UK Politics Thread

[Pannonian]

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1530286112274534403

Johnson has been formally reprimanded by the relevant body for giving misleading stats about employment. Since that reprimand, which was the point where he absolutely knew what he was doing, and without any further excuse of not knowing about the matter, he has repeated those stats on at least a couple of occasions in the Commons.

Do you think he should resign?

[rory_20_uk]

They're never independent - they're chosen by and removed by the government. Remember the Independant drug panel who were all removed when they ranked drugs by harm?

Something apart is the only rigorous approach.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

They're never independent - they're chosen by and removed by the government. Remember the Independant drug panel who were all removed when they ranked drugs by harm?

Something apart is the only rigorous approach.

~:smoking:

The electoral commission was generally recognised by all as independent, and it protested at the changes made earlier this year.

In related news, Johnson broke the rules when standing down as London mayor, in a manner that obstructed investigations into his conduct as mayor.

[Furunculus]

Johnson has been formally reprimanded by the relevant body for giving misleading stats about employment. Since that reprimand, which was the point where he absolutely knew what he was doing, and without any further excuse of not knowing about the matter, he has repeated those stats on at least a couple of occasions in the Commons.

Do you think he should resign?

Yes, i'd like him to resign too, for the reason you mention.

But he has not done what you claimed when you said that he'd revised the rules to make resignation no longer mandatory for misleading parliament.

The coarsening of norms and institutions cuts both ways.

[Crandar]

Boris busy with the real issues (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/28/boris-johnson-set-to-bring-back-imperial-measurements-to-mark-platinum-jubilee)...

Beats Macron's making the blue in the French flag darker.

[Furunculus]

Thought this was rather good:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/29/partygate-really-leadership-lies-death-trust/

Partygate is really about leadership, lies and the death of trust

Our unwritten constitution rests on the behaviour of public servants. That?s why the PM cannot simply ?get away with it?
Jonathan Sumption

Partygate is not about parties. It never has been. It is about personal integrity and standards in public life. The Prime Minister can put the parties, the booze, the vomiting and all the rest of it behind him. What he cannot put behind him is the sort of person that he is.

Three points stand out from this grubby saga.

First, the Prime Minister personally decided to criminalise almost all social contact, and then behaved as if this did not apply to him or those around him. It really does not matter whether he thought that his parties were allowed by the regulations. Their rationale was that unnecessary human contact was so dangerous that it must be forbidden by law. He cannot have believed a word of it himself. Otherwise, he would surely not have exposed himself or his staff to this supposedly mortal danger, whether it was technically permitted by the regulations or not. He made his own risk assessment, while denying the rest of us the right to make ours.

Secondly, the Prime Minister has persistently tried to hide behind his subordinates. No one told him, he has said, that this kind of behaviour was not on. It speaks volumes about his moral values that he needed to be told.

This sort of special pleading is a cowardly reversal of ordinary lines of responsibility. Junior staff took their lead from him. They assumed, as Sue Gray points out, that if he was there it must be OK. More senior staff had their doubts. But their only concern was that it would look bad if it got out (?a comms risk?). At the time they congratulated themselves that they had ?got away with it.? Sue Gray goes out of her way to point out that their attitudes were not typical of the rest of Whitehall. We are entitled to ask what was different about Downing Street. The answer is that its occupants knew that the Prime Minister would share their instincts. Under a more exacting boss, they would have feared for their jobs.

Thirdly, and worst of all, the Prime Minister has denied in statements to Parliament that parties occurred, when we now know that they happened regularly in his presence. Weasel words about whether these were ?work events? are beside the point. If these statements were not outright lies, they were at the very least half-truths, calculated to mislead. By convention, misleading Parliament is a resignation matter.

All political systems depend on integrity. That means more than just observing the rules. It requires a sense of honour and decency, a reliable instinct about how public men and women should behave.

It calls for an instinctive recognition that there are many things which they should not do even if they legally can. Public trust in politics depends on this. Britain?s unwritten constitution is uniquely dependent on the personal standards of ministers. It is based on conventions not laws, on values not rules. Precisely because politicians can ?get away with? so much, their personal integrity matters even more than it does in other political systems.

This is why we cannot just ?move on?. We have at the heart of our political order a man who does not care a fig for basic constitutional values, provided that he can stay in power. He is supported by politicians who care more about defending him than about protecting our political system.

This is exceptionally serious. Political values once flouted with impunity cannot easily be restored. Conventions once broken disappear. We will feel the effects long after we have seen the back of Boris Johnson.

Yes, we are in the midst of an international crisis, as his defenders never cease to tell us. But at such a time it is more than ever important that we should be led by people of transparent stature and integrity, whom we can implicitly trust.

Lord Sumption sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, 2012-18.

[Pannonian]

Boris busy with the real issues (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/28/boris-johnson-set-to-bring-back-imperial-measurements-to-mark-platinum-jubilee)...

Beats Macron's making the blue in the French flag darker.

just a note that, according to the Cavendish definition, this is a type A policy. Something the government has no intention of enacting, that's only intended to set a political trap for the opposition. Type B is where they centralise power.

[Pannonian]

The politicisation of the Bank of England and a weakening economy risk turning the pound into an “emerging market like” currency, analysts at Bank of America have warned.

In a downbeat assessment of the UK’s economic prospects, the impact of Brexit, and the potential politicisation of monetary policy, the US investment bank believes investors will dump the British currency after sustained weakness this year.
...
Sharma said the Bank’s credibility has suffered over its failure to acknowledge the full impact that Brexit will have on the UK economy. He added that although UK rate-setters began raising interest rates before counterparts in the US and the eurozone, the pound has gained no “first mover advantage”.

“We believe that the BoE is hiking for a different set of reasons than the Federal Reserve,” Sharma said. “Whereas the Fed is hiking against the backdrop of a strong domestic economy, the Bank is facing a number of unique supply challenges — most notably Brexit. As a result, each rate hike has been met by a confusing communication strategy as the Bank finds it increasingly difficult to sell rate hikes on its merits.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9ee441cc-e022-11ec-baab-53d14c642149?shareToken=67e63fbca603b81fd3e9871f5b5364e4

[Furunculus]

I had caught the same headline yesterday.

BoA do appear to have form here:
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1531542824646320128

Shout out to Bank of America today for their contribution to recycling (the same analyst said the same thing about sterling in 2020, and it was soon debunked)...

On the 'why' this claim is disputed:
https://www.ft.com/content/4d7b4e18-5a5f-4f7e-9d32-f27cb329a11c
Sterling has not become an emerging market currency
And neither will it any time soon.
Jemima Kelly

The idea that sterling has effectively become an emerging-market currency has become something of a common refrain in the four years since the Brexit vote.

Bloomberg’s Sid Verma asked whether the pound was the “new Mexican peso” as early as October 2016, and the idea that it should be treated as an EM currency has been repeated many times since then. In September last year, then Bank of England Governor Mark Carney became the most high-profile person to join this gloomy chorus, pointing out that sterling volatility was at “emerging market levels”, and that the currency had “decoupled” from its peers.

On Wednesday, it was the turn of a Bank of America analyst named Kamal Sharma, who said movements in the exchange rate had become “neurotic at best, unfathomable at worst” (we’re not quite sure what that means either), and that the pound was now an emerging market currency in all but name. Apparently Brexit had turned the pound into a mirror of the “small and shrinking” UK economy.

So is there any truth to this? We’d argue no.

For a start, for sterling to really be an emerging market currency, wouldn’t Britain have to be an emerging market? It seems an odd designation for the fifth- or sixth-biggest economy in the world, where income-per-capita is above $45,000 (almost four times above the threshold the World Bank sets to demarcate a “high-income country”).

Ironically enough, those that argue that sterling is an “EM currency” are surely using very much the wrong term here. If the country is wilting away, surely “emerging” is the wrong word? Wouldn’t shrivelling be better? Drooping? Submerging? A wilting market currency, perhaps? “Emerging” suggests that the country’s economy is growing.

Second, just because implied volatility — a measure of the market’s expectations for future gyrations in the exchange rate — is high, why should that suggest the pound is an EM currency? Clearly Brexit has been destabilising and has left the future unclear, and we all know that the one thing markets can’t stand is uncertainty, so it doesn’t seem very surprising that volatility — both actual and implied — is raised. Once some political stability has been reached, it seems likely that volatility will fall too.

Third, just because there is now less liquidity in the pound than some of its major peers like the dollar or euro, that again does not mean it is an EM currency. There’s a difference between no longer being in the hallowed “G5” group of currencies — which it is not at all clear the pound has fallen out of permanently either — and being an emerging market currency. The Swedish krona isn’t particularly liquid, but it’s not considered EM.

We called up Stephen Jen, CEO of Eurizon SLJ, a hedge fund that specialises in emerging markets, to get his thoughts on the matter. He was pretty emphatic about the fact that sterling was very much not an EM currency in any way, shape or form, telling us (emphasis ours):

When you think of the uses of money — you have store of value, unit of account, medium of exchange — on all three measures it’s very difficult to argue that sterling is not one of the prime, prime, currencies in the world. It’s the number three reserve currency in the world, based on the global data, and it takes a lot of soft power for a currency to achieve that status. If you look at all the currencies that have a reserve status, they are issued by countries that have a lot of soft power. It’s not just economic might — look at India and China, their currencies are nowhere on the list.

It’s difficult to lose that soft power, which would include things like culture, rule of law, if it’s perceived to be fair, if it operates without a lot of intervention or controls from the government, no surprises, and if it’s governed by English law, which is well understood by the markets and the world — intangible and difficult-to-quantify practices of a country. All of these underpin the support for a currency such as sterling, and it’s very difficult to supplant such a status.

In for a penny, in for a pound

We also called up Savvas Savouri, chief economist at Toscafund Asset Management, another hedge fund, to get his take. He told us the idea was nonsense, and that anyway he didn’t necessarily feel that calling sterling an EM currency was pejorative, given that could just be interpreted as meaning that it was grossly undervalued. He told us (our emphasis, again):

This time next year the pound will be materially stronger, in all dimensions. One thing I’ve always remained steadfast on is that there will be an eleventh hour deal to avoid a no-deal Brexit… and the pound will then gap up — to 1.3 against the euro and 1.6 against the dollar. That’s just using back-of-the envelope, econ 101 calculations.

Another characteristic of emerging markets (that is very much lacking in Britain’s case) is that their businesses and governments often borrow in foreign currencies — usually the dollar or the euro — due to the lower cost of borrowing associated with assets denominated in leading currencies.

If you’re located in the UK, it’s difficult to see why you’d bother to do that, given that the government’s cost of borrowing for five years is near record lows of -0.06 per cent hit on Thursday, and the cost of borrowing for ten years remains ultra low at around 0.15 per cent as of Friday morning.

It’s also worth remembering that, as Jen points out, the UK has global reserve currency status, making up 5 per cent of official sector reserves, according to IMF data. That’s more than the Swiss Franc, Australian dollar and Canadian dollar combined. The Fund’s figures also show that the proportion of claims in sterling have actually risen since the vote in the middle of 2016.

Why does this matter? Because it lessens the risk that the cost of borrowing for the government will rise substantially any time soon.

All this is not to say that the pound’s status hasn’t been significantly affected by Brexit; clearly it has been, at least temporarily. But the UK is still one of the world’s biggest and most influential economies, with leading universities, the English language, and high-quality cultural and manufacturing exports. Let’s not get carried away; the Great British Peso will live to see another day.

[Pannonian]

Now, a leaked record of some of Mr. Banks?s emails suggest that he and his closest adviser had a more engaged relationship with Russian diplomats than he has disclosed.

While Mr. Banks was spending more than eight million British pounds to promote a break with the European Union ? an outcome the Russians eagerly hoped for ? his contacts at the Russian Embassy in London were opening the door to at least three potentially lucrative investment opportunities in Russian-owned gold or diamond mines.

One of Mr. Banks?s business partners, and a fellow backer of Britain?s exit from the European Union, or Brexit, took the Russians up on at least one of the deals.

The extent of these business discussions, which have not been previously reported, raise new questions about whether the Kremlin sought to reward critical figures in the Brexit campaign. Much as in Washington, where investigations are underway into the possibility that Donald J. Trump?s campaign may have cooperated with the Russians, Britain is now grappling with whether Moscow tried to use its close ties with any British citizens to promote Brexit.

In Washington, the investigators for the special prosecutor, Robert S. Mueller III, and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have also obtained records of Mr. Banks?s communications, including some with Russian diplomats and about Russian business deals.

And they have taken a special interest in close ties Mr. Banks and other Brexit leaders built to the Trump campaign.

On Nov. 12, 2016, Mr. Banks met President-elect Trump in Trump Tower. Upon his return to London, Mr. Banks had another lunch with the Russian ambassador where they discussed the Trump visit.

?From what we?ve seen, the parallels between the Russian intervention in Brexit and the Russian intervention in the Trump campaign appear to be extraordinary,? said Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

?The Russians were apparently dangling gold mines and diamond mines and financial incentives behind one of the largest backers of Brexit,? he added.

Earlier this month, Mr. Banks testified before a committee of Parliament in part to answer questions about his Russian ties. He acknowledged having had three meetings ? ?two lunches and a cup of tea,? as he later said in interviews ? with the Russian ambassador, Alexander V. Yakovenko, rather than just the famous boozy lunch.

He also acknowledged reports that the ambassador had invited him to invest in the consolidation of six Russian gold mines, an offer he said he ultimately declined.

But in his testimony, Mr. Banks did not mention the two other potentially lucrative opportunities detailed in the broader record of his electronic communications.

One involved a state-controlled Russian diamond mining giant, Alrosa. The other involved a Russian businessman ? described in an email to Mr. Banks as ?a mini oligarch? ? and a gold mine in Conakry, Guinea.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Banks acknowledged that these other business deals were proposed to him, but he said that he never acted on them. He denied any wrongdoing, noting that his opposition to the European Union long predated his meeting with the Russian ambassador.

He argued that any business discussions that emerged from those meetings were insignificant because he had never ?done any Russian deals,? so ?after the wholesale theft of my emails, there is still no smoking gun there.?

But Damian Collins, who is chairman of the parliamentary committee investigating the potential Russian use of disinformation to influence the Brexit vote, said he had seen a record of the messages about the potential Russian mining investments and questioned Russian intentions toward Mr. Banks.

?The question is, Why would the Russians do this for Banks?? Mr. Collins asked in an interview. ?What it looks like is that Russia decided he was someone they wanted to do business with and they wanted to see prosper and succeed ? and Banks, alongside that, wanted to hide the extent of his contacts with the Russians.?

Russians Offered Business Deals to Brexit?s Biggest Backer (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/world/europe/russia-britain-brexit-arron-banks.html)

In related, more recent news, Alexander Lebedev has been sanctioned by Canada as one of Putin's inner circle, while the UK government has taken steps to protect him. NB. his son Evgeny was made a Lord by Boris Johnson against the advice of the security services.

[Furunculus]

Russians Offered Business Deals to Brexit?s Biggest Backer (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/world/europe/russia-britain-brexit-arron-banks.html)

In related, more recent news, Alexander Lebedev has been sanctioned by Canada as one of Putin's inner circle, while the UK government has taken steps to protect him. NB. his son Evgeny was made a Lord by Boris Johnson against the advice of the security services.

Does it matter what Banks did or not do, other than legal and reputational consequences to himself?

He ran [a] campaign in the brexit referendum, much like the dozens of other campaigns all seeking to achieve there own objectives.

He did not run the officially recognised Leave campaign, that was Vote Leave under Cummings (not Leave.eu which he ran).

Vote Leave famously wanted nothing to do with Leave.eu.

[Montmorency]

This time next year the pound will be materially stronger, in all dimensions. One thing I?ve always remained steadfast on is that there will be an eleventh hour deal to avoid a no-deal Brexit? and the pound will then gap up ? to 1.3 against the euro and 1.6 against the dollar. That?s just using back-of-the envelope, econ 101 calculations.

This was published June 26 2020. At the time the exchange to USD, according to Google, was 1.26 and to Euro 1.1. For the past month those have been around the same against USD and over the past year between 1.15 and 1.2 against Euro.

I have no idea of British monetary economics, but I do like concrete predictions.

[Pannonian]

‘On Tuesday, Lord Geidt revealed that he believes that Johnson may have broken the Ministerial Code during the Partygate scandal. But rather than trigger an investigation into the Prime Minister, Lord Geidt revealed that he is unable to do so – due to Johnson’s blunt refusal to refer himself for investigation.

‘Absurdly, Lord Geidt also revealed that he is not even able to advise Johnson on how to better follow the Ministerial Code – because such advice would simply be ignored, thereby forcing his resignation.

“I have attempted to avoid the Independent Advisor offering advice to a Prime Minister about a Prime Minister’s obligations under his own Ministerial Code”, Lord Geidt said.

“If a Prime Minister’s judgement is that there is nothing to investigate or no case to answer, he would be bound to reject any such advice, thus forcing the resignation of the Independent Advisor. Such a circular process could only risk placing the Ministerial Code in a place of ridicule.”

What checks and balances are there on the UK executive?

[Pannonian]

Boris Johnson wins a vote of confidence within the Parliamentary Conservative Party, 211 votes to 148.

[Furunculus]

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.


On this subject:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/06/08/the-mainstream-media-cant-even-hide-their-anti-boris-bias-anymore/

[rory_20_uk]

You seem to be conflating one symptom with the underlying pathology.

He was fined over one cake as the Police initially refused to do anything then did the bare minimum - apparently accepting his excuse for being at other events that as the Leader he had to be there as opposed to as the Leader he was jointly and severally responsible for everything that happens. There's another party his wife held at home that Plod also chose to not look into.

Deleting emails regarding his affair whilst Mayor which again was not allowed.

And even this massively lengthened list is merely further symptoms, not the disease, as these happen to be criminal breaches rather than purely incompetence - such as the Norther Ireland bodge.
He has taken the statistical gymnastics at PMQs (which I always have disliked) to just lying.
His head of Ethics quit!

To reiterate - no other PM in history has remained in post after breaching the law. Few have continued after such a poor confidence vote. Not long ago even getting caught telling a direct lie to Parliament mattered, not merely a grunt post hoc as the records are updated.

And just to be sure he's had the rules rewritten so lying is no longer a resigning matter.

This isn't normal. This isn't merely about a cake. But the longer he continues the greater liklihood that the ediface kept up by the illusion of "historic norms" will cease to work.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...But the longer he continues the greater likelihood that the edifice kept up by the illusion of "historic norms" will cease to work.

~:smoking: Heavens but we have lived through that/are continuing to deal with that sort of politiculture diminution on this side of the pond.

[Pannonian]

You seem to be conflating one symptom with the underlying pathology.

He was fined over one cake as the Police initially refused to do anything then did the bare minimum - apparently accepting his excuse for being at other events that as the Leader he had to be there as opposed to as the Leader he was jointly and severally responsible for everything that happens. There's another party his wife held at home that Plod also chose to not look into.

Deleting emails regarding his affair whilst Mayor which again was not allowed.

And even this massively lengthened list is merely further symptoms, not the disease, as these happen to be criminal breaches rather than purely incompetence - such as the Norther Ireland bodge.
He has taken the statistical gymnastics at PMQs (which I always have disliked) to just lying.
His head of Ethics quit!

To reiterate - no other PM in history has remained in post after breaching the law. Few have continued after such a poor confidence vote. Not long ago even getting caught telling a direct lie to Parliament mattered, not merely a grunt post hoc as the records are updated.

And just to be sure he's had the rules rewritten so lying is no longer a resigning matter.

This isn't normal. This isn't merely about a cake. But the longer he continues the greater liklihood that the ediface kept up by the illusion of "historic norms" will cease to work.

~:smoking:

Prior to that he'd told HMQ that he wasn't going to prorogue Parliament, before doing just that. I remember Major being apoplectic about a serving PM lying to HMQ,

[Pannonian]

Ken Clarke (Tory left) and Michael Howard (Tory right) have said that the Lords will oppose the government's line on the Northern Ireland protocol. Goodness knows how the unelected Lords think they have the legitimacy to challenge the elected Commons. According to the two Tory peers, they think it's a good idea for this country to observe international law and keep agreements it has made. This runs counter to what the top government lawyer in the Commons has ruled, which is that UK sovereignty means that it can unilaterally go back on its agreement with the EU.

When will we get rid of the Lords and their jumped up pretensions? They're neither representative nor accountable, and thus they do not have legitimacy, and have no business challenging the elected Commons on this.

In other unrelated news, the equally unelected Prince Charles has described the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda as "appalling".

[Furunculus]

Northern Ireland cannot form a government right now, and the NIP is damaging the Belfast agreement – because the EU forgets that consent of [both] communities matters, and that east/west links matter every smidge as much as north/south.

There needs to be accomodation from [both] parties if the issue is to be satisfactorily answered.

https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1535534366234972160


“Both the British government and the EU should have known, and probably did know, that this Protocol if implemented strictly.. was never going to work for N Ireland.” - Mandelson 2022

[Pannonian]

Northern Ireland cannot form a government right now, and the NIP is damaging the Belfast agreement – because the EU forgets that consent of [both] communities matters, and that east/west links matter every smidge as much as north/south.

There needs to be accomodation from [both] parties if the issue is to be satisfactorily answered.

https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1535534366234972160

And there is video evidence (I've seen it) of Boris Johnson, the PM who'd signed the agreement, telling DUP reps not to worry about the details of the agreement because he had no intention of keeping them.

[Furunculus]

And there is video evidence (I've seen it) of Boris Johnson, the PM who'd signed the agreement, telling DUP reps not to worry about the details of the agreement because he had no intention of keeping them.

No doubt, both parties seemed to understand that the NIP would not achieve its stated aim of protecting the Belfast agreement.

[Pannonian]

Boris Johnson?s Brexit team has been ordered to draw up plans to ?get around? the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit withdrawal agreement so the prime minister can play hardball with Brussels over trade.

Officials in Taskforce Europe, run by Johnson?s EU negotiator David Frost, are working in secret on proposals to ensure that there do not need to be checks on goods passing from Britain to Northern Ireland.

They believe the new attorney-general, Suella Braverman, might have to give new legal advice to justify the move. Insiders say she was appointed because her predecessor Geoffrey Cox was not willing to countenance action that will be seen in Brussels as a breach of the exit agreement.

Brexit team seeks to evade Irish Sea checks on goods (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-team-seeks-to-evade-irish-sea-checks-on-goods-mv3pqjkcm)

Article dated 23rd Feb 2020. Note: Brexit withdrawal agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_withdrawal_agreement) (signed 24th Jan 2020).

Less than a month after signing the agreement, and the UK government were already looking to get out of it. And yet the UK government and its supporters persist in blaming the EU on this. Probably because they know that fighting the EU wins votes, which is all that matters.

[Furunculus]

Brexit team seeks to evade Irish Sea checks on goods (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-team-seeks-to-evade-irish-sea-checks-on-goods-mv3pqjkcm)

Article dated 23rd Feb 2020. Note: Brexit withdrawal agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_withdrawal_agreement) (signed 24th Jan 2020).

Less than a month after signing the agreement, and the UK government were already looking to get out of it. And yet the UK government and its supporters persist in blaming the EU on this. Probably because they know that fighting the EU wins votes, which is all that matters.

No doubt, both parties seemed to understand that the NIP would not achieve its stated aim of protecting the Belfast agreement.

[Pannonian]

UK police refuse to investigate 600k donation to Tory party. Barclays flagged it as suspicious, the New York Times investigated it and found it to have come from a Russian bank account (500 is the limit for a non-UK citizen, and that's 500, not 500k). The UK police says it's ok. And thus the Tories continue to take Russian money, and they'll continue to be elected on Russian money.

Let's not forget, of course, that the Commons committee found that the authorities saw nothing wrong in the Leave campaign taking Russian money, because they'd been instructed to look away to allow for exactly that argument. The police and the Tory party are in cahoots.

[Pannonian]

No doubt, both parties seemed to understand that the NIP would not achieve its stated aim of protecting the Belfast agreement.

It was something the UK government signed up to. At the time of that article, the UK PM, Boris Johnson, had signed the document not one month before, and he was already undermining it. Clarke and Howard, Europhile and Eurosceptic, think that this goes beyond the micro-argument that the UK government and its supporters would like to reduce it to. It's a matter of the UK keeping its agreements, rather than abandoning them unilaterally.

[Furunculus]

It was something the UK government signed up to. At the time of that article, the UK PM, Boris Johnson, had signed the document not one month before, and he was already undermining it. Clarke and Howard, Europhile and Eurosceptic, think that this goes beyond the micro-argument that the UK government and its supporters would like to reduce it to. It's a matter of the UK keeping its agreements, rather than abandoning them unilaterally.

It was something the EU negotiators signed up to, too.

"both parties seemed to understand that the NIP would not achieve its stated aim of protecting the Belfast agreement"

[Furunculus]

UK police refuse to investigate 600k donation to Tory party. Barclays flagged it as suspicious, the New York Times investigated it and found it to have come from a Russian bank account (500 is the limit for a non-UK citizen, and that's 500, not 500k). The UK police says it's ok. And thus the Tories continue to take Russian money, and they'll continue to be elected on Russian money.

