm. The rep for Northern Ireland manufacturing says that Northern Ireland is benefiting from the opportunities of being more aligned with the EU that the NI protocol allows it to.

Did the Leave campaign mention any of this?

[Pannonian]

Extract from a Financial Times article


The government seems to have only two guiding principles: setting political traps for its opponents, and extending the power of the executive. Its Rwanda immigration scheme falls into the first category: a policy known inside Whitehall to be unworkable, but which is popular and makes critics look wet. More sinister still is the stealthy encroachment upon institutions which are supposed to act as checks on government.

A few weeks ago the government gave ministers new powers to determine the remit of the Electoral Commission, the watchdog which oversees UK elections. Barely noticed was a provision for ministers to draw up a new “strategy and policy statement” for the watchdog. Such interference, the Commission claims, has no precedent(opens a new window) in comparable democracies. Jonathan Evans, chair of the committee on standards in public life, described the reforms(opens a new window) as akin to “giving a toddler a gun . . . it may not immediately lead to disaster but it’s an extremely dangerous thing to do.” Lord Evans knows a thing or two about danger: he used to head M15.

Not every country has an electoral commission: what matters is whether their regulator is independent. The insurgents who stormed the US Capitol Building last year were unable to overturn the election result because of robust institutions. Weakening such institutions, even in small ways, is reckless. Why would any government do this? Perhaps because of the Commission’s zealous investigation of figures in Vote Leave, or because it oversees party finances. No explanation has been forthcoming. But there is an arrogance in failing to consider how these laws might be used by future governments of a very different political complexion.

To raise such concerns is to be accused of hysteria. I have already been criticised in those terms for opposing the government’s plans to give the police more powers and to curb the right of protest. Despite being defeated in the House of Lords, the home secretary is bringing these back in a new Public Order Bill, daring civil libertarians to be “soft on crime”. She wins either way, with Conservative party members blissfully unaware that these powers could be deployed against them at a future Countryside Alliance march.

The proposed bill of rights seems to serve a similar dual purpose. Its vague language about restoring “common sense” in order to “ensure the constitution is defended” from some unnamed assailant sounds Orwellian. Far from being a bill to promote rights, some fear it will reduce them, and limit the citizens’ ability to hold the executive to account. Yet the lawyer David Allen Green believes it is a piece of “vanity legislation” — designed to convince supporters that the government is scrapping the Human Rights Act, when in fact the European Convention on Human Rights is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. We won’t know until we see the detail.

https://www.ft.com/content/10fcd6f3-bd4d-4678-834b-6ef632291e27

NB. Lady Cavendish is a former Tory peer, now unaffiliated. The old school Tories think this Tory government is abusing politics like crazy.

[Pannonian]

According to the Financial Times, this new interpretation of the protocol came about after consulting a former Trump appointee.

So the Tory party takes Russian money and covers up, changes the Electoral Commission that investigates such, and turns to Trump appointees for legal advice.

[rory_20_uk]

PMQs used to mean something because ministers couldn't directly lie in response to a question. Boris Johnson is the first PM to routinely and repeatedly lie, even after being formally reprimanded for specific lies, in PMQs. Yet he faces no sanction, because he disregards all customs and expectations, and all formal action is done at the discretion of the PM, and he won't do anything he's not forced to.

Given that the main thrust of his electoral campaign was "Get Brexit done", do you think he has satisfied the position of Prime Minister? I'm pretty sure Furunculus will be voting for him again. Will you?

For decades, PMQ has had the two sides talking past each other and trying to say zingers that would be picked up by the media. Yes, historically both would be saying what is factually accurate given the different terms of reference the two sides used. But meaingless. Boris has just dropped the pretence. And the system really doesn't care. I'm sure you've noted how the Royal family have been in a tizz over their Caribbean PR debacle rather than the absence of meaningful checks and balances in our democracy.

Asking how some will vote in the UK is a crime. Nevertheless, I intend to vote for the second biggest party at the last election in my constituency - due to the dreadful FPTP system we have. Brexit has happened. I vote purely on the future rather than the past and frankly we are in a weird position where I prefer Sir Kier but am not thrilled about his party nor his control over it and the Tories have no desire beyond survival it seems.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

I'd personally reaffirm an economically left and culturally green agenda and tell the reds to either fall in or live with the Tories forever. Those reds who are ok with perpetual Tory rule are never going to compromise enough to remove the Tories anyway.

In related news, the rep for Northern Ireland manufacturing says that Brexit, as it is currently implemented, has been beneficial to Northern Ireland business. Mainly because they are practically in the EU, unlike the UK which is outside the EU and which is underperforming compared with Northern Ireland. He also dismisses the IEA, one of Furunculus's favourite sources, as being selective in their studies whilst overlooking the wider picture.

So the arch-Brexiteer Minister for Brexit Opportunities says that fully implementing Brexit would be an act of national self harm. The rep for Northern Ireland manufacturing says that Northern Ireland is benefiting from the opportunities of being more aligned with the EU that the NI protocol allows it to.