Let's not forget, of course, that the Commons committee found that the authorities saw nothing wrong in the Leave campaign taking Russian money, because they'd been instructed to look away to allow for exactly that argument. The police and the Tory party are in cahoots.

I took this quote from a Guardian article looking at russian donations to the tories:

Under electoral laws for Great Britain – they vary slightly in Northern Ireland – donations to parties can be made only by people on the UK electoral register, or from UK-registered companies and other organisations such as unions.

The only people allowed to go on the electoral register in England are British citizens, people with EU citizenship living in the UK, and Commonwealth citizens who can live in the UK.

Are the police refusing to investigate something that is not a crime?
Or is there a crime that they are refusing to investigate?

The difference seems useful to distinguish. throwing poop at the wall in the hope that some sticks.

[Pannonian]

So the Northern Ireland government has strongly rejected the UK government's NI protocol bill. Who is this readjustment meant to serve again? If the EU and Northern Ireland are happy with the agreement, why is it being unilaterally changed by the UK, and on what authority?

[Furunculus]

So the Northern Ireland government has strongly rejected the UK government's NI protocol bill. Who is this readjustment meant to serve again? If the EU and Northern Ireland are happy with the agreement, why is it being unilaterally changed by the UK, and on what authority?
What government?
Do you mean a collection of members from the NI Assembly?
But there is no executive (read: government) as the Unionist Party refuses to to help co-create one.

And this matters in NI (where it would not in most other jurisdictions), because:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement

"the principle of consent underpinning Northern Ireland’s constitutional status"

Northern Ireland cannot form a government right now, and the NIP is damaging the Belfast agreement – because the EU forgets that consent of [both] communities matters, and that east/west links matter every smidge as much as north/south.

The consent of both communuties; loyalist and unionist.

[Pannonian]

What government?
Do you mean a collection of members from the NI Assembly?
But there is no executive (read: government) as the Unionist Party refuses to to help co-create one.

And this matters in NI (where it would not in most other jurisdictions), because:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement


Northern Ireland cannot form a government right now, and the NIP is damaging the Belfast agreement – because the EU forgets that consent of [both] communities matters, and that east/west links matter every smidge as much as north/south.

The consent of both communuties; loyalist and unionist.

Sorry, not a government as per your technical definition. A majority of representatives from the Northern Ireland assembly. In UK terms, this might be the definition of a government (a majority of representatives from the UK Parliament).

And typically, you blame the EU despite a majority of NI reps taking their side, that the agreement the UK government signed should be kept by the UK government.

[Furunculus]

And yet in NI it doesn't matter a whit, as the central principle of governance is the need to do so with the consent of both communities. Northern Ireland cannot form a government right now, and the NIP is damaging the Belfast agreement – because the EU forgets that consent of [both] communities matters, and that east/west links matter every smidge as much as north/south. Does the Unionist community assent to the current arrangements?

For sure, there was the EU's chosen way to 'fix' NI which was Single Market and customs union, where the UK becomes a passive follower of regulation made elsewhere. Surprisingly, it wasn't seen as acceptable to the UK Gov't. And in the EU's clever leveraging of its position (and Theresa May's weakness) it insistsed on sequencing the negotiations so that the withdrawal agreement (and NI) happened before any consideration was given to the future economic arrangement.

[Montmorency]

On this subject:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/06/08/the-mainstream-media-cant-even-hide-their-anti-boris-bias-anymore/

As I said previously, pretending the backlash itself - we're not even translating to voting behavior yet - is about a party is like complaining that the 2020 BLM movement was overplayed for the sake of a single man. Separately regarding media bias, I haven't been witness to how Johnson is covered in British broadcast media, let alone in comparison to print media (I do wonder if British media are even constituted to be able to generate bias against a Conservative PM) but *coughs (https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn)* :coffeenews:


This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.

Further on the subject of media-driven public attitudes, this is always worth looking into:
https://www.ft.com/content/f2d72f42-af5f-4922-8fcb-f50a32f37afc

https://i.imgur.com/n28wB6X.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/3HyTtRO.png
https://i.imgur.com/xQgjbT9.png

The entirety of the shift was driven by Leavers. It's worth asking what the data for other news purveyors show.

[Pannonian]

As a comparison, see how easy a ride the Tories have had with dodgy Russian money and connections, even after the actual security services have explicitly warned about the individuals various Tory ministers (right up to and including the PM) and supporters have been consorting with. With one Russian being ennobled after the head of MI5 declined a meeting with him, set up by Tory supporters, because of suspicions about his intentions and wanting to keep the UK security institutions clean of foreign (and specifically Russian) influence. Nothing about that from the Tory media though. Nor the 600k that Barclays flagged and that the NY Times traced to a Russian account. Even when foreign media have done the legwork, even when the services officially protecting our country express concerns, our right wing media will still look the other way, thus allowing them to shape voter opinion to continue supporting their dodgy politicians.

About the immigration to Leave switch: I can't remember if I've posted it here, but there's a record of UK national issues polls, either by yougov or someone equally credible, which asked people what their main concerns were at that particular time. Immigration was in the top 1 or 2, averaging 20-30% (the other top 3 concerns being economy and NHS also averaging similar numbers), with the EU being nowhere (averaging around 1-3%), right up until around Feb 2016, when the EU jumped up to 1st with around 30-40%, and immigration disappearing as an issue.

[Furunculus]

As I said previously, pretending the backlash itself - we're not even translating to voting behavior yet - is about a party is like complaining that the 2020 BLM movement was overplayed for the sake of a single man.

The entirety of the shift was driven by Leavers. It's worth asking what the data for other news purveyors show.

An endless argument that is at least quasi-religious in our inability to decypher fact from faith:
Does the media lead the public or the public the media?

Perhaps a sign of my optimism in mankind i tend to the latter view - by which we can understand that in achieving control (by voting to leave), immigration became an issue with lower salience.


About the immigration to Leave switch: I can't remember if I've posted it here, but there's a record of UK national issues polls, either by yougov or someone equally credible, which asked people what their main concerns were at that particular time. Immigration was in the top 1 or 2, averaging 20-30% (the other top 3 concerns being economy and NHS also averaging similar numbers), with the EU being nowhere (averaging around 1-3%), right up until around Feb 2016, when the EU jumped up to 1st with around 30-40%, and immigration disappearing as an issue.

Yes, in polling parlence 'Europe' was a low salience issue, in that it generated strong opinions in either way but also a low degree of concern. They had bigger fish to fry.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, when the EU referendum came up as a political issue in 2012'ish the salience of 'Europe' started to rise. It was in their face, so it concerned them more.

[Pannonian]

Jacob Rees Mogg (Brexit opportunities minister) infamously left notes on civil servants' desks commenting on their lack of physical attendance. Jacob Rees Mogg also blocks proposal to show how many times MPs have attended Parliament.

One rule for us, no rules for them. Classic Tory.

[Pannonian]

A second ethics adviser quits, saying that the PM was pushing him to endorse a position of disregarding the ministerial code of conduct. Downing Street considers scrapping role.

So the ministers, up to and including the PM, do not observe customs regarding ministerial conduct. The PM has changed rules so that lying is no longer a resignable offence according to the code (and he'd ignored the customary action on that front anyway). The supposedly semi-independent advisers on ethics have quit.

What checks and balances are there on this government?

[Furunculus]

The PM has changed rules so that lying is no longer a resignable offence according to the code (and he'd ignored the customary action on that front anyway)

You must stop this:
Flinging out wild assertions, and then ignoring all response that would attempt to correct innacuracy found in those assertions.
Particularly, when it appears that ignoring the response causes you to repeat them after they have been demonstrated to be false.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053833896&viewfull=1#post2053833896


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.

[rory_20_uk]

You must stop this:
Flinging out wild assertions, and then ignoring all response that would attempt to correct innacuracy found in those assertions.
Particularly, when it appears that ignoring the response causes you to repeat them after they have been demonstrated to be false.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053833896&viewfull=1#post2053833896

He attended one or more events with quiz questions, people wearing tinsel, out of work hours and one on his birthday where he was given cake and at no point did he think he was attending a gathering that was not allowed - when almost all gatherings for any reason were not allowed?

He's either lying or has an IQ in double digits.

As long as he believes that what he did was OK then it is OK - and as long as the record is corrected then no foul, move along. This leniency wasn't shown to anyone else in any walk of life. Why on earth should this be the case with him?

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

He attended one or more events with quiz questions, people wearing tinsel, out of work hours and one on his birthday where he was given cake and at no point did he think he was attending a gathering that was not allowed - when almost all gatherings for any reason were not allowed?

He's either lying or has an IQ in double digits.

As long as he believes that what he did was OK then it is OK - and as long as the record is corrected then no foul, move along. This leniency wasn't shown to anyone else in any walk of life. Why on earth should this be the case with him?

~:smoking:

totally agreed, no issue with him facing every political consequence that befalls him.
but separate issue entirely from that which is being discussed in the quotes, no?

[Pannonian]

totally agreed, no issue with him facing every political consequence that befalls him.
but separate issue entirely from that which is being discussed in the quotes, no?

People ignoring the constitution and voting for him anyway when he should by rights be out of office already is also a political consequence.

Our entire constitution is based on custom and obligations, and the PM ignores all of them again and again, and relies on the dual pillars of media support and democratic success to justify all. As long as he successfully attends to these two factors, there is nothing in our system that stops him from doing whatever the hell he likes. And that's a political consequences too.

[Montmorency]

An endless argument that is at least quasi-religious in our inability to decypher fact from faith:
Does the media lead the public or the public the media?

Perhaps a sign of my optimism in mankind i tend to the latter view - by which we can understand that in achieving control (by voting to leave), immigration became an issue with lower salience.


That would still reflect very poorly on everyone involved.

There is a meta sense in which media are driven by the audience - cf. "age of clicks" - but editors and managements for one play a long-known role in crafting public discourse and consent.

Notably, the level of "control", however construed, over immigration authorization wouldn't have any predictable association with whether the immigrants under the given meta-regime are prone to damage the economy/compete with locals or enhance the economy. Unless there is evidence that Leavers specifically wished to eliminate Polish and Romanian immigration on the charge that it was so deleterious. So the change in sentiment depends on alternative factors.

[Pannonian]

The Tory government's top lawyer explicitly links the Rwanda policy with Brexit. What was that I said about the Tories rooting all their political capital in the idea of Brexit, and periodically picking fights with Europe in order to refresh it? That Brexit is not so much an economic or governmental idea, as a way to maintain themselves in power through the dual pillars of friendly media and Downing Street.

Said Lady Cavendish, a Tory peer.


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.

Polls show 44% for the Rwanda policy and 40% against. Which is good enough for a policy never meant to be implemented, but only used to gain political capital. It was never workable, and it's ruined the UK's international reputation. But it's offered another chance to pick a fight with Europe, and probably gained a few votes. Such is our democracy.

[Pannonian]

Downing Street pressured The Times to drop story about Johnson's corruption, namely appointing Johnson's then girlfriend to a highly paid role within the Foreign Office. The Times obeyed.

This is wrong on how many levels?

[Pannonian]

The Schools Bill currently going through the Lords is the biggest power grab since the 1870s. Says Tory peer and former education minister, Kenneth Baker.

I suppose this is another example of a type B policy on the Cavendish scale, extending the power of the executive.

[rory_20_uk]

Until there is an effective system of independent oversight the ray of light is the two by-elections where hopefully the Tories will suffer crushing defeats. That might be enough to get backbenchers to do what they do best and their self interest might get rid of Boris.

Prince William has stated that he intends to not continue the "never complain, never explain" mantra, but although he seems to be an ethical and honourable person (as much as someone can deduce anything from material that has been filtered by a small legion of PR professionals) and would IMO be well placed to be in charge of apolitical oversight of the politicians. He however seems to be keener to work with charities. Not itself a bad thing, but there are thousands of people that could do that, whereas there's hardly anyone who could provide a nucleus for oversight to grow around.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Until there is an effective system of independent oversight the ray of light is the two by-elections where hopefully the Tories will suffer crushing defeats. That might be enough to get backbenchers to do what they do best and their self interest might get rid of Boris.

Prince William has stated that he intends to not continue the "never complain, never explain" mantra, but although he seems to be an ethical and honourable person (as much as someone can deduce anything from material that has been filtered by a small legion of PR professionals) and would IMO be well placed to be in charge of apolitical oversight of the politicians. He however seems to be keener to work with charities. Not itself a bad thing, but there are thousands of people that could do that, whereas there's hardly anyone who could provide a nucleus for oversight to grow around.

~:smoking:

The government has already threatened the heir to the throne with abolition if he doesn't zip up, after he'd commented on a policy that wasn't supposed to be enacted anyway. I don't see William, one step further from the throne, being able to offer the kind of oversight you suggest.

Braverman has already cited the striking down of the Rwanda policy, something that was never meant to be enacted, as reason for withdrawing from another international body (that we took a principal part in setting up post-war), and that we need to fully implement Brexit by reclaiming sovereignty. The proposal for reclaiming sovereignty doesn't just reclaim power from the international courts, it also reclaims power from domestic courts, by stating that the judiciary should look less to human rights and international treaties and more to government policy.

Which is the Cavendish description of the Tory government in action: push a type A policy (Rwanda) that's not meant to be implemented, then use that to push a type B policy (shackling of courts and withdrawing from international treaties) which is meant to be implemented. And the move is backed by the support that the magic word "Brexit" automatically invokes. Did the Leave campaign mention anything about drawing down human rights and unilaterally ignoring international treaties? Because that's what Leave's victory is being used to push.

[Furunculus]

Did the Leave campaign mention anything about drawing down human rights and unilaterally ignoring international treaties? Because that's what Leave's victory is being used to push.

I don't speak for the Leave Campaign, but I can confirm for you that I have a long standing grievance with the ECHR in its continuing judicial activism in interpreting new meaning that the original text neither contained nor intended.

This judicial activism exacerbated when in the enforcement of its judgements it breaches the well understood legal concepts of subsidiarity and margin for appreciation.

I don't wish the UK leave the ECHR, but i'm even firmer in my opinion that the current situation of the judiciary being used to overide the will of parliament is unsustainable.

This is a tricky situation, there are no easy answers, and the last time we tried to tackle this from the inside was when Ken Clarke attempted back in 2012 to get the ECHR to agree principles of governance that would more firmly apply the concepts of subsidiarity and margin for appreciation.

This has not been a resounding success. The UK is an explicitly political system, and this sits badly with having a judiciary that (correctly) tells the gov't that it is in breach of the judgments handed down by the ECHR:
"well, we'll just change the law so it can do what we intend it to!"
"no, i'm afraid that is not possible..."

There has been some good commentary on what the bill is trying to achieve - and I am broadly happy with the intention:

https://twitter.com/ProfMarkElliott/status/1539610755015868421

I have also seen good commentary that the drafting of the bill seems like a dogs breakfast, noting that the HRA was a much more elegant piece of legislation. But the HRA achieved this 'elegance' by basically assenting to the judgements of the ECHR, and the new bill of rights is ugly because it is trying to work around inadeqecies of how ECHR judgments of operationalised in the British legal system.

We could have an elegant new bill of rights... by scapping the ECHR. I would have no fear of this as the UK political system is perfectly capable of managing rights and responsibilities... but i do appreciate that this creates its own political/publicity problems that the Gov't is keen to avoid.

There are no doubt rough edges, and the UK law making process is good at knocking them off, but I fully support the core aim of the bill as highlighted in the twitter thread above.

[Pannonian]

The Mail is blaming Labour for the rail strike. Despite the Tories having been in power for the past 12 years. Another year and they'll have been in power for as long as the longest running Labour government ever, and they and the Tory government are still blaming Labour. Just like the Red Wall voted Tory for change, despite the Tories having been in power at that point for 9 years. Is it something about conservatives that prevents them from taking responsibility for what they do, and instead try to pin the blame on everyone but them?

[Pannonian]

Jacob Rees Mogg says he won't be producing assessments on the impact of Brexit. Meaning his job, that of Minister of Brexit Benefits, is literally unaccountable. There is nothing to measure his success or failure by.

[rory_20_uk]

Jacob Rees Mogg says he won't be producing assessments on the impact of Brexit. Meaning his job, that of Minister of Brexit Benefits, is literally unaccountable. There is nothing to measure his success or failure by.

All Ministers are accountable to the PM. That's it - including the PM. He's not the first Minister to be in "charge" of a disaster and nothing to come of it. Even Yes Prime Minister joked about this - how there's the Press department to broadcast every minor success and the Official Secrets Act to suppress every failure.


The Mail is blaming Labour for the rail strike. Despite the Tories having been in power for the past 12 years. Another year and they'll have been in power for as long as the longest running Labour government ever, and they and the Tory government are still blaming Labour. Just like the Red Wall voted Tory for change, despite the Tories having been in power at that point for 9 years. Is it something about conservatives that prevents them from taking responsibility for what they do, and instead try to pin the blame on everyone but them?

The Mail blames Labour for the weather. So nothing new there. The incumbent government nearly always tries to blame the last one. And with no oversight there's nothing to stop them, nor any penalty for doing so.


The government has already threatened the heir to the throne with abolition if he doesn't zip up, after he'd commented on a policy that wasn't supposed to be enacted anyway. I don't see William, one step further from the throne, being able to offer the kind of oversight you suggest.

I know. The Windsors are first and foremost survivors, rather than leaders. Any risk isn't worth it, with all the reforms just being with the aim of continuing the monarchy rather than anything more widely useful. Boris is currently weaker than the Monarchy and he can threaten abolition but I doubt that would fly with the populace, so if one were to make some sort of move now (again with an intermediary, and probably having asked several important people their view and frankly to be the ones to suggest it) what exactly is Boris to say? No - I'm whiter than white, I need no oversight and I'd never lie...

I'm open to alternatives but the Judiciary follows the law - so if the Law is changed they have little power to oppose the changes except on narrow legal grounds; the Civil Service reports to the Government rather than is independent and given it is part of the system would unlikely change; Speaker of the House? Perhaps - and whilst we're at it why not make it a directly elected role so the holder has a mandate rather than chosen and there isn't a constituency without representation.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

All Ministers are accountable to the PM. That's it - including the PM. He's not the first Minister to be in "charge" of a disaster and nothing to come of it. Even Yes Prime Minister joked about this - how there's the Press department to broadcast every minor success and the Official Secrets Act to suppress every failure.



The Mail blames Labour for the weather. So nothing new there. The incumbent government nearly always tries to blame the last one. And with no oversight there's nothing to stop them, nor any penalty for doing so.



I know. The Windsors are first and foremost survivors, rather than leaders. Any risk isn't worth it, with all the reforms just being with the aim of continuing the monarchy rather than anything more widely useful. Boris is currently weaker than the Monarchy and he can threaten abolition but I doubt that would fly with the populace, so if one were to make some sort of move now (again with an intermediary, and probably having asked several important people their view and frankly to be the ones to suggest it) what exactly is Boris to say? No - I'm whiter than white, I need no oversight and I'd never lie...

I'm open to alternatives but the Judiciary follows the law - so if the Law is changed they have little power to oppose the changes except on narrow legal grounds; the Civil Service reports to the Government rather than is independent and given it is part of the system would unlikely change; Speaker of the House? Perhaps - and whilst we're at it why not make it a directly elected role so the holder has a mandate rather than chosen and there isn't a constituency without representation.

~:smoking:

International law is also the law in the eyes of the judiciary. Which is a check on the government's powers, as it is beholden to agreements it has made with other countries. What the change means is that those agreements no longer matter. Sovereignty, which the full implementation of Brexit requires (so says the government's chief legal adviser), means we are no longer held to international agreements, and that everything is beholden only to what the current government says.

Unless I am wrong, I do not recall this being raised during the Brexit campaign.

[rory_20_uk]

International law is also the law in the eyes of the judiciary. Which is a check on the government's powers, as it is beholden to agreements it has made with other countries. What the change means is that those agreements no longer matter. Sovereignty, which the full implementation of Brexit requires (so says the government's chief legal adviser), means we are no longer held to international agreements, and that everything is beholden only to what the current government says.

Unless I am wrong, I do not recall this being raised during the Brexit campaign.

International laws can be abided by or not by individual countries at their own discretion. So they are not really a check since they can be ignored if politicians inform the Judiciary they no longer apply. Like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which the USA has chosen to not sign up to.

The Brexit campaign was about short slogans to win votes. It certainly wasn't a weighty legal discussion. More of bullshit on a bus.

EU laws can equally be ignored - look at Hungry and Poland for some recent examples, and Germany, France and Spain for some others. Have two or more countries on your side and suddenly the EU can't do anything. Hardly a solution to the problem. And the EU has almost no tools to act on countries in the EU that don't tow the line.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

International laws can be abided by or not by individual countries at their own discretion. So they are not really a check since they can be ignored if politicians inform the Judiciary they no longer apply. Like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which the USA has chosen to not sign up to.

The Brexit campaign was about short slogans to win votes. It certainly wasn't a weighty legal discussion. More of bullshit on a bus.

EU laws can equally be ignored - look at Hungry and Poland for some recent examples, and Germany, France and Spain for some others. Have two or more countries on your side and suddenly the EU can't do anything. Hardly a solution to the problem. And the EU has almost no tools to act on countries in the EU that don't tow the line.

~:smokingL:

If that was the case, what was all the debate about sovereignty? If it had always been within our power, why did we need to withdraw from the EU in order to assert that power? I remember one argument being posited that leaving the EU would mean the UK would be responsible for all its actions, that the UK government can no longer blame the EU for everything. We've left the EU, and the UK government is still blaming the EU for everything, including not being able to enact the Rwanda policy. What was the point of Brexit?

[rory_20_uk]

You do know the Court that this went to has nothing to do with the EU, right?

There is still a contested border across Ireland which was always going to be impossible to solve (unless the EU gave a waiver as it has with other countries overseas territories - but they have to punish leavers).

Because bieng able to snarl up a process isn't the same as not having to be part of it - Poland and Hungary receive billions in direct aid so they're accepting.

And no country is a lone actor and few if any leavers thought that the UK would suddenly have no links to other countries.

The EU is blaming Russia for famines in Africa - by this... "logic", is Africa Russia and te EU all joined together due to having an interconnection?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

You do know the Court that this went to has nothing to do with the EU, right?

There is still a contested border across Ireland which was always going to be impossible to solve (unless the EU gave a waiver as it has with other countries overseas territories - but they have to punish leavers).

Because bieng able to snarl up a process isn't the same as not having to be part of it - Poland and Hungary receive billions in direct aid so they're accepting.

And no country is a lone actor and few if any leavers thought that the UK would suddenly have no links to other countries.

The EU is blaming Russia for famines in Africa - by this... "logic", is Africa Russia and te EU all joined together due to having an interconnection?

~:smoking:

Of course the court that was involved has nothing to do with the EU. But the attorney general cited Brexit, and said the Rwanda reverse showed that we need to fully implement Brexit to regain our sovereignty. That's the government's chief legal adviser, explicitly citing Brexit in relation to the Rwanda decision. It will probably win votes based on this argument.

[rory_20_uk]

Of course the court that was involved has nothing to do with the EU. But the attorney general cited Brexit, and said the Rwanda reverse showed that we need to fully implement Brexit to regain our sovereignty. That's the government's chief legal adviser, explicitly citing Brexit in relation to the Rwanda decision. It will probably win votes based on this argument.

So you know and I know along with everyone else here that claims of Brexit is a desperate call for votes. And isn't relevant: no one here is arguing that the Government is doing a good job or even a truthful job. I think it would be newsworthy when they opt for telling it straight.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So you know and I know along with everyone else here that claims of Brexit is a desperate call for votes. And isn't relevant: no one here is arguing that the Government is doing a good job or even a truthful job. I think it would be newsworthy when they opt for telling it straight.

~:smoking:

Not desperate, effective. They do it because they know it works. Get Brexit done. Protect Brexit from the Remoaners. Don't let them stop it. For all the rubbish the government is doing, for all the wrecking it's doing to the British democratic system, they know that invoking Brexit gets them votes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

UK police refuse to investigate 600k donation to Tory party. Barclays flagged it as suspicious, the New York Times investigated it and found it to have come from a Russian bank account (500 is the limit for a non-UK citizen, and that's 500, not 500k). The UK police says it's ok. And thus the Tories continue to take Russian money, and they'll continue to be elected on Russian money....

Surely this is just a form of economic sanction...

:creep:

[Furunculus]

If that was the case, what was all the debate about sovereignty? If it had always been within our power, why did we need to withdraw from the EU in order to assert that power? I remember one argument being posited that leaving the EU would mean the UK would be responsible for all its actions, that the UK government can no longer blame the EU for everything. We've left the EU, and the UK government is still blaming the EU for everything, including not being able to enact the Rwanda policy. What was the point of Brexit?

you know the answer to this already:
we follow the rules, so we feel them in a way that other countries do not.

[Pannonian]

you should know the answer to this already:
we follow the rules, so we feel them in a way that other countries do not.

Haven't you been supporting our current efforts at unilaterally rewriting our agreement with the EU, that was signed off by the current PM? Do you feel the same way about us ignoring the rules as you seem to about other European countries ignoring those rules?