Did the Leave campaign mention any of this?

What's "culturally green?" Like, environmentalism?

General Protip: Voters don't care when politicians accuse each other of lying. You need trusted media to carry that message. Also, it still won't matter, unless the voter is given other reason to dislike that politician or party. Have you tried decodifying select terminology, recodifying it to annex a range of cultural associations that are unpopular among the English, and attaching it to your opponents?

[Pannonian]

What's "culturally green?" Like, environmentalism?

General Protip: Voters don't care when politicians accuse each other of lying. You need trusted media to carry that message. Also, it still won't matter, unless the voter is given other reason to dislike that politician or party. Have you tried decodifying select terminology, recodifying it to annex a range of cultural associations that are unpopular among the English, and attaching it to your opponents?

Local powers. Local funding. Local planning. Greatest ties to those that are closest. Drop globalism as a desirable thing. Build robust networks that don't outsource critical assets just because the numbers sheet shows some minor savings. Closer links with those who are culturally closest to us. Don't rely on countries that are culturally alien to us or who are actively against us.

I agree with those who look down on liberals for valuing Europe above Britain. I value Britain above Europe. And I value Europe above the US. The US above China. China above Russia. Unfortunately, the Tories and Brexiteers have played on hatred of Europe whilst being funded by Russia. I think there's a report on 600k donated by a Russian businessman when the limit was 500 (500, not 500k) by any foreigner not entitled to vote. There was a report, maybe the same one, maybe another, of another Russian donation of 450k that was laundered through Brazilian banks so as to hide its Russian source.

You're right about the accusations not mattering unless they come from trusted media. This shouldn't be an issue as long as there are journalistic standards. Unfortunately, most of the right wing media have completely abandoned journalistic integrity and are working with the cabal at 55 Tufton Street (aka the UK branch of Trumpism), pushing nearly the same package as the US branch. One of their favourite attack dogs, testing their messaging on social media before it gets into the mainstream, is Guido Fawkes, who consorts with Russian agents, agents whom the security services deem undesirable to be close to. If you see any political gossip favourable to the right by attacking the left, it's likely to originate from him. The UK's right wing media is almost completely compromised. The one traditionally right of centre paper I trust implicitly is the Financial Times. And meanwhile, the government is doing what it can to shut down independent or left of centre media.

What makes me despair is that the checks and balances are completely gone. As rory says, there used to be a pretence of customs, and that was how the UK constitution worked. Johnson has completely done away with these pretences. In US terms, it would be as the President has discovered that the constitution has no effective way of penalising him, and thus he completely ignores it and relies on the dual pillars of popular votes and control of the media informing the electorate on how to vote.

[Furunculus]

Unfortunately, the Tories and Brexiteers have played on hatred of Europe whilst being funded by Russia.

Who are 'the Tories and Brexiteers' in this accusation?

I'm going to represent this on a kind of scale - to see if we can get a reading on where you would pin the tail on the donkey:
1. Dominic Cummings - himself, as the evil super-villain himself
2. The Vote Leave masterminds (including LeaveEU because Farage and Diamond man are baddies)
3. The ERG wing of the Tory pary - because they are 'trumpian' (also inc their 'useful idiots' like Hoey/Field in other parties)
4. The Tory Party generally - as purveyors of inquity (including activists and commited righties even if not affililiated)
5. The core Tory electorate - those benighted donkeys who make up about 33% of the total come hell or high water
6. The wider Tory electorate - including the both above and the swing voting who were tempted by lies and baubles
7. The Party+Plus electorate - also including other party's and their electors who failed to stick up for the EU due to partisan calculation
8. Old people generally - which we'll take to mean that element of society too stuck in their ways to regonise enlightenment
9. British society generally - irretrievably compromised from the generational social pollution of our class and political systems

If Tories and Brexiteers is 1-4 then i think it fails because such a small group cannot swing wider opinion over such a sustained period of time, i cling to the foolish nation that successful influencers pander to the interests of those they seek to influence, whether we're talking about politics of marketing.
If Tories and Brexiteers is 6-9 then i think the problem is the electorate, and we might need to revert to the old joke about changing the electorate until they're willing to generate the 'right' result.
If Tories and Brexiteers is 5, then I think you do have an exquisitly finely balanced argument that an abnormal result fell out from an odd combination of a society with a unjustly glorified past allowing a cabal of the wicked to exploit our out of date constitutional setup.

But that is an argument that balances on an exceedingly fine point!

And when you use phrases like the "Tories and Brexiteers" with their "hatred of Europe", i can't help but feel you're talking about me.
And I find this very strange, because:
I am not a member of cabal.
I do not hate europe.
Never voted for UKIP at General or Local election, or even considered doing so for the tiniest moment.
I actually grew up in Africa.
I am married to a Pole.
And I largely fail to meet any of the other stereotypes of gammony UKIp voters.