[Furunculus]

Haven't you been supporting our current efforts at unilaterally rewriting our agreement with the EU, that was signed off by the current PM? Do you feel the same way about us ignoring the rules as you seem to about other European countries ignoring those rules?

you have to separate the british gov't (as an actor with 50 years history of good compliance within the EU), from me as an individual (looking at the problems caused by the NIP over the last few years).

they are not the same thing.

[Pannonian]

Ha. His media lackeys are taking aim at Charles now. Along with Rees Mogg planning to take funny numbers off road signs as one of the benefits of Brexit, and Dorries attempting to stir up a culture war on trans. Anything to distract from the government's failures and scandals.

[Pannonian]

UK government says they will overturn a law passed by the Welsh Parliament. AFAICS this is a type B policy according to the Cavendish scale (centralising power in Downing Street).

What now sovereignty?

[Pannonian]

Tory government passes new Policing law. When Labour complained that it was ill-defined and unacceptably wide-ranging, Johnson accuses them of aiding and abetting the rapists and murderers who are the target of this law. Labour London mayor expresses his concern that Steve Bray, the anti-Brexit protester, may be silenced by the police should they choose to interpret the law a certain way.

First day the new Law comes into effect, police ban Bray from his anti-Brexit protest.

Hasn't the government recently taken us out of an internal body safeguarding human rights? Whilst assuring us that it would be replaced by something better? The government's chief lawyer said that this was necessary to fully implement Brexit and regain sovereignty. I suppose both this repression of anti-Brexit protest and the linking of reducing human rights with Brexit will actually gain them votes, by invoking the magic words "EU" and "Brexit", which reflexively invoke both an anti-European feeling and Tory voting.

[Pannonian]

Tory MP loses his whip after a scandal. Yup, still a weekday.

[Pannonian]

Tory MP loses his whip after a scandal. Yup, still a weekday.

Government lies about said MP and what the PM knew about it, issues a replacement story. Now there is evidence that this replacement story is a lie too. The PM knew about claims of sexual assault by this MP, and appointed him to a position responsible for welfare.

Is this going to be held against the government, or will certain other issues count for more?

[Pannonian]

13 MPs have resigned their government roles so far today and yesterday, including the 2nd highest ranker. 2 by elections lost last week due to scandals, and 2 currently suspended for the same. Another rumoured to be involving a very high ranking member indeed that led to leaning on national media to drop the story.

Edit: 15 AFAIK is the latest number.

Edit: Another one gone. I've seen the count of payrollers at 18 as of now.

Edit: Sorry, 21 now.

Edit: 26 now. 5 in one letter.

Edit: 30 now. Previous record was apparently 11 in 24 hours in 1932.

Edit: 31 now. And Johnson admits to having met a former KGB agent the day after a NATO summit. Someone MI5 had highlighted as highly undesirable to be acquainted with. How adjacent is this to treason?

Edit: 35 now.

Edit: Whips say that previously loyal backbenchers now approached to fill positions have said that there are absolutely no conditions under which they'll accept. And that the whips agreed with them. Cabinet ministers, including the newly appointed chancellor, are in Downing Street telling him to go.

Edit: 38 now. Commons committee hearings have to be cancelled because the government cannot provide ministers to be questioned.

Edit: 42 resignations and 1 sacking I think.

[rory_20_uk]

I think now he's just trying to up how much he can charge on the lecture circuit - they apparently pay May a ton.

How many records has this utter Legend broken?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I think now he's just trying to up how much he can charge on the lecture circuit - they apparently pay May a ton.

How many records has this utter Legend broken?

~:smoking:

He's still 1 day behind Neville Chamberlain.

[Pannonian]

Michael Gove sacked for telling Johnson to step down.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes. British politicians are just slightly less craven than ones in the USA.

There are three ways Boris could be gone in our system as it stands in decreasing likelihood:


The 1922 committee change the rules and a new vote is taken. They're postponing due them having an election. So they might start the process in c. 2 weeks.
Boris just resigns - possibly when he starts to run out of bodies to do the jobs.
The Queen does something given the majority of the Commons, the Lords, the Provinces, the Public all want him gone.


Perhaps, just perhaps the next incumbent will get us away from Rule by Good Chaps.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

The reason comparisons of Johnson to Trump were overblown is that there was always a very strong analogy of Johnson to George W. Bush.

[Pannonian]

Yes. British politicians are just slightly less craven than ones in the USA.

There are three ways Boris could be gone in our system as it stands in decreasing likelihood:


The 1922 committee change the rules and a new vote is taken. They're postponing due them having an election. So they might start the process in c. 2 weeks.
Boris just resigns - possibly when he starts to run out of bodies to do the jobs.
The Queen does something given the majority of the Commons, the Lords, the Provinces, the Public all want him gone.


Perhaps, just perhaps the next incumbent will get us away from Rule by Good Chaps.

~:smoking:

He's already reached that stage. Commons committees have been cancelled because the relevant individuals aren't in government to answer questions. Backbenchers have refused to take on roles, leaving extant vacancies.

[Pannonian]

The reason comparisons of Johnson to Trump were overblown is that there was always a very strong analogy of Johnson to George W. Bush.

The comparison with Trump was over his pathological untruthfulness and the willingness of his base to ignore reality and swallow everything he said. Also his willingness to ignore all custom and only follow rules that he was legally pinned down on.

[Montmorency]

pathological untruthfulness and the willingness of his base to ignore reality and swallow everything he said. Also his willingness to ignore all custom and only follow rules that he was legally pinned down on.

That was Bush, if you'll recall.

Both took public lying to new heights, but with a knowing chuckle. Both trolled the media and were known for malapropisms and public personas projecting a sort of 'folksy charm' beloved of base conservatives. Both were blue blood elites. Both made unlikely ascendancies to national prominence over more traditional party rivals. Both were infamous for stacking the government with corrupt, incompetent, and sinister characters, some of whom often had more of a role in managing the ship of state than the leader himself. Both ultimately became beleaguered by widespread public and copartisan disfavor amid scandals, policy foibles, and economic [let's say dislocation].

Just to name a few parallels.


We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

[Pannonian]

53 resignations and 1 sacking since this broke out. 6 resignations so far this morning. Some departments, such as Education, are virtually unmanned. Chief lawyer called on Johnson to go (having previously expressed a wish to run for leadership), while her no.2 resigned yesterday. The Times notes that the newly installed chancellor has been planning to oust Johnson for months. Both Northern Ireland and Wales ministers have gone.

[rory_20_uk]

He's already reached that stage. Commons committees have been cancelled because the relevant individuals aren't in government to answer questions. Backbenchers have refused to take on roles, leaving extant vacancies.

Ministers only have to be from the Commons or the Lords by convention. He can choose anyone he wants.

Until he's forced out by balifs, the police or the army he'll stay. As why not?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Johnson finally agrees to resign, but will be in place until he's passed Theresa May (he drew level with Neville Chamberlain today).

[rory_20_uk]

Let's hope this is draining the abscess not excising a cancer.

He really is in the running for worst PM ever. Labour have a lot to answer for having Corbyn as Leader. Boris would still most likely have won but by a lot less.

~:smoking:

[Crandar]

What really condemned Corbyn was his ambiguous position towards Brexit. Hadn't he chickened out and instead adopted a transparent position, he would have performed much better, in my opinion.

Anyway, who do you think is going to succeed Boris in the leadership of the Tories? Michael Gove seems like the strongest candidate to me. Could also be Sunak; Javid, although internationally more famous, is less likely.

In the meantime, Baker (Tory version of Republican extremism) has also expressed his interest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k54eihQDjGY). His case is hopeless, thankfully.

[rory_20_uk]

What really condemned Corbyn was his ambiguous position towards Brexit. Hadn't he chickened out and instead adopted a transparent position, he would have performed much better, in my opinion.

Anyway, who do you think is going to succeed Boris in the leadership of the Tories? Michael Gove seems like the strongest candidate to me. Could also be Sunak; Javid, although internationally more famous, is less likely.

In the meantime, Baker (Tory version of Republican extremism) has also expressed his interest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k54eihQDjGY). His case is hopeless, thankfully.

Corbyn was a sub-normal IQ dumpster fire. He was too stupid to realise his ideals of nationalising everything he could lay his hands on would cause vast damage to the economy - equality for those too poor to flee the country for anywhere else.

On who is next I think that there's three classes:


Optimists
Chancers
Strategists


The first think they can win, solve the problems that are endemic and get the populace to vote for them again in the next elections and either win or not screw up so much that they loose the position.
The second just want to be PM for a bit - one's name in the history books, the links it gives, meet the monarchy and a lifetime stipend.
The third will wait the disaster to end, possibly after the next election and then swoop in.


~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Shortish podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lgm-podcast-emergency-bojo-edition/id1332780055?i=1000569152411)with an American and an American expat going in depth on the British political system and the process and history of what's going on in Westminster. Seems pretty legit.

On the subject of the next Conservative leader, the point is made that the Conservatives have been in power for so long that all of the old frontbenchers are widely unpopular among the party and the public for their various views on, mostly, cutting taxes, raising taxes, and cutting spending. John Heseltine (still living) did not follow Margaret Thacther; John Major did.

[Pannonian]

Shortish podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lgm-podcast-emergency-bojo-edition/id1332780055?i=1000569152411)with an American and an American expat going in depth on the British political system and the process and history of what's going on in Westminster. Seems pretty legit.

On the subject of the next Conservative leader, the point is made that the Conservatives have been in power for so long that all of the old frontbenchers are widely unpopular among the party and the public for their various views on, mostly, cutting taxes, raising taxes, and cutting spending. John Heseltine (still living) did not follow Margaret Thacther; John Major did.

Michael Heseltine was from that section of the Tory party called the One Nation Conservatives, a line that goes back to Benjamin Disraeli (author of A Tale of Two Nations). Their aim is t preserve institutions whilst looking after the ordinary people. To a man jack of them, they opposed Brexit, as something that would benefit the very few whilst making things worse for the massive majority of poorer people. The last of the One Nation Big Beasts, Ken Clarke, noted after yet another tax cut for the rich, that he was well off enough and didn't need more tax cuts. But the cult of Brexit, and Boris Johnson the Brexit Enabler, has driven out all the moderate Tories, with those remaining picked for their adherence to Brexit and personal loyalty to Johnson. All the old Tories who'd believed in effective government have been driven out.

At the same time as tax rates for the richest were cut yet again, the tax rates for the poorest were raised to the highest level for quite a few decades. This after Labour were voted out for allowing National Debt to rise to an unsustained near-trillion GBP (it's currently 2.3 trillion), local government collapsing because of lack of funds despite tax money going extravagantly up, and billions of tax payers money being paid to friends and families of Tory politicians. Those who are in a position to benefit, mainly Tory politicians and their friends, have benefited from Brexit and other Tory policies. Everyone else has suffered. The old One Nation Tories, believing in the reverse of this, absolutely despise the current Tories and Brexit.

[Pannonian]

Why is Johnson being allowed to throw a wedding party at Chequers? If he's resigned, but is only there to provide continuity while the Tories decide on a replacement, why is he allowed to use the amenities for personal use?

[rory_20_uk]

Why is Johnson being allowed to throw a wedding party at Chequers? If he's resigned, but is only there to provide continuity while the Tories decide on a replacement, why is he allowed to use the amenities for personal use?

I hope that this is a rhetorical question since the answer is always the same.

The Good Chap System has nothing to deal with such people. His current wife wants a big do so, why not? Chequers isn't owned by the state and the Trust makes it available for the PM. He is the PM so he gets to play.

If we get an interim PM the first - perhaps only - legislation they should pass is to codify much of what has up until been merely optional.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's iffy that a lame duck PM who's admitted to meeting with enemy agents without the presence of other officials is left in place, even after he's announced that he plans to continue to take advantage of a PM's facilities and privileges?

[Furunculus]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's iffy that a lame duck PM who's admitted to meeting with enemy agents without the presence of other officials is left in place, even after he's announced that he plans to continue to take advantage of a PM's facilities and privileges?

No. Because context.

The subtext of your question about iffy'ness is that he is acting as an agent of a foreign power.
A foreign power that we are engaged in a proxy war with, and have been leading the global coordination of sanctions against the same foreign power.

And the context here is as I have asked before - to complete silence: what is the pay-off that this foreign power is getting?

It may be inappropriate, and that may justify 'iffy', but i see little merit in the insinuation that he is traitorous russian dupe.

[Pannonian]

No. Because context.

The subtext of your question about iffy'ness is that he is acting as an agent of a foreign power.
A foreign power that we are engaged in a proxy war with, and have been leading the global coordination of sanctions against the same foreign power.

And the context here is as I have asked before - to complete silence: what is the pay-off that this foreign power is getting?

It may be inappropriate, and that may justify 'iffy', but i see little merit in the insinuation that he is traitorous russian dupe.

So a PM needs to have a firm definition of cause, concrete evidence and foolproof argument, in order to not be considered iffy? The security services already noted that his acquaintances were people that could not be trusted, that he furthermore could not be trusted with secrets. His admitted actions are strictly against security protocols. The Commons committee found that no evidence was to be found against him because officials had been told to look the other way.

The likes of Corbyn had weaker arguments against his loyalty to this country, and he wasn't fit for office either. But I guess facilitating Brexit cleans a lot of sins.

[Pannonian]

Oh, and the investigations of the Labour leader and deputy leader, instigated by a Tory MP and Tory press, have concluded with the Durham police noting that there was nothing to answer for (said leader and deputy leader promised to resign their positions if they were fined). A former head of Durham police calls it a politically motivated attempt at smearing, and a waste of police time.

[Furunculus]

So a PM needs to have a firm definition of cause, concrete evidence and foolproof argument, in order to not be considered iffy? The security services already noted that his acquaintances were people that could not be trusted, that he furthermore could not be trusted with secrets. His admitted actions are strictly against security protocols. The Commons committee found that no evidence was to be found against him because officials had been told to look the other way.

The likes of Corbyn had weaker arguments against his loyalty to this country, and he wasn't fit for office either. But I guess facilitating Brexit cleans a lot of sins.

The problem i point here is not that Boris's actions were not inappropriate.
No, it derives your continued insinuation that he is an agent of a foreign power.
And your disinterest in questioning what it is that russia is buying for its 'money'.
You have no interest, so i'm led to conclude that your principle interest is in blackening a reputation rather than exposing a misdemeanour.

[Pannonian]

The problem i point here is not that Boris's actions were not inappropriate.
No, it derives your continued insinuation that he is an agent of a foreign power.
And your disinterest in questioning what it is that russia is buying for its 'money'.
You have no interest, so i'm led to conclude that your principle interest is in blackening a reputation rather than exposing a misdemeanour.

As foreign secretary, meeting someone the security services deem to be dodgy, without the presence of other officials, is not inappropriate? What was discussed at that meeting? What activities did Johnson get up to that might make him vulnerable? Whatever he got up, even before this the security services recommended to the then PM Theresa May that Johnson was best not entrusted with any secrets, as his record made him untrustworthy. And the Commons committee noted that Johnson and his associates had been systematically turning the gaze of the police and other similar bodies so as not to keep a record of what they've been doing.

There are no misdemeanours to be revealed, because Johnson has been making damned sure there are no witnesses. All evidence is circumstantial and lack of records where official procedure was to keep records, precisely to avoid cases like this. And with his modus operandi, you're asking for evidence that he's been careful to keep clear of.

I'm reminded of the Yes Minister episode Party Games, where the chancellor and foreign secretary were ruled out of contention for marginal activities that might make them vulnerable to blackmail. All based on good practice as learned from centuries of espionage. Johnson has a much more extensive record of these things, and yet is excused them. Brexit really does wash away all sins.

[rory_20_uk]

What on earth could Russia have on Boris that would act as leverage - and are they so inept to keep the same dirt a secret up to the point of him resigning?

Boris is a cancer in the world and has always been. But colluding with Russia? If he has been, he's taken Russia for a ride - receiving free cash for sod all.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

What on earth could Russia have on Boris that would act as leverage - and are they so inept to keep the same dirt a secret up to the point of him resigning?

Boris is a cancer in the world and has always been. But colluding with Russia? If he has been, he's taken Russia for a ride - receiving free cash for sod all.

~:smoking:

Goodness knows, and that's the whole point. We don't know what Johnson has been up to, and he in his official positions should have had a record of what he's been doing. He arranged for a meeting between Eygeniy Lebedev and the head of MI6. Said head refused to attend the meeting, as Evgeniy was the son of a former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev, and an informal meeting with someone thusly connected would compromise the head of MI6, and thus the MI6 itself. As it happens, this wasn't enough (along with the peerage Johnson secured for Evgeniy, against the advice of civil servants). Johnson, as foreign secretary, met Alexander himself, at a private do in Italy, without other officials present. The MI6 deemed Evgeniy to be a risk because of his links with Alexander the ex-KGB agent. Even before he took up cabinet office, the security services advised PM May that Johnson was a security risk. And as foreign secretary, Johnson met with Alexander himself in circumstances way beyond those that the head of MI6 deemed to be compromising.

That Yes Minister episode shows what was considered normal back then, and what kind of behaviour was deemed to be potentially compromising and would rule one out for higher office. Johnson went way beyond that. There will likely be no concrete evidence, for he's taken care to ensure that no evidence is left. But a minister in his position should have had records kept, precisely to avoid compromising situations, so the government can properly assess the situation. Corbyn did less and was demonised for hating the country.

[rory_20_uk]

He's a liar. A baraggart. A probable narcisist. Previous colleagues have said this repeatedly. MI6 and MI5 also know.

As long as the meeting was not in the Russian Embassy any Russians attending would at the very least be concerned it was bieng monitored in some way or other. Even if monitoring him by name might be politically they can quickly target those who might contact him. Because the Secret Service isn't going to trust someone who would have been flagged as a security risk from personality alone in his early 20s by someone with an A level in Psychology.

Hes not singlehandedly the Cambridge Spy ring.

Of the litany of things he's done this really doesn't matter.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

He's a liar. A baraggart. A probable narcisist. Previous colleagues have said this repeatedly. MI6 and MI5 also know.

As long as the meeting was not in the Russian Embassy any Russians attending would at the very least be concerned it was bieng monitored in some way or other. Even if monitoring him by name might be politically they can quickly target those who might contact him. Because the Secret Service isn't going to trust someone who would have been flagged as a security risk from personality alone in his early 20s by someone with an A level in Psychology.

Hes not singlehandedly the Cambridge Spy ring.

Of the litany of things he's done this really doesn't matter.

~:smoking:


He should be questioned, under oath, on his links with these individuals and what he's been doing in various cases. We already know that there's no evidence of wrongdoing because the bodies that should have been monitoring him have been told to look the other way so they didn't see anything. What has this been hiding?

[rory_20_uk]

He should be questioned, under oath, on his links with these individuals and what he's been doing in various cases. We already know that there's no evidence of wrongdoing because the bodies that should have been monitoring him have been told to look the other way so they didn't see anything. What has this been hiding?

Why bother? To prove to a criminal level would be impossible. If he had done something the Secret Services would almost certain not want to give up information.

Get rid of him, pass some proper laws so this doesn't reoccur and just move on. There's finite time and money so this is a waste.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Goodness knows, and that's the whole point. We don't know what Johnson has been up to, and he in his official positions should have had a record of what he's been doing...

But what have Russia got for their money?

I know what Russia has got from Germany - twenty years of ost-politik that has seen:
1. Complete dependence on Russian energy
2. A 20b euro subsidy of his war in Ukraine
3. Control over Germany's strategic reserves of Gas which Gazprom ran down in the months before Ukraine invasion
4. German lobbying for Nordstream pipelines that everyone said would be used by Russia to shaft eastern europe
5. Interference in German energy politics to discredit nuclear - complete speculation here, but you're familiar with the method
6. And i could go on here...

But when it comes to what Russia 'bought' from Boris...

I struggle to see the pay-off Russia got for asking Yevgeny to slide manilla envelopes to Boris:
1. Biggest promoter of the Russian sanctions regime in europe
2. Ten years of Op Orbital training soldiers in Ukraine
3. A foriegn policy that directs Defence to treat Russia as the UK's primary military opponent
4. One of the largest material supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
5. One of the largest political supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
6. Now training 10k ukranian soldiers in the UK every four months

Dragging this up repeatedly amounts to mud-slinging rather than an important revelation.

[Pannonian]

Why bother? To prove to a criminal level would be impossible. If he had done something the Secret Services would almost certain not want to give up information.

Get rid of him, pass some proper laws so this doesn't reoccur and just move on. There's finite time and money so this is a waste.

~:smoking:

Find out what he's been doing. Make it prosecutable if he lies so he has incentive to tell the truth for once in his life. I'd rather not trust that he's not been up to no good, given that all that he's done is exactly what one would do if one were up to no good and wanted to cover one's tracks.

[Pannonian]

But what have Russia got for their money?

I know what Russia has got from Germany - twenty years of ost-politik that has seen:
1. Complete dependence on Russian energy
2. A 20b euro subsidy of his war in Ukraine
3. Control over Germany's strategic reserves of Gas which Gazprom ran down in the months before Ukraine invasion
4. German lobbying for Nordstream pipelines that everyone said would be used by Russia to shaft eastern europe
5. Interference in German energy politics to discredit nuclear - complete speculation here, but you're familiar with the method
6. And i could go on here...

But when it comes to what Russia 'bought' from Boris...

I struggle to see the pay-off Russia got for asking Yevgeny to slide manilla envelopes to Boris:
1. Biggest promoter of the Russian sanctions regime in europe
2. Ten years of Op Orbital training soldiers in Ukraine
3. A foriegn policy that directs Defence to treat Russia as the UK's primary military opponent
4. One of the largest material supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
5. One of the largest political supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
6. Now training 10k ukranian soldiers in the UK every four months

Dragging this up repeatedly amounts to mud-slinging rather than an important revelation.

Don't you think it's a good thing for our government to know what our ministers have been up to? If official procedure is that ministers should not meet with risky individuals without the presence of others, don't you reckon that there might be a reason for that?

[rory_20_uk]

Find out what he's been doing. Make it prosecutable if he lies so he has incentive to tell the truth for once in his life. I'd rather not trust that he's not been up to no good, given that all that he's done is exactly what one would do if one were up to no good and wanted to cover one's tracks.

I can easily recreate the whole thing for you...


"I can't quite recall"

And any other synonyms you care for.

The CPS would laugh in your face. There's no case just a rumour. MI5 might well have a file and in 60 years it might be released.

Move on!

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I can easily recreate the whole thing for you...


"I can't quite recall"

And any other synonyms you care for.

The CPS would laugh in your face. There's no case just a rumour. MI5 might well have a file and in 60 years it might be released.

Move on!

~:smoking:

Commons committee? Royal Commission?

Also, Furunculus calls what I want "mudslinging", despite several findings pointing towards what I would call extreme iffiness. Now what the Tory MP did in Durham, was proper "mudslinging". What the Durham police said was "nothing to answer for". What a former head of Durham police said was "politically motivated attempt at smearing, and a waste of police time". In Johnson's case, the professionals deemed what he calls "mudslinging" to be worthy of further investigation, while in Starmer's case, the professionals deemed what was reported to them by a Tory MP to be a waste of time.

[rory_20_uk]

Rather than end the chapter, you're advocating jumping into the gutter and wrestling?

Worst case you make him look like a victim. Again, you'll get nothing except a show trial. A pathetic waste of time leaving Boris to cheerfully tear into everyone else with carefully phrased answers just this side of slander. Investigate every allegation? Probably unable to do so leaving Boris to cry "cover up!"

And he'll make millions more from books / talk shows / talks and newspaper articles.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Also, Furunculus calls what I want "mudslinging"

To be clear, i say this specifically because:

a) you keep insinuating that he is colluding with a foriegn power, while;
b) being utterly disinterested in the fact that there is no sign of what this collusion has brought to russia's benefit.

No more, no less.

[Pannonian]

Rather than end the chapter, you're advocating jumping into the gutter and wrestling?

Worst case you make him look like a victim. Again, you'll get nothing except a show trial. A pathetic waste of time leaving Boris to cheerfully tear into everyone else with carefully phrased answers just this side of slander. Investigate every allegation? Probably unable to do so leaving Boris to cry "cover up!"

And he'll make millions more from books / talk shows / talks and newspaper articles.

~:smoking:

At the very least, what was he doing, as foreign secretary, in a party with an ex-KGB agent without any accompanying officials? The head of MI6 deemed a private meeting with Evgeniy Lebedev to be unacceptably compromising for someone in his position, because Evgeniy was the son of Alexander. What was Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, doing in a meeting with Alexander Lebedev himself, on Alexander Lebedev's territory? What were they discussing, away from government officials who should have been monitoring their minister's official business?

There are other allegations, not least the latest one from The Times. But I want to know why the above is not worthy of investigation, given that politicians past and present have done less and been deemed unacceptably compromised.

[Pannonian]

To be clear, i say this specifically because:

a) you keep insinuating that he is colluding with a foriegn power, while;
b) being utterly disinterested in the fact that there is no sign of what this collusion has brought to russia's benefit.

No more, no less.

There is no sign, because there were no other officials present. Boris Johnson was the only official present. Do you not think he should be explaining what he was doing there? The head of MI6 refused a private meeting with Alexander's son because he was Alexander's son, and a private meeting with Evgeniy would have compromised the head of MI6. Why is a private meeting between the foreign secretary and Alexander himself deemed ok?

[Pannonian]

Woah, the government is refusing to allow a VONC now. Does this even count as a democracy any more?

[Pannonian]

Major said the whole country knew the government had “broken the law” and that they: “Unlawfully tried to prorogue parliament, ignored the nationwide lockdown by breaking its own laws in Downing Street and tried to change parliamentary rules to protect one of their own.”

He said the damage was “widespread” and added: “In the four countries of the United Kingdom, we take democracy for granted.

“We shouldn’t. If you look around the world, you’ll find it’s in retreat in many countries and has been for 10 to 15 years or more. And it looks like that’s going to continue.

“The point is this - democracy is not inevitable. It can be undone step by step, action by action, falsehood by falsehood.

“It needs to be protected at all times. It seems to me that if our law and our accepted conventions are ignored, then we’re on a very slippery slope that ends with pulling our constitution into shreds.

“What has been done in the last three years has damaged our country at home and overseas and I think it has damaged the reputation of parliament as well.

“The blame for these lapses must lie principally - principally but not only - with the prime minister, but many in his cabinet are culpable too.

“And so are those outside the cabinet who cheered him on.

“They were silent when they should have spoken out and then spoke out only when their silence became self-damaging.”

The committee is looking at the role of the prime minister in ensuring ethical standards in public life.

Major, who set up the committee on standards in public life, added: “Now all of this can be corrected. And the task for parliament, government, this committee will be to restore constitutional standards and protect from any further slippage against them.

“Bad habits if they become ingrained become precedent, precedent can carry bad habits on for a very long time. And it shouldn’t be permitted to do so.”


https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/john-major-tears-into-boris-johnson-and-cabinet-ministers-who-backed-him_uk_62cd4236e4b0aa392d43b581?ncid=flipboard-HP

And he said all this before the Tory government denied the opposition leader's request for a VONC, contrary to the custom that a VONC requested by the leader of the opposition is the most urgent item on the agenda.

[Furunculus]

Woah, the government is refusing to allow a VONC now. Does this even count as a democracy any more?

This is a manufactured problem.

There is a correct form to follow here and starmer could have followed it.
Instead they did not, knowing (and hoping?) that it would be rejected so people would scream about; "the end of democracy!"

That sounds like exactly the kind of bending of constitutional norms that Boris is often accused of.

https://twitter.com/explorepolitic1/status/1547099834385108992

The following wording within the attached document maybe the reson for blocking yesterday: "that it does indeed intend to test the Houses's confidence in the government, rather than simply to censure a policy or member of the government."

Update - Gov't to no-confidence itself:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/13/uk-government-to-table-no-confidence-motion-in-itself

“Labour were given the option to table a straightforward vote of no confidence in the government in keeping with convention. However, they chose not to,” a government spokesperson said. “To remedy this we are tabling a motion which gives the house the opportunity to decide if it has confidence in the government."

[Pannonian]

Britain's current chancellor aka finance minister is having his personal finances investigated by HMRC (tax office) following a tip off from the National Crime Agency (source: The Times, Financial times).

And of course, Sajid Javid dropped out of the leadership race shortly after offering to open up his tax returns whilst refusing to answer questions about offshore tax havens and his businesses (interview on national TV).

This current bunch are making the Major regime look incorruptible.

[Furunculus]

there is definately a point where an incumbenant regime becomes complacent and lazy about the need to demonstrate continueing legitimacy, and this is something they cannot hide from the electorate.

the major regime definately demonstrated this.

[rory_20_uk]

Britain's current chancellor aka finance minister is having his personal finances investigated by HMRC (tax office) following a tip off from the National Crime Agency (source: The Times, Financial times).

And of course, Sajid Javid dropped out of the leadership race shortly after offering to open up his tax returns whilst refusing to answer questions about offshore tax havens and his businesses (interview on national TV).

This current bunch are making the Major regime look incorruptible.

The Panama leak of papers caught politicians all over Europe, from the Nordics downwards so this is known to be a systemic problem. Of course, as a rule these were not breaking any laws, just lying to the electorate which is practically in the job description.

A solution would be that all persons who become an MP have a tax audit by the HMRC with the results being published on a public website. That's only 600(ish) every 4 years - hardly an onerous number and would help this problem. Of course not solve, but strong light into dark places is a pretty good disinfectant.

Penelope Mary Mordaunt is shaping up to be a contender and her known flaws (to date) are that she didn't resign out of protest of Boris and her job history has been almost exclusively PR in one form or another - although she did share her view on the Trans situation which is slightly surprising since there is no view whatsoever which doesn't get one group or another accusing you of being -phobic. She is living in Portsmouth, so the two sword distance might again be required, lest she tries to glass the other side at PMQs...

Rishi would be best to remain on Macroeconomic issues in number 11. He is certainly not "of" of the people, and pretending to be "for" the people hasn't really worked either.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Personally, i like Kemi Badenoch:
Feel like she could be a tonic that really reinevents what the the Tory's believe the state is for.
Might not win, but if she does win in 2023 they could go in strong to the 2028 GE.

Mordaunt feels 'lite':
She might win 2023 but it would lead to a 1997 like three parliament crash.
Feels like a Tory status-quo candidate.

Rishi feels like continuity 2012 pre-referendum Cameron/Osborn'ism:
Might do well in the "Who do do you think will make the better PM?" question in the run up to 2023...
...But even if he wins he'll be leading a tired and aimless party that will bore the electorate.

Suella falls on the wrong side the war-on-woke:
I have no objection to saying that gov't should have no interest in intervening in hurt feelings in personal conduct.
But there are some who see the war-on-woke as a 'wedge issue' and are in it to beenfit from it. Hello Suella...

Truss i kinda like, but not very enthusiastically:
I suspect I like her mainly because of the trade / foriegn policy focus.
i.e. her legacy is tied up in ensuring Global Britain is pursued. Not sure what she offers domestically tho...

Tugendhat i want nowhere near the PM's seat:
He is way to old school with his military fascination with 'alliances', without caring about the political cost.
Suspect he'd melt on divergence for services and trade, leaving us stuck with precuationary principle.

I'd like to see Badenoch / Truss duopoly emerge from the later voter rounds, kemi to do the domestic vision backstopped by Truss leaning into the services/trade divergence.

[rory_20_uk]

I suppose Mordaunt, to me, could be seen as someone who wishes to be primus inter pares as opposed to episodes of the Boris Johnson Show. I would hope she would allow the Cabinet do do what they are supposed to do in their areas as opposed to being the story herself.

The biggest thing I have against Badenoch is the fact she's relatively untested with no previous Cabinet position. From the very little I know about her, she seems to have her head screwed on the right way. Give her a sensible Cabinet level appointment and see how she does. Not the health secretary as that is toxic, and Priti is doing an almost comical job as the Xenophobe in Chief in the Home Office.

Truss strikes me as too bonkers for PM. We don't need another internecine war in the Cabinet / Commons / Country which seems seems almost eager to start. So if she is good overseas, she should remain focused there.

Suella has been happy to have some International laws broken which as a Lawyer and as the government lawyer that's a massive red flag for me. Her job is to enforce the laws and resign in protest if they're broken. That role is the damn canary in the coal mine.

Interesting take on Tugendhat. He also wanted to continue in Afghanistan when anyone without a personal bias could see it was a lost cause. And given the ability of the PM to do what he wants in such conflicts I'd rather someone who is less of a warmonger - train the forces of allies? Certainly. Give weaponry? Where required. Jump in the meat grinder? No thanks.

So I'd go with a Mordaunt / Badenoch final with a marginal preference for Mordaunt to win. The Government has reached the point where an "Augean stable" is the only realistic option with many of those who have been in the previous administration need to go with a few exceptions who have ability in what they have done - as long as the PM can bitch slap them in line of course. If they won't know their place, all are replaceable. This of course must leave the Civil Service rubbing their hands with glee since they have another load of newbies to try the old tricks on.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I suppose Mordaunt, to me, could be seen as someone who wishes to be primus inter pares as opposed to episodes of the Boris Johnson Show. I would hope she would allow the Cabinet do do what they are supposed to do in their areas as opposed to being the story herself.

The biggest thing I have against Badenoch is the fact she's relatively untested with no previous Cabinet position. From the very little I know about her, she seems to have her head screwed on the right way. Give her a sensible Cabinet level appointment and see how she does. Not the health secretary as that is toxic, and Priti is doing an almost comical job as the Xenophobe in Chief in the Home Office.

Truss strikes me as too bonkers for PM. We don't need another internecine war in the Cabinet / Commons / Country which seems seems almost eager to start. So if she is good overseas, she should remain focused there.

Suella has been happy to have some International laws broken which as a Lawyer and as the government lawyer that's a massive red flag for me. Her job is to enforce the laws and resign in protest if they're broken. That role is the damn canary in the coal mine.

Interesting take on Tugendhat. He also wanted to continue in Afghanistan when anyone without a personal bias could see it was a lost cause. And given the ability of the PM to do what he wants in such conflicts I'd rather someone who is less of a warmonger - train the forces of allies? Certainly. Give weaponry? Where required. Jump in the meat grinder? No thanks.

So I'd go with a Mordaunt / Badenoch final with a marginal preference for Mordaunt to win. The Government has reached the point where an "Augean stable" is the only realistic option with many of those who have been in the previous administration need to go with a few exceptions who have ability in what they have done - as long as the PM can bitch slap them in line of course. If they won't know their place, all are replaceable. This of course must leave the Civil Service rubbing their hands with glee since they have another load of newbies to try the old tricks on.

~:smoking:

Isn't Badenoch a self-admitted hacker?

[rory_20_uk]

Isn't Badenoch a self-admitted hacker?

Yup. 2008 I think. The victim accepted her apology and referred her to the police.

She hacked a MPs website, not the nuclear codes.

Would I still prefer Kier? Yes - if he could do what he would want to do. But the choices we have now are determined by Conservative MPs and for me it is almost choosing the ones left after removing all the known lying, scheming criminals.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Penny Mordaunt picked up 16 more votes after Jeremy Hunt and Nadhim Zahawi were knocked out yesterday.

Liz Truss gained 14 more votes, Kemi Badenoch picked up 9 and Rishi Sunak took 13 to take him within 20 votes of the 120 needed to effectively be through to the final round.

Tom Tugendhat lost five of his total from yesterday, meaning he will be hoping for a stellar weekend of debates to catch up with Kemi Badenoch, who is now 17 ahead.

The full results this afternoon were: Rishi Sunak - 101, Penny Mordaunt - 83, Liz Truss - 64, Kemi Badenoch - 49, Tom Tugenhadt - 32, Suella Braverman - 27

Suella's votes split between Baednoch (~11), Mordaunt (~9) and Truss (~7)?
Tugenhadt pulls out and votes go to Sunak (~24) and Truss (~8)?

[rory_20_uk]

If the UK were within this effort and contributing our expertise, then the EU's efforts may be more effective. Policy-wise, the UK is the money-laundering centre of the world. This isn't due to lack of expertise, but due to intentional policy. And if we were to agree to work towards this ideal that you said you'd like, then because of our experience in aiding money-laundering, we'd also have the most expertise in reducing it. So once again, you describe an ideal and blame the EU for not being able to live up to it, when it's the UK which has the greatest part in thwarting this ideal of yours.

The EU is an additional layer of government. So it needs to add something to justify the expense. It doesn't whatsoever - it is best at giving those at the top plum jobs and benefits. On top of the same number at national level. Whilst engaging in some wonderful gridlock. The last thing that they have managed which is definitely useful was standardising USB-C for devices. Something that doesn't require the EU to achieve.

If there was an entity that was in essence led by Germany and had rigour in the drafting and implementation of processes then we'd have a much smaller EU which might have a use. But we've seen a system acting like a Ponzi scheme where the most important thing is growth as somehow adding more voices will improve things - Italy / Greece / Hungry to mention just three disasters.

To your... "point", the EU should have been the one to craft laws to prevent money laundering such as takes place in the UK. Y'know, hold countries to a higher standard? As it is, they've managed to make Natural Gas a Green fuel - hilarious. At least the bureaucrats can tick the box they're hitting the synthetic targets eh?


Back to the election...

Penny might be extremely light on detail (https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/14/rishi-sunak-and-penny-mordaunts-disastrous-morning-in-tv-interviews-16998369/). Or it could be character assassination - who knows? No everyone is detail focused, and with the right deputy that's not a problem. But might we end up with effectively a female Boris who PRs her way through all the important details?

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

thought this was quite a good read - broadly chimes with my own thoughts:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/07/britain-arcane-constitution-boris-johnson-resignation/670527/

[rory_20_uk]

The ending is extremely trite - it's not the Constitution out politicians have failed in the last 10 years. Which is true but the system expects this to not happen.

Power is increasingly held by one person with very little to curtail it - as long as elections are won (which means a majority of posts - not the majority of the electorate).

This isn't that new - Blair took us to war on a known lie and nothing happened.

Trying to codify every eventuality is of course both stupid and a very American approach. I would wish there to be not another executive branch, but an investigative branch that broadly keeps them honest. The Police seem to have an aversion to investigating their "betters" as if we're in the 1850s, the courts only oversee the Law whatever it is (as is right and proper) and MI5 take along, strategic view - they'll not tip their hand over mere lying / tax evasion etc but use that to see what hostile forces bite. And again they're very good at what they do.

We have had almost 3 years where a known liar continue to lie, breaks the law and brazened it out. That he will soon be gone for a nice sincure as Diplomat Without Shame to the Ukraine - shortly followed by a knighthood of course - is not evidence that everything is fine and we must Keep Calm and Carry On.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The ending is extremely trite - it's not the Constitution out politicians have failed in the last 10 years. Which is true but the system expects this to not happen.

Power is increasingly held by one person with very little to curtail it - as long as elections are won (which means a majority of posts - not the majority of the electorate).

This isn't that new - Blair took us to war on a known lie and nothing happened.

Trying to codify every eventuality is of course both stupid and a very American approach. I would wish there to be not another executive branch, but an investigative branch that broadly keeps them honest. The Police seem to have an aversion to investigating their "betters" as if we're in the 1850s, the courts only oversee the Law whatever it is (as is right and proper) and MI5 take along, strategic view - they'll not tip their hand over mere lying / tax evasion etc but use that to see what hostile forces bite. And again they're very good at what they do.

We have had almost 3 years where a known liar continue to lie, breaks the law and brazened it out. That he will soon be gone for a nice sincure as Diplomat Without Shame to the Ukraine - shortly followed by a knighthood of course - is not evidence that everything is fine and we must Keep Calm and Carry On.

~:smoking:

The investigative branch is supposed to be the press, backed by journalistic standards. The press is supposed to inform the electorate and hold the government to task in a way that's not limited by democratic requirements. So what happens when the government and the press are in cahoots? When the media barons are willing to lie and cover up for the side they pick, whilst smearing the opposition, in return for expected favours? Blair is often cited as an example of Labour being favoured too, but Labour has never had the media on their side to this degree. No one has. Johnson/the right wing media are effectively the same unit. One can expect the next leader to be similarly beholden and favoured.

In the past, ministers lying in the House would be a cause for scandal and eventual resignation. What happens when the media push the message that standards do not matter? I posted lots and lots of times on here about the many ways in which Johnson trampled over our constitution, such as it is. With responses such as how no one cares, and how it's more important to focus on relevant things (you can fill in the blanks as to what is deemed relevant).

I think the right wing media-politics synergy is what's breaking our democracy. And Brexit is the banner that they're doing it under.

[Pannonian]

Multiple ministers pulling out of Commons committee meetings. I get that Johnson is a lazy so and so (and his wedding party at Chequers has been cancelled, but he will be holding a farewell do at the same venue and probably with the same guest list instead). I get that there may be settling in for new ministers like Steve Barclay the new health minister (despite there being an unprecedented health risk coming up). But why is the home secretary pulling out of meetings? She's still in place. She's been in the same position for years, so she's as experienced as most home secretaries. Why is she unable to answer to the Commons for what government has been doing?

So if the Commons is not allowed a vote of confidence in the government, and ministers won't answer to the Commons, what accountability is there?

[Furunculus]

vote of (no) confidence scheduled for 10pm this evening afaik.

[rory_20_uk]

Italy are trying something new: Link (https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-fantacitorio-politics-absurdity-partygate-uk-boris-johnson/)

Almost "leaning in" to the farce yet politicians do seem to be responding to it - and as the score can be tailored towards positive things that might help somewhat. Given effective oversight and any sort of penalty isn't likely to happen.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

vote of (no) confidence scheduled for 10pm this evening afaik.

Johnson complained about Labour wasting time tabling the vote when the government could be doing something more constructive (what that is I'm not sure, given that Johnson couldn't find time to attend a COBRA meeting, but could find time for a Typhoon photo-op). The Speaker noted that the vote was tabled by the government, not the opposition. Does Johnson not know what the government he's heading is doing?

[Pannonian]

Italy are trying something new: Link (https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-fantacitorio-politics-absurdity-partygate-uk-boris-johnson/)

Almost "leaning in" to the farce yet politicians do seem to be responding to it - and as the score can be tailored towards positive things that might help somewhat. Given effective oversight and any sort of penalty isn't likely to happen.

~:smoking:

Given that the current PM has his profile because of his appearances on a gameshow, I'm not sure how this is going to encourage reforming of behaviour.

[rory_20_uk]

Given that the current PM has his profile because of his appearances on a gameshow, I'm not sure how this is going to encourage reforming of behaviour.

Currently the system is based around treating democracy as something of a theatre - the latest debate has been cancelled since the 1922 Committee told the candidates that things are getting to the point that the general public might realise what they are like. So, no debate, and just behind the scenes fighting.

In the absence of any proper, rigorous, approach to ensuring the country is run well - which I have mentioned many times now - this might encourage better behaviour by rewarding politicians for some actions and punishing them for others. Because we don't know nor care who most of the politicians are and they do their own thing for 5 years with the populace voting based on party loyalty. If people were more interested in what politicians did, and they were scored for what they did then this is better than what we've currently got and ideally would lead to politicians actually worrying about what they do lest they might get voted out.

Again, I'm all for getting the HMRC in to audit the lot of them to get a handle on the dodgy dealings, get in investigators to check up on what they're doing with their donors, links etc and get the Police and the Courts to charge, convict and imprison wrongdoing because although some of what they do can be viewed as government business quite a lot isn't... But is such a robust approach likely to take place? No?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Currently the system is based around treating democracy as something of a theatre - the latest debate has been cancelled since the 1922 Committee told the candidates that things are getting to the point that the general public might realise what they are like. So, no debate, and just behind the scenes fighting.

In the absence of any proper, rigorous, approach to ensuring the country is run well - which I have mentioned many times now - this might encourage better behaviour by rewarding politicians for some actions and punishing them for others. Because we don't know nor care who most of the politicians are and they do their own thing for 5 years with the populace voting based on party loyalty. If people were more interested in what politicians did, and they were scored for what they did then this is better than what we've currently got and ideally would lead to politicians actually worrying about what they do lest they might get voted out.

Again, I'm all for getting the HMRC in to audit the lot of them to get a handle on the dodgy dealings, get in investigators to check up on what they're doing with their donors, links etc and get the Police and the Courts to charge, convict and imprison wrongdoing because although some of what they do can be viewed as government business quite a lot isn't... But is such a robust approach likely to take place? No?

~:smoking:

What kind of reward is it? It's pretty clear that the biggest influence on public opinion is the image the media barons project in their media, and they arrive at that through deals with the politicians as to the policy platforms they run. It was bad enough in the past when they wanted individual policies and sets of policies to favour them. The Tory-Brexit era sees them wanting the whole country to follow their lead.

There is no functional democracy without a cleanup of the media and some semblance of journalistic standards, as opposed to them excusing every abuse under the sky in return for a politician in their pocket. Without that, the idea that every vote counts the same is severely flawed, as they need only get enough PR-influenced votes to get their lackey over the line, and then this democratic mandate can be used to justify absolutely everything in the British system.

NB. It was The Times, for long the last remaining right wing paper with some reputation left, who broke the story about Starmer's "beergate" (along with a Tory MP pushing the Durham police for an investigation). One which the Durham police concluded had no substance whatsoever, and which a former head of Durham police called a politically-motivated piece of smearing. The Telegraph, Mail and Express and worse have long lost their journalistic standards. The Times now has none either. How much of the electorate does that cover?

[Furunculus]

It's pretty clear that the biggest influence on public opinion is the image the media barons project in their media, and they arrive at that through deals with the politicians as to the policy platforms they run.

There is no functional democracy without a cleanup of the media and some semblance of journalistic standards

You're starting from a premise that i fundamentally don't accept: that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion rather than the opposite being the case. A quasi religious argument at best - on either side.

If you do accept that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion then yes, your solutions will lead you to media barons as the source of 'the problem'. They are the source of the deviancy pulling opinion away from public policy solutions that are 'proper'.

However, if you take the view that it is substantially public opinion that leads the media narrative, then attacks against the media barons seems like displacement activity. i.e. blaming them for the public not responding positively to the manifesto that you wish to push.

Given my entreaty for the left to "be relevant!" i think it is plain which side of the argument i fall on...

[rory_20_uk]

I think the two evils feed on each other.

Some years ago, someone pointed out the self evident fact that people choose the newspapers they read based on what they already think. So he chose to read the newspapers that he disliked - in this case as he thought how can he understand the average GP patient without reading the Daily Mail. I realised that I'd fallen into the same trap, tailoring the news I read based on what I already thought so I got reflected back at me the news through the prism of what I already thought.

Media outlets need to make money and the easiest way is giving people what they want - hence the cycle of only getting a version of events that fits with what you already think. Breaking this is extremely tough since these are for-profit organisations and they aren't going to accept massive loss of readers to be more balanced.

I try to anger-read my way through the Guardian and if I'm really wanting to get my Gen-X blood up I read the Metro - even the opinion columns. And looking at things that I might not have initially agreed with I have come to view Social Democracy is probably the ideal form of government rather than small state, individual freedom which is the view I had and was probably strongly influenced from my father.

But the Point is that this was a conscious choice to act against my innate nature.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

I think the two evils feed on each other.

Some years ago, someone pointed out the self evident fact that people choose the newspapers they read based on what they already think. So he chose to read the newspapers that he disliked - in this case as he thought how can he understand the average GP patient without reading the Daily Mail. I realised that I'd fallen into the same trap, tailoring the news I read based on what I already thought so I got reflected back at me the news through the prism of what I already thought.

Media outlets need to make money and the easiest way is giving people what they want - hence the cycle of only getting a version of events that fits with what you already think. Breaking this is extremely tough since these are for-profit organisations and they aren't going to accept massive loss of readers to be more balanced.

I try to anger-read my way through the Guardian and if I'm really wanting to get my Gen-X blood up I read the Metro - even the opinion columns. And looking at things that I might not have initially agreed with I have come to view Social Democracy is probably the ideal form of government rather than small state, individual freedom which is the view I had and was probably strongly influenced from my father.

But the Point is that this was a conscious choice to act against my innate nature.

~:smoking:

happy to agree with that.

and i do spend way more time reading the guardian than i ever do the telegraph.
though i do recognise the problem you speak to in that you have to choose to do this - and still i never make time for the mail/mirror/express.

likewise - i deliberately follow interesting left wing people who are willing to engage and discuss (not much point following the ranters). but here too is the problem, as I use social media to get interesting people to bring the things that interest to my attention. and if my interests are heavily slanted towards technology/politics/foriegn-policy, then i am stove-piping my 'feed' to the mind-sets that are most prevalent in those areas.

still, i can't accept the notion that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion. it doesn't fit my own experience (or yours), and accepting it as a general principal is simply too dismal to the prospects for human civilisation.

[rory_20_uk]

It is a well known human trait that people in general have beliefs and then seek evidence to back up that belief. Or they will accept as self evident truths things they agree with and cross-examine things they do not, which again creates a large bias towards what their view already is.

Here's a paper (https://www.livescience.com/3640-people-choose-news-fits-views.html) that demonstrates that people stick to what they know - although I am sure that the methodology of the trial can be queried...

Another good one was two groups who had pre-existing views on the death penalty. Both groups were given the same information that argued both pro-and anti- the death penalty. After reviewing the information, both groups ended up with a view that was more entrenched in their pre-existing view, as both groups viewed the evidence that supported their view as good and pointed out the flaws in the other data.

Most people are barely sentient cattle, drifting through their existence with rarely engaging cognitive thought and generally being driven by a selection of animal drives, with those with more ability in the main using that towards venal self interest. A view that I think Lord Vetinari would firmly agree on. That the system enables a small number of mainly altruistic people to discover and create new scientific discoveries and engineering breakthroughs is mainly in spite of the system, not because of it: look at the disparity of money spent on progress rather than everything else.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

It is a well known human trait that people in general have beliefs and then seek evidence to back up that belief. Or they will accept as self evident truths things they agree with and cross-examine things they do not, which again creates a large bias towards what their view already is.