All in all - I am forced to the conclusion that you simply are unable to recognise that a lot of people simply didn't recognise the EU (not europe!), as a legitimate form of governance.

Why?

[Pannonian]

More on that Russian money. From the New York Times.


One of the biggest donors to Britain’s Conservative Party is suspected of secretly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party from a Russian account, according to a bank alert filed to Britain’s national law enforcement agency.

The donation, of $630,225, was made in February 2018 in the name of Ehud Sheleg, a wealthy London art dealer who was most recently the Conservative Party’s treasurer. The money was part of a fund-raising blitz that helped propel Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his party to a landslide victory in the 2019 general election.

But documents filed with the authorities last year and reviewed by The New York Times say that the money originated in a Russian account of Mr. Sheleg’s father-in-law, Sergei Kopytov, who was once a senior politician in the previous pro-Kremlin government of Ukraine. He now owns real estate and hotel businesses in Crimea and Russia.

“We are able to trace a clear line back from this donation to its ultimate source,” Barclays bank wrote in a January 2021 alert to the National Crime Agency. The bank, which maintained some of the accounts used in the transaction, flagged the donation as both suspected money laundering and a potentially illegal campaign donation.

The party of British sovereignty is actually the party funded by Russian money.

[Montmorency]

If Tories and Brexiteers is 1-4 then i think it fails because such a small group cannot swing wider opinion over such a sustained period of time,

They didn't swing wider opinion, they gained power relying on preexisting opinion suspicious of foreign influence broadly speaking, which is a different thing than persuading cohorts of voters that Britain's status in the EU was unfavorable. But as to opinion tangentially, I've seen research that suggests a minority only needs to exceed 10% of the population for its ideas to have a chance at entering the mainstream. For an American example, see police/prison abolition and, more lethally, racial/epidemiological conspiracism.


All in all - I am forced to the conclusion that you simply are unable to recognise that a lot of people simply didn't recognise the EU (not europe!), as a legitimate form of governance.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's been clear to me that Pann stopped caring about EU membership as such years ago; it's the malgovernance and spread of corrosive political values or practices that he's always complaining about.

[Pannonian]

They didn't swing wider opinion, they gained power relying on preexisting opinion suspicious of foreign influence broadly speaking, which is a different thing than persuading cohorts of voters that Britain's status in the EU was unfavorable. But as to opinion tangentially, I've seen research that suggests a minority only needs to exceed 10% of the population for its ideas to have a chance at entering the mainstream. For an American example, see police/prison abolition and, more lethally, racial/epidemiological conspiracism.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's been clear to me that Pann stopped caring about EU membership as such years ago; it's the malgovernance and spread of corrosive political values or practices that he's always complaining about.

We're out of the EU. We won't be back inside the EU within my lifetime. The Tufton Street lot that brought about Brexit are now turning their attention to other matters, funded by Russian money (as Brexit was funded by Russian money).

Lady Cavendish notes that the substantial policies this Tory government proposes can be split into two groups: the first consist of political traps that are never meant to be implemented, but exist only to make opponents look bad and to gain votes, the second consist of centralisation of power under Downing Street. This cynical observation being made by a formerly Tory peer. The first to get votes as supported by the media network. The second to make use of those votes, to rule the country in whatever way they want, without checks and balances.

[Furunculus]

They didn't swing wider opinion, they gained power relying on preexisting opinion suspicious of foreign influence broadly speaking, which is a different thing than persuading cohorts of voters that Britain's status in the EU was unfavorable. But as to opinion tangentially, I've seen research that suggests a minority only needs to exceed 10% of the population for its ideas to have a chance at entering the mainstream.

For an American example, see police/prison abolition and, more lethally, racial/epidemiological conspiracism.
I'd focus here on the "over such a sustained period of time". I would argue that it less a case of the electorate moving than it was the electorate watching the EU moving - in the direction of further integration.
Support for hard ambitions of a federal EU have always been stunted here, as compared to support for the soft ambition of being part of a collaborative club. This is less typical when you compare with continental nations, where there is a solid constituency for the harder ambitions as well as soft.



Maybe I'm wrong, but it's been clear to me that Pann stopped caring about EU membership as such years ago; it's the malgovernance and spread of corrosive political values or practices that he's always complaining about.
Welcome to the aftermath of the brexit debate. A toxic coauldron created at least in part by the vitriol and loathing of having to address "the swivel-eyed loons" as equals in the debate, rather than a few wierdo's who'll crawl back underneath their rock before too long. Brexit is normal, the hatred will itself become a marginal activity, and normal service will return. People forget we've been through these social turbulences before, and will do again. The important point is for 'the system' to be flexible and adaptable enough to accomodate the pressures, rather than resorting to revolutionary rupture.

[Montmorency]

People forget we've been through these social turbulences before, and will do again. The important point is for 'the system' to be flexible and adaptable enough to accomodate the pressures, rather than resorting to revolutionary rupture.

Seems unlikely if much of what is posted here is true.