Here's a paper (https://www.livescience.com/3640-people-choose-news-fits-views.html) that demonstrates that people stick to what they know - although I am sure that the methodology of the trial can be queried...

Another good one was two groups who had pre-existing views on the death penalty. Both groups were given the same information that argued both pro-and anti- the death penalty. After reviewing the information, both groups ended up with a view that was more entrenched in their pre-existing view, as both groups viewed the evidence that supported their view as good and pointed out the flaws in the other data.

Most people are barely sentient cattle, drifting through their existence with rarely engaging cognitive thought and generally being driven by a selection of animal drives, with those with more ability in the main using that towards venal self interest. A view that I think Lord Vetinari would firmly agree on. That the system enables a small number of mainly altruistic people to discover and create new scientific discoveries and engineering breakthroughs is mainly in spite of the system, not because of it: look at the disparity of money spent on progress rather than everything else.

~:smoking:

Do you think we should be seeking to measure the effects of Brexit? If we are to look for some kind of objective assessment, we should start with a recognition that measurement would be good, and look for how to measure it. Yet the minister for Brexit benefits says that we should not look for measurements (or words to that effect).

[rory_20_uk]

Do you think we should be seeking to measure the effects of Brexit? If we are to look for some kind of objective assessment, we should start with a recognition that measurement would be good, and look for how to measure it. Yet the minister for Brexit benefits says that we should not look for measurements (or words to that effect).

Is there a historic case where things are measured? Privatisation under Thatcher? Any major defence spending? Any major foreign policy? Increasing number of University placements? PFI in the NHS? HS2? CrossRail? COVID plans? I can't think of a single one.

I have the seemingly unusual view that any project should follow PRINCE2 principles. So yes there should be outcomes before you start, a plan and then deliverables measured against the end. I'm all for projects to have metrics and accountability, but why oh why are you focused on this one and no others...?

With many if not all projects the difficulty is what exactly was the objective in the first place. and what control group is to be used to measure this against.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

As both a Prince2 and AgilePM (DSDM) practitioner i'd suggest the latter as the more appropriate methodology.

Preciselybecause Agile development is designed to deal with a solution that is not fully known yet... ;)

[Pannonian]

Is there a historic case where things are measured? Privatisation under Thatcher? Any major defence spending? Any major foreign policy? Increasing number of University placements? PFI in the NHS? HS2? CrossRail? COVID plans? I can't think of a single one.

I have the seemingly unusual view that any project should follow PRINCE2 principles. So yes there should be outcomes before you start, a plan and then deliverables measured against the end. I'm all for projects to have metrics and accountability, but why oh why are you focused on this one and no others...?

With many if not all projects the difficulty is what exactly was the objective in the first place. and what control group is to be used to measure this against.

~:smoking:

I know that major policies under the last Labour government were measured. Whether you agree with the metrics or not, they were measured. And there were a lot of complaints from those undergoing such assessment. And the metrics weren't set out to be biased, as in some cases the measurements didn't come out as expected, and indeed came out after Labour had been ousted.

I'm focused on this, because I found it extraordinary that a minister said that such a major policy issue should not be measured. When the raison d'etre of his ministry, that of finding Brexit opportunities, should have measurement as its very basis.

[Pannonian]

Another minister has cancelled a meeting with a Commons committee. The third this month. Kwasi Kwarteng this time, after Priti Patel and Dominic Raab. Does Parliamentary scrutiny mean anything, or is this another custom that's been thrown into the void by this government?

[Montmorency]

What the fuck this is hardcore brainwashing
https://twitter.com/benphillips76/status/1549768004233314306 [VIDEO]

[Pannonian]

What the fuck this is hardcore brainwashing
https://twitter.com/benphillips76/status/1549768004233314306 [VIDEO]

There are lots, and lots, of different arguments, from different angles, for localising economies as much as possible, reduce energy use as much as possible, etc. Instead, we've cut ourselves off from our nearest trading partners in favour of "Global Britain".

[rory_20_uk]

There are lots, and lots, of different arguments, from different angles, for localising economies as much as possible, reduce energy use as much as possible, etc. Instead, we've cut ourselves off from our nearest trading partners in favour of "Global Britain".

I don't think Monty was asking for other examples of brainwashing. But by now I'm not surprised.

The EU cut themselves off from us as the UK would be happy with free trade by itself but then why would countries want to be in the EU? The EU demand the four pillars, we didn't. Are there other organisations that demand membership and following rules at the risk of economic loss?

Trade by ship is extremely fuel efficient which is probably why so many countries have outsourced manufacturing to countries such as China. And the EU is starting to import a lot more LNG from far away - a fair bit is currently via UK pipelines since we have terminals whilst the EU thought fuel security meant Russia.

In COVID, the EU really showed how united they are when things get bad with several countries refusing to export to other members of the EU - so to think that just as their physically close then we have security is a myth. The UK is no better - we've told others that we'll prioritise domestic gas supply if required; Germany is doing its bit by almost deciding to not turn off nuclear power plants due to what happened to Japan who happen to be on an active earthquake zone. Teamwork!

It's amazing how remainers first tried to depict those that wanted to leave as Xenophobes. Since Global Britain there's been a smooth repositioning to how it just bad whilst quietly dropping these earlier claims.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I don't think Monty was asking for other examples of brainwashing. But by now I'm not surprised.

The EU cut themselves off from us as the UK would be happy with free trade by itself but then why would countries want to be in the EU? The EU demand the four pillars, we didn't. Are there other organisations that demand membership and following rules at the risk of economic loss?

Trade by ship is extremely fuel efficient which is probably why so many countries have outsourced manufacturing to countries such as China. And the EU is starting to import a lot more LNG from far away - a fair bit is currently via UK pipelines since we have terminals whilst the EU thought fuel security meant Russia.

In COVID, the EU really showed how united they are when things get bad with several countries refusing to export to other members of the EU - so to think that just as their physically close then we have security is a myth. The UK is no better - we've told others that we'll prioritise domestic gas supply if required; Germany is doing its bit by almost deciding to not turn off nuclear power plants due to what happened to Japan who happen to be on an active earthquake zone. Teamwork!

It's amazing how remainers first tried to depict those that wanted to leave as Xenophobes. Since Global Britain there's been a smooth repositioning to how it just bad whilst quietly dropping these earlier claims.

~:smoking:

If you read Furunculus's posts you'll see arguments made for Global Britain. I've long been an advocate for localisation. I want us to reduce energy use as much as possible. Recycle as much as possible. Have as much expertise locally as possible. Trade with the nearest partners in order to keep energy use to a minimum.

Farmers are complaining that the Australian trade deal (that Parliament have not been allowed to debate, contrary to earlier promises) gives Australian farmers leeway for not complying with UK regulations for produce. Can anyone explain how this is a good thing? Why are we giving farmers on the other side of the world advantages that may drive our local producers out of the market?

[Pannonian]

Apparently someone who lives abroad and pledges money and support for the Conservative Party can decide who my next PM will be, but I don't have the same power. For some reason I don't think this is right.

[rory_20_uk]

Apparently someone who lives abroad and pledges money and support for the Conservative Party can decide who my next PM will be, but I don't have the same power. For some reason I don't think this is right.

Same outrage when Blair handed over to Brown? It's the crappy system we have had since the 1960's - back in the Good Old Days the MPs just chose the person they wanted behind closed doors.

Perhaps we should have a President like Italy does who chooses someone to form the next government. Of course, Technically the Monarchy does this, it being her PM. But her 70 years of "leadership" hasn't extended to doing anything to help how the country is run.

The Powers that Be would rather things go back to the civilised pseudo-democracy we live under where we have a preferred team and one vote every 5 years to choose someone who might stick to a loose selection of non-legally binding wishes.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Same outrage when Blair handed over to Brown? It's the crappy system we have had since the 1960's - back in the Good Old Days the MPs just chose the person they wanted behind closed doors.

Perhaps we should have a President like Italy does who chooses someone to form the next government. Of course, Technically the Monarchy does this, it being her PM. But her 70 years of "leadership" hasn't extended to doing anything to help how the country is run.

The Powers that Be would rather things go back to the civilised pseudo-democracy we live under where we have a preferred team and one vote every 5 years to choose someone who might stick to a loose selection of non-legally binding wishes.

~:smoking:

"Membership of Conservatives Abroad is open to all who live abroad and pledge support for the UK Conservative Party. You do not have to be a voter or a UK citizen...

You are entitled to all the benefits of party membership, including participation in the Conservative Policy Forum, attendance at party conferences and a vote in the election of the party leader."

I remember arguments being made about sovereignty and so on.

[rory_20_uk]

"Membership of Conservatives Abroad is open to all who live abroad and pledge support for the UK Conservative Party. You do not have to be a voter or a UK citizen...

You are entitled to all the benefits of party membership, including participation in the Conservative Policy Forum, attendance at party conferences and a vote in the election of the party leader."

I remember arguments being made about sovereignty and so on.

And if there was a referendum on this issue I would vote.

The choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

And if there was a referendum on this issue I would vote.

The choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

~:smoking:

European Commissioners were appointed by national governments elected by their people: we didn't have sovereignty.
European laws were voted on by Members of the European Parliament who were directly elected by their country's people: we didn't have sovereignty.
People living abroad who don't have to have UK voting rights to vote on our next PM: the choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

The laws decided by the first two cases don't decide much of my everyday life. The individual chosen by the third case decides how much tax I pay, what laws I have to follow, and much of my life besides.

[rory_20_uk]

European Commissioners were appointed by national governments elected by their people: we didn't have sovereignty.
European laws were voted on by Members of the European Parliament who were directly elected by their country's people: we didn't have sovereignty.
People living abroad who don't have to have UK voting rights to vote on our next PM: the choice is between two MPs who were voted on by UK people.

The laws decided by the first two cases don't decide much of my everyday life. The individual chosen by the third case decides how much tax I pay, what laws I have to follow, and much of my life besides.

So let's limit it as far as possible - no need for an extra layer is there?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So let's limit it as far as possible - no need for an extra layer is there?

~:smoking:

If you want to limit it, why do you excuse foreigners with no stake in the UK voting for the PM whose power exceeds that of any other chief executive of any developed country?

If you haven't noticed, our chief executive has been reducing the number of layers of lawmaking, by centralising power and reducing accountability. To the point where the PM doesn't bother answering questions truthfully in the Commons any more, and ministers don't bother turning up to committees to answer questions, and they delay business so they can get things done while Parliament is in recess and unable to scrutinise their actions. Our government is one layer: the PM's office. As seen in the Lady Mone affair, where the civil service was overruled by a PM dispensing a 150m+ contract to a company with zero track record or expertise.

Edit: Hang on, her hubby's company got 200m+ of contracts, not just 150m.

[Montmorency]

I don't think Monty was asking for other examples of brainwashing. But by now I'm not surprised.

The EU cut themselves off from us as the UK would be happy with free trade by itself but then why would countries want to be in the EU? The EU demand the four pillars, we didn't. Are there other organisations that demand membership and following rules at the risk of economic loss?

All trade deals require mutual cession of some prerogatives - look at German primary energy companes invoking investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS*) arbitration to sue the Netherlands for discriminating against fossil fuels. The reality is that both parties seek particular favorable conditions in relation to one another, and it is not incumbent upon the EU states to be unilaterally altruistic in a competitive environment of global capitalism. All that said, what do you have against the current (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22021A0430(01)&from=EN) EU-UK free trade agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement)?

*ISDS breadth was also a big sticking point in both left and right dissent in the US against joining TPP. I recall that when the TPP was formed anyway without the US, as the CPTPP, it dropped some US government-favored provisions, for example in the weakening of ISDS components, to which Chile, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, and Vietnam received further special treatment. I don't know what conditions the UK seeks in its application to CPTPP. But almost all nations, through one agreement or another, are subject to various forms and layers of ISDS obligations. For the record, the existence and application of significant ISDS clauses in international relations tends to be deeply offensive to my politics.

Note that ISDS (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/08/12/cptpp-and-isds-three-years-on/) is justifiably beginning to be treated in a manner respondent to its nature as one of the worst possible circumscriptions of state sovereignty (though most so for weaker states as these things always go):

Already we see a recent trend of States moving away from ISDS. In the USMCA that succeeds the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada is notably absent from Chapter 14 on ISDS. (See definition of “Annex Party” in Annex 14-D of Chapter 14). The EU is looking to reform existing ISDS mechanisms through the creation of a multilateral investment court to preside over disputes arising from future bilateral EU investment agreements. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”) that is currently the world’s largest FTA excludes any ISDS dispute settlement mechanism under Chapter 10 that deals with investments. In addition, the Biden administration has made clear that the United States would not be returning to the CPTPP anytime soon.
[...]
One of the main pushbacks against ISDS has been its use by private companies to sue States for the impacts of public policies that result in limiting profit margins. In this regard, the recent release of the new Canadian Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Model on 13 May 2021 reflects a shift from older investment and trade treaties that focused primarily on achieving economic prosperity, to a “new” generation of treaties that tend to provide comprehensive frameworks that reflect national (and international) agendas for promoting sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, and human rights, while also expressly addressing how this may interact with the interests of private businesses.


If you read Furunculus's posts you'll see arguments made for Global Britain. I've long been an advocate for localisation. I want us to reduce energy use as much as possible. Recycle as much as possible. Have as much expertise locally as possible. Trade with the nearest partners in order to keep energy use to a minimum.

Farmers are complaining that the Australian trade deal (that Parliament have not been allowed to debate, contrary to earlier promises) gives Australian farmers leeway for not complying with UK regulations for produce. Can anyone explain how this is a good thing? Why are we giving farmers on the other side of the world advantages that may drive our local producers out of the market?

Localism is not resilient. Localism created a dramatic Communist-style shortage of infant formula in the United States this year, among other examples. Historically, de facto (agrarian) localism has implied routine mass starvation. Resiliency is built through deliberate, but expensive, local duplication of targeted industries or outputs. Such duplication could be engineered most efficiently along para-trade international collaboration (which is why it will never happen, though it should).

[Pannonian]

All trade deals require mutual cession of some prerogatives - look at German primary energy companes invoking investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS*) arbitration to sue the Netherlands for discriminating against fossil fuels. The reality is that both parties seek particular favorable conditions in relation to one another, and it is not incumbent upon the EU states to be unilaterally altruistic in a competitive environment of global capitalism. All that said, what do you have against the current (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22021A0430(01)&from=EN) EU-UK free trade agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement)?

*ISDS breadth was also a big sticking point in both left and right dissent in the US against joining TPP. I recall that when the TPP was formed anyway without the US, as the CPTPP, it dropped some US government-favored provisions, for example in the weakening of ISDS components, to which Chile, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, and Vietnam received further special treatment. I don't know what conditions the UK seeks in its application to CPTPP. But almost all nations, through one agreement or another, are subject to various forms and layers of ISDS obligations. For the record, the existence and application of significant ISDS clauses in international relations tends to be deeply offensive to my politics.

Note that ISDS (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/08/12/cptpp-and-isds-three-years-on/) is justifiably beginning to be treated in a manner respondent to its nature as one of the worst possible circumscriptions of state sovereignty (though most so for weaker states as these things always go):

Already we see a recent trend of States moving away from ISDS. In the USMCA that succeeds the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada is notably absent from Chapter 14 on ISDS. (See definition of “Annex Party” in Annex 14-D of Chapter 14). The EU is looking to reform existing ISDS mechanisms through the creation of a multilateral investment court to preside over disputes arising from future bilateral EU investment agreements. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (“RCEP”) that is currently the world’s largest FTA excludes any ISDS dispute settlement mechanism under Chapter 10 that deals with investments. In addition, the Biden administration has made clear that the United States would not be returning to the CPTPP anytime soon.
[...]
One of the main pushbacks against ISDS has been its use by private companies to sue States for the impacts of public policies that result in limiting profit margins. In this regard, the recent release of the new Canadian Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Model on 13 May 2021 reflects a shift from older investment and trade treaties that focused primarily on achieving economic prosperity, to a “new” generation of treaties that tend to provide comprehensive frameworks that reflect national (and international) agendas for promoting sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, and human rights, while also expressly addressing how this may interact with the interests of private businesses.



Localism is not resilient. Localism created a dramatic Communist-style shortage of infant formula in the United States this year, among other examples. Historically, de facto (agrarian) localism has implied routine mass starvation. Resiliency is built through deliberate, but expensive, local duplication of targeted industries or outputs. Such duplication could be engineered most efficiently along para-trade international collaboration (which is why it will never happen, though it should).

That's why I want a local-focused, but duplicated chain of supply, so there is a local supply of resources and skills, then there is a wider supply of the same (with access to more specialist skills), then a wider still supply of the same (with access to yet more specialist stuff), and so on. The Minford economy envisages doing away altogether with certain sectors of the economy like agriculture, fishing, and anything else that doesn't show up on spreadsheets as sufficiently profitable. That's the economic model that Furunculus has been advocating as the end goal of Brexit. We won't need such industries because we can rely on the global market. We don't need the more local trade partners either (the EU, which directly borders us) because we can rely on the global market.

[Furunculus]

If you read Furunculus's posts you'll see arguments made for Global Britain. I've long been an advocate for localisation. I want us to reduce energy use as much as possible. Recycle as much as possible. Have as much expertise locally as possible. Trade with the nearest partners in order to keep energy use to a minimum.


There is a significant difference between 'global britain' as a foreign policy outlook and globalism as a economic model that distorts national politics.

After all, globalism in the narrow economic sense was alive and well in the blair+brown/cameron+osborne era of british politics.


The Minford economy envisages doing away altogether with certain sectors of the economy like agriculture, fishing, and anything else that doesn't show up on spreadsheets as sufficiently profitable. That's the economic model that Furunculus has been advocating as the end goal of Brexit. We won't need such industries because we can rely on the global market. We don't need the more local trade partners either (the EU, which directly borders us) because we can rely on the global market.

It's not really true that I want the Minford model:

1. I was happy that the right solution for brexit would involve compromise, as the result of 53/48 wasn't a mandate for anything else. We can of course debate endlessly over what is appropriate compromise and what is capitulation of core national interests. We have not got the Minford model, and I would not consider that compromise. As per the red-wall collapse in 2019 the UK has been governed as a Social Democracy.

2. I did accept that a Minford style hard (pure?) brexit would be a workable model, i.e. it would keep Britain a rich and prosperous nation. I did this to acknowledge that we don't get to negotiate the EU's part for them, and that if unreasonable they would seek capitulation of core national interests. I supported Chequers, but hard brexit was always a necessary fallback if an appropriate compromise could not be reached.

[Pannonian]

Classic UK policing. The leader of the opposition and his deputy were sent questionnaires for possible lockdown breaches, a process initiated by a Tory MP and national newspaper (and a Russian agent as well). They dutifully filled in the forms as required, despite this being clearly a politically motivated smear as described by a former head of Durham police.

Meanwhile, there is evidence of the prime minister breaching lockdown at a time when rules were rather more severe. The Met police knew of this, but did not require the PM to fill in questionnaires as should have been required. Thus he was not investigated for such.

Reminds me of the Commons committee that concluded that no evidence could be found of the Tory government colluding with Russian interests because those who should have been investigating had been told to look away. This Tory government is corrupt AF, and the police too. With a media that propagates their BS. There is zero accountability.

[Furunculus]

There is a significant difference between 'global britain' as a foreign policy outlook and globalism as a economic model that distorts national politics.

After all, globalism in the narrow economic sense was alive and well in the blair+brown/cameron+osborne era of british politics.

It's not really true that I want the Minford model:

1. I was happy that the right solution for brexit would involve compromise, as the result of 53/48 wasn't a mandate for anything else. We can of course debate endlessly over what is appropriate compromise and what is capitulation of core national interests. We have not got the Minford model, and I would not consider that compromise. As per the red-wall collapse in 2019 the UK has been governed as a Social Democracy.

2. I did accept that a Minford style hard (pure?) brexit would be a workable model, i.e. it would keep Britain a rich and prosperous nation. I did this to acknowledge that we don't get to negotiate the EU's part for them, and that if unreasonable they would seek capitulation of core national interests. I supported Chequers, but hard brexit was always a necessary fallback if an appropriate compromise could not be reached.

Gently pointing out that i spend a lot of time responding to misconceptions over what I actually want/believe - only to hear a howling void by way of acceptance of this correction, a pause, and then onto the next re-tread of the same misconception.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053795098&viewfull=1#post2053795098

sure, i would be content with that as my natural preference, but please recall that i have always said that i recognized that the result wss not decisive enough to justify this 'dream' and that i was happy to maintain britain closely aligned as a (low end) social democracy rather than a market economy (like canada/oz).

im the very heart and soul of compromise. ;)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053792539&viewfull=1#post2053792539

...But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay...

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
p.s. Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?

^ originally posted in August 2018 - if you chase the links back through the numerous re-quotes ^

[Pannonian]

"As far as I am aware, no Government business was discussed", said Johnson about his unmonitored meeting with Lebedev, a former KGB agent (NB. Putin says there are no former KGB agents). The ordinary person might say such and have it passed as a "Nothing happened" explanation. However, this is the guy who passed off the partygate investigation with "as far as he is aware, the police have not found anything else untoward" when the police didn't actually investigate him in order to find anything, so it rather points to the caveat doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting. He should answer questions, under oath, as to what went on at that meeting, for the sake of national security.

And this guy wants to be secretary general of NATO.

[rory_20_uk]

And you heard the only answer he would give, oath or otherwise, and it is not actionable.

He's gone. Hopefully soon we'll get a PM willing to create meaningful guard rails.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

And you heard the only answer he would give, oath or otherwise, and it is not actionable.

He's gone. Hopefully soon we'll get a PM willing to create meaningful guard rails.

~:smoking:

I'm not a skilled interrogator. The Commons committees are rather better at it than I am. He revealed, in one of the hearings, that he did indeed meet up with Alexander Lebedev. I'd like them to press him further on that, on oath, so he can't just lie his way out of it as he's done with everything else.

A PM willing to create meaningful guard rails is not mutually exclusive with finding out what Johnson did at Lebedev's party, away from government officials. If this had happened during the Cold War, I doubt people would be so willing to let it go.

[Pannonian]

The Attorney General has banned government lawyers from telling ministers that their policies are unlawful, The Telegraph can reveal.

In the wake of the row over the Rwanda asylum plan, guidance was sent from Suella Braverman to lawyers last week stating that they should refrain from dismissing policies as unlawful and instead give a percentage chance that they may be challenged.

It is the culmination of more than a year of growing tensions, with policy advisors viewing lawyers as overly cautious. They perceive them to be getting in the way of the Government’s policy agenda instead of thinking creatively to push through ideas.

Lawyers, who are now describing it as the “U-word”, have hit back at the policy, describing it as an affront. "It calls into question our ability to hold the Government to account. What exactly is our role now?" one said. Others warned that ministers risked breaching international law and, in turn, the ministerial code.

The issue has come to a head at the Home Office. One government source said: “If we come and say we want something, they come back and say it is unlawful and we think there is a 70 per cent chance of losing. They don’t go: ‘Well, there is a 30 per cent chance a judge would find it lawful so we should go for it. There will be some who say it is unlawful because of x, y, z reasons rather than: ‘How can we make a legal argument that it is lawful’?”

I was taught in history how England became a country based on the rule of law. It's no longer the case. Now it's what the Tory government can get away with, and a democratic mandate legitimises everything.

[rory_20_uk]

I was taught in history how England became a country based on the rule of law. It's no longer the case. Now it's what the Tory government can get away with, and a democratic mandate legitimises everything.

Yes you were taught that. And apparently you didn't really analyse the reality. From the Enclosure Acts which removed about 70%+ of the entire country which was common land to the wealthy, to the destruction of the Scottish Clans to farm more profitable sheep to the Industrial Revolution where people became an expensible commodity.

All was lawful - and the laws were there to codify the behaviour of the wealthy against the rest.

The UK went to war 20 years ago based on lies. Under Labour. The person most responsible has since been Knighted.

Drop your tired prejudices and acknowledge reality.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Duplicate.

[Pannonian]

Yes you were taught that. And apparently you didn't really analyse the reality. From the Enclosure Acts which removed about 70%+ of the entire country which was common land to the wealthy, to the destruction of the Scottish Clans to farm more profitable sheep to the Industrial Revolution where people became an expensible commodity.

All was lawful - and the laws were there to codify the behaviour of the wealthy against the rest.

The UK went to war 20 years ago based on lies. Under Labour. The person most responsible has since been Knighted.

Drop your tired prejudices and acknowledge reality.

~:smoking:

Iraq happened 20 years ago in another country. Suella Braverman is redefining what is happening now and in the future in the UK. One of them is more relevant than the other.

Not that I supported Iraq back then. I was against every one of Blair's foreign adventures.

[rory_20_uk]

Iraq happened 20 years ago in another country. Suella Braverman is redefining what is happening now and in the future in the UK. One of them is more relevant than the other.

Not that I supported Iraq back then. I was against every one of Blair's foreign adventures.