[Furunculus]

explain.

[Montmorency]

Hasn't Pann done so verbosely? The social turbulences are ideological and cultural, transcending Brexit as event, contributing to a likely future breakup of the UK and an English political environment where civil power-sharing norms and institutions coarsen or break down progressively over time.

[Pannonian]

The Mail is now suggesting that England becomes independent. This would further cement permanent Tory rule, with the loss of the disproportionately non-Tory nations.

To think that the Tories played on the SNP's desire for Scottish independence thus meaning that a Labour government would threaten the UK.

[rory_20_uk]

The Mail is now suggesting that England becomes independent. This would further cement permanent Tory rule, with the loss of the disproportionately non-Tory nations.

To think that the Tories played on the SNP's desire for Scottish independence thus meaning that a Labour government would threaten the UK.

The Tories, or more correctly known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, have tended to be against jettisoning the peripheral scraps - with Sir Tony being the person who has really managed to turbocharge the whole thing with all three quickly developing parties that are extremely Nationalist and parochial. Whether that was his intention or not is somewhat moot now.

Surely what is odd is that we have a system where there are now separate parliaments in Northern Ireland (when the children stop squabbling), Wales and Scotland with the English sort of told that since Westminster is self evidently the best then this one is enough. The direction is clear - Scotland is solely here for the money, Wales is so stunted it isn't a viable entity and Northern Ireland is as always a mess with the South happier to claim to want it than actually have to deal with the mess.

If there is a new way for the four Nations to have some structure then I'm happy to hear about it. But surely the starting point is that all four want to be a part of it. As things stand, we seem to get along better with Canada, Australia and New Zealand - and that might well be due to distance and little interference. There is talk of CANZUK and perhaps such a looser grouping would be more suitable. Perhaps not since Scotland wants to get in with the EU and those sweet subsidies as soon as it gained independence and Northern Ireland would one way or another also do the same.

At least in the USA, even though there seem to be deep divisions and many of each camp think that the other are traitors / criminals / bastards etc - they all intrinsically think of themselves as American first and then loyalty to their state second. Here that just doesn't seem to hold true anymore.

As to whether this divestment would cement Tory rule, one thought would be for Labour to develop a set of plans that people actually agree with, as opposed to clinging to ideals that have never really managed to scrape over the line in about 50 years, with Sir Tony forcing the party to power by shredding most of the baggage.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

As to whether this divestment would cement Tory rule, one thought would be for Labour to develop a set of plans that people actually agree with, as opposed to clinging to ideals that have never really managed to scrape over the line in about 50 years


This.
Be relevant!
Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.

[Montmorency]

When Scots can't live with Angloids and Russians can't live with Ukrainians, in this 21st century, it might do to revisit the general study of disintegrative social forces. Who were the old politologues and sociologists who observed that the presence of social order over chaos is an affirmative mystery?

Why should we believe that "English" or "Irish" wish to share a country with "themselves?" Polities are always provisional.


The Tories, or more correctly known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, have tended to be against jettisoning the peripheral scraps - with Sir Tony being the person who has really managed to turbocharge the whole thing with all three quickly developing parties that are extremely Nationalist and parochial. Whether that was his intention or not is somewhat moot now.

Surely what is odd is that we have a system where there are now separate parliaments in Northern Ireland (when the children stop squabbling), Wales and Scotland with the English sort of told that since Westminster is self evidently the best then this one is enough. The direction is clear - Scotland is solely here for the money, Wales is so stunted it isn't a viable entity and Northern Ireland is as always a mess with the South happier to claim to want it than actually have to deal with the mess.

If there is a new way for the four Nations to have some structure then I'm happy to hear about it. But surely the starting point is that all four want to be a part of it. As things stand, we seem to get along better with Canada, Australia and New Zealand - and that might well be due to distance and little interference. There is talk of CANZUK and perhaps such a looser grouping would be more suitable. Perhaps not since Scotland wants to get in with the EU and those sweet subsidies as soon as it gained independence and Northern Ireland would one way or another also do the same.

At least in the USA, even though there seem to be deep divisions and many of each camp think that the other are traitors / criminals / bastards etc - they all intrinsically think of themselves as American first and then loyalty to their state second. Here that just doesn't seem to hold true anymore.

As to whether this divestment would cement Tory rule, one thought would be for Labour to develop a set of plans that people actually agree with, as opposed to clinging to ideals that have never really managed to scrape over the line in about 50 years, with Sir Tony forcing the party to power by shredding most of the baggage.

~:smoking:

Reminds me of the observation that the center right respects protest and organizing on their side so much more than the center left respects the same on theirs. It's hard for me to perceive in what way Starmer's Labour resembles 1970s Labour more than 1990s Labour.

I don't understand the concept of setting very low standards of governance for your country and complaining when it lives up to them.

What is the key to non-partisan enthusiasm? Voter disappointment with the alternative, or positive enchantment with a policy platform? Political demography and geography, or records of good government?