It happened 20 years ago in the UK about another country.

What Suella is doing is similar to what I do in my job - checking if things are OK to do. Any idiot can just say "no". She is asking them to mitigate risk and be "solutions focused". Y'know - helpful.

Why not 100% lawful? Because laws are often written poorly with vague language, are out of date and often overlap. Expecting each lawyer to know exactly through this mess what any judge might think in the event of a theoretical complaint is impossible. And frankly, if they were that good they'd probably be in private practice. This of itself doesn't mean she's advocating for bringing back slavery and the Star court or extrajudicial killings.

My ultimate point is that under the current system, people like Blair can get a legal opinion, be told what he's doing is illegal, demand a rewrite one to say its 100% legal and based on this move on. This is if anything worse since it pretends risk doesn't exist.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Case in point - Kier was 100% certain he'd done nothing wrong and it turns out he's made 8 minor errors registering some small gifts. Humans are fallible - why do politicians appear to have all the answers or perfect recall (Boris is the outlier given ambiguity avoids the criminal threshold for guilt).

And in other news the Heads of the NHS have criticised the two candidates for not having a plan to fix the NHS.

Just let that sink in.

A large number of people, all who are paid easily in the 6 figures with final salary pensions whose sole purpose is sorting out the NHS is bleating two people who have never worked in healthcare and not been the health minister don't have an answer for them! They should be clamoring with proposals and ideas that their decades of high paid strategic leadership created that were refused by the DoH under Johnson. Well, "should" in the fantasy world where those at the top are there for their ability.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Clip surfaces of Sunak criticising Labour for putting funding into deprived areas, and that he (Sunak) moved funding away from that.

[Pannonian]

Video from the Leave campaign (https://twitter.com/edwinhayward/status/1555613306672619520?)

Absolutely none of it has come true after Leave won. Just about all of it has gone the opposite of what was promised in that video.

Is there any way of holding Brexiteers to what they had promised?


How will you benefit when we leave the EU?

You'll benefit from better care provided by our NHS thanks to the reallocation of funds from the EU budget

Controlled immigration will lead to reduced waiting times for you and your loved ones

Excess funding that would otherwise be sent to Brussels could also be directed to education

Your wages will rise thanks to better controlled immigration, which will lead to less competition for jobs

Your weekly food shop will become cheaper

Food prices will no longer be inflated by agricultural policies controlled by the EU

You and your family will benefit from a resurgent economy led by new and flourishing small businesses following the removal of burdensome EU regulations and red tape

With less pressure on housing, younger generations will also find it easier to get on the housing ladder

Politicians, both local and national, will become more accountable, helping to strengthen your community and others

Especially those most damaged by EU policies like farming, fishing, and industries like steel

A more prosperous and safer future awaits us outside the EU

A vote to leave is a vote for a brighter future for you, your family and your community

[Furunculus]

Absolutely none of it has come true after Leave won. Just about all of it has gone the opposite of what was promised in that video.

Is there any way of holding Brexiteers to what they had promised?

~:confused:

i'm a leave voter, and i am quite content with the decision six years later.

are you manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist...?

[Pannonian]

~:confused:

i'm a leave voter, and i am quite content with the decision six years later.

are you manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist...?

A lot of the above is measurable using objective metrics (cost before and after, investment before and after, etc.). Are we allowed to measure them and compare what has become with what was promised? Or does your approval override objective assessment?

[Furunculus]

A lot of the above is measurable using objective metrics (cost before and after, investment before and after, etc.). Are we allowed to measure them and compare what has become with what was promised? Or does your approval override objective assessment?

Sure, fill your boots.

A few interesting indicators with comparable EU nations:
Manufacturing PMI
GDP growth since 2016
Unemployment
Investment in tech and fin-tech sectors
Inflation
% non-performing debts in the banking sector
climate change goals - inc coal use**


https://external-preview.redd.it/IE__GZS9x05X7WHglz-2UOENVRsxNn-bZ_1FUefA9QM.png?auto=webp&1de1b0af

[Pannonian]

Sure, fill your boots.

A few interesting indicators with comparable EU nations:
Manufacturing PMI
GDP growth since 2016
Unemployment
Investment in tech and fin-tech sectors
Inflation
% non-performing debts in the banking sector
climate change goals - inc coal use**


https://external-preview.redd.it/IE__GZS9x05X7WHglz-2UOENVRsxNn-bZ_1FUefA9QM.png?auto=webp&1de1b0af

Why are we comparing with the EU again, when the promises were made about how we would improve our prospects, ie. comparing with ourselves? We're out of the EU now. Why are you still obsessed with our relationship with the EU?

[Furunculus]

Why are we comparing with the EU again, when the promises were made about how we would improve our prospects, ie. comparing with ourselves? We're out of the EU now. Why are you still obsessed with our relationship with the EU?

because it helps account for the effects of externalities.
small things like covid, ukraine, etc.

how would you like to do it?
perhaps via CER modelling of putative uk doppler economy absent brexit - using the US as the basis (during a time when the worlds reserve currency doubled its balance sheet with money printing)...

[Pannonian]

because it helps account for the effects of externalities.
small things like covid, ukraine, etc.

how would you like to do it?
perhaps via CER modelling of putative uk doppler economy absent brexit - using the US as the basis (during a time when the worlds reserve currency doubled its balance sheet with money printing)...

I remember one of the arguments being made for Brexit (by PVC here?) is that it would force us to stop looking to the EU for excuses, that we would be forced to own up to the effects of our own decisions. I transcribed the list of Leave promises, and the first response is to compare with the EU. We entered a pandemic, and the government's response was to say that we wouldn't have been able to do what we did within the EU, and to compare our vaccination results with the EU. Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and our government compares our response with the EU.

[Furunculus]

I remember one of the arguments being made for Brexit (by PVC here?) is that it would force us to stop looking to the EU for excuses, that we would be forced to own up to the effects of our own decisions.

He would be absolutely right. No argument there.

What does this have to do with using comparable nations to which we economically connected when we measure them and compare what has become of the UK as a result of the variable here; brexit - which is your interest here, correct?

[Montmorency]

I can't tell you what your link reports, but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data, i.e. the past and current performance. For example, if one believes that the UK has posted both higher GDP growth and inflation than its counterparts have for many years (though I'm not sure the former is actually the case), it suggests underlying structural factors are at play in which EU membership is not germane either way. If the point is to identify consequences.

[Pannonian]

I can't tell you what your link reports, but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data, i.e. the past and current performance. For example, if one believes that the UK has posted both higher GDP growth and inflation than its counterparts have for many years (though I'm not sure the former is actually the case), it suggests underlying structural factors are at play in which EU membership is not germane either way. If the point is to identify consequences.

It doesn't help that the minister in charge of identifying Brexit opportunities, who is one of the leaders of the movement, and who said that we should be waiting 50 years before drawing conclusions (see also the argument posted here that we should wait 40 years before having another vote), is on record as saying that we should not be measuring the effects of Brexit. Saying so in his capacity as minister for identifying Brexit opportunities.

[Furunculus]

I can't tell you what your link reports,

the link was no more than cheeky fun, pointing at the poor policy platform that can happen inside the sainted eu.
pointing in particular at germany.

"but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data"

the point is more the opposite, to poke fun at 'the sky is falling in' narrative.
i don't know if you catch the usual media narrative of 'brexit is disaster'...?

well, fine, but show me how we suffering so egregiously...

[Montmorency]

the link was no more than cheeky fun, pointing at the poor policy platform that can happen inside the sainted eu.
pointing in particular at germany.

"but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data"

the point is more the opposite, to poke fun at 'the sky is falling in' narrative.
i don't know if you catch the usual media narrative of 'brexit is disaster'...?

well, fine, but show me how we suffering so egregiously...

Frankly I haven't looked at a single analysis of the effect of Brexit on the British economy since it was enacted, but they would be the place to start.

I was saying the link is broken btw.


Error 403 Forbidden
Forbidden

Error 54113
Details: cache-bos4630-BOS 1659911197 2186096025

[Pannonian]

the link was no more than cheeky fun, pointing at the poor policy platform that can happen inside the sainted eu.
pointing in particular at germany.

"but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data"

the point is more the opposite, to poke fun at 'the sky is falling in' narrative.
i don't know if you catch the usual media narrative of 'brexit is disaster'...?

well, fine, but show me how we suffering so egregiously...

Doesn't the winning side get to enact their agenda? I listed the promises made in the video. How do they stack up with the reality?

It really is remarkable how a winning side that has won the last few elections/referendum continues to point at the losing side for everything they haven't done. The Tories have a landslide majority. The opposition can do absolutely nothing to stop them from enacting their agenda, as seen in how the government has been steadily eroding what we understand to be the constitution.

[Pannonian]

Frankly I haven't looked at a single analysis of the effect of Brexit on the British economy since it was enacted, but they would be the place to start.

I was saying the link is broken btw.

Just comparing with your US politics. Excluding the Speaker and Sinn Fein, the Tories had 365 MPs versus the Opposition's 277, a majority of 88 (out of 642).

Using the same proportions, if the Democrats control the chief executive, have 59 more representatives than the opposition, and 12 more senators than the opposition, would you expect them to be effective in enacting their flagship policy? If they do all sorts of stuff regarding the constitution, but do not enact their flagship policy, what would your conclusion be?

[Furunculus]

Frankly I haven't looked at a single analysis of the effect of Brexit on the British economy since it was enacted, but they would be the place to start.

I was saying the link is broken btw.

I don't disagree, but the problem here is retreiving the signal from the noise.
i.e. looking to isolate the effects of brexit on UK econono-social performance from other events like covid and ukraine.
This is why i suggested comparitive results with similar economies that were similarly effected by those same events.

Re: the link - it was a infographic map of europe showing coal use (both brown and hard) for european nations.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/whq612/coal_and_lignite_production_and_imports_in_europe/

[Pannonian]

"Let's keep Brexit safe", says one of the candidates of the Tory leadership contest.

It's been 6 years and 2 elections since Leave's victory, and they still push it as a political issue. They've had 3 years with a landslide majority, potentially another 2 years with that landslide majority. Why is it still an issue?

[Furunculus]

Doesn't the winning side get to enact their agenda? I listed the promises made in the video. How do they stack up with the reality?

It really is remarkable how a winning side that has won the last few elections/referendum continues to point at the losing side for everything they haven't done. The Tories have a landslide majority. The opposition can do absolutely nothing to stop them from enacting their agenda, as seen in how the government has been steadily eroding what we understand to be the constitution.

This is kind of the point of the argument over the NIP - the winning side isn't getting to enact their agenda.
Which is exactly what the EU intended to happen - their ambition has always been dynamic alignment.

The problem in NI is evidence of this: how do you meaningfully diverge without leaving NI behind?
By allowing Single Market regs in NI how do you discourage regulatory reach back from NI into British markets?

Sticky problems, yes.
Problems caused by May with her assenting to 'sequencing' and an asinine interpretation of 'no hard border', yes.
But the problem is right there in front of us.

[rory_20_uk]

It doesn't help that the minister in charge of identifying Brexit opportunities, who is one of the leaders of the movement, and who said that we should be waiting 50 years before drawing conclusions (see also the argument posted here that we should wait 40 years before having another vote), is on record as saying that we should not be measuring the effects of Brexit. Saying so in his capacity as minister for identifying Brexit opportunities.

First off, I would rather an assessment done by, say, the ONS.

Secondly, if Mogg had done a report is there any outcome other than "abject, crippling failure" that you'd accept?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

First off, I would rather an assessment done by, say, the ONS.

Secondly, if Mogg had done a report is there any outcome other than "abject, crippling failure" that you'd accept?

~:smoking:

I wouldn't mind an assessment done by a respected organisation either. However, isn't it a tad concerning that the government, who are the people with the power to decide these things, are fundamentally against any kind of trustworthy assessment?

[Montmorency]

Just comparing with your US politics. Excluding the Speaker and Sinn Fein, the Tories had 365 MPs versus the Opposition's 277, a majority of 88 (out of 642).

Using the same proportions, if the Democrats control the chief executive, have 59 more representatives than the opposition, and 12 more senators than the opposition, would you expect them to be effective in enacting their flagship policy? If they do all sorts of stuff regarding the constitution, but do not enact their flagship policy, what would your conclusion be?

This scenario is a bad comparison, because it's basically impossible in our system of government. I don't mean just that those kinds of majorities are almost unattainable to either party (Obama had better in 2009), but that the institutions are arranged too differently from the UK's. The Constitution is not just a body of laws and norms here but a concrete and heavily contested document of a few thousand words. Functionally, only the states and courts - in practice just the courts - have "control" over the Constitution. The only way around this for a legislature (Congress) is to attempt to exercise jurisdiction stripping or to create new judicial positions to install hundreds of party hacks very rapidly in a way that has never occurred before, but this too does not make sense within your scenario because a legislative caucus and president with such intractable and vicious unity of purpose and will to power would never fail to pursue their substantive policy goals, be they extending healthcare access and reducing university costs or eliminating Medicare and public education.

[Pannonian]

This scenario is a bad comparison, because it's basically impossible in our system of government. I don't mean just that those kinds of majorities are almost unattainable to either party (Obama had better in 2009), but that the institutions are arranged too differently from the UK's. The Constitution is not just a body of laws and norms here but a concrete and heavily contested document of a few thousand words. Functionally, only the states and courts - in practice just the courts - have "control" over the Constitution. The only way around this for a legislature (Congress) is to attempt to exercise jurisdiction stripping or to create new judicial positions to install hundreds of party hacks very rapidly in a way that has never occurred before, but this too does not make sense within your scenario because a legislative caucus and president with such intractable and vicious unity of purpose and will to power would never fail to pursue their substantive policy goals, be they extending healthcare access and reducing university costs or eliminating Medicare and public education.

Brexit doesn't contravene the UK constitution though, other than requiring the UK government to abide by domestic and international laws and agreements (which should be a given). Its implementation, however bad an idea it is (eg. hastily concluding a trade deal with Australia that's actually worse than the one we already had, and described as such by the Australian side), is just a collection of lawmaking. The UK government has a majority of lawmakers in the proportions that I translated above. In any case, the UK government has found time to contravene the constitution in numerous ways, but still claims that its lawmaking ability to enact Brexit is in danger.

If the US government has control of the executive, a 59 majority in Congress and a 12 majority in the Senate, would you expect it to carry out its manifesto? If it doesn't enact its manifesto, would you conclude that it cannot, or that it doesn't bother to? Especially if it finds time to amend the constitution in ways not listed in the manifesto.

[rory_20_uk]

I wouldn't mind an assessment done by a respected organisation either. However, isn't it a tad concerning that the government, who are the people with the power to decide these things, are fundamentally against any kind of trustworthy assessment?

Drugs are still banned in this country. Evidence for years has demonstrated that this is poor policy.
Prostitution is still poorly defined, with brothels illegal although have been shown to protect women.
An annual assessment of the budget - if done, it doesn't seem to make politicians change course.

Yet no calls for a review or assessment (not that one is really required since the evidence is so strong). And these have some pretty simple variables to take into account.

To decide whether Brexit was "good" / "bad" you'd first need to define what these two things are and then disentangle such things as COVID and the Ukrainian war. How many Civil Servants would you like working on this undertaking? How many million is it worth to know - sorry, guess?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Drugs are still banned in this country. Evidence for years has demonstrated that this is poor policy.
Prostitution is still poorly defined, with brothels illegal although have been shown to protect women.
An annual assessment of the budget - if done, it doesn't seem to make politicians change course.

Yet no calls for a review or assessment (not that one is really required since the evidence is so strong). And these have some pretty simple variables to take into account.

To decide whether Brexit was "good" / "bad" you'd first need to define what these two things are and then disentangle such things as COVID and the Ukrainian war. How many Civil Servants would you like working on this undertaking? How many million is it worth to know - sorry, guess?

~:smoking:

Here's a list of promises from that Leave.eu campaign video. At least some of them are quantifiable.


How will you benefit when we leave the EU?

You'll benefit from better care provided by our NHS thanks to the reallocation of funds from the EU budget

Controlled immigration will lead to reduced waiting times for you and your loved ones

Excess funding that would otherwise be sent to Brussels could also be directed to education

Your wages will rise thanks to better controlled immigration, which will lead to less competition for jobs

Your weekly food shop will become cheaper

Food prices will no longer be inflated by agricultural policies controlled by the EU

You and your family will benefit from a resurgent economy led by new and flourishing small businesses following the removal of burdensome EU regulations and red tape

With less pressure on housing, younger generations will also find it easier to get on the housing ladder

Politicians, both local and national, will become more accountable, helping to strengthen your community and others

Especially those most damaged by EU policies like farming, fishing, and industries like steel

A more prosperous and safer future awaits us outside the EU

A vote to leave is a vote for a brighter future for you, your family and your community

From that list, I can define the following questions.

1. Has the NHS had increased funding?
2. Has immigration decreased?
3. Have waiting times decreased?
4. Has education funding increased?
5. Have wages increased?
6. Have food prices decreased?
7. Has the economy improved?
8. Is it easier to get on the housing ladder?
9. Are politicians more accountable?
10. Have prospects improved for the fishing, agriculture and steel industries?

AFAIK the answer is a clear no to all the above, based on a verbatim list of Leave's promises. If there is a yes somewhere in there, it's a very, very qualified yes amongst an answer that's mostly no. If it were a manifesto, one would compare the promises with the results. Is there any reason why we should not compare the above promises with the results so far?

[Furunculus]

1. Has the NHS had increased funding?
...
AFAIK the answer is a clear no...


Seriously?

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/funding/nhs-funding-data-analysis

[rory_20_uk]

Here's a list of promises from that Leave.eu campaign video. At least some of them are quantifiable.



From that list, I can define the following questions.

1. Has the NHS had increased funding?
2. Has immigration decreased?
3. Have waiting times decreased?
4. Has education funding increased?
5. Have wages increased?
6. Have food prices decreased?
7. Has the economy improved?
8. Is it easier to get on the housing ladder?
9. Are politicians more accountable?
10. Have prospects improved for the fishing, agriculture and steel industries?

AFAIK the answer is a clear no to all the above, based on a verbatim list of Leave's promises. If there is a yes somewhere in there, it's a very, very qualified yes amongst an answer that's mostly no. If it were a manifesto, one would compare the promises with the results. Is there any reason why we should not compare the above promises with the results so far?

Why should we, post COVID, with the biggest war in Europe since WW2, not do a direct comparison...? And these are the two most obvious confounding variables. As I thought all you want is for a statement "Brexit caused everything bad!" And you'd be happy. I'm sure you realise that leave.eu was merely the propaganda of a group - certainly not a government position. But each time it is trotted out like some sort of predefined study primary endpoint.

Right at this moment in time, if the government started printing money like it was water (like in the good old Tony-Brown days where boom and bust was declared dead) then each and every one could be turned in to a "yes" - merely at the risk of massive long term damage to the country.

It neglects one obvious one from the list:

Is the UK a sovereign state again?

Where the answer is yes - and you can look around the world how much countries have been prepared to suffer for independence.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Genuine newspaper headline (Metro, 12th August 2022):

"PM turns up for meeting"

[Montmorency]

Its all going (https://twitter.com/Devon_OnEarth/status/1560325399116218372) really well in the UK at the moment

https://i.imgur.com/5W264UG.jpg

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Montmorency]

I notice the baseline support for Scottish independence has steadily increased over time, but especially over the past two years.

The Scottish government recently published a report (https://www.gov.scot/publications/independence-modern-world-wealthier-happier-fairer-not-scotland/) with the thesis that the UK economy consistently underperforms its neighbors' and is socially moribund; securing sovereignty from Buckingham will be painful in the short term but divergence will allow Scotland to reorient and flourish in the long term. Sounds familiar...


But the point is this: in an independent Scotland, crucial decision-making power will rest with the people who live here – not with Westminster governments that do not command the support of people in Scotland, and which pursue policies, for example, Brexit, that are deeply damaging to Scotland's interests. As well as setting out the Scottish Government's view of the opportunities of independence and how the greater powers that it entails could be used to make Scotland wealthier, happier and fairer...

Unhappy nationalists are all alike (there are no happy nationalists). But at least they have actual grievances, if in part self-fulfilled by the SNP.

[rory_20_uk]

If there is a vote on Independence everyone should have a say. I'd vote for them to leave. Like Australia, New Zealand and Canada perhaps more (political) distance would foster a more cordial relationship.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

If there is a vote on Independence everyone should have a say. I'd vote for them to leave. Like Australia, New Zealand and Canada perhaps more (political) distance would foster a more cordial relationship.

~:smoking:

Agreed - would like an advisory pre-referendum in other parts of the union to inform Scotland's subsequent decision making.
I'd vote for them to stay - as I consider them family.

But totally on board with the principle that the endless whining is boring, and they should make up their mind one way or another in order that a better relationship can ensue (whatever that might be).

[Pannonian]

Back in the distant past, when we had a Labour government, we had a united kingdom, membership of a larger union and all the closest international institutions, a prosperous economy, functioning services, a belief in democracy. Now all of that is gone or going.

Back in 2015, the Tories campaigned against Labour, accusing them of being part of a coalition of chaos, implying that a Labour government relying on the SNP to prop it up would lead to the end of the union. We're 12 years into a Tory government.

[Furunculus]

Back in the distant past, when we had a Labour government, we had a united kingdom, membership of a larger union and all the closest international institutions, a prosperous economy, functioning services, a belief in democracy. Now all of that is gone or going.

Back in 2015, the Tories campaigned against Labour, accusing them of being part of a coalition of chaos, implying that a Labour government relying on the SNP to prop it up would lead to the end of the union. We're 12 years into a Tory government.

Back in the distant past it was a labour gov't that crafted the abysmal devolution settlement that created the modern monstrosity of the SNP.

A unionist party campaigning against an opposition that intended to include a sessionist party as part of a coalition does not seem controversial.

[Pannonian]

Back in the distant past it was a labour gov't that crafted the abysmal devolution settlement that created the modern monstrosity of the SNP.

A unionist party campaigning against an opposition that intended to include a sessionist party as part of a coalition does not seem controversial.

Scottish devolution (under Labour): 1998.

2001 (Labour government): 5 SNP MPs elected.
2005 (Labour): 4 SNP MPs.
2010 (Labour): 6 SNP MPs.
2015 (Tory + Lib Dem): 58 SNP MPs.
2017 (Tory): 35 SNP MPs.
2019 (Tory): 48 SNP MPs.

You've written a tract, but the above are bare facts.

[Montmorency]

Back in the distant past it was a labour gov't that crafted the abysmal devolution settlement that created the modern monstrosity of the SNP.

A unionist party campaigning against an opposition that intended to include a sessionist party as part of a coalition does not seem controversial.

Nah, if you look at the election results going back to WW2 the Conservative Party was rather competitive in Scotland. The situation deteriorated for them under Thatcher, whom I gather was particularly disliked by Scots. Then, from 1997 - inaugurating, not under, the Blair argument - through 2015 the Cons always drew well under 20% of the vote in Scotland.

2017 and 2019 were anomalous in that Cons drew Thatcherite numbers in Scotland. In both 2017 and 2019 Labour actually won fewer votes than the Cons. At the risk of being wrong, my first hypothesis would be that a polarization is blossoming between Caledonewithit and Union, directed through the perceived champion-parties of each. That is, Conservative voting is becoming a proxy for unionism above all, thus attracting ardent unionist votes across the spectrum. The obvious confirmation would be an increase in the two-party vote share in the next election. The (top) two-party vote share in Scottish elections has tended to converge around 65%, but in 2019 it was in fact at its highest (70%) since 1979 (73%).

By the by it further undermines the theory that Blair Labour instigated or accelerated Scottish separatism when in 1974 the SNP drew 30% of votes in Scotland and a devolution referendum took a Brexity majority in 1979 (it was invalidated according to turnout rules).

From what I've seen, the majority of Scots are animated more by a deep disgust for the totality of Conservative governance since 2010 rather than nationalism per se. (The confirmation for that hypothesis would be a steep decline in Leave sentiment and SNP vote share following a successful unilateral Labour government taking power nationally.) So if most Scottish unionists happen to consolidate in the Conservative Party, and the recent wave of separatist sentiment is mostly a reaction against Tory rule, this should only reinforce the impulse toward independence among the general public.

[Furunculus]

Two fun developments this week:

Economists modelling the effect of brexit begin to realise the consequence of the core assumption of their models: if the future damage was to be caused by reduced immigration and instead the gov't creates the most liberal immigration scheme the UK has seen in 50 years... Even the sainted Portes has rebuilt his models to show a mild positive effect:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/29/britains-open-door-immigration-entirely-changes-economics-brexit/

As of next week, Britain will have the most ethnically-diverse cabinet of any major country in the OECD bloc. That will be apparent to the world.

Less understood is that the new Prime Minister will also preside over one of the most liberal and open immigration systems among the developed economies, and considerably more open in key respects than the large EU states.

This is so far removed from the catechism of the global intelligentsia – let us call it the New York Times view – that many will simply refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Whatever may have been said by certain people during the Referendum, and whatever Theresa May thought Brexit was supposed to mean, the actual regime established by Boris Johnson for work visas and the resettlement of legal refugees is strikingly expansionary. Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that this is the direction of travel.