For half a year now Labour has led the Tories in the polls for almost-certainly the exact same reasons the Republicans have led on the generic ballot for the same amount of time, and why Biden's approval rating came up parallel with Trump's, that being the sting of global inflation that no national leaders can control (short of unpopular or theoretical state interventions).

The difference between the left and the right sometimes seems to be that the former will choose flight or freeze over fight.

So maybe inflation will be durable and Labour's proposal to tax oil and gas profits will push them over the 40% line they need to capture a majority, or maybe it won't and Conservatives can offer some new distraction to keep the 35% they absolutely need.


Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.

I have bad news for you...

[Pannonian]

This.
Be relevant!
Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.

Depends on what you mean by accountable. There are any number of things that this government has done that would customarily have resulted in resignations in past governments. Except that it's only custom and not legal, so there's nothing to legally force this government to do so.

Except that nearly the whole of our constitution is based on custom. Which means that, due to this (according to you accountable) government's practices, there are no limits on what this government can do.

Which is why this government is despised by pretty much every ex-minister from past governments.

[Furunculus]

But we're still talking about the failings of this government - which I agree are egregious - and not about the fact that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are not able to be relevant to the electorate.

But on the point about public indifference to the egregious personal and moral failings of the government, i do genuinely believe the problem is one of the boy who cried wolf:

In the last decade there has been a complete disappearance of 'calibration' in UK political discourse.
Every failing, regardless of severity, immediately results in shrill outrage broadcast and amplified.
There is no distinction, no sober consideration, and absolutely no attempt to do anything but impute the worst possible motive for any deviancy from the norm.
Just volume. Immediate volume. A Pavlovian response to crowd source 120 decibels of rage.

The sheer visceral rage that surrounded party-gate's big reveal - that boris had been presented a cake during a ten minute interlude - was frankly absurd. It lacked calibration.

I simply feel that the electorate have become desensitised; they become aware of yet another 120 decibel crowd-sourced rage-fest and tune it out as noise.

[Furunculus]

Hasn't Pann done so verbosely? The social turbulences are ideological and cultural, transcending Brexit as event, contributing to a likely future breakup of the UK and an English political environment where civil power-sharing norms and institutions coarsen or break down progressively over time.

well, if you were choosing to base your response purely what someone else said you might have stated that my argument was disputed - which would be fair enough - rather than that (an unspecified proportion of) it was unlikely to hold any truth.

this was written about the american political establishment ~2016, but it maps equally well on the britsh situation:
https://twitter.com/A_NeedhamNYU/status/1527752771834880003




Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.

I have bad news for you...

You don't, as it happens, because I am not a utopian.

[Montmorency]

The sheer visceral rage that surrounded party-gate's big reveal - that boris had been presented a cake during a ten minute interlude - was frankly absurd. It lacked calibration.

I simply feel that the electorate have become desensitised; they become aware of yet another 120 decibel crowd-sourced rage-fest and tune it out as noise.

What do you make of the British press' coverage of Meghan Markle?


You don't, as it happens, because I am not a utopian.


I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but unless you want to cosplay in Children of Men,

https://i.imgur.com/6C6gaaz.gif

shouldn't be your default instinct toward anything your political opponents find, ah, distasteful.

I'll elaborate. You find the Conservative Party relevant and accountable to your preferences in governance. That's fine (sic). But most Briton's don't. While liberals don't generally have the guts to retaliate toward the coarsening of political norms and institutions, pushing it without forethought is not to the Party's long-term benefit. Take the NYMag quote to heart. It concerns the refusal to acknowledge the existence of radically-divergent ideologies, but applies to more basic differences in the nature of the disregard.

Evidence against, but not for, the credibility of


People forget we've been through these social turbulences before, and will do again. The important point is for 'the system' to be flexible and adaptable enough to accomodate the pressures, rather than resorting to revolutionary rupture.


appears throughout even your own postings. Take it more seriously. To make the British system more dysfunctional and unrepresentative than it already is will foreseeably bring the public further in line (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/people-in-u-s-western-europe-differ-over-what-needs-more-fixing-their-nations-political-or-economic-system/) with France and the US, even accounting for an herbivorous opposition.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ft_2021.04.21_econreform_01.png?w=640

[Furunculus]

What do you make of the British press' coverage of Meghan Markle?

If you mean specifically; i don't know. I am a monarchist, not a royalist - and therefore entirely disinterested in the private lives of the royal family.
If you mean generally; then i laugh at meghan's failed attempt to to bring american PR and 'personality' into british distance - and disappointed that Harry lacks the capacity to realise the inevitability of this failure.
Either way, i'm not sure how it relates to UK political governance.



While liberals don't generally have the guts to retaliate toward the coarsening of political norms and institutions, pushing it without forethought is not to the Party's long-term benefit...
...Take it more seriously.
We have an adversarial political system; it is explicitly the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to hold the gov't to account.
Labour cannot perform this role if people won't vote for them, and yet they seem incurious about what the electorate actually wants.
They need to be relevant!


To make the British system more dysfunctional and unrepresentative than it already is will foreseeably bring the public further in line (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/people-in-u-s-western-europe-differ-over-what-needs-more-fixing-their-nations-political-or-economic-system/) with France and the US, even accounting for an herbivorous opposition.

I agree - no-one wants a dysfunctional and unrepresentative system of governance.
Looking at your graph leads me to be both surprised and delighted that despite; the financial crisis, brexit, covid, the cost of living crisis, less than half of britons believe that the political/economic systems need complete or major reform - similar to germany.
I contend that the system is evidently flexible in a way that america and france seem not to be.
And insist the Labour party take an interest in being relevant - if for no other reason than to prevent the further coarsening of political norms and institutions.

If they don't then they will be displaced, eventually. As happened a hundred years ago when the liberals ceased to be relevant to the demands and expectations of the electorate in a previous episode of revolutionary fervour.

[Montmorency]

If you mean specifically; i don't know. I am a monarchist, not a royalist - and therefore entirely disinterested in the private lives of the royal family.

I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.


We have an adversarial political system; it is explicitly the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to hold the gov't to account.
Labour cannot perform this role if people won't vote for them, and yet they seem incurious about what the electorate actually wants.
They need to be relevant!

I agree - no-one wants a dysfunctional and unrepresentative system of governance.
Looking at your graph leads me to be both surprised and delighted that despite; the financial crisis, brexit, covid, the cost of living crisis, less than half of britons believe that the political/economic systems need complete or major reform - similar to germany.
I contend that the system is evidently flexible in a way that america and france seem not to be.


It's in the image captioning, but these survey materials are from 2020. So for example the numbers would be higher for the US today. I don't know about the rest, but I doubt they've diminished for the UK. You seem confident that they have or are, but the long-term discontent the Conservatives are sowing makes that estimation a gamble. I didn't expect half the British public condemning fundamental aspects of the existing system to be a cause for optimism.

The substance of your judgement on the relevance of Labour politics is difficult for me to judge objectively - would 39% vote share be qualitatively less relevant than a 42% share? - but this expectation


And insist the Labour party take an interest in being relevant - if for no other reason than to prevent the further coarsening of political norms and institutions.

If they don't then they will be displaced, eventually. As happened a hundred years ago when the liberals ceased to be relevant to the demands and expectations of the electorate in a previous episode of revolutionary fervour.

would bely your confidence that Britain is inherently resilient to social upheaval. It's also a troubling outgrowth of a certain political Americanism, namely that it is up to the center-left to take responsibility for the center-right's flaws. You probably said this on the basis of the parliamentary opposition's traditional role being to devise optical and electoral penalties against ruling parties, but to go beyond that and invert the responsibility for good government just reproduces American pathologies.



TBH I think one thing that has become clear is that simple FPTP is one of the worst available electoral systems, including all the others. If stability is the highest priority, it's clear that ditching FPTP would alone offer considerable inoculation to the French, British, and American polities. Notwithstanding all the other problems - that is, FPTP alone is such a major and singular source of dysfunction that removing it would support the lifespan of almost any political system.

[Pannonian]

I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.



It's in the image captioning, but these survey materials are from 2020. So for example the numbers would be higher for the US today. I don't know about the rest, but I doubt they've diminished for the UK. You seem confident that they have or are, but the long-term discontent the Conservatives are sowing makes that estimation a gamble. I didn't expect half the British public condemning fundamental aspects of the existing system to be a cause for optimism.

The substance of your judgement on the relevance of Labour politics is difficult for me to judge objectively - would 39% vote share be qualitatively less relevant than a 42% share? - but this expectation



would bely your confidence that Britain is inherently resilient to social upheaval. It's also a troubling outgrowth of a certain political Americanism, namely that it is up to the center-left to take responsibility for the center-right's flaws. You probably said this on the basis of the parliamentary opposition's traditional role being to devise optical and electoral penalties against ruling parties, but to go beyond that and invert the responsibility for good government just reproduces American pathologies.



TBH I think one thing that has become clear is that simple FPTP is one of the worst available electoral systems, including all the others. If stability is the highest priority, it's clear that ditching FPTP would alone offer considerable inoculation to the French, British, and American polities. Notwithstanding all the other problems - that is, FPTP alone is such a major and singular source of dysfunction that removing it would support the lifespan of almost any political system.

The other constitutional aspects might be workable as long as the other constitutional aspects were functional. The problem amongst all this is how pretty much all the constitution is based on custom, and not legally actionable. This didn't used to be a problem in the past when custom alone was enough to force action. It's a problem now that we have a government that decides that custom means nothing, and only the law, which it leans hard on, can force it into action. And this government depends on its support not caring about the custom-based constitution either. And as one of its former peers observed, even this isn't enough, as it gathers up loose strands of power where it does not already control things.

Both the government and its support can most accurately be described as Trumpian.

[Furunculus]

I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.

To quote Askdifference i am: "An advocate of, or believer in, monarchy" as opposed to a "supporter of a particular royal regime".


It's in the image captioning, but these survey materials are from 2020. So for example the numbers would be higher for the US today. I don't know about the rest, but I doubt they've diminished for the UK. You seem confident that they have or are, but the long-term discontent the Conservatives are sowing makes that estimation a gamble. I didn't expect half the British public condemning fundamental aspects of the existing system to be a cause for optimism.

My confidence is of course hedged around with caveats. And yet both the similarity and the contrast with comparitive nations is striking - accepting that the data is ~2020.


The substance of your judgement on the relevance of Labour politics is difficult for me to judge objectively - would 39% vote share be qualitatively less relevant than a 42% share? - but this expectation

The system is what the system is. People understand how it works - including its limitations - and yet they choose to retain the system.


would bely your confidence that Britain is inherently resilient to social upheaval. It's also a troubling outgrowth of a certain political Americanism, namely that it is up to the center-left to take responsibility for the center-right's flaws. You probably said this on the basis of the parliamentary opposition's traditional role being to devise optical and electoral penalties against ruling parties, but to go beyond that and invert the responsibility for good government just reproduces American pathologies.
How would you like to measure societal resilience?
You might look at the last last time it was subject to revolutionary upheavel relative to its peer nations...


TBH I think one thing that has become clear is that simple FPTP is one of the worst available electoral systems, including all the others. If stability is the highest priority, it's clear that ditching FPTP would alone offer considerable inoculation to the French, British, and American polities. Notwithstanding all the other problems - that is, FPTP alone is such a major and singular source of dysfunction that removing it would support the lifespan of almost any political system.
That is a view, but it is not one i share.

I remain of the view that:

a) a significant proportion of the alleged coursensing of political norms and institutions is nothing more than performative outrage, from a political pole that has forgotten that the role of "HMML Opposition" entails more than just pavlovian shrieking on general broadcast...

b) ...further, that not only is a significant proportion invented behind performative outrage, another significant proportion [IS] that performative outrage; where calls for 'direct action' are fine, and every action is perceived through in the least charitable interpretation possible.

c) that we have a political system that prioritises internal coalitions that negotiate manifesto platforms in public before an election, rather than external coalitions that negotiate policy platforms in private after an election...

d) ...and that such a binary choice requires a manifesto offer that appeals to the electoral common ground, across the geographic and social divide, which should obsolete niche policy proposals that generate widespread electoral distaste.

Be relevant. Don't shriek all the time. Get into power. Do what you said you would do to make the world a better place. Be accountable for the consequences. Reflect on where ambitions failed to meet reality. Rinse. Repeat.

[Pannonian]

One of the few remaining ways of ensuring accountability, now that the Tories have secured control of most of the legal avenues and ignored the ones based on custom, is independent reporting on the PM's actions. And Johnson pressured the investigator to not publish her report. And has instigated other meetings since then (and lied about them).

Government accountability is something in other countries that I can read about. Not something that happens in the UK.

[Montmorency]

To quote Askdifference i am: "An advocate of, or believer in, monarchy" as opposed to a "supporter of a particular royal regime".

This is concerning to me, because your literal meaning is that you don't (limit yourself to) support the existing British monarchy but rather espouse monarchy - more than a symbolic one - as a desirable principle for the organization of society. Unless we're swapping the usage of the terms, it's pointless to discuss here the operation of parliamentary or other forms of democracy.


My confidence is of course hedged around with caveats. And yet both the similarity and the contrast with comparitive nations is striking - accepting that the data is ~2020.

Don't be caught with your pants down. There must be a number of plausible progressions, but my watch-for remains Scottish independence consequent to a medium-term Labour-SNP coalition, coinciding with long-term degradation of public institutions such as the NHS and a long wilderness period for Labour, radicalizing much of the electorate. One such scenario was visibly averted by the satiation of the anti-EU element of the British right.


The system is what the system is. People understand how it works - including its limitations - and yet they choose to retain the system.

The alternative is immediate civil rupture, a revolution that may or may not be violent. So it's not saying much for the UK not to be Syria or Myanmar. Neither is the US.


How would you like to measure societal resilience?
You might look at the last last time it was subject to revolutionary upheavel relative to its peer nations...

"It can't happen here" is not a strong argument when made irrespective of contemporary conditions or trends. Technically speaking, the US has experienced fewer wars and revolutions on domestic soil than the English polity has. But it can happen - is happening - here. We can observe similar developments across the Anglosphere, just with a difference of degree. That the US is worst off doesn't make anyone else Safe. Who's in second place after America?


a) a significant proportion of the alleged coursensing of political norms and institutions is nothing more performative outrage, from a political pole that has forgotten that the role of "HMML Opposition" entails more than just pavlovian shrieking on general broadcast...