“I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. When it comes to work visas, we have one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world,” said Professor Jonathan Portes from the London School of Economics. A fierce critic of Brexit in the past, he is arguably this country’s leading expert on the economic effects of immigration.

The open-door policy has sweeping implications for the growth rate of GDP and for the long-term sustainability of British public finances. It demolishes a core assumption of Project Fear models. It falsifies a succession of economic forecasts by global bodies and think tanks that invariably understate the UK’s relative performance and future prospects.

Professor Portes has revised his model in a paper for the Centre for Economic Policy Research and the UK in a Changing Europe. It has ruffled academic circles, and caused some fury in the pro-Brussels camp. He previously calculated that the immigration effects of Brexit would lower the UK’s growth rate and cost 2pc of GDP. He now thinks there will be a slight net gain from this component over time – though there will still be trade losses.

The EU has free movement within its closed system, but it has aspects of a white fortress against the rest of the world, a point that Left-leaning enthusiasts for all things European tend to overlook. They are also strangely forgiving of the EU’s Right-wing corporatist power structure.

The detailed provisions of Britain’s new immigration strategy make this country significantly more open to legal work migrants from Africa, South Asia, and the Far East. The UK has offered a new home to three million exiles from Xi Jinping’s Hong Kong should they wish to come. Furthermore, a total of 6.1m EU/EEA nationals have applied for settled status, more than the 3.5 - 4.1m originally expected.

The latest UK Immigration Statistics in the year to June show that a record 1.1 million people were issued visas to live in this country, a 70pc rise on pre-Brexit levels. Educated Indians lead the way. The Rwanda camp for illegal migrants, if it ever happens, is an odd distraction within the greater picture.

I make no judgement on whether this open-door regime is good or bad, or whether this is what people thought they were voting for in 2016. These are matters for democratic politics and cultural anthropology. My focus is macroeconomic.

The post-Brexit system stops one particular category: uncontrolled flows of cheap labour from the EU. But it is welcoming for another category: skilled migrants from any part of the world, so long as they meet wage and education thresholds. This may ultimately have a higher economic return.

Worker visas require a salary of at least ?25,600, or ?20,480 for some jobs on the shortage list. Special regimes for care workers and seasonal farm labour are a messy work in progress.

The latest figures show that there were 331,000 work visas issued, led by India (111,000) with a 99pc approval rate, Philippines (22,000), Nigeria (18,000), Ukraine (15,000), US (11,000), Zimbabwe (9,000, South Africa and Australia (8,000), Pakistan (7,000), and Russia (5,000).

No EU country is in the top ten any more but that is distorted by the rush to get settled status before the deadline. The flow of workers from Poland and the Baltics has been drying up anyway because wages have been rocketing at home and there is a structural labour shortage.

The UK’s earnings barrier has left gaps. Most waiters, hotel cleaners, or baggage handlers cannot get visas. This is a headache for employers, and it is something that we all notice, but it is not a big macroeconomic issue.

There were 492,000 study visas, topped by: India (117,000), China (115,000), Nigeria (66,000), and Pakistan (23,000). Some will stay after their courses end, further enlarging the pool of immigrant talent. There were 230,000 resettlement visas, chiefly for migrants from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong. A percentage will ultimately join the workforce.

Add it all together and you are looking at 400,000 migrants joining the labour force each year, and possibly more. This is at least four times the assumption in The Economic Consequences of Brexit, published by the OECD just before the Referendum. It is a name-play on Keynes’s brilliant (but glib and erroneous) hatchet-job on the Versailles Treaty.

This report is indicative of most studies written by the academic/policy fraternity, all arguing from the same premise. In a nutshell, the lion’s share of the alleged Brexit damage comes from lower immigration and therefore also from lower productivity, since their models assume a mechanical linkage between the two - a questionable premise even in academic theory. Take those two away and the argument disintegrates.

The OECD said immigration accounted for half of the UK’s total economic growth from 2005 to 2015. It argued that curbs on free movement and a weaker economy would lead to “a smaller pool of skills”. It would reduce “managerial quality and technical progress.” From these assumptions it predicted a Brexit loss of 5pc of GDP, or 7.7pc in its pessimistic scenario.

If this is the reasoning, then presumably the OECD should be revising up its forecasts dramatically in light of the actual migrant policy and incoming data. Its own model must surely infer blistering economic growth over the 2020s and great improvements in “skills and technical progress”, unless it deems Indians and the Hong Kong Chinese less capable than Europeans.

Immigration has of course been running hotter since 2016 than 100,000 a year – outside the pandemic – and that explains why OECD forecasts (like others) have so consistently erred in predicting that the UK would vastly underperform the major eurozone economies.

In fact, the UK’s aggregate economic growth since the Brexit vote has been roughly equal to that of France, and higher than in Germany, Italy, and Spain. The recent surge in legal migration may explain why the UK’s output surveys this year keep catching forecasters by surprise. The PMI indexes since January have been more resilient than in Europe or the US.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) still assumes in its reports that net immigration will be 100,000 even though this has long been implausible. The error shapes its analysis of what the public finances can carry.

The OBR argued in one report that a fall of 140,000 in the rate of net migration would push up the national debt by 40 percentage points of GDP in the long-run. Following this logic, might one conclude that if the actual rate is 300,000 higher than supposed, the debt ratio will come down rapidly through organic economic growth?

The new visa figures have large implications. The worst combination we can have in this country is a restrictive fiscal watchdog at a time when we need ample public spending on infrastructure to cope with a larger population. This investment has a high fiscal multiplier, if spent and timed correctly, and more than pays for itself via stronger growth.

In my view, the OBR has had a contractionary bias ever since its creation in 2010. It played a large role in the austerity overkill of the post-Lehman era, and has fostered a malign pattern of thinking. It has led the political class to think that we cannot afford the sort of public investment that we most assuredly can afford and urgently need, and that is the hallmark of growth stars over the last quarter century such as Korea and the Nordics.

Furthermore, the OBR mimics EU machinery demanded by Germany to prevent fiscal free-loading by Club Med states within the monetary union. It is unclear why such an institution should exist in a full democracy with fiscal and monetary sovereignty.

The widely-believed narrative of a Britain turning its back on the world and retreating into Trumpian tribalism has been a giant canard. The economic models built upon this false architecture have been abject. The policy prescriptions that follow from the errors have been toxic.

I look forward to the OECD’s next report on the Economic Consequences of Brexit with eager curiosity. The OBR might wish to chuck its last report in the dustbin and rush through an emergency revision in light of reality. If these bodies persist with a false model, their own political integrity comes into question.

and the Financial Times is being shown to be systematically useless if what you want is balanced and accurate reporting of the economics of brexit:

https://thecritic.co.uk/lunching-on-the-ft/

[Pannonian]

Modelling? Has any attempt been made yet to actually get concrete data, as opposed to extrapolating from assumptions and building on said assumptions? Minford, he who wants rid of the agricultural and fishing industries en route to Singaporising the UK, is favoured by the next presumptive PM. The minister who was supposed to be identifying Brexit opportunities vocally opposes getting the above actual concrete data on the effects of Brexit.

Going by the promises made in the Leave.eu campaign video (who've just wound up, writing off several millions in debt), every one of those promises has not materialised as pledged, and have become the opposite. That's actual RL data, not theoretical modelling. And the best that Leavers have come up with is to blame other factors for why Brexit has delivered the opposite of what it has promised.

In other news, I've actually seen people claim that Liz Truss, she who's been a Parliamentary secretary or minister continuously since 2013, is the candidate for change, unlike Keir Starmer who first entered politics in 2015 and who has never been in any government. 12 years of Tory government, and Tory supporters continue to claim the opposite of reality is actually true. And thanks to our wonderful democracy, that argument will probably fly too. Claims don't need to be based on evidence and reality. If you win the vote, whatever you say is the truth.

[Furunculus]

Modelling? Has any attempt been made yet to actually get concrete data, as opposed to extrapolating from assumptions and building on said assumptions? Minford, he who wants rid of the agricultural and fishing industries en route to Singaporising the UK, is favoured by the next presumptive PM.

it's almost like we discussed this very thing but a month a ago but someone remains strangely impervious to challenging views - again:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053835809&viewfull=1#post2053835809


A lot of the above is measurable using objective metrics (cost before and after, investment before and after, etc.). Are we allowed to measure them and compare what has become with what was promised? Or does your approval override objective assessment?
Sure, fill your boots.

A few interesting indicators with comparable EU nations:
Manufacturing PMI
GDP growth since 2016
Unemployment
Investment in tech and fin-tech sectors
Inflation
% non-performing debts in the banking sector
climate change goals - inc coal use**

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053835815&viewfull=1#post2053835815


Why are we comparing with the EU again, when the promises were made about how we would improve our prospects, ie. comparing with ourselves? We're out of the EU now. Why are you still obsessed with our relationship with the EU?because it helps account for the effects of externalities.
small things like covid, ukraine, etc.

how would you like to do it?
perhaps via CER modelling of putative uk doppler economy absent brexit - using the US as the basis (during a time when the worlds reserve currency doubled its balance sheet with money printing)...
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153094-UK-Politics-Thread?p=2053835839&viewfull=1#post2053835839


I wouldn't mind an assessment done by a respected organisation either. However, isn't it a tad concerning that the government, who are the people with the power to decide these things, are fundamentally against any kind of trustworthy assessment?
Drugs are still banned in this country. Evidence for years has demonstrated that this is poor policy.
Prostitution is still poorly defined, with brothels illegal although have been shown to protect women.
An annual assessment of the budget - if done, it doesn't seem to make politicians change course.

Yet no calls for a review or assessment (not that one is really required since the evidence is so strong). And these have some pretty simple variables to take into account.

To decide whether Brexit was "good" / "bad" you'd first need to define what these two things are and then disentangle such things as COVID and the Ukrainian war. How many Civil Servants would you like working on this undertaking? How many million is it worth to know - sorry, guess?


I wouldn't mind an assessment done by a respected organisation either.
Is Jonathan Portes writing for the Centre for Economic Policy Research and the UK in a Changing Europe a respected organisation?

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-economics-of-brexit-what-have-we-learned(ce6fd183-806b-4bb3-a111-e052a5db6a06).html

[Pannonian]

2021: Government video on export declarations post-Brexit (https://twitter.com/HMGLondonSE/status/1466353952958697475)
Virginia from Old Dairy Brewery explains her 5 years of export experience.

2022: Old Dairy Brewery says exports have dropped by 95% since Brexit. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-62690456)
"The Old Dairy Brewery in Tenterden says extra paperwork, customs checks and transport rules are to blame."

[Montmorency]

So can we all finally agree that a global regime of free labor movement, at least, would be one of the greatest inducements to economic growth and prosperity ever?


The worst combination we can have in this country is a restrictive fiscal watchdog at a time when we need ample public spending on infrastructure to cope with a larger population. This investment has a high fiscal multiplier, if spent and timed correctly, and more than pays for itself via stronger growth.

In my view, the OBR has had a contractionary bias ever since its creation in 2010. It played a large role in the austerity overkill of the post-Lehman era, and has fostered a malign pattern of thinking. It has led the political class to think that we cannot afford the sort of public investment that we most assuredly can afford and urgently need, and that is the hallmark of growth stars over the last quarter century such as Korea and the Nordics.


BUT INFLATION

What is the status of the current government's "infrastructure revolution (https://www.centreforcities.org/press/governments-infrastructure-revolution-is-not-enough-to-improve-transport/)?"

[Pannonian]

So can we all finally agree that a global regime of free labor movement, at least, would be one of the greatest inducements to economic growth and prosperity ever?



BUT INFLATION

What is the status of the current government's "infrastructure revolution (https://www.centreforcities.org/press/governments-infrastructure-revolution-is-not-enough-to-improve-transport/)?"

There's been a lot of talk of grand plans and promised investment: the theoretical modelling that theorists love to talk about. Whilst drawing down funding in reality. A lot of government money has been spent, but directed towards individuals, with the better off in particular getting the benefits of tax cuts and government contracts (eg. currently planned tax cuts would save the worse off maybe a couple of dozen pounds per year, whilst saving the top line thousands, at a time when bills are going up by hundreds).

The Tories and their affiliated movements (eg. Brexit, climate change deniers, covid deniers) are good at promising things and pretending that things are as they'd promised and winning votes that way, rather than things are as they've turned out to be.

[Furunculus]

So can we all finally agree that a global regime of free labor movement, at least, would be one of the greatest inducements to economic growth and prosperity ever?



BUT INFLATION

What is the status of the current government's "infrastructure revolution (https://www.centreforcities.org/press/governments-infrastructure-revolution-is-not-enough-to-improve-transport/)?"

Sure, but two points:

1. you have to maintain the consent of the electorate - whether that be in raw numbers that might affect infrastructure provision, or in cultural accomodation expected, a.k.a. multiculturalism

2. this benefit might principally be seem in nominal GDP figures, and less so at the per capita level - that people actually feel. So useful geopolitically more than electorally.

[Hooahguy]

RIP (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61585886) Queen Elizabeth II

[spmetla]

RIP HM Queen Elizabeth II. Talking with my dad, it brought tears to his eyes as he remembers being a kid in Wisconsin listening to her coronation on the radio as his dad told him it's a historic thing to pay attention to.

Best of luck to the new King.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

QE2 had, at least by modern expectations, one heck of a run. Good wishes to her wherever her soul has flown.


The ironist in me notes that she began her reign with Winston Churchill as PM and concluded it with Boris Johnson. Not sure what that says about English politics. We will all get a view of Charles as he takes up the mantle, as well as what the near future holds for the monarchy in the UK.

[Furunculus]

Always been a monarchist rather than a royalist, but by god was Liz a great Royal.
Will be a hard act to follow. RIP.

[Hooahguy]

I find it fascinating that the UK has had a queen for our entire lives, however there wont be a British queen again in our lifetime (probably).

[Montmorency]

:uhoh:

Has the moment passed yet?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1568582387126124544 [VIDEO]

The British monarchy is a valuable and respectable institution. God save the King.

[Montmorency]

Good summation of recent UK politics.


'Despicable' amateur football teams in Sheffield face punishment for playing after Queen's death (https://news.sky.com/story/despicable-amateur-football-teams-in-sheffield-face-punishment-for-playing-after-queens-death-12697344?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter)
Two football teams who played the weekend after the Queen died are being investigated and will be "dealt with in the strongest possible terms".


Belfast:
https://i.imgur.com/TkzYKan.jpg

[Montmorency]

A Chill Over the United Kingdom (https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/09/queen-elizabeth-funeral-charles-schedule.html?via=rss_socialflow_facebook)
The absurd—and sometimes sinister—spectacle of mourning Queen Elizabeth.

What is going on in the United Kingdom? It’s a question with a simple, four-word answer: the queen is dead. That is almost literally everything that is happening here at the moment.

Since the queen died last Thursday, the country has ground to a halt. The queen is dead for breakfast, the queen is dead for lunch, and you’ll want to leave room for a nice hearty portion of the queen is dead for dinner, too. People are still going to work, sure, but there is no press except press about the queen being dead. Every business in the country—from chicken shops to pork jerky brads, chemists to cobblers—have felt the need to issue a public statement of grief about the queen dying. Supermarkets have turned down the beeps on their self-checkout machines to mark their depth of feeling for the queen. Our weather forecaster, the Met Office, has cut back the number of weather reports it is issuing “as a mark of respect during this time of national mourning.” An amusement park company, Center Parcs, announced its intention to kick all vacationers staying in their parks out for one day, the queen’s funeral, before realizing just how deranged that would be and making a U-turn.

Insufficiently serious cinematic releases like Ticket to Paradise, the new George Clooney and Julia Roberts vehicle, are being delayed. You can go to the cinema to watch the queen’s funeral, but you may only drink water and eat nothing, in case your hot dog meets with the displeasure of the dead queen.

So there’s a weird confluence of feelings: on the one hand, all of this is mental and stupid and therefore funny, but on the other hand everything being shut down or in a holding pattern until the “mourning period” is over is boring. The country is in limbo at the moment, or maybe existing out of time. The news feels like it’s from 1630, with headlines like “Public gather to kiss the rings of King Charles.”

This could hardly come at a worse time for the country.
But there is also something more sinister brewing here. Hospital appointments on the day of the queen’s funeral are cancelled. Food banks are closed. Normal people’s funerals are also cancelled. On the day the queen died, Liz Truss, our new prime minister, quietly lifted the ban on fracking in this country and also announced a plan to relieve Britons of crippling energy bills this winter without explaining where that money is going to come from. I’m not suggesting that anybody offed the queen early for political expediency, but parliament will now be closed for a month: again, to respect the dead queen.

This could hardly come at a worse time for the country. The cost-of-living crisis in the U.K. needs urgent political attention, and the cost of energy is going to become more and more pressing as the weather gets colder.

These are interesting times to have a new prime minister and a new monarch in the same week. Things really suck here at the moment. People are frustrated. Everything is expensive, the post-pandemic mental health crisis is about to hit us like a freight train, and our seas and rivers are full of sewage that Tory MPs voted to have dumped there. And a lot of people who loved the queen in a grandmotherly kind of way but would count themselves as republicans are now faced with King Charles, who has already been filmed snarling at an aide to remove something from a table. Looking ahead, it seems likely that we are going to witness a vast, gaudy display of elite wealth, King Charles’ coronation, just as the rest of the country drags itself through one of the worst recessions in history.

There have also been the small incidents of anti-royal protest all over the country that have been met by the law with a ludicrously heavy hand. A young woman was arrested in Edinburgh for holding up a sign saying “fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy.” A man in Oxford was arrested for shouting “who elected him?” when King Charles was being proclaimed as the king on Sunday.

The severity of this reaction from the police, and from the crown by extension, suggests an unease. Some people have wondered whether this uncertain time is going to provide an opportunity to interrogate whether we want a monarchy: whether there isn’t another way forward than simply accepting another unelected head of state, another round of our “purely symbolic” monarchy that is made up of real people who receive our real tax money and that we’re not allowed to criticize publicly or we’ll get thrown in real jail.

Perhaps it will. But I’m not convinced. I spent some time at Buckingham Palace this past weekend, reporting something else about the queen, because again: there is no room for other news here. People did not seem ready to revolt. The British people and the monarchy is the ultimate case of Stockholm syndrome, and I don’t see that there’s any real hope for a cure.

This is really worse than I imagined. Somehow I just assumed she would be afforded two or three times the rigmarole of a dead President in the US.

The monarchy is more of a drag on British sovereignty than the EU ever was. At least be decent, and keep out of the way like the Dutch or Norwegian royals.

[Furunculus]

I have to say i think the argument presented is bunk.

I'm as big a monarchist as they come - and the death of the queen has had zero impact on my life beyond the additional bank holiday on Monday.

The article looks at the razmataz of the event and the royalist response and presumes to conflate the two (monarchist and royalist), and you as the reader are arriving at the erroneous conclusion that majority support for constitutional monarchy equates to a majority of people agonising in a mawkish self-absorbed lassitude. It's just not true.

It's the kind of drivel i'd expect to see printed in the New York Times.

If you want a far better description of what is going on and why it matters i'd read this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11220739/ANDREW-NEIL-week-proved-Britain-ISNT-declining-power-liberal-elite-portrays-as.html

If you want the simplest answer to the argument presented it is to turn the whole chicken-little disaster-porn 'expose' on its head by pointing out the UK has just gone through two huge changes in governance in the space of a week and nothing exciting happened. Nothing.


"There have also been the small incidents of anti-royal protest all over the country that have been met by the law with a ludicrously heavy hand...The severity of this reaction from the police, and from the crown by extension..."

It is absurd, and it shouldn't happen. But it is also the mechanical and predetermined outcome that arises from spending the last twenty years hedging free speech around with a multitude of nebulous caveats in the form of protected characteristics and hate speech 'incidents'. Where police response is conditioned not to objective criteria of abuse given but rather to subjective criteria of offence perceived - yes, even offence perceived by a third party on behalf of another. People are suddenly discovering it doesn't just apply when used against the bad guys, but also to them when they get a little 'exuberant' in their morally elevated crusade.

[Montmorency]

I have to say i think the argument presented is bunk.

I'm as big a monarchist as they come - and the death of the queen has had zero impact on my life beyond the additional bank holiday on Monday.

The article looks at the razmataz of the event and the royalist response and presumes to conflate the two (monarchist and royalist), and you as the reader are arriving at the erroneous conclusion that majority support for constitutional monarchy equates to a majority of people agonising in a mawkish self-absorbed lassitude. It's just not true.

It's the kind of drivel i'd expect to see printed in the New York Times.

If you want a far better description of what is going on and why it matters i'd read this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11220739/ANDREW-NEIL-week-proved-Britain-ISNT-declining-power-liberal-elite-portrays-as.html

If you want the simplest answer to the argument presented it is to turn the whole chicken-little disaster-porn 'expose' on its head by pointing out the UK has just gone through two huge changes in governance in the space of a week and nothing exciting happened. Nothing.

You might have misunderstood me and the article. The English people can grieve as they see fit; they just don't need concertive insistence or the state's 'assistance' in it.


Contrary to the miserabilist musings of much of the establishment commentariat and its social media echo chambers, whose default position is always to run Britain down, the condition of the country is actually rather good. For a start, it turns out that we still matter on the international stage, otherwise why would the Queen’s death be an event of such global mourning, with the world’s leaders flocking to London for her funeral on Monday?

Our precious 300-year-old Union would also still seem to have life in it yet. As thousands of Scots who lined the roads from Balmoral to Edinburgh to pay their respects to the passing cortege of their Queen of Scots — and many thousands more who lined the Royal Mile of the Scottish capital in silence and respect as it moved from Holyrood Palace to St Giles’ Cathedral — illustrated beyond argument.

The death of the Queen likely signifies the evaporation of this very influence, defeating the premise of the essay that people liking the Queen supports Britain's relevance, but go off. Whether Britain can stand on its merits, reverence for the Queen is no longer there as a crutch. As the author notes, the Queen almost singlehandedly asserted the Crown's contemporary reputation (Princess Diana probably helped). All the same delegations will arrive for King Charles's funeral, but it's quite plausible the viewership won't break far into the hundreds of millions.


It is absurd, and it shouldn't happen. But it is also the mechanical and predetermined outcome that arises from spending the last twenty years hedging free speech around with a multitude of nebulous caveats in the form of protected characteristics and hate speech 'incidents'. Where police response is conditioned not to objective criteria of abuse given but rather to subjective criteria of offence perceived - yes, even offence perceived by a third party on behalf of another.


I don't know what relevance this rant bears on anything, but "abuse" and "objective" are oxymoronic concepts in the realm of speech. A speech act itself might be an objective event, pending interpretation, but the societal imposition of criminal, civil, or other liability against particular kinds of speech as abusive enough to regulate is an inherently subjective choice.


People are suddenly discovering it doesn't just apply when used against the bad guys, but also to them when they get a little 'exuberant' in their morally elevated crusade.

So does British law count "royal family" as a category protected against kinds of speech? Is lese majeste still a violation? Are you willing to imply that the concept of hate speech, or whatever, militates for the renewed enforcement of the Treason Felony Act of 1848? Don't set out non-sequiturs in the expression of your pet peeves.


3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies

If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing ... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.


If we stop and compare American and English legal regimes we can refresh our memories on the greater emphasis on regulatory control of speech that the UK has almost always placed over the US, and how this was the case (https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1516&context=lf) before anyone had dreamed up any of the bugaboos of your umbrage.

[Montmorency]

Can someone explain this? Pannonian
https://twitter.com/iammightor/status/1574066085804007425 [VIDEO]

The conversation was contemporaneously recorded with two-way consent in 2016.

All of this clamor about Westerman's claim being a lie, including the recording, was already reported as of 2019 (https://www.thecanary.co/investigations/2019/07/19/fresh-testimony-from-labour-members-could-blow-panoramas-antisemitism-claims-wide-open/); it was still a live issue in 2020, as this piece (https://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/node/185646) exhibits. The result of 5 minutes' searching.

Why is the recording returning to the discourse now, in 2022? Was there no response within Labour?

[Montmorency]

Seems like the UK is suffering from more economic mismanagement (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2022/09/26/the-shortest-economic-suicide-note-in-history-how-the-mini-budget-fails-to-help-long-run-growth/) than usual.

Something that might help:


Power to the People - The Case for a Publicly Owned Generation Company (https://www.common-wealth.co.uk/reports/power-to-the-people-the-case-for-a-publicly-owned-generation-company)

The policy to freeze energy bills for the next two years is poorly designed and inadequate to the scale of crisis: while welcome as a temporary measure, over the proposed time period the measure will do little to improve energy efficiency, disproportionately benefits the better off at great public expense, and will leaves millions of people in acute financial difficulty this winter. However, it “buys time” to address the underlying driver of the cost of living crisis: our over-reliance on costly, volatile, imported fossil fuels to heat and power our homes and businesses.