Yes, but you're a supporter of the ruling coalition, so the lack of substance you perceive in some of these will at least partly reflect the philosophical and temperamental gulf between coalitions. One thing that is clear from what (extra-electoral) surveying I happen upon is that very often non-coalition members are unified in rejecting the Conservatives in terms of relevance and accountability - they just don't share an anti-coalition. The ratchet turns for all; how will the Conservatives be poised to carry on when they lose power next, given how they act when in power?


b) ...further, that not only is a significant proportion invented behind performative outrage, another significant proportion [IS] that performative outrage; where calls for 'direct action' are fine, and every action is perceived through in the least charitable interpretation possible.

I mean, Vote Leave was performative outrage. But in the end, it is what it is - the coarsening is happening regardless of its 'true origin.' No one here, other than Pann I guess, is trying to valorize legacy normative arrangements, but they're going out because they've failed to constrain politics in a positive way, yet leaving no replacement.


c) that we have a political system that prioritises internal coalitions that negotiate manifesto platforms in public before an election, rather than external coalitions that negotiate policy platforms in private after an election...

d) ...and that such a binary choice requires a manifesto offer that appeals to the electoral common ground, across the geographic and social divide, which should obsolete niche policy proposals that generate widespread electoral distaste.

The distinction between executive and legislature is more nuanced in a parliamentary system (e.g. in America both are referred to as "government," but typically only the (ruling coalition of the) legislature is "the government" in parliamentary systems), but the aggravation with this government as far as I can tell usually stems from the conduct and policies of the executive, making policy promises kept or unkept by the parliament less relevant.


Be relevant. Don't shriek all the time. Get into power. Do what you said you would do to make the world a better place. Be accountable for the consequences. Reflect on where ambitions failed to meet reality. Rinse. Repeat.

You said you weren't a utopian.

[Furunculus]

This is concerning to me, because your literal meaning is that you don't (limit yourself to) support the existing British monarchy but rather espouse monarchy - more than a symbolic one - as a desirable principle for the organization of society. Unless we're swapping the usage of the terms, it's pointless to discuss here the operation of parliamentary or other forms of democracy.

Do not be too concerned; we inhabit the 21st century not the 15th. When I describe myself as a monarchist it is in the current British sense of a constitutional democracy, i.e. as opposed to that modern alternative of a presidential system.
I do not yearn for the rule of a Sun King.

[Pannonian]

Boris Johnson changes rules so that being a lying **** doesn't carry with it an expectation to resign. Other changes include independent adviser no longer having power to launch investigation without the PM's permission.

So if the PM does something wrong, he is no longer expected to be penalised, and the independent investigator can only investigate with his permission. If the PM decides to be above investigation or accountability, then it is so.

Cue calls on the Queen to use her constitutional powers whilst knowing that will never happen, thus excusing the Tories because it's all legal and constitutional.

[Furunculus]

Boris Johnson changes rules so that being a lying **** doesn't carry with it an expectation to resign. Other changes include independent adviser no longer having power to launch investigation without the PM's permission.

So if the PM does something wrong, he is no longer expected to be penalised, and the independent investigator can only investigate with his permission. If the PM decides to be above investigation or accountability, then it is so.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1530286112274534403


I got something stupidly WRONG. As @timd_IFG has pointed out. Willingly lying to parliament is still an offence where resignation is expected. That paragraph in the code has not been changed. Here it is: ? It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate nd truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister ?. So if the PM were found to have ? knowingly mislead MPs, he would have to offer his resignation to himself. Sorry for getting that wrong.


not only is a significant proportion (of the alleged coarsening of political norms and institutions), invented behind performative outrage, another significant proportion [IS] that performative outrage; where calls for 'direct action' are fine, and every action is perceived through in the least charitable interpretation possible.

[rory_20_uk]

Will be expected to resign... A good chap would, wouldn't he?

We need to choose the approach the Military has - where "conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman" is a crime. As I have the controversial view that bieng in charge of the country is important.

Failing that, have the same approach the Pharmaceutical Industry does where the rules are enforced by an independant panel and one can be in trouble if what one did gives a bad impression.

But no. Even suggesting that stopping subsidised drinkies at work is unfair and finding evidence of cocaine on most toilets gets mildly tutted.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Will be expected to resign... A good chap would, wouldn't he?

We need to choose the approach the Military has - where "conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman" is a crime. As I have the controversial view that bieng in charge of the country is important.

Failing that, have the same approach the Pharmaceutical Industry does where the rules are enforced by an independant panel and one can be in trouble if what one did gives a bad impression.

But no. Even suggesting that stopping subsidised drinkies at work is unfair and finding evidence of cocaine on most toilets gets mildly tutted.

~:smoking:

There were some independent bodies that sort of oversaw certain aspects of government and elections, but this government has brought them under its control. The electoral commission is now expected to follow government guidelines as per a couple of months ago. The independent investigator into government affairs, as per this week, can now only investigate with the PM's permission. And of course, people without photo ID, overwhelmingly a group that votes non-Tory, are no longer allowed to vote.