Unfortunately, the new government appears set on encouraging fracking and further North Sea extraction as the solution to spiralling bills, despite clear warnings from the Committee on Climate Change that this would negligibly impact energy prices while putting existing net zero targets out of reach. Moreover, because increased domestic extraction will take decades to come on stream, if at all given the dubious business case, this approach is unlikely to significantly reduce the UK’s exposure to fossil fuel-driven import shocks; the doubling down on fossil fuels risks further weakening our macroeconomic position.

The logical and durable solution to the crisis points in the opposite direction: an accelerated and rapid decarbonisation of the UK’s energy system through a decade-long sprint to 100 per cent clean power, matched with an ambitious green retrofit of the housing stock to improve energy efficiency and help eliminate fuel poverty.

This briefing explores the potential for a new institution to support the first of these vital tasks: a publicly-owned power generation company — Public Power Britain, or PPB [1] — whose mission would be to accelerate the shift to a 100 per cent green, low-cost and secure energy system within a decade by generating between 40-50GW of renewable power by 2030. In doing so, it would help create a clean energy system faster, fairer and more affordably than leaving development of renewable generation purely to the foreign state-owned entities, private equity actors, and multinationals that currently dominate the renewable sector, while ensuring the public directly benefits from the UK’s common resources.

PPB would not nationalise existing clean generation nor would it play a passive and minority investor role. Instead, PPB would invest in, build, operate and maintain a range of new clean energy infrastructures, including both proven and frontier technologies: offshore and onshore wind, tidal stream and lagoon power, zero carbon hydrogen, and solar, among others. It would generate and sell electricity to households and businesses through an integrated public supply company, using a Power Purchasing Agreement between the public generator and supplier. This would bypass the wholesale private market and its marginal pricing system, which artificially inflates the cost of renewable energy by hooking it to the price of fossil fuels, thereby allowing clean, abundant energy to be sold at low cost.

Unlike the present approach, in which private financing, market-based governance and profit-focused goals guide the development, generation and pricing of clean power, PPB would build out a renewable future based on public financing, social governance and democratic planning to meet urgent climate and energy needs.

Our renewable riches are already substantially in public ownership, they are, however, held by other governments. Currently 82.2 per cent of all current and pending UK offshore wind capacity is foreign-owned. This includes a striking 44.2 per cent of current offshore wind generation owned by public foreign ownership, including through state-owned and controlled enterprises, and 38 per cent of pending capacity; meaning 42.2 per cent of the UK’s current and pending offshore wind capacity is in foreign public ownership in some form (see Figure 1). By contrast, just 0.03 per cent is owned by UK public entities, less than the Malaysian government (0.1 per cent) or the city of Munich (0.85 per cent). [2] Public ownership of renewables is already widespread, but the benefits are mainly reaped beyond our shores. Last year alone, for example, our energy bills combined with Contracts for Difference payments contributed to ?2.56 billion in payments to offshore wind generators owned by foreign state-owned entities.

The bold is of particular interest to me, though I can't really say that having one's energy capacity being owned/operated by Nordics is such a terrible circumstance for a country.

26019
26020


Public Power Britain can correct this imbalance, ensuring that the power of the sun, wind and the waves are harnessed for all of us. In the process, a national energy champion delivering green domestically-produced power would act as a powerful tool to deliver:

A lower cost of capital for developing clean energy infrastructure. The energy transition will be capital-intensive; a public company could borrow to invest at lower rates than competitors, helping lower the overall cost of investment.

Cheaper energy bills for households and businesses. A public company would enjoy cheaper development costs, reduce or eliminate dividend payments, and can bypass the private energy market's marginal pricing system, all of which can help reduce bills relative to the status quo. The TUC estimate that if the UK today had a public energy champion like EDF (France), EnBW (Germany), or Vattenfall (Sweden), the UK government could use the excess profits made - equivalent to between ?2,250 and ?4,400 per UK household - to reduce bills and accelerate home insulation roll-out. [4] Moreover, Ember estimates a 100 per cent clean energy system would save households ?93 billion over the rest of this decade.

Reduced emissions by accelerating to 100 per cent clean power within the decade. Despite progress, 44.3 per cent of electrical power in Britain in the past year came from fossil fuels, [5] and the energy supply sector is the second largest emitting sector, accounting for an estimated 23.6 per cent of UK CO2 emissions in 2021. By accelerating the transition, with a goal of investing to create 40-50GW of clean energy within a decade, a public company can deliver a major emissions reduction in the power sector. [6] This would be ambitious, but on a similar scale to the roll-out of renewables by public energy companies in France, Baden- W?rttemberg (Germany), and Sweden. [7]

Support for an active green industrial strategy and the creation of good unionised jobs. While the renewables sector has played an important role in decarbonising electricity generation in the UK, working conditions could be better. A public company can help give weight to a market-shaping industrial strategy, onshore vital supply chains, set high employment standards including strong union recognition, institute sectoral collective bargaining, and improve coordination of the transition.

Ensure the public benefit directly from the development of common resources. The largest public owner of UK wind energy is ?rsted. Alone, ?rsted owns 29.1 per cent of existing capacity and 19.6 per cent of aggregated UK offshore wind capacity, both operational and under construction. Privatising the future of clean energy cedes significant control over and the shared riches of the wind, sun and tide to publicly owned entities, multinationals, and private equity firms, that enrich the citizenry of other mostly European countries, or wealthy investors. Indeed, the TUC has found that due to past decisions to privatise the UK's power plants and the lack of public ownership of electricity generation means the government will miss out on ?63 billion - ?122 billion of direct income over the coming two years. [8]

Boost energy security and provide macroeconomic stability. Exposure to imported fossil fuels has proven a source of acute vulnerability for the UK, underpinning the cost of living crisis while providing a source of income to authoritarian petro-states we import oil and gas from. By accelerating our shift towards domestic energy production, a public company would increase clean energy exports from the UK, reduce the geopolitical leverage of petro-states, and, by decreasing our exposure to imported energy costs, it would help tame imported inflationary pressures that are now compelling policymakers to manufacture deliberate recessions.

Taken together, the case for a public green energy champion is clear: reduced bills, ambitious climate action, good jobs. In the process, if the nature of a country's energy system inevitably structure its economic and political systems, Public Power Britain can lay the foundations for a post-carbon future of inclusive and sustainable prosperity.

[Furunculus]

Just not sure it is necessary.

Once gov't makes a policy choice, provided it sticks to it, commits to it, and see it through, the only problem we'll have is energy storage as the UK will have significant over-capacity of generation in 10-15 years.

The reason we have a problem now is that gov't of all stripes have vacillated over energy policy for 25 years.

Build nuclear - to cover baseload.
Ensure the greatest possible percentage of fossil fuels are domestically sourced - to aid balance of payments if nothing else.
Trial, deploy, and scale storage solutions to solve the intermitency problem - companies like RheEnergise.

Making a British EDF that is effectively bankrupt and sueing the Fr Gov't doesn't seem like it will move the dial.

[Montmorency]

Build nuclear - to cover baseload.

I don't think countries will be managing that without fairly significant public ownership or management of the projects anyway, even if it's one of those lower-rent experimental designs.


Making a British EDF that is effectively bankrupt and sueing the Fr Gov't doesn't seem like it will move the dial.

So - should EDF, ?rsted, Vattenfall, etc. be encouraged to build and maintain a larger share of UK energy production than they do now? I don't rule it out, but maybe you'd like more nominal sovereignty in management (moreover to capture the revenue). Also provides another vector to invest in other countries, as we see is already common practice, boosting that balance of payments.

[Furunculus]

Certainly the focus in the UK is to roll out Rolls Royces small modular reactors as swifty as possibly, alongside the existing new build approvals of larger legacy reactors.

[Montmorency]

lmao what

Maybe British political culture is salvageable after all if such responsiveness to conditions (however temporary) is still possible.

https://i.imgur.com/HseSMQz.png

[Furunculus]

It's no surprise after 12 years in government:

The party gets tired of the 'rigour' of government, and becomes more shambolic in execution and messaging.
The public gets tired of old messages and old prescriptions that have not realised the gains the party promised.

I don't know exactly how much of the current furore is media hyperventilation and manufactured outrage vs a complete collapse of discipline and competence in the tory party. The two are in tension, and its not immediately obvious to me where the balance lies.
------------------
The current crisis seems to be caused principally by:

The mini-budget making the UK a policy outlier which is never a good place to be with regards the bond/gilt vigilantes.
The mini-budget being a significant departure in policy for a succession Prime Minister with a 'caretaker' mandate for the last electoral manifesto.

There is nothing wild in the mini-budget. The top-rate cut was a mere ?2b in revenue. Chicken feed. The reversal of a future NI increase was a reversion to the status quo. The reversal of a future CT increase was a reversion to the status quo. The 1p cut in basic rate IT is dwarfed by the totality of IT/NI/eNI. What mattered was the messaging and the mandate.
------------------
Comment - I support the removal of the 45p top-rate IT as I don't believe it is moral to remove so much earnings from anyone, and I believe it would have been at worst revenue neutral, but you can't argue with manufactured outrage. So I would not have done it now, for a mere ?2b change.
------------------
Even outside the manufactured outrage it's hard to argue that the tory party is no longer interested in governing, and i don't want an un-serious party in power. As soon as they achieve the following:

CTTP (and hopefully the India trade deal too).
Some kind of reset/agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol.

I'm quite happy for the gov't to collapse, an election called, and the tory party begin a ten year period of opposition in order to regain their appetite for governance. Let Labour deal with the facts on the ground.

[spmetla]

Truss is certainly doing a terrible job, was hoping the other dude would get the job but she played to the base better and as a result the UK has short sighted poorly executed financial decisions.

[Montmorency]

It's no surprise after 12 years in government:

The party gets tired of the 'rigour' of government, and becomes more shambolic in execution and messaging.
The public gets tired of old messages and old prescriptions that have not realised the gains the party promised.

I don't know exactly how much of the current furore is media hyperventilation and manufactured outrage vs a complete collapse of discipline and competence in the tory party. The two are in tension, and its not immediately obvious to me where the balance lies.
------------------
The current crisis seems to be caused principally by:

The mini-budget making the UK a policy outlier which is never a good place to be with regards the bond/gilt vigilantes.
The mini-budget being a significant departure in policy for a succession Prime Minister with a 'caretaker' mandate for the last electoral manifesto.


The current crisis obviously has deeper and broader causes than a proposed budget, reflecting global conditions and decades of structural policy. It definitely seems the budget specifically is responsible for some market movements and moreover a big stink among the electorate.


Comment - I support the removal of the 45p top-rate IT as I don't believe it is moral to remove so much earnings from anyone, and I believe it would have been at worst revenue neutral, but you can't argue with manufactured outrage. So I would not have done it now, for a mere ?2b change.

Of course this is a rather unpopular position. Not even the US Republican Party commonly makes this kind of categorical argument for its tax cut proposals, since it is an intuition even among conservative voters globally that high earners should pay a higher proportion of income in taxes. Maybe that's why this month the UK government announced the cancellation of the rate drop because "it is clear that the abolition of the 45p tax rate has become a distraction from our overriding mission to tackle the challenges facing our country." But yes, cutting base income tax rates and corporate tax will cause at least ten times the shortfall of dropping the top income tax bracket, probably because traditional income tax does not capture the surplus from high earners well. The totality of the proposal is still, reportedly, the largest tax cut proposal in the UK for 50 years - hardly chicken feed. It's not wild in the history of supply-siding tax cuts, but it's virtually always terrible fiscal policy.

Latest news is that the corporate cut was dropped as well.

It's always tricky to balance values with economics. Some argue that the fundamental tenant-landlord relationship is immorally inequitable and we should move toward its abolition, but understand that such policies would have the short-term effect of crushing housing availability, which is a more important consideration.

At any rate, cutting taxes while borrowing tens of billions to pay for energy subsidies during a time of low unemployment, significant currency depreciation, domestic asset dumping, and central bank rate increases is Argentina-tier economics. Like Argentina, the United Kingdom is bound to always have a bright future ahead.

Beyond the UK, this paper may be proving prescient.
https://www.bis.org/publ/work656.pdf

[Furunculus]

Of course this is a rather unpopular position. Not even the US Republican Party commonly makes this kind of categorical argument for its tax cut proposals, since it is an intuition even among conservative voters globally that high earners should pay a higher proportion of income in taxes.

There may be a misunderstanding here:
It is entirely my position that high earners should pay a higher proportion of income taxes.

And in the UK they do.
0% up to ?12.5k
20% up to ?50.0
40% up to ?100k(?)

The small cohort of very highest earners already pay something like three quarters of all income tax.
And that would not change with abolishing the 45p rate, in all likelyhood the revenue received by the exchequer would increase.

It's worth saying that in the UK when all taxation and benefits are considered all households on average lose about 1/3 of their what they earn to the exchequer. I am very comfortable with this.

[Montmorency]

There may be a misunderstanding here:
It is entirely my position that high earners should pay a higher proportion of income taxes.

But you said a 45% marginal tax rate was immoral for removing too much of earnings. I don't know why 40% would be appropriate but 45% would be downright immoral.



And that would not change with abolishing the 45p rate, in all likelyhood the revenue received by the exchequer would increase.

I am not aware of many historical instances of such supply-side revenue effects; I might even have seen them in the latest edition of Grimms'?


2022-23 tax year (6 April 2022 – 5 April 2023)
England/Wales/Northern Ireland tax band Taxable income Income tax rate
Personal allowance Up to ?12,570 0%
Basic rate ?12,571–50,270 20%
Higher rate ?50,271–150,000 40%
Additional rate ?150,001+ 45%

Taxing ?150,001+ at 40% would almost certainly not increase treasury revenues.


The small cohort of very highest earners already pay something like three quarters of all income tax.
It's worth saying that in the UK when all taxation and benefits are considered all households on average lose about 1/3 of their what they earn to the exchequer. I am very comfortable with this.

In the US in 1945 those reporting $100K income and up (millionaires in today's money) paid approximately a 50% effective total tax rate. While this of course dropped following WW2, rich people tended to pay over a 30% effective total tax rate until the late 20th century. Successive tax cuts have brought the effective rates of the lower and middle classes up slightly while reducing the effective liability of the top 1% to about 25%. And the federal income tax system in the US is more progressive than in the UK (overall, despite lower top rates, because more brackets and a very complex credit/deduction system).

The share of just federal income tax paid by the top 1% has been around 40% in recent years. I don't really know how things work in the UK, but according to the UK govt the 97th percentile for before-tax income is about ?100K. ?150+K is already like 99th percentile, constituting the wealthy stratum in any society above hunter-gatherer (even if puny in comparison to America's). Seeing as middle and lower-class taxpayers in Europe, including the UK as cited here, traditionally pay much more in tax than their American counterparts, I doubt that the richest in the UK pay 3/4 of the equivalent to national income tax. I could believe that for the top 50% or 25% of earners.

...

Seems I'm correct with around the top 25% for 75% of income tax, as the top 10% paid 60%. It might be heartening to see that this has increased from 50% at the turn of the millennium, depending on how national income distribution has shifted. And a helpful illustration of the difference between income tax alone and total tax: "the 50% of households with the largest incomes contribute around 78% of taxes."
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513

The reason I remarked that income tax doesn't capture the surplus of the wealthy well is that so much of their real income is in long-term capital gains.

[rory_20_uk]

High earners require the society they live in to both earn and enjoy the wealth. That's why you can have live in London, enjoy restaurants, world class galleries / theatres etc with little risk of being attacked out, having one's home robbed or one's nearest and dearest kidnapped for ransom.

Yes, the problem of treating "income" from a job (which the peasants have) and from ownership of assets (which the richer have so much more of) differently is oh so beneficial. I say that (now) as someone who works via their own (tiny) company and would be able to take "entrepreneurs relief" on up to ?10 million should I shut the company down. So I pay 19% income tax, and can then take the rest after paying massively less tax. Oh, and of course no NI either. So yes I limit my income to what I need and at some point in the future I can just close it down and get a decent amount of money whilst paying little tax. Scale that up to billionaires, and the effective tax rate drops into single figures.

There are ways to tax capital on an ongoing basis - in the UK for example, there is a system if money is left in a Trust there is a tax to pay on total wealth. But unsurprisingly those with the most to loose are very reluctant to help others.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

High earners require the society they live in to both earn and enjoy the wealth. That's why you can have live in London, enjoy restaurants, world class galleries / theatres etc with little risk of being attacked out, having one's home robbed or one's nearest and dearest kidnapped for ransom.

Yes, the problem of treating "income" from a job (which the peasants have) and from ownership of assets (which the richer have so much more of) differently is oh so beneficial. I say that (now) as someone who works via their own (tiny) company and would be able to take "entrepreneurs relief" on up to ?10 million should I shut the company down. So I pay 19% income tax, and can then take the rest after paying massively less tax. Oh, and of course no NI either. So yes I limit my income to what I need and at some point in the future I can just close it down and get a decent amount of money whilst paying little tax. Scale that up to billionaires, and the effective tax rate drops into single figures.

There are ways to tax capital on an ongoing basis - in the UK for example, there is a system if money is left in a Trust there is a tax to pay on total wealth. But unsurprisingly those with the most to loose are very reluctant to help others.

~:smoking:

One of my parents was on a business trip to Russia during the 1990s. While eating at a restaurant, armed men walked in, assassinated someone at a nearby table point-blank, apologized to the patrons, and left. To use someone's turn of phrase, there are violent entrepreneurs and there are non-violent entrepreneurs. Granted the latter outsource and diffuse a lot of their violence in practice, but the former have the edge over the latter in all cases unless they can rustle up a protection racket known as an independent state and police force. But you have to pay the operating fee for all that, and it's a lot higher than minarchists would like to believe, because it also requires a robust civil society...


Unrelated scandal (NYT, Sky News): Large numbers of British - and perhaps other NATO - specialist veterans have been recruited by the Chinese government to train and advise the PLA. Actually this is a common practice with NATO countries, including the US - officers and specialists by the hundreds hire themselves out as advisors to all sorts of shady countries (WaPo). Sometimes they even advise coups (https://theintercept.com/2022/03/09/intercepted-podcast-africa-coup/), of which Africa may have experienced a record number in the past year. Indeed, Africa has been getting non-stop more violent and terroristy the more we've gotten militarily involved in it, and I'm pretty sure none of this instability is even a deliberate policy. The US mil-sec establishment is terrible at doing anything other than winning conventional wars. Maybe the government should think up alternative policies to promote stability abroad.....


EDIT: While I like the way this sentence sounds, it's fun to indicate it as an example of a dangling participle.


While eating at a restaurant, armed men walked in, assassinated someone at a nearby table point-blank, apologized to the patrons, and left.

[Furunculus]

Runners and Riders:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PRufWhh2YAoxPUJEXeVaEOe7rcT1IINOXijeLI6o9Cc/htmlview?pru=AAABhB4PzVc*yzF8ULgmT-sTRBuWdbgchw#gid=0

Tories are going to lose the next general election - only really a question of how they want to get there.

Do they want:
a) a centrist grey-man who promises not to do anything exciting but try and push through the agreed program
b) a progressive/pro-eu actor who will attempt to push the party towards greater (dynamic?) alignment with EU regs
c) the sugar rush of a supply-side reformer (take2) who will attempt to capitalise on the freedom to realign away from EU norms

a) might get all the way out to Autumn 2024, b) and c) will be lucky to get beyond Spring 2023.

speaking personally - i want a) with the sole objective of finalising accession in CPTPP (and India too is poss), creating some kind of stability in NI, and finishing a status-quo re-review of the "IR" defence and foriegn policy agenda.

[Montmorency]

Runners and Riders:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PRufWhh2YAoxPUJEXeVaEOe7rcT1IINOXijeLI6o9Cc/htmlview?pru=AAABhB4PzVc*yzF8ULgmT-sTRBuWdbgchw#gid=0

Tories are going to lose the next general election - only really a question of how they want to get there.

That's the spirit? Maybe it's too far to say that sentiment always reverts to the mean, but there is nothing the Labour Party can do to maintain outright majority support for 2 years.


a) a centrist grey-man who promises not to do anything exciting but try and push through the agreed program
b) a progressive/pro-eu actor who will attempt to push the party towards greater (dynamic?) alignment with EU regs
c) the sugar rush of a supply-side reformer (take2) who will attempt to capitalise on the freedom to realign away from EU norms

Is - is Boris Johnson seriously a Top 2 contender? Again? He's not Trump you know.

[Furunculus]

Is - is Boris Johnson seriously a Top 2 contender? Again? He's not Trump you know.
he may end up transferring his support to Mordant.

But whether he is a serious contender is down to his electability not his resemblance (or lack thereof) to trump.

Unless that is more a question about the polarisation of the electorate than the man himself?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/uk-prime-minister-liz-truss-resigns-democracy-wins/671803/

[Montmorency]

Unless that is more a question about the polarisation of the electorate than the man himself?

More just failing miserably yet casting about for opportunities to have another go at it. The premise is that Trump is on another level and this is like one more of Johnson's unconscious pretensions at that pinnacle. (In that vein maybe Johnson the classicist would even cite Pisistratus in his own defense.)


But whether he is a serious contender is down to his electability not his resemblance (or lack thereof) to trump.

The Outer Party members who please themselves to manifest his electability are particularly messed up Britons, though I suppose that was the case in 2019 already.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/uk-prime-minister-liz-truss-resigns-democracy-wins/671803/

This just references the common and well-researched flaw of presidential systems. A prime minister is registered as just another bureaucrat and has little prospect of attaining the symbolic stature of a Bronze Age god-king. Though I do think it's pretty inefficient that an executive selected from the body of a legislature should also have to continue fulfilling legislative duties, as British PMs do.

[Furunculus]

What/who are Outer Party members?

[Montmorency]

The party membership eligible to vote in leadership contests per the party constitution.

[Montmorency]

Note: Racism will not benefit China as a country or the CCP as an institution. (Nor will attempting to suppress women, but that's another developing story.)
https://twitter.com/GeringTuvia/status/1585160127271038976


"Truss' political career was shattered in a flash by the baizuo's (white left) political correctness" - Mei Xinyu, an economist pundit, attributes the fall of the Truss administration to the selection of meritless "blacks," "Indians," and "female officials".


"The reason for this is that the most notable feature of this cabinet was not its meritocracy, nor was it a cabinet of people of high caliber. Rather, it was the unprecedented level of "political correctness".

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, and the other members of the "Great Offices of State" were not held by white men of native British descent, but were instead infused with the heavy-handed style of Black Lives Matter" 黑命贵风格浓郁:

"Truss appointed Suella Braverman, a woman of Indian descent, as Home Secretary, while Th?r?se Coffey was appointed as Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Despite being white, she's a woman nonetheless.

"If you ignore actual talents and choose only minorities, women, and even non-straight men as a form of "political correctness," your government will collapse sooner or later. The more time you keep doing this, the more spectacular will be your downfall.
15/

See also (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0DJlSqlmEw)

[Montmorency]

Pinned: Labour expected to gain 1000+ seats in May local elections based on historical precedent. <500 would be a major defeat. 1500+ would be a major victory.

[Furunculus]

Pinned: Labour expected to gain 1000+ seats in May local elections based on historical precedent. <500 would be a major defeat. 1500+ would be a major victory.

seems pretty reasonable.

after 13 yrs of tory government it would be expected for the tories to struggle to maintain support, and local elections are usually the first and deepest hits to expose the cracks in their public appeal.

[Montmorency]

Joe Biden gaffe alert: @POTUS just said his rugby player cousin @KearneyRob “beat the hell out of the Black and Tans”….instead of the @AllBlacks - @SmurphyTV

[Montmorency]

Computationally-perfect (https://twitter.com/undertheraedar/status/1661383163988393987) division of the UK:

https://i.imgur.com/S8woAPo.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/NN4YVzY.jpg

[Montmorency]

heh (https://twitter.com/APHClarkson/status/1790101695604592645)

[Montmorency]

If 4 years ago I had concluded that Labour would need at least 40% of the vote to expect a majority, but I did not anticipate such a large vote-split between Tories and BNP, nor such effective targeting by Labour and LibDems. The SNP did indeed get crushed though, offering up 3 dozen seats to Labour. No idea what effect redistricting had.

I wonder if anyone in the UK will admit, following one of the most lopsided results (ratios) in British history, that maybe pure FPTP is a little wack.

[Xantan]

First past the post system in UK politics always yielded lopsided or generally odd results, the pendulum from one election to another can swing enormously in one way or another.

I just hope we get to leave behind the Brexit bickering, it's doing no one any good. Even after what, 8 years?

[rory_20_uk]

If 4 years ago I had concluded that Labour would need at least 40% of the vote to expect a majority, but I did not anticipate such a large vote-split between Tories and BNP, nor such effective targeting by Labour and LibDems. The SNP did indeed get crushed though, offering up 3 dozen seats to Labour. No idea what effect redistricting had.

I wonder if anyone in the UK will admit, following one of the most lopsided results (ratios) in British history, that maybe pure FPTP is a little wack.

Yes Prime Minister called this out in the 1970s - the system almost always benefits the incumbents and major opposition so reform is always at best delayed.

After WW2, the Allies created Germany's system and then all chose to not implement something similar.

~:smoking: