Quo Vadis Labour?

[InsaneApache]

No one I know and I mean no one, voted for Labour this last election. To put this into perspective, most of my friends used to vote Labour but now say they never will again. Good.

The question is what went wrong?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Could someone toss out a 50ish word precis on the state of the conflict in question?

[rory_20_uk]

How on EARTH has Labour screwed up so bad that people look at Johnson and go "yes, we want him"?

I think that between the very left of centre Big State policies that have been going on for 18 months on now by the Tories and the shared trauma of Corbyn close to being PM and of course the current Head of the Labour party is Sir Kier Stirmer, QC - representing a borough in London - or to put it another way, a proper member of the Elite and an Egghead to boot.

That local elections have individuals associated with political parties is something that should not be a thing (as it ends up as a mid-term popularity contest) and this is why votes for local individuals is solely seen through the prism of how this matters in Westminster.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Could someone toss out a 50ish word precis on the state of the conflict in question?

As seen in rory's post, the two main parties are held to different standards. The complaint about Starmer is that he is as much an establishment figure as you can get. Except that the Tory leader was born to privilege, was brought up in privilege (the same educational route as the 2010-16 PM David Cameron), and has never held what you may call a "proper job". Compare with the Labour leader who was born to traditional Labour-oriented working parents, whose route to his current position came via his own ability, and whose knighthood came from services to the state outside politics. The Tory leader received everything he's got via his birth and class, the Labour leader received everything he's got via his own work. Yet Starmer is criticised as the establishment figure.

Keir Starmer: father was a toolmaker, mother was a nurse, went to a grammar school (a publicly funded school for the top n percentage of students). Studied law at Leeds university. Was a highly rated lawyer and served in the top legal positions, for which he received a knighthood. All this before taking up politics.

Boris Johnson: father was born of various aristocratic lines, mother is an artist. Went to various boarding schools (the traditional prep for the upper class), ending up in Eton (the most established of pre-university schools). Studied classics at Oxford. Worked in various journalistic posts, but made his name on the news satire show Have I Got News For You. Prior to becoming PM, had a bad reputation at every post he was at, with a reputation for laziness and disregard for truth (cf. his editor at the Telegraph who said that Johnson is unsuitable for any responsible role, his civil servants at the Foreign Ministry who called him the worst foreign secretary in living memory, etc.).

But Keir Starmer is the proper member of the Elite.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As seen in rory's post, the two main parties are held to different standards. The complaint about Starmer is that he is as much an establishment figure as you can get. Except that the Tory leader was born to privilege, was brought up in privilege (the same educational route as the 2010-16 PM David Cameron), and has never held what you may call a "proper job". Compare with the Labour leader who was born to traditional Labour-oriented working parents, whose route to his current position came via his own ability, and whose knighthood came from services to the state outside politics. The Tory leader received everything he's got via his birth and class, the Labour leader received everything he's got via his own work. Yet Starmer is criticised as the establishment figure.

Keir Starmer: father was a toolmaker, mother was a nurse, went to a grammar school (a publicly funded school for the top n percentage of students). Studied law at Leeds university. Was a highly rated lawyer and served in the top legal positions, for which he received a knighthood. All this before taking up politics.

Boris Johnson: father was born of various aristocratic lines, mother is an artist. Went to various boarding schools (the traditional prep for the upper class), ending up in Eton (the most established of pre-university schools). Studied classics at Oxford. Worked in various journalistic posts, but made his name on the news satire show Have I Got News For You. Prior to becoming PM, had a bad reputation at every post he was at, with a reputation for laziness and disregard for truth (cf. his editor at the Telegraph who said that Johnson is unsuitable for any responsible role, his civil servants at the Foreign Ministry who called him the worst foreign secretary in living memory, etc.).

But Keir Starmer is the proper member of the Elite.

Western side of "The Pond" orgah thanks.

[Furunculus]

Could someone toss out a 50ish word precis on the state of the conflict in question?

The core of the issue is that a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with:

Hundreds of new Councillors (when local 'mid-terms' are seen as an opportunity to kick the Gov't).
Control of up to a dozen new councils (ditto above - and the base from which future GE's are fought with advantage).
Increasing its seats and mayoral vote in London (labour stronghold).
Holding firm what should have been short terms gains in Scotland (a rare place where Boris is an electoral negative).
Making huge gains in labour dominated Wales (where Labour's Mark Drakeford is recognised as having had a 'good' pandemic).

There is a problem here, and no-one can really explain why:

Yes, we can point at labour's problems as an effective opposition, and we can point to the incumbency benefit of crisis management, but on the principle that elections are "lost by the gov't, rather than won by the opposition" - what the hell are the tories doing that is making them so popular!

We all sort of recognise that the answer is that:
1. There is a broader social/cultural realignment going on, and the Tories are better able to exloit it in electorally useful ways.
"But how? Tell me what it is that is so bloody appealing about Tories!"
2. Political parties only survive long-term by a ruthless and relentless adaptation to changing circumstances, and Tories are good at it.
"But how? Why do they keep re-inventing themselves when other movements burn out after a century or so!"

It's utterly fascinating, and thoroughly perplexing. The conundrum delights me - as I love the evolution of political culture - but it's driving many people potty...

I'm old enough to have seen a number of prolonged slumps in Tory popularity. Each slump peppered with individual scandals dragging them still further down, that result in glorious exultation from opposition supporters:
"The Tories are obsolescent, through their callous self-interest totally incapable of commanding public support. Terminal decline! This is our time, and the progressive alliance of social-democrats is ascendant."
Heard this before, plenty, and I've learnt enough to smile wryly when i hear it again:
"Really, you haven't noticed how throughout history the Tories have borg'ed their opposition's electoral niche?"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2021/may/06/2021-elections-results-may-local-scottish-welsh-polls

[Montmorency]

The core of the issue is that a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with:

Hundreds of new Councillors (when local 'mid-terms' are seen as an opportunity to kick the Gov't).
Control of up to a dozen new councils (ditto above - and the base from which future GE's are fought with advantage).
Increasing its seats and mayoral vote in London (labour stronghold).
Holding firm what should have been short terms gains in Scotland (a rare place where Boris is an electoral negative).
Making huge gains in labour dominated Wales (where Labour's Mark Drakeford is recognised as having had a 'good' pandemic).

There is a problem here, and no-one can really explain why:

Yes, we can point at labour's problems as an effective opposition, and we can point to the incumbency benefit of crisis management, but on the principle that elections are "lost by the gov't, rather than won by the opposition" - what the hell are the tories doing that is making them so popular!

We all sort of recognise that the answer is that:
1. There is a broader social/cultural realignment going on, and the Tories are better able to exloit it in electorally useful ways.
"But how? Tell me what it is that is so bloody appealing about Tories!"
2. Political parties only survive long-term by a ruthless and relentless adaptation to changing circumstances, and Tories are good at it.
"But how? Why do they keep re-inventing themselves when other movements burn out after a century or so!"

It's utterly fascinating, and thoroughly perplexing. The conundrum delights me - as I love the evolution of political culture - but it's driving many people potty...

I'm old enough to have seen a number of prolonged slumps in Tory popularity. Each slump peppered with individual scandals dragging them still further down, that result in glorious exultation from opposition supporters:
"The Tories are obsolescent, through their callous self-interest totally incapable of commanding public support. Terminal decline! This is our time, and the progressive alliance of social-democrats is ascendant."
Heard this before, plenty, and I've learnt enough to smile wryly when i hear it again:
"Really, you haven't noticed how throughout history the Tories have borg'ed their opposition's electoral niche?"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2021/may/06/2021-elections-results-may-local-scottish-welsh-polls

Using the election reporting link above:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2021/may/06/2021-elections-results-may-local-scottish-welsh-polls


From the 2019 election Wiki, in those elections the Conservatives lost more than 1000 council seats, mostly to LibDems and other third parties (such as UKIP). From that perspective it was inevitable they should regain some in a reversion to a mean, both from the Euroskeptic UKIP/BP-voting end of the party and from the pro-EU end of the party that tended to support LibDems in 2019.

In 2021 from what I can find the Labour vote share is pretty much the same as it was in 2019. The loss of 250+ seats, alongside 70 Green gains, suggests that overall Conservatives are benefiting in a lot of close elections from voters returning from third parties, whereas the opposite is affecting Labour. The widespread sentiment of recovery from the pandemic will always help an incumbent party here, by the by.

As for Tories undermining their opposition by assimilating policies into their platform, this appears superficial, as the Conservatives rarely live up to their promises (e.g. Johnson and NHS). The political system as a whole does matter here, and it must always be pointed out that neither major party is really capable of commanding majority support under normal circumstances.
Something I don't know: the LibDems, having coalesced in the late 80s/early 90s, became a major third party once more in time for the Blair era, a time of massive Labour majorities; did LibDems mostly poach Conservative voters back then (as compared to Labour voters now)?

As we've discussed before, third parties like LibDems, Greens, and especially SNP participating at elevated levels in all the wrong places makes it almost impossible for Labour to form even a bare majority under any but the heaviest landslides - even as a majority-to-supermajority of the country dislikes the Conservative party. The collapse of reactionary parties on the Tory flank meanwhile consolidates Conservative votes - Brexit is thus a winner for the Brexiting party until the opposition can persuasively demonstrate harms to the country. For a possible analogy, it took around 20 years for US accession to NAFTA to become an animating controversy again!

Speaking of SNP, I think it's inevitable now that Scotland leaves. In 2014, the referendum was 45-55 for Remain. In 2015, the SNP finally became a major party by swapping like 50 seats in Scotland from Labour. Over the past 5 years, Brexit has been a thing, which Scottish people tend to dislike very much. In 2017 and 2019, the SNP more or less entirely maintained its massive gains from 2015 at Labour's expense. What this all amounts to is:

1. The next Labour government will rely on the SNP to form a majority
2. SNP will demand a referendum
3. Leave will be heavily favored to win the referendum
4. Labour will be widely blamed (if unfairly) for losing Scotland
5. Even if that resentment fades in England, the loss of Scottish seats is a permanent handicap for Labour (since so long as Scotland remains in the UK Labour can at least theoretically retrench on SNP)

In terms of (very) vulgar cyclicalism, I might predict Labour ought to take government in 2024/5 on the basis that no Conservative government has lasted more than ~15 years since the the pre-Victorian era (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTqtdK-sqqE) (cf. Cameron government from 2010). It's crude reasoning though, and I'll laugh if it works out to be so simple.

[Montmorency]

Note of confusion.

Looking further at the history of local elections, are they actually staggered? That is, 2019 elections involved seats last contested in 2015, which are different than seats contested in 2016, these latter being the ones contested in 2021 (following postponement of elections from 2020)?

[Furunculus]

Note of confusion.

Looking further at the history of local elections, are they actually staggered? That is, 2019 elections involved seats last contested in 2015, which are different than seats contested in 2016, these latter being the ones contested in 2021 (following postponement of elections from 2020)?

Yes, they are staggered.
The English LA elections should have been last year, and there is I think a split between the rural authorities (on year) vs rural authorities (off year).
This was something of a 'super-election' as the delay meant the election coincided with lots of Mayoral and Welsh/Scottish election.

[Furunculus]

From the 2019 election Wiki, in those elections the Conservatives lost more than 1000 council seats, mostly to LibDems and other third parties (such as UKIP). From that perspective it was inevitable they should regain some in a reversion to a mean, both from the Euroskeptic UKIP/BP-voting end of the party and from the pro-EU end of the party that tended to support LibDems in 2019.

In 2021 from what I can find the Labour vote share is pretty much the same as it was in 2019. The loss of 250+ seats, alongside 70 Green gains, suggests that overall Conservatives are benefiting in a lot of close elections from voters returning from third parties, whereas the opposite is affecting Labour. The widespread sentiment of recovery from the pandemic will always help an incumbent party here, by the by.

All of this is true, but it still leaves the following as the biggest question:
"a Tory party now 11 years in government - having presided over massive and divisive policy problems around austerity/brexit/covid - should not be coming out of local elections with [a smile on its face]"
With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE.


Speaking of SNP, I think it's inevitable now that Scotland leaves. In 2014, the referendum was 45-55 for Remain. In 2015, the SNP finally became a major party by swapping like 50 seats in Scotland from Labour. Over the past 5 years, Brexit has been a thing, which Scottish people tend to dislike very much. In 2017 and 2019, the SNP more or less entirely maintained its massive gains from 2015 at Labour's expense.


I'm not sure there is any certainty on this.
If they decide to leave, so be it, but i'm relatively confident they will decide not to.


Something I don't know: the LibDems, having coalesced in the late 80s/early 90s, became a major third party once more in time for the Blair era, a time of massive Labour majorities; did LibDems mostly poach Conservative voters back then (as compared to Labour voters now)?
The Liberals (pre Democrats) were THE major force in politics alongside the Tories until the start of the twentieth century, after which point they ceased to be able to represent the interests of a broad and election winning swathe of society.
The labour movement provided better answers. Now, a century later it seems to be that the labour movement has run out of answers to questions that interest a broad and election winning swathe of society.
And yet centuries roll by and Tory's keep winning, why?

If you want my answer - off the back of Baron Hailsham's logic, it is:
"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."
An attitude doesn't go out of date - and in not being rooted to ideological precepts that circumstance renders obsolete it is easier for 'conservatism' to move with the times.
i.e. to die in a ditch defending now that which they died in a ditch resisting a century previous.

[Montmorency]

With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE.

Say more.


I'm not sure there is any certainty on this.
If they decide to leave, so be it, but i'm relatively confident they will decide not to.

Shouldn't the overwhelming - and historically-recent! - success of pro-independence politics, in combination of the near-success of the independence referendum just prior to the maturation of the rise of pro-independence politics, belie this estimation?


The Liberals (pre Democrats) were THE major force in politics alongside the Tories until the start of the twentieth century, after which point they ceased to be able to represent the interests of a broad and election winning swathe of society.
The labour movement provided better answers. Now, a century later it seems to be that the labour movement has run out of answers to questions that interest a broad and election winning swathe of society.

And so were the Whigs before the Liberals, though here it is important to note that Labour continues to draw a swathe of society broad enough to almost match the Conservatives numerically, something the Liberals/LibDems have not been able to claim in over a century - it's just not election-winning. In the history of political parties fading from the scene, I am not aware of any in Labour's contemporary position.

I repeat, indeed intensify: no political party in the United Kingdom is capable of winning a majority of the vote. Structural factors have more relevance than intensional ones.

Edit: To say a little more, the contemporary LibDems seem to have hardly any natural constituency. Their votes tend to be major-party voters protesting against their customary parties. The core base of the LibDems, such as it may be, is possibly hardly bigger than that of the Greens.


And yet centuries roll by and Tory's keep winning, why?

If you want my answer - off the back of Baron Hailsham's logic, it is:
"Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself."
An attitude doesn't go out of date - and in not being rooted to ideological precepts that circumstance renders obsolete it is easier for 'conservatism' to move with the times.

Yes, the Right always has a constituency, that's not a groundbreaking observation.

Evergreen observation:


Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

Conservatism also arguably has the distinction of the longest track record of failure and disaster in philosophical history.


i.e. to die in a ditch defending now that which they died in a ditch resisting a century previous.

This is a rather uncommon sort of conservatism today, raw reaction against modernity having driven it out, but even then it recalls one of those Internet laws (to paraphrase): 'Conservatism is opposition toward what liberals want today.'

[Furunculus]

Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus
"With all labours problems - and the new elecoral boundaries coming soon (finally - far too long!), there is pretty much zero prospect of conservatives not being in power after the next GE."

Say more.


https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-us/

Supposed to happen every 5-10 years to reflect demographic change in an electoral system that requires equal constituency sizes.

The general rule is that as people improve their lot they tend to migrate from from poorer areas to wealthier areas - which over time results in it requiring more voters to elect a Tory candidate than is true of a labour candidate.

Requires political cooperation in Westminster to agree the mandate that is given to the Commission, which the lib-dems (in coalition) scuppered, so the process hasn't been done since 2007.

The current mandate for the Commission is likely to result in a structural change that gives the Tories 10-15 more MP's and Labour similarly less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_commissions_(United_Kingdom)

[Furunculus]

Tony Blair (the only Labour leader to win a general election in nearly half a century):

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die

[InsaneApache]

Good interview...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en7sA6Plk74&ab_channel=Triggernometry

I'd pay to see Handcocks head flushed down the bog! LOL

[Montmorency]

Interesting historical context (https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1391489899065487361).


FINAL LOCAL RESULTS:

Starmer has lost 326 seats (-7%), the worst local election results for a new opposition leader in over 40 years.

CON: 2,345 (+235)
LAB: 1,345 (-326)
LD: 586 (+7)
GRN: 151 (+88)

https://i.imgur.com/ouOWTn8.png
https://i.imgur.com/2pcK0hm.png



https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-us/

Supposed to happen every 5-10 years to reflect demographic change in an electoral system that requires equal constituency sizes.

The general rule is that as people improve their lot they tend to migrate from from poorer areas to wealthier areas - which over time results in it requiring more voters to elect a Tory candidate than is true of a labour candidate.

Requires political cooperation in Westminster to agree the mandate that is given to the Commission, which the lib-dems (in coalition) scuppered, so the process hasn't been done since 2007.

The current mandate for the Commission is likely to result in a structural change that gives the Tories 10-15 more MP's and Labour similarly less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_commissions_(United_Kingdom)

I recall reading about British districting a little ahead of the issues of 2019, and without further inquiry IIRC:

British districting does not require principles equivalent to those upheld in our Reynolds v Sims, namely that (within-state) constituencies actually be roughly equal in size. Indeed, some provisions effectively prevent this.

Historically the Labour vote has been less efficient in its distribution; Labour-leaning seats suffer more from "cracking" and "packing" than Conservative ones.

While the variance in size of parliamentary units is probably less in the UK than in the US - where it has been up to 100% in contemporary practice - the UK average constituency is much smaller, making differences of a few thousand much swingier.



Tony Blair (the only Labour leader to win a general election in nearly half a century):

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die

Objectively, that is to say without value judgements on the content of his assertions, this does shed an odor of fighting the last war, so to speak.


The British Labour Party is the embodiment of this progressive challenge. Just 17 months ago it went to the far left and suffered the worst defeat in the party’s history. It has now replaced Jeremy Corbyn, a classic protest politician completely unsuited to leadership, let alone to governing, with Keir Starmer – Sir Keir – intelligent, capable, moderate-minded. He has taken a strong stand against the stain of anti-Semitism from the Corbyn era, been generally reasonable when opposing the government’s handling of Covid-19, and looks and sounds sensible. But he is struggling to break through with the public, and last week’s elections are a major setback.

Hahahahaha (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-polls-corbyn-labour-b1845588.html)


A new survey from YouGov conducted on Monday found Sir Keir has a net rating of -48, with just 17 per cent of voters saying he is doing well and 65 per cent saying he is doing badly.

At around the same point in Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in September 2016, Sir Keir's predecessor had a net rating of -40 per cent.

21 per cent of voters then believed Mr Corbyn was doing well while 61 per cent thought he was doing badly.

Mr Corbyn had by this point survived an attempt by internal opponents to oust him as leader, winning the 2016 leadership contest by 62 per cent to 38 for his rival Owen Smith.

I know basically nothing of what Starmer's been doing during his tenure, but I'm pretty sure this counts as evidence - and Starmer's approval rating has been consistently declining (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating) for half a year now - that Blair's fuzzy feelings about Starmer, or what Starmer represents to his mind, don't have the electoral significance he believes they ought to have. Because facts don't care about feelings, or sommat.

How does everyone still get stuck in the level of analysis of their personal political preferences being the election winners?



My comparative studies of Europe and the US all point to the same conclusion: White people want social democracy, but they're panicking about the presence of non-White people (and men about their own role in society, but that's global).

24810

[Idaho]

The simple truth is that England is a right wing country. It is reflectively deferent to the upper classes in culture, politics and law and is xenophobic and eager to align itself with the powerful. There is a very strong streak of egalitarianism, moderation and rooting for the underdog - but these are minority interests. Brexit and Scottish nationalism killed the labour party. Scotland deserted labour in the referendum and the North deserted them with Brexit. All those working class northerners have decided that they may as well vote for their social betters as labour hasn't done anything for them in 60 years.

[Furunculus]

That might be true, but if so it is only a slight bent in the same way we talk about the overton window - a spectrum shifted slightly on one axis.

It feels like there must be a viable fptp election winning internal coalition of positive-liberty interests, i'm just not sure what that looks like...?

[Beskar]

My two anecdotal pence.
1) There has been a lot of cross over from the USA coming into UK political thought. Those who are the most economical vulnerable have turned the right wing American conspiracy sites. You hear the man and woman talking on the street about Bill Gates, 5G, Agenda 21, etc and other global conspiracies. Someone said to me they go to the US for their "news" as it is more trustworthy.
2) Labour has been very absent during the pandemic. Only time it pops up is in regards to Corbyn's anti-semitism like a flogging of a dead horse.
3) As furunculus stated. UKIP poached a lot from Labour. The collapse of UKIP led to those voters flocking to their ideological closest, the Conservatives. Even if this push is a couple of %, it is enough to tip the balance in a FPTP system.
4) Labour has always had strong Scottish roots. So it is also the added issue of their stronghold in Scotland decimated and replaced by the SNP, eliminating the parties backbone.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And I listen to the Beeb for the same reason...

[Beskar]

And I listen to the Beeb for the same reason...

They are meaning those ring-wing conspiracy websites like Alex Jones.

[InsaneApache]

And I listen to the Beeb for the same reason...

LOL

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vlYG5VtWMk&ab_channel=MichaelHeaver

[Montmorency]

Can't believe no one remembered this nugget. Idaho


I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party. I know that I am liable to a retort, and an obvious one enough; and as I do not wish to allow any honorable gentleman the credit of making it, I make it myself. It may be said that if stupidity has a tendency to Conservatism, sciolism, or half-knowledge, has a tendency to Liberalism. Something might be said for that, but it is not at all so clear as the other. There is an uncertainty about sciolists; we cannot count upon them; and therefore they are a less dangerous class. But there is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power

[Furunculus]

a great comfort in these dark times, no doubt.

[Montmorency]

a great comfort in these dark times, no doubt.

If by "dark times" you mean for Labour, then according to the passage it's the opposite of their comfort.

[Furunculus]

i meant the comfort to be found in dark times from a little idle malice directed at the perceived cause.
won't advance ones circumstances, but a temporary salve no doubt in the absence of useful action.

[Montmorency]

i meant the comfort to be found in dark times from a little idle malice directed at the perceived cause.
won't advance ones circumstances, but a temporary salve no doubt in the absence of useful action.

Now I'm confused, because that just sounds like Brexit.

[Furunculus]

**yawns**

[Pannonian]

Might as well go here as anywhere, as a non-Brexit UK politics thread.


Democracy in the UK is being undermined by a “small but vocal minority”, the Culture Secretary has said after multiple brands pulled advertising from GB News.

Oliver Dowden has warned that basic democratic values can no longer be taken for granted after the upstart channel saw the withdrawal of advertising from companies such as Ikea, cider firm Kopparberg and Octopus Energy.

The network, which launched last Sunday, has promised to take on so-called cancel culture.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Dowden said: “When he launched the channel, veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil vowed that GB News would not be ‘an echo chamber for the metropolitan mindset’, and that it would ’empower those who feel their concerns have been unheard’.

...

Mr Dowden said the channel seeks to “empower” those who feel their “concerns have been unheard”.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/removal-advertising-gb-news-shows-214723364.html

A couple of questions. Why is it the government's business what private businesses decide to do with their advertising? And why is a government minister promoting a commercial media channel?

[rory_20_uk]

Might as well go here as anywhere, as a non-Brexit UK politics thread.



https://uk.news.yahoo.com/removal-advertising-gb-news-shows-214723364.html

A couple of questions. Why is it the government's business what private businesses decide to do with their advertising? And why is a government minister promoting a commercial media channel?

The UK seems to have caught the "politics is a soap opera" bug and in a world where Sir Kier is doing badly because he's boring, the way to success is constant drama. Oh, and that probably helps keep people from seeing what idiocy Boris is currently up to.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The UK seems to have caught the "politics is a soap opera" bug and in a world where Sir Kier is doing badly because he's boring, the way to success is constant drama. Oh, and that probably helps keep people from seeing what idiocy Boris is currently up to.

~:smoking:

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

Remember the words of that Savoyard lawyer...

On a moral/ethical level, of course actions such as lying to preserve one's self and trashing established customs should be problematic.

But it they people do not vote to preserve such than on a practical level the standards have been changed.

[Pannonian]

Remember the words of that Savoyard lawyer...

On a moral/ethical level, of course actions such as lying to preserve one's self and trashing established customs should be problematic.

But it they people do not vote to preserve such than on a practical level the standards have been changed.

Parliament, and the much-touted PM's questions is supposed to hold the government to task. If the PM can lie to Parliament on a regular basis without any action, are there any standards worth talking about? In US terms, if an elected government, with the collusion of the judiciary and a supportive media, can ignore the constitution without any action against them being possible, are there any standards remaining? Here in the UK, the media have already tried to intimidate the judiciary by labelling those judges who were against the government's abuse of Parliamentary norms "Enemies of the people".

Enemies of the People (headline) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline))

NB. This was 5 months after a UK politician had been assassinated on this issue.

[rory_20_uk]

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

The system of the UK has a a key strength in the ability to quickly change to new circumstances.
The massive flaw is of course tha the system relies in people having something like a working set of ethics. Boris has never been encombered by one of those in either his professional or personal life. He is, to be clear, gutter journalist scum.
The electorate in turn doesn't seem to really care - the Tories loosing to the Lib Dems in a by election apparently had more to do with reforming the planning process as the right to both complain no housing as well as protest any and all developments is key.
As thubgs stand, there are almost no checks and balances. The Courts only enforce the Law (so when the Tories move to remove the powers from the body overseeing politicians no one bat's an eyelid). Remove the law enforcing elections every 5 years? That's fine too. As long as they change the laws rather than breaking then all is fine.
The only theoretical power base is the Monarch. But sadly the House of Windsor prefers visiting charities, holding cream teas and feuding publicly with the ginger Beta and his sociopath of a wife rather than providing any sort of governance on the Politicians.

Te system only reacts to events that loose votes. We have a system where lying at elections is fine - and even truths are vague aims rather than having any legally minding weight. In short, the system is rotten and not far of the system of rotten boroughs but this time the politicians are bought directly by rich backers.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Parliament, and the much-touted PM's questions is supposed to hold the government to task. If the PM can lie to Parliament on a regular basis without any action, are there any standards worth talking about? In US terms, if an elected government, with the collusion of the judiciary and a supportive media, can ignore the constitution without any action against them being possible, are there any standards remaining? Here in the UK, the media have already tried to intimidate the judiciary by labelling those judges who were against the government's abuse of Parliamentary norms "Enemies of the people".

Enemies of the People (headline) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline))

NB. This was 5 months after a UK politician had been assassinated on this issue.

I don't know if I should offer warning or make light.
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1407531034443407360 [VIDEO]

[Pannonian]

The new Royal Yacht Britannia will no longer be a Royal Yacht because the Queen think's it's over the top and not needed. But the government is going ahead with it anyway, and funding it through the Ministry of Defence.


It was hoped that the ship would be named after the Prince Philip, who died in April at the age of 99, but the PM's plan was rejected by the royals.

A senior Whitehall inside had said the ship would be named after Prince Philip, who played a role in designing the original Britannia, if Buckingham Palace agreed to the plan.

But, a royal source said the suggestion was 'too grand' and added 'it is not something we have asked for.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9634141/Queen-turned-Boris-Johnsons-plan-200m-royal-yacht-Britannia-Prince-Philip.html


New national flagship replacing the Royal Yacht Britannia 'to be funded through the Ministry of Defence', says Number 10

https://news.sky.com/story/new-national-flagship-replacing-the-royal-yacht-britannia-to-be-funded-through-the-ministry-of-defence-says-no-10-12337906

[Furunculus]

I do question the value of a 'royal yacht' in this billionaire era where there are dozens of alabaster and smoked-glass behemoths roaming the seas, each larger that most counties frigates (and likely more expensive).

That said, i see no reason why it couldn't be an excellent venue for trade and diplomacy, and more than 'wipe-its-face' in terms of the capital and revenue costs.

If that is the case - that it is a net positive on a par with any other equivalent investment - then a decision to proceed is purely thematic:
i.e. does a multi-use Trade and Diplomacy / Disaster Relief and Casualty Receiving / ISR and Emergency Command Post ship project the image of the UK that HMG wants to project?

Arguably, with the Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper, as well as the DIT push for a more seagoing free-trading role, then a new 'royal' yacht is a perfectly acceptable idea.

But i'd like to see HMG evidence their confidence that a seaborne venue for trade and diplomacy is indeed a net positive...?

[Pannonian]

I do question the value of a 'royal yacht' in this billionaire era where there are dozens of alabaster and smoked-glass behemoths roaming the seas, each larger that most counties frigates (and likely more expensive).

That said, i see no reason why it couldn't be an excellent venue for trade and diplomacy, and more than 'wipe-its-face' in terms of the capital and revenue costs.

If that is the case - that it is a net positive on a par with any other equivalent investment - then a decision to proceed is purely thematic:
i.e. does a multi-use Trade and Diplomacy / Disaster Relief and Casualty Receiving / ISR and Emergency Command Post ship project the image of the UK that HMG wants to project?

Arguably, with the Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper, as well as the DIT push for a more seagoing free-trading role, then a new 'royal' yacht is a perfectly acceptable idea.

But i'd like to see HMG evidence their confidence that a seaborne venue for trade and diplomacy is indeed a net positive...?

Are net positive the new key term? The trade deal with Australia is estimated to increase the UK's GDP: by 0.08%, while the loss of existing trade links with the EU is estimated to decrease the UK's GDP by 4%. Do net positives apply in this calculation too?

[Furunculus]

Are net positive the new key term? The trade deal with Australia is estimated to increase the UK's GDP: by 0.08%, while the loss of existing trade links with the EU is estimated to decrease the UK's GDP by 4%. Do net positives apply in this calculation too?

You took the trouble to quote all of my reply, if wished to address that I would be very happy to respond.

[Pannonian]

You took the trouble to quote all of my reply, if wished to address that I would be very happy to respond.

I'm highlighting how Tory economics uses certain terms to paint their policies in a good light, but only selectively use them to justify this micro policy or that micro policy. If your proposed flagship (no longer called royal yacht since the monarch refuses to approve it) should be judged on net positives over 200m, and that with measurements being gerrymandered to suit your definition, does this not apply to the wider economy as a whole too?

Of course, the Tory theoretical school's answer to this is to use wider picture terms to focus on their selected limited picture with lots of possibilities, implying that their selected limited picture is representative of the whole, whilst refusing to address the wider picture with plenty of actuals. It's an effective way of justifying select, heavily subsidised certain projects that invariably result in contracts for Tory backers, whilst cutting societal spending as a whole because one must be prudent. The New York Times ran an article looking at this phenomenon during covid.

[Furunculus]

you make it sound like i am part of a tory conspiracy, yet really these are just my thoughts on the matter.

i can't even claim to have read similar views to this, such that i might merely be parroting 'the tory line'.

[Pannonian]

I'm highlighting how Tory economics uses certain terms to paint their policies in a good light, but only selectively use them to justify this micro policy or that micro policy. If your proposed flagship (no longer called royal yacht since the monarch refuses to approve it) should be judged on net positives over 200m, and that with measurements being gerrymandered to suit your definition, does this not apply to the wider economy as a whole too?

Of course, the Tory theoretical school's answer to this is to use wider picture terms to focus on their selected limited picture with lots of possibilities, implying that their selected limited picture is representative of the whole, whilst refusing to address the wider picture with plenty of actuals. It's an effective way of justifying select, heavily subsidised certain projects that invariably result in contracts for Tory backers, whilst cutting societal spending as a whole because one must be prudent. The New York Times ran an article looking at this phenomenon during covid.

Bwahaha. The Health Secretary's mistress has a brother who's the director of a company that's been receiving contracts from his department. All that theorising about economic prospects is just covering for Tory diversion of public money into the pockets of them and theirs.

[Pannonian]

It's even worse than that, according to the Sunday Times. The Health Secretary was fired for using his own private email account. So no official paper trail for any business conducted thus, and apparently most of his business was done thus. And remember the New York Times ran an article looking at how 40bn GBP was spent during the covid crisis on companies with no track record of providing the PPE and other services they were paid for.

[Furunculus]

can you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?

https://thecritic.co.uk/infiltrating-the-far-left/

[Pannonian]

can you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?

https://thecritic.co.uk/infiltrating-the-far-left/

1. The far left are not in power. They are vocally hostile to the Labour party leader.
2. Who are The Critic?

[Crandar]

A recently established conservative magazine (https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2020/01/30/does-britain-need-another-contrarian-conservative-magazine-the-critic-makes-its). Not exactly the Tories' mouthpiece, but mainly interested in attacking the left.

[Pannonian]

Compare that kind of "journalism", with little standing, partisan background, and attacking a faction of a party that's in power neither in the country nor even within the party, with this.

Waste, Negligence and Cronyism: Inside Britain’s Pandemic Spending (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/17/world/europe/britain-covid-contracts.html)

One of the most respected journalistic sources in the world (New York Times), non-partisan (as it's a US newspaper), investigating a government that's actually in power (UK government), finding irregularities that would have been the downfall of any UK government before this one (cronyism on a scale of tens of billions of pounds), with specific names listed.

Furunculus, which would you say was the better example of journalism? The Critic article you posted or the New York Times article I posted? What are your views on the Tory corruption described in the NYT article?

[rory_20_uk]

When we are reduced to the quality of journalism to see which example of poor behaviour of one of the two parties that would control the country it is a dark day. On reflection I think describing either party as "leading" the country or indeed the head of the party as the party "leader" is misleading.

It reminds me of a local (mayoral I think) race in America. The winner ran with the slogan "vote for the crook, not the racist". We seem to have venal, corruption on one side and a (seemingly) decent leader of the opposition with a party with a large number of iconoclasts looking to impose their vision of reality on the country... and corrupt hypocrites.

There's a good chance it has never been better, merely that the general public were unaware of what went on as the flow of information was easier to control.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

When we are reduced to the quality of journalism to see which example of poor behaviour of one of the two parties that would control the country it is a dark day. On reflection I think describing either party as "leading" the country or indeed the head of the party as the party "leader" is misleading.

It reminds me of a local (mayoral I think) race in America. The winner ran with the slogan "vote for the crook, not the racist". We seem to have venal, corruption on one side and a (seemingly) decent leader of the opposition with a party with a large number of iconoclasts looking to impose their vision of reality on the country... and corrupt hypocrites.

There's a good chance it has never been better, merely that the general public were unaware of what went on as the flow of information was easier to control.

~:smoking:

Because all opinions are of equal weight. One is thoroughly researched, by a publication that's respected around the world, in an area that's relevant to the public, where historical precedent indicates attention should be paid. The other is a new publication with no such track record of widespread respect, looking at an area that doesn't affect the general public.

Do you hold the same views in the medical world rory? Do you think that all opinions are of equal weight, both the well respected with a track record of quality, and the new on the scene with no track record?

[rory_20_uk]

Because all opinions are of equal weight. One is thoroughly researched, by a publication that's respected around the world, in an area that's relevant to the public, where historical precedent indicates attention should be paid. The other is a new publication with no such track record of widespread respect, looking at an area that doesn't affect the general public.

Do you hold the same views in the medical world rory? Do you think that all opinions are of equal weight, both the well respected with a track record of quality, and the new on the scene with no track record?

One facet that equally occurs in science and Medicine is some areas are focused on and others are overlooked. So yes one is undoubtedly a better source of information and if they were to produce a piece refuting the findings of the critic I would believe them. But in the absence of better information - and along with other rather weak sources (as well as Kier himself trying to get rid of these entities) leads me to view this as highly likely to be true.

Otherwise we enter the territory of "the witness is a prostitute so the evidence is worthless" territory.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Duplicate

[Pannonian]

One facet that equally occurs in science and Medicine is some areas are focused on and others are overlooked. So yes one is undoubtedly a better source of information and if they were to produce a piece refuting the findings of the critic I would believe them. But in the absence of better information - and along with other rather weak sources (as well as Kier himself trying to get rid of these entities) leads me to view this as highly likely to be true.

Otherwise we enter the territory of "the witness is a prostitute so the evidence is worthless" territory.

~:smoking:

You've missed my point that one of them is a reputable publication talking about the current government indulging in massive corruption. The other is an unknown publication talking about something irrelevant. Doubly so with Furunculus's conclusion: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?".

In case you've missed it, Momentum began life as The Campaign to Elect Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader. Labour are not in government, so that makes the article less relevant. Jeremy Corbyn is not Labour leader, so that makes the article less relevant still. Jeremy Corbyn isn't even in the Labour party, so that erases any remaining relevance Furunculus sees in the article. And in case there are any more doubts, Momentum are opposed to the current Labour leadership, even supporting an anti-Labour campaign in a recent by-election.

What do you think of Furunculus's conclusion to the article: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?"

[Furunculus]

Compare that kind of "journalism", with little standing, partisan background, and attacking a faction of a party that's in power neither in the country nor even within the party, with this.

Waste, Negligence and Cronyism: Inside Britain’s Pandemic Spending (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/17/world/europe/britain-covid-contracts.html)

One of the most respected journalistic sources in the world (New York Times), non-partisan (as it's a US newspaper)

"non-partisan" isn't really the phrase that springs to mind when I hear the name "NYT"; as everything I see on social media is NYT pieces whining about brexit and/or the british. maybe i'm only exposed to the nuttier element of their editorial, but the experience hasn't inclined me to go and seek out their news.

[rory_20_uk]

You've missed my point that one of them is a reputable publication talking about the current government indulging in massive corruption. The other is an unknown publication talking about something irrelevant. Doubly so with Furunculus's conclusion: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?".

In case you've missed it, Momentum began life as The Campaign to Elect Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader. Labour are not in government, so that makes the article less relevant. Jeremy Corbyn is not Labour leader, so that makes the article less relevant still. Jeremy Corbyn isn't even in the Labour party, so that erases any remaining relevance Furunculus sees in the article. And in case there are any more doubts, Momentum are opposed to the current Labour leadership, even supporting an anti-Labour campaign in a recent by-election.

What do you think of Furunculus's conclusion to the article: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?"

What the Opposition does is almost as relevant as what the government does as... they're the Opposition. If we don't have the current shower, due to our dreadful FPTP system they're the only alternative. And this is the only reason that Boris is in power at the moment.

It does seem that Kier is managing to expel many of the extreme groups which is a good sign. Less of a good sign is the rumblings that Kier himself should be got rid of. Apparently he's not enough of a showman? I'm not sure.

As to Furunculus's conclusion, that is I believe the main reason anyone ever votes Conservatives any more - not any great belief of what they'll do but more the greater fear as to what the others might. Tony Blair got labour elected by basically being equally Tory and his off the books NHS debt did a both more costly as well as less efficient job of "privatisation by stealth" than the Tories ever cooked up, and turned out to be a greater war monger as well to boot.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Tory MP found guilty of corruption. Tory government passes law so that said MP would not be guilty after all. A Bill that said MP voted for. And now said MP wants to sue head of commission that found him guilty.

Democracy in the UK means flaunting one's majority in the knowledge that a majority excuses everything. Independent checks and balances are to be discarded in the promotion of more democratic authority.

[rory_20_uk]

Tory MP found guilty of corruption. Tory government passes law so that said MP would not be guilty after all. A Bill that said MP voted for. And now said MP wants to sue head of commission that found him guilty.

Democracy in the UK means flaunting one's majority in the knowledge that a majority excuses everything. Independent checks and balances are to be discarded in the promotion of more democratic authority.

Democracy in the UK has always been something of a veneer to give the ruled some sort of perception of a stake in the country after the previous tropes of religion and then Patriotism failed to be enough: let in a handful from the countryside mainly landed gentry and ensure that the true counter-jumpers are either intimidated by the pomp, bribed by the system or isolated so that they can change nothing.

The system isn't broken - it is working extremely well. If Labour were to get in, they might make some small changes which would be massively discussed but until the very method of voting is uprooted then everything else is window dressing.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Democracy in the UK has always been something of a veneer to give the ruled some sort of perception of a stake in the country after the previous tropes of religion and then Patriotism failed to be enough: let in a handful from the countryside mainly landed gentry and ensure that the true counter-jumpers are either intimidated by the pomp, bribed by the system or isolated so that they can change nothing.

The system isn't broken - it is working extremely well. If Labour were to get in, they might make some small changes which would be massively discussed but until the very method of voting is uprooted then everything else is window dressing.

~:smoking:

At the very least, the elected government should be held to its stated promises. Have any people who voted to Leave held the government to the promises they made for enabling that referendum victory? How many of the promises that campaign made have been kept so far?

Relating to this government's unbelievable levels of incompetence of corruption, I refer you to the NYT's report on how 33bn was mis-spent during the pandemic, with huge contracts given to MPs' friends, family, business associates, etc. without due process, checks of track record, and so on. Just like that 1.5m shipping contract given to a company with no ships, no experience, no assets, whose only real asset was its director's links with the minister who gave the contract.

All of that is ok though, since they are backed by the will of the people.

[Furunculus]

"Have any people who voted to Leave held the government to the promises they made for enabling that referendum victory?"

I'm quite content that brexit is being 'achieved', and since i have no confidence in any other party to pursue the task with vigour then i'll have temper my enthusiam for pointing out the flaws in its execution.

[Pannonian]

"Have any people who voted to Leave held the government to the promises they made for enabling that referendum victory?"

I'm quite content that brexit is being 'achieved', and since i have no confidence in any other party to pursue the task with vigour then i'll have temper my enthusiam for pointing out the flaws in its execution.

A government which is elected on one issue and one issue only, without metrics on how that issue is being implemented.

Meanwhile, the then-Health minister gave a 30m contract to an old neighbour of his who had no track record whatsoever in what he was being paid for. All part of the 33bn highlighted by the NYT report that was paid out to friends and family of the government under the guise of Covid spending. But that doesn't matter to supporters of the government though, who care about the one thing only.

[rory_20_uk]

That is the failing of the system that the UK, along with other countries, have.

The next chance to vote on the ruling party is a couple of years, and is guarantee. The looser will leave power. That too is close to a guarantee.
The next chance to vote on the EU might well be whenever, if ever, the government allows it in whatever way they choose to do.

If the two issues were delinked - which almost any form of proportional representation would allow - that would be great.

What would also be great would to be less obtuse.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

That is the failing of the system that the UK, along with other countries, have.

The next chance to vote on the ruling party is a couple of years, and is guarantee. The looser will leave power. That too is close to a guarantee.
The next chance to vote on the EU might well be whenever, if ever, the government allows it in whatever way they choose to do.

If the two issues were delinked - which almost any form of proportional representation would allow - that would be great.

What would also be great would to be less obtuse.

~:smoking:

There won't be any more votes on the EU. None of the parties are campaigning to rejoin. The only question is whether or not people are allowed to question how Brexit is being implemented, but as Furunculus shows, the Tories have it sewn up in terms of identifying with "getting Brexit done" (although we're not allowed to ask questions about how it's being done).

Eg. the government is talking about invoking article 16 suspending the Northern Ireland protocol, and no doubt their supporters will blame it on the Europeans. The EU blames the UK, of course, and the US has stated that it will be the UK's fault. And there will be Leavers accusing the protocol of being unfair to the Northern Irish. Despite the organisation representing most of NI's manufacturers saying that this is not so, and that they see it as an opportunity (hence good for them), rather than something to go into a trade war over.

Will it ever be ok to ask why the government is doing this or that? Or will the government be forever be given carte blanche because they are trusted to "get Brexit done"?

[rory_20_uk]

There won't be any more votes on the EU. None of the parties are campaigning to rejoin. The only question is whether or not people are allowed to question how Brexit is being implemented, but as Furunculus shows, the Tories have it sewn up in terms of identifying with "getting Brexit done" (although we're not allowed to ask questions about how it's being done).

Eg. the government is talking about invoking article 16 suspending the Northern Ireland protocol, and no doubt their supporters will blame it on the Europeans. The EU blames the UK, of course, and the US has stated that it will be the UK's fault. And there will be Leavers accusing the protocol of being unfair to the Northern Irish. Despite the organisation representing most of NI's manufacturers saying that this is not so, and that they see it as an opportunity (hence good for them), rather than something to go into a trade war over.

Will it ever be ok to ask why the government is doing this or that? Or will the government be forever be given carte blanche because they are trusted to "get Brexit done"?

Never is a long time - as I say, the time since the last one was c. 50 years. Having repeated votes until one gets the right answer is itself a technique that the EU has repeatedly used and I hope we don't follow them (although the SNP appears to view things differently).

"Getting Brexit done" might well be the strapline Boris et al are going on about but as you've said - it is done. If that's all he can bring to the next election he'll go the way of the Brexit party who had nothing else - unless Brexit isn't done.

Regards to Northern Ireland I would be delighted for them to be reunified with their compatriots - and indeed for Scotland to be given the freedom to leave as well. For most remainers that means I can't be called a nostalgic Nationalist dreaming of Empire, but instead of Xenophobe - as what else could I be?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Never is a long time - as I say, the time since the last one was c. 50 years. Having repeated votes until one gets the right answer is itself a technique that the EU has repeatedly used and I hope we don't follow them (although the SNP appears to view things differently).

"Getting Brexit done" might well be the strapline Boris et al are going on about but as you've said - it is done. If that's all he can bring to the next election he'll go the way of the Brexit party who had nothing else - unless Brexit isn't done.

Regards to Northern Ireland I would be delighted for them to be reunified with their compatriots - and indeed for Scotland to be given the freedom to leave as well. For most remainers that means I can't be called a nostalgic Nationalist dreaming of Empire, but instead of Xenophobe - as what else could I be?

~:smoking:

You've seen with Furunculus that the Tories still retain their appeal on the basis of getting Brexit done, with the other parties holding no appeal on this sole basis. The Tory government is still periodically stirring up a fight with the EU to keep this issue current, such as complaining about an unfair Northern Ireland protocol that they signed up to and that the Northern Irish themselves don't think is bad. Note how their line of attack has nothing to do with whether or not the people they are claiming for actually support them, but is aimed to keep the EU as a current scapegoat despite us being divorced from them. Note also how this position alienates everyone outside the UK. And note also how this position keeps the supporters of Brexit onside and voting Tory (eg. Furunculus's posts, the polls, etc.).

Brexit is no longer about economic opportunity, ideological differences, or anything of that sort (if they ever were). It's now an identity for the Tories to play on to retain a rump support amongst the UK electorate. And thus no metrics, no arguments, are relevant any more, other than the poll numbers. And all other issues are subordinate to this, since it so effectively wins votes.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, perhaps it is me. I am projecting myself on others.

I quite like Kier. I like his long, considered essays on subjects as opposed to the moron we have in charge who apparently neither read the Northern Ireland agreement nor even managed to get someone more competent than he is to give him a "Jane and John" precis. Kier is even trying to make his party electable by trying to jettison the wacky left ideologues (and if they could take the incompetent, hypocrite who is Ms Abbot with them that'd be great). I doubt I agree with everything he would wish to do - but at least he would have a cogent, and probably logical approach to why he is doing it.

The Northern Ireland agreement was always going to be impossible to sort out given there needs to both be and not be a border in two different places with Northern Ireland wanting to trade and free access to the South and also trade and free access to the rest of the UK - a classic childish demand for "both" when given two different, diametrically opposite, options...

Brexit could only be an economic opportunity if one looks back decades - and if some pretty lucky things happen - if the UK is able to more agile with trade deals or manage to keep out the way of trade disputes the EU has with other power blocks. If these two things happen.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

And the deputy PM's mate was given £164m in PPE contracts after being referred by said minister to the preferential list. £60k in donations to the Tory party produces £164m in contracts. Funding the Tory party must be the most profitable investment around.

All this corruption still won't make any difference of course. Tory voters will still vote based on that one issue.

[Pannonian]

The minutes for a meeting between the minister in charge of handing out covid-related contracts, a firm which received a contract, and an MP who consulted for said firm and who recently resigned after being censured by the Commons for corruption, have been "lost". The contract was worth £600m.

Is there any accountability for all of this? There's no literal accountability of course, as the government have been careful to cover their tracks, but voters are supposed to care about what happens to our tax money. Or is the odd billion here and there handed out to Tory MPs' friends ok, as long as they are pro-Brexit?

[Furunculus]

My name is getting slung about quite a lot here.

It is worth pointing out for the edification of all, should that be necessary:
1. I was never a 'kipper' - my position has been consistently skeptic, not leaver, right up until the end of the renegotiation in Jan 2016.
2. I am not a 'tory' - my position is economically right wing and classically liberal, which makes it v.hard for any left-wing/identitarian party to appeal to me.
3. I am not a 'single-issue' voter - quite aside from economic and social policy, i hope it would be evident after all these years that defence and FP is a key interest too.

[Pannonian]

HMRC to relocate to Newcastle office owned by Tory donors via tax haven


HM Revenue and Customs has struck a deal to relocate tax officials into a new office complex in Newcastle owned by major Conservative party donors through an offshore company based in a tax haven, the Guardian can reveal.

The department’s planned new home in the north-east of England is part of a regeneration scheme developed by a British Virgin Islands (BVI) entity controlled by the billionaire property tycoons David and Simon Reuben.

The deal will see officials at the government department responsible for preventing tax avoidance working from a site owned by a subsidiary of a company based in a secretive offshore tax jurisdiction.

The Reuben brothers, their family members and businesses have donated a combined £1.9m to the Tories. Earlier this week, the brothers are reported to have shared a table with Boris Johnson at an exclusive Tory party fundraising dinner.

On Tuesday, officials including the Cabinet Office minister Steve Barclay announced HMRC had agreed the 25-year lease with one of the Reuben brothers’ companies.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/25/hmrc-to-relocate-to-newcastle-office-owned-by-tory-donors-via-tax-haven

Corruption doesn't get much more blatant than this. But it's all ok. They won an election under the aegis of "Get Brexit done", so everything is justified by that mandate.

[rory_20_uk]

HMRC to relocate to Newcastle office owned by Tory donors via tax haven



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/25/hmrc-to-relocate-to-newcastle-office-owned-by-tory-donors-via-tax-haven

Corruption doesn't get much more blatant than this. But it's all ok. They won an election under the aegis of "Get Brexit done", so everything is justified by that mandate.

Has this been rented above market rates? Has the building been vacant for years with no one wanting to rent it? Was this hidden? How was the decision made? Did ministers overrule Civil Servants?

I'm struggling to see exactly what bit is the corruption here. Apparently there's nothing illegal either. And one has to be pretty confident to rent to HMRC if one is playing fast and loose with the details.

The article itself is a whine about the nasty rich people whilst reluctantly stating there's nothing that is illegal here.

Boris and his chums are neck deep in dubious deals - from borderline illegal lobbying by ex-PMs, to giving one's chums paid for access to contracts to mates who clearly can't do them. But this isn't one of them.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Has this been rented above market rates? Has the building been vacant for years with no one wanting to rent it? Was this hidden? How was the decision made? Did ministers overrule Civil Servants?

I'm struggling to see exactly what bit is the corruption here. Apparently there's nothing illegal either. And one has to be pretty confident to rent to HMRC if one is playing fast and loose with the details.

The article itself is a whine about the nasty rich people whilst reluctantly stating there's nothing that is illegal here.

Boris and his chums are neck deep in dubious deals - from borderline illegal lobbying by ex-PMs, to giving one's chums paid for access to contracts to mates who clearly can't do them. But this isn't one of them.

~:smoking:

I accept correction. But I frequently wonder just how much the evidence of other corruption and incompetence will factor into any election. Johnson refused to be interviewed during the 2019 election. Unlike the Yes PM episode where an accidental untruth has Hacker worrying about his job, Johnson routinely lies in every interview and PMQ. There is little cloaking of money for friends and associates. Yet he won a landslide on nothing more than a single slogan, and the Tories continue to lead in polls.

I used to believe in process, where there was an underlying sense of propriety across the spectrum, and any wrongdoing was self-regulated to within a limited range. But Trump across the river, and the Brexit-Tory politics on this side, have made me lose confidence in democracy. As long as the media back one side, and Johnson's former masters never fail to back him and his mates, the politicians can do anything they like, and the voters continue to support them. At least in the US there seems to be some kind of entente against Trump's extremism. There is nothing of the sort here.

[Montmorency]

You keep addressing "democracy" - and without registering rory's points about electoral process - yet the Tories won less than 44% of the vote in 2019 (less than Trump in the US), and their approval rating has generally been in the low 40s or high 30s since. It would help your mood to consider your complaint more precisely.

[Furunculus]

I frequently wonder just how much the evidence of other corruption and incompetence will factor into any election. Johnson refused to be interviewed during the 2019 election. Unlike the Yes PM episode where an accidental untruth has Hacker worrying about his job, Johnson routinely lies in every interview and PMQ. There is little cloaking of money for friends and associates. Yet he won a landslide on nothing more than a single slogan, and the Tories continue to lead in polls.

you appear to fixate on the flaws of the electorate in refusing to acknowledge the inadequacy of the tory party (read: cronyism and/or corruption), so I would instead invite you to consider another alternative:

the electorate does not perceive itself as having one! an "alternative", that is.
e.g. these 'anomalous' electoral outcomes might be more to do with the shear Olympian edifice of labour's un-electability, than it has to do with the peoples' Nelson'ian indifference to tory flaws.

labour may have fronted Captain Hindsight as a deliberately grey and dull 'manager' but way too many people are intensely aware of the frothing lunacy of the activist base roiling beneath the surface of the (new) Labour offer...

[Pannonian]

You keep addressing "democracy" - and without registering rory's points about electoral process - yet the Tories won less than 44% of the vote in 2019 (less than Trump in the US), and their approval rating has generally been in the low 40s or high 30s since. It would help your mood to consider your complaint more precisely.

The Tories have a majority approaching 100 in the Commons. That's what matters, not a vote share of 44% (which is still far more than anyone else). That means they can have 40 MPs voting with the opposition and still pass absolutely any legislation they like. Unlike your constitution, there are few legal limits to what the Commons can pass, only customary ones. And as past (Tory) PMs and ministers have noted, this government has little regard for customary limits, and are inclined to pass Laws to restrict traditional freedoms that have been part of the foundations of our democracy.

You've been fuming about 2 Democratic senators who have been regularly voting with the Republicans. The Tories can have 40 of these rebels, and it still won't make any difference to their Law-passing capability. A majority of 1 (they have over 80) gives them the power to do anything they like. Including passing a Law to retroactively exonerate a mate of theirs (who was voting for this Law) from condemnation for corruption.

[Montmorency]

The Tories have a majority approaching 100 in the Commons. That's what matters, not a vote share of 44% (which is still far more than anyone else). That means they can have 40 MPs voting with the opposition and still pass absolutely any legislation they like. Unlike your constitution, there are few legal limits to what the Commons can pass, only customary ones. And as past (Tory) PMs and ministers have noted, this government has little regard for customary limits, and are inclined to pass Laws to restrict traditional freedoms that have been part of the foundations of our democracy.

You've been fuming about 2 Democratic senators who have been regularly voting with the Republicans. The Tories can have 40 of these rebels, and it still won't make any difference to their Law-passing capability. A majority of 1 (they have over 80) gives them the power to do anything they like. Including passing a Law to retroactively exonerate a mate of theirs (who was voting for this Law) from condemnation for corruption.

All of this is true, but what needs to be expressed is that your consternation centers the character of your opposition, or even the inadequate reaction of the broader society towards them, not democracy per se. Admittedly, I was being imprecise myself, in that your mood might well worsen when you look at it that way.


you appear to fixate on the flaws of the electorate in refusing to acknowledge the inadequacy of the tory party (read: cronyism and/or corruption), so I would instead invite you to consider another alternative:

the electorate does not perceive itself as having one! an "alternative", that is.
e.g. these 'anomalous' electoral outcomes might be more to do with the shear Olympian edifice of labour's un-electability, than it has to do with the peoples' Nelson'ian indifference to tory flaws.

labour may have fronted Captain Hindsight as a deliberately grey and dull 'manager' but way too many people are intensely aware of the frothing lunacy of the activist base roiling beneath the surface of the (new) Labour offer...

Leaving aside the electoral math is more complicated than you let on, that is still a choice you describe, and one that reflects on its proponents.

[Furunculus]

A lot parsed into that sentence, so without trying to reductio-ad-absurdum it I will break it down to explore:

"Leaving aside the electoral math is more complicated than you let on,"

More complicated, as in they have more choices that simply voting tory or labour?
I agree, but the UK electorate is rather conditioned to seek a 'common-ground' party appealing across the geographic and political divide. Party's with niche interests can appeal to only a small niche of the electorate.

"[but] that is still a choice you describe, and one that reflects on its proponents."

Who is the proponent here?
I do not speak for Labour voters.

And how does it reflect upon them [badly]?
They seem unable to choose labour in any positive way.
They appear unable to choose labour even in a negative way - holding their noses.
Is the lack of popular appeal for Labour a reflection on the electorate or the party...

[Montmorency]

A lot parsed into that sentence, so without trying to reductio-ad-absurdum it I will break it down to explore:

"Leaving aside the electoral math is more complicated than you let on,"

More complicated, as in they have more choices that simply voting tory or labour?
I agree, but the UK electorate is rather conditioned to seek a 'common-ground' party appealing across the geographic and political divide. Party's with niche interests can appeal to only a small niche of the electorate.

"[but] that is still a choice you describe, and one that reflects on its proponents."

Who is the proponent here?
I do not speak for Labour voters.

And how does it reflect upon them [badly]?
They seem unable to choose labour in any positive way.
They appear unable to choose labour even in a negative way - holding their noses.
Is the lack of popular appeal for Labour a reflection on the electorate or the party...

I'm not sure how you were reading my pretty sparse post.

The primary hindrance to Labour's electoral prospects is evidently not that it has suddenly become widely unappealing. It is because of a long-term geographic and demographic realignment that has been visible since at least the Great Recession; Labour could win as much of the vote as it did in 1997 - roughly the Tory share in 2019 - and potentially win fewer seats than the Tories won now (though of course the latter themselves won far fewer than Labour in 1997 despite the similar vote share -- that's FPTP for you). I'm pretty sure we discussed this two years ago, even if I haven't really updated myself on UK political geography since.

The choice to tolerate Conservative failures of government by reference to "frothing lunacy" of non-Conservative activists (and ignoring the frothing lunacy of Conservative activists themselves) is not obviously something that needs no defense, or doesn't impute something about the proponent of that choice.

It's a common story in the world today that, increasingly, small-government conservatives find themselves more aligned with center-left parties than with traditional/traditionally Right parties in terms of governance and policy. I think you find a lot of revealing things when you cut the surface of the dichotomy between those who make the logical switch, and those who prioritize other urges.

[spmetla]

My view from across two ponds was that the Tories are really only holding onto power due to the anti-immigrant sentiment that fueled Brexit. Their being viewed as the party 'saving' Britain from the 'unwashed masses' fearing the demographic change of so much african and asian migration.

Labor having a few extremely uncharismatic leaders doesn't help either when Boris with his common man demeanor despite being an upper class twit his whole life gets the 'blue collar vote' much as Trump gets in the US.

Just like in Dems v Reps in the US, I see the issue as cultural rather than policies or leadership. The traditional 'left' parties on both sides of the Atlantic need to find a way to address the reactionary fear of foreign migration in a time of shrinking birth rates that's a bit more than just an attitude of 'you're a bunch of xenophobe racists/nationalists/facists/nazis so sit down and shut up.'

[Furunculus]

Brexit was caused by a lack of legitimacy - immigration was simply one element that elevated (fueled?) that public perception of illegitimacy.

Once brexit was voted on the salience of immigration as 'a problem' in the popular public consciousness diminished very significantly. It ceased to be a first order issue, and Pew Global polls on social attitudes continue to show the UK as one of the most tolerant countries in europe (and significantly more tolerant than most EU neighbours!).

During this time our 'anti-immigrant' government has basically given a free-pass to hundreds of thousands British National (Overseas) status holders arriving from Hong Kong, so I wouldn't put too much weight in that argument:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hong-kong-uk-welcome-programme-guidance-for-local-authorities

Even the current hullabalo over illegal immigration via the channel from France is seen as an extension of the power struggle over Brexit.

Labour's problem is also one of illegitimacy - in that the values the public see do not appear to have strong appeal to the sections of the electorate that would in previous times have been considered its core voter base:

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1466666280811778053

[Pannonian]

Tory peer Lady Mone (she who's also in the headlines for calling an Asian person "a waste of a white man's skin"), has been investigated, by journalists (a rare occurence these days). for her links to a 200m covid-era contract for Medpro. She's been revealed to have been the referer for the company, who was given covid contracts worth 200m. Her husband is one of its directors, which of course has no bearing on said company being given said contract. Civil servants were lary of the track record of the company, which was apparently none, and delayed giving said contract until Lady Mone expressed her rage at the delay. The 200m included 100m of PPE, which wasn't used. Lady Mone said she had no links whatsoever with Medpro. The investigating journalists got letters from Lady Mone's lawyers stating that they were under observation.

The former health secretary Matt Hancock demanded apologies from people (an MP IIRC) who alleged that a 40m contract had been awarded to his former pub landlord for a covid contract. The contract was actually awarded to a third company. The contract, did, however, stipulate that it must be subcontracted to...Matt Hancock's former pub landlord.

This government, and all its doings, is all about handing out taxpayers' money to its friends and family. The EU has various checks and controls, so that barrier has to go. The civil service has checks and controls, so they have to be overridden. Parliament is supposed to have checks and balances, so opposing MPs have to be coerced into apologising for telling the truth. Responsible journalists are another check and balance, so they have to be threatened. Still, it has the mandate of the people, and with such a whopping mandate, you don't need scrutiny or accountability. Democracy cleans corruption.

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure how you were reading my pretty sparse post.

The primary hindrance to Labour's electoral prospects is evidently not that it has suddenly become widely unappealing. It is because of a long-term geographic and demographic realignment that has been visible since at least the Great Recession; Labour could win as much of the vote as it did in 1997 - roughly the Tory share in 2019 - and potentially win fewer seats than the Tories won now (though of course the latter themselves won far fewer than Labour in 1997 despite the similar vote share -- that's FPTP for you). I'm pretty sure we discussed this two years ago, even if I haven't really updated myself on UK political geography since.

The choice to tolerate Conservative failures of government by reference to "frothing lunacy" of non-Conservative activists (and ignoring the frothing lunacy of Conservative activists themselves) is not obviously something that needs no defense, or doesn't impute something about the proponent of that choice.

It's a common story in the world today that, increasingly, small-government conservatives find themselves more aligned with center-left parties than with traditional/traditionally Right parties in terms of governance and policy. I think you find a lot of revealing things when you cut the surface of the dichotomy between those who make the logical switch, and those who prioritize other urges.

Most of the ministers of the last pre-Blair Tory government absolutely despise the current Tory government. Both in what they do as a government, and how they conduct their politics. It's like the Republicans pre-Trump and post-Trump. The current Tories are Trumpian in nature.

[Furunculus]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/boris-johnson-minister-of-chaos/619010/


"And I wanted to see up close if he truly was—as his enemies charge—the British equivalent of Donald Trump."
....
This is the central argument against Johnson: For all his positivity and good cheer, the verses of Latin and ancient Greek he drops into conversation, he is much closer to Trump than he lets on. Johnson spearheaded the “Leave” campaign the same year the U.S. voted for Trump, and the two campaigns looked similar on the surface—populist, nationalist, anti-establishment. What, after all, is Brexit but a rebellion against an ostensibly unfair system, fueled by the twin angers of trade and immigration, that aims to restore to Britain a sense of something lost: control.

Read: Why Britain’s Brexit mayhem was worth it

The prime minister certainly understands that this perception has taken hold. “A lot of people in America, a lot of respectable liberal opinion in America—The Washington Post and The New York Times, etc.—thinks that Brexit is the most appalling, terrible aberration and a retreat into nationalism,” he told me. “It’s not at all.”

As for Johnson himself, his past language about members of minority groups is, to some, evidence of a kinship with Trump. Johnson has compared Muslim women in burkas to mailboxes, written of “flag-waving piccaninnies,” and recited a nostalgic colonial-era poem while in Myanmar. His partisans note, defensively, that his first finance minister was the son of a Pakistani bus driver; his second is a British Indian. The business secretary is a fellow Eton alum whose parents came to Britain from Ghana, and Britain’s president of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which is being held in Glasgow, Scotland, this year, was born in India. The man Johnson charged with overseeing Britain’s vaccine rollout is an Iraqi-born British Kurd, and the home secretary, responsible for policing, is the daughter of Ugandan Indians.
...
There is also the issue of immigration. During the Brexit campaign, Johnson did call for—and has since delivered—stronger controls on migration from Europe. But in contrast to Trump, he has supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants; offered a path to British citizenship to millions of Hong Kongers; and refashioned Britain’s immigration system to treat European and non-European migrants equally. As mayor of London, he said that Trump’s claim that the British capital had “no-go areas” because of Islamic extremists betrayed “stupefying ignorance” and that Trump was “out of his mind” for seeking to ban Muslim immigration.

Even so, the Trump question is the first thing many Americans will want to know, I told him.

“Well, how ignorant can they be?” he said. I ventured that the curse of international politics is that each country looks at others through its own national prism.

“They do, they do,” he admitted, before continuing: “I’m laboriously trying to convey to an American audience that this is a category error that has been repeatedly made.”

“The point I’m trying to get over to you and your readers is that you mustn’t mistake this government for being some sort of bunch of xenophobes,” he added, “or autarkic economic nationalists.” (Here even Johnson’s critics would have to concede one difference: Donald Trump is unlikely to have ever used the word autarkic in conversation.)"

[Pannonian]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/boris-johnson-minister-of-chaos/619010/

Do you have any personal observation on this?

[Furunculus]

Yes, i think than any substantive claim of political/philosophical similarity between trump and bozza is facile.

[Pannonian]

Yes, i think than any substantive claim of political/philosophical similarity between trump and bozza is facile.

I was talking about their take on democracy. How evidence is disregarded by words. As long as the words convince enough people, then factual evidence matters not.

Such as the civil servants dealing with the matter being extremely wary of a company with no substantive track record, but are overridden because Lady Mone says so. Such as Lady Mone's husband being a director of said company, but Lady Mone says she has no links and thus she has no links. Such as the former health secretary farming a contract to his mate, but this isn't so because Hancock says it isn't so.

Your highlighting Johnson being popular further proves this point. He's popular, and thus everything he says is so. Despite him being a serial liar who's been sacked for lying whenever he's had higher ups who've valued truth-telling. The votes prove he's telling the truth.

[Furunculus]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/boris-johnson/620269/


IS BORIS JOHNSON A LIAR? And if he is, why don’t his supporters seem to care?

To his critics, Johnson is a liar and a fraud, and stories such as this one are taken as further evidence for their case. According to his onetime rival for the Conservative leadership, Rory Stewart, Johnson is “the most accomplished liar in public life—perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister.” Johnson, Stewart wrote last year, has “mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie—which may inadvertently be true.”
...
Despite this—and despite other Brexit-related issues, from product shortages at supermarkets to a brewing crisis in Northern Ireland, to say nothing of a disastrous early response to the pandemic—Johnson has lost little ground in the polls, and the Conservative Party appears on course for another decade in power. Johnson could well become Britain’s most consequential prime minister since Margaret Thatcher.

All of this raises a question: If Johnson really is such a liar, why don’t voters seem to care?

The political scientists Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes have developed a distinction between “accuracy” and “sincerity” to explain why voters seem to care little about the lies told by politicians they support. People can be “truthful” about two things, they write in their book, The Light That Failed—facts and feelings. Of the two, only the former is falsifiable.

In the case of Donald Trump, a populist leader to whom Johnson is often likened, the former American president’s most zealous fans seemed wholly indifferent to revelations that many of his comments were factually untrue. Why? “Because they believe that these statements are sincere, and thus ‘true’ in a deeper sense,” Krastev and Holmes write. Trump’s sincerity is based on what he represents and his commitment, by means fair or foul, to realize his goals. To his supporters, Krastev and Holmes write, Trump’s lies are sincere, because he has already said that the only thing that matters to him is winning, and they believe he is trying to win on their behalf.

In Trump’s worldview, winning is the be-all and end-all—for people and for nations—and anyone who says otherwise is either a dupe or a fraud. This applies to elections and the rule of law, as well as international relations and trade. All of this makes Trump a revolutionary figure, because he is the first U.S. president to reject the American-made world as bad for America. Unlike Biden and every other U.S. leader, Trump believes the free-trading, democratic world living peacefully under the American nuclear umbrella is a bad thing, because it allows free-riding competitors to undercut the U.S. Thus, America in this view is not exceptional; it is naive.

In contrast, Johnson is boringly conservative. He doesn’t believe Britain has been a victim of the postwar American order or even, really, of European Union membership; nor does he want a new world order. He just thinks Britain—and his own leadership aspirations—would, on balance, be better off outside the EU. Unlike Trump, Johnson sees a world of natural alliances of like-minded countries, historic civilizations, shared democratic norms and threats, and, of course, Western exceptionalism. Johnson is prepared to say many things to convince voters to support him, but even his fiercest (rational) critics do not think he would attempt a Trump-style insurrection to retain power if he lost an election.

Yet he does have similarities with Trump. While Trump shares few of Johnson’s romantic visions of history—partly because he doesn’t know any—both have a deep cynicism that helps explain their appeal. Johnson, like Trump, believes many of his opponents are insincere. “He doesn’t trust anyone,” a former aide once told me. “He thinks everyone thinks like him.” To the voters who believe all politicians are essentially liars and cheats out for themselves, Johnson’s obvious mockery and refusal to abide by the usual rules of political decorum—by, for example, telling what his opponents allege are lies—have an obvious appeal.
...
Johnson’s skill, it seems to me, resides almost as much in inviting the public into the game as it does in hiding his goals. In a sense, Johnson’s popularity is based on mocking everyone else’s bullshit, rather than duping people about his own ambition.

Take one telling moment in Johnson’s rise. In 2019, Theresa May was finally forced to resign as prime minister, paving the way for Johnson to realize his lifelong dream. Amid whirling expectation that he would soon announce his candidacy, he was asked whether he wanted the job. “I think … ahm … look … erm … ahm …” he mumbled, before adding: “I’m going to go for it. Of course I’m going to go for it.”

It was the of course that won the audience over. Johnson didn’t offer a declaration about a higher calling or feeling a duty to serve. He just said “of course.”
...
Here we glimpse the paradox at the heart of Johnson: the slipperiness and the consistency, the embellishment and the truth, the factual error and the sincerity of the act.

The more time you spend with Johnson, the more you understand that this projection of chaos is both real and performative. It is the combination that is interesting."

[Pannonian]

Another instance of reality being overridden by the people's mandate. The justice secretary concurs, in his guise as a lawyer, that a formal party last Christmas, as alleged to have happened at 10 Downing Street (by several newspapers), would have been against the rules. But the PM assured him that no rules were broken. So that's that. If Boris Johnson says something is so, then it is so.

[Montmorency]

During this time our 'anti-immigrant' government has basically given a free-pass to hundreds of thousands British National (Overseas) status holders arriving from Hong Kong, so I wouldn't put too much weight in that argument:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hong-kong-uk-welcome-programme-guidance-for-local-authorities

A free pass like in Monopoly? Hardly counts if it isn't redeemed; the UK can hardly give anything up by accepting a few thousand mostly-affluent, educated Hong Kongers in excess of what it normally would, who are among the least-disliked people even among anti-immigrant extremists ("China flu" doggerel notwithstanding). If the Conservative government extended such a free pass to an equivalent population of Muslim refugees, I would genuinely be impressed.


Once brexit was voted on the salience of immigration as 'a problem' in the popular public consciousness diminished very significantly. It ceased to be a first order issue, and Pew Global polls on social attitudes continue to show the UK as one of the most tolerant countries in europe (and significantly more tolerant than most EU neighbours!).

*ahem*

There's little reason that attitudes preexisting Brexit and intensified by the Brexit era would be mollified moving beyond Brexit. A clearer phrasing of Brexit being about legitimacy exchanges "legitimacy" for "identity," the sensation of its loss or loss of control over it. And remember, the better or worse internal attitudes toward immigration in any other country are a different subject than what concerns English traditionalists particularly.


Despite the pandemic, immigration is Conservative voters’ number one concern (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/11/despite-pandemic-immigration-conservative-voters-n)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2021-08-11/Tory%20immigration%20concern-01.png


Labour's problem is also one of illegitimacy - in that the values the public see do not appear to have strong appeal to the sections of the electorate that would in previous times have been considered its core voter base:

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/st...66280811778053

At first I thought this was the economist JW Mason, but they're different people. Anyway: "Core Tory voters will accept any level of corruption/malfeasance" sounds like a tough row to hoe. Do you have any more recent and detailed analysis of English political geography to share than that?



Regarding the Atlantic article, this insight has been attached to Trump for a long time. Moreover - though this analogy, for all I know, would seem alien in the UK - Trumpism has been characterized as a mastery of a certain professional wrestling aesthetic in political form. That is to say, in professional wrestling, all the action is directed and scripted, something the audience is conscious of, yet the action is also treated on some level as being real; the rivalries, the defeats, the characters, all attain some sort of higher veridicality within the audience's (self-aware!) doublethink. Thus for redcaps and MAGAts (and here, arguably Ultras), the political arena is a field of contestation against hated effigies roamed by the heroic character of the Leader. Just a matter of selecting one's preferred protagonist?

But that bare description of course doesn't attempt an external explanation or ordering. That is, the fact that Johnson or Trump supporters have a certain worldview doesn't tell us whether that worldview is good or right in any capacity (it isn't), or - more importantly - why the majority of people consistently reject it.

Every notorious dictator and tyrant was beloved by millions you realize, perhaps according to the same underlying psychological principles of, I dunno, egoistic entanglement, cult of personality, newthink, whatever. And as Hannah Arendt wrote:


A mixture of gullibility and cynicism had been an outstanding characteristic
of mob mentality before it became an everyday phenomenon of masses.
In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the
point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing,
think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. The mixture
in itself was remarkable enough, because it spelled the end of the illusion
that gullibility was a weakness of unsuspecting primitive souls and cynicism
the vice of superior and refined minds. Mass propaganda discovered that
its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd,
and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held
every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based
their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such
conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one
day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their
falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders
who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along
that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior
tactical cleverness.

What had been a demonstrable reaction of mass audiences became an important
hierarchical principle for mass organizations. A mixture of gullibility
and cynicism is prevalent in all ranks of totalitarian movements, and
the higher the rank the more cynicism weighs down gullibility. The essential
conviction shared by all ranks, from fellow-traveler to leader, is that
politics is a game of cheating and that the "first commandment" of the
movement: "The Fuehrer is always right," is as necessary for the purposes
of world politics, i.e., world-wide cheating, as the rules of military discipline
are for the purposes of war'"·

Whether or not you would be willing to interpret this as an enduring psychosocial pathology, it is clearly aberrant and deviant psychology in the bigger picture, one that almost always contributes to great harm.


Here's another relevant article (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/only-republicans-can-stop-the-republicans-now.html), to be read in its entirety. Though it isn't about UK politics, it gets at a core issue. There are enough weakly-aligned, politically-passive/unengaged, and cross-pressured voters that in FPTP a major party simply cannot lose the majority of its support in any given election (unlike the fate of some traditional parties in European proportional systems). To reiterate, the UK Conservatives, despite being scum, are not fascist lunatics trying to bring down the whole country, but this exactly gives them a certain optical advantage over US Republicans, which in combination with structural biases and trends n their favor (not all the same as exist in the US) strengthens their grip on power. For 30 years Republicans have only once carried the presidential vote, half the time in House elections (almost all under Clinton and Bush), a third of the time in Senate elections, but if they were only debased to the level of that immigration-cuck Reagan, or more publicly diffident on the value of the government's role in social and economic support as the Tories are, they probably could reach a similar level of performance to what Johnson's Conservatives have enjoyed so far.

Yet the ratchet only goes one way: one level of corruption, malice, and entitlement always abets the next, becoming a mere transitory stage. It's hard to imagine the UK Conservatives will either improve or remain stable in 10 years' time IF they start losing in this global climate; ironically, they might already be there had Brexit stalled in 2016.




Most of the ministers of the last pre-Blair Tory government absolutely despise the current Tory government. Both in what they do as a government, and how they conduct their politics. It's like the Republicans pre-Trump and post-Trump. The current Tories are Trumpian in nature.

You greatly underestimate the corruption and complicity of pre-Trump Republicans (who, after all, didn't suddenly die, disappear, or get replaced by body snatchers when Trump ran for President): Bob Dole (GOP VP candidate '76, presidential 1996), who died today, was a firm Trump supporter from the beginning, one of Nixon's staunchest defenders during the Watergate controversy, and one of the many proponents of proto-Trumpist tactics in the Republican Party from the 1970s on.

[Furunculus]

the UK can hardly give anything up by accepting a few thousand mostly-affluent, educated Hong Kongers
A few [hundred] thousand.


And remember, the better or worse internal attitudes toward immigration in any other country are a different subject than what concerns English traditionalists particularly.
Why?
Why can we revel in the iniquity of British (yes: British), voters views on immigration without any reference to the comparably worse views of our peer (and: neighbouring), nations? p.s. you graph does show immigration as the lowest named issue.


Do you have any more recent and detailed analysis of English political geography to share than that?
Yes, but only in the general sense that we're looking at a fourth term gov't (when sitting gov't bleed popular appeal), of the tory's (you know: scum), and still the labour party seems unable to get any traction (coincidentally: while having an absurd and doctrinaire internecine civil war)...


That is, the fact that Johnson or Trump supporters have a certain worldview doesn't tell us whether that worldview is good or right in any capacity (it isn't)...

To reiterate, the UK Conservatives, despite being scum...


I think this is saying more about you than it is about the Tories (and the people who vote for them). :)

[Montmorency]

A few [hundred] thousand.

In the fullness of time, but not all of a sudden, if this factual question is your concern.

Edit: Actually, Id bet I'm partially wrong, since immigration won't be evenly distributed over time. We would expect to see core waves of migration (visas being availed plus asylum claims) accompanying specific destabilizing events in the medium-term, such as war/war-worries or the de facto termination of the Hong Kong political system. In that respect Hong Kong immigration may, for all I know, constitute the largest sudden influx to the UK and Australia (contrasted with the US) since WW2.


Why can we revel in the iniquity of British (yes: British), voters views on immigration without any reference to the comparably worse views of our peer (and: neighbouring), nations?

Don't conflate British voters with Brexit voters. And if you want to say something about Denmark or Hungary, say it separately. Inglistan zindabad and all that, but comparative politics should never be used in self-excusing capacity.


p.s. you graph does show immigration as the lowest named issue.

Among the general population, but as above, we are speaking of the Brexit cohort - who are quite heavily concentrated among Conservative supporters by now - not all the people/squirrels who exist.


I think this is saying more about you than it is about the Tories (and the people who vote for them). :)

Were you posting the Atlantic article to disagree with it?


To get some feedback on a less butthurting subject: Would the Liberal Democrats have any reason, based on internal politics, not to form another coalition with Cons in 2024 if asked?

[Pannonian]

To get some feedback on a less butthurting subject: Would the Liberal Democrats have any reason, based on internal politics, not to form another coalition with Cons in 2024 if asked?

Given how much traction the Labour left's accusation of the Lib Dems as Tory enablers has had, I doubt the Lib Dems would touch any proposed Tory coalition with a bargepole.

[Furunculus]

To get some feedback on a less butthurting subject: Would the Liberal Democrats have any reason, based on internal politics, not to form another coalition with Cons in 2024 if asked?

Not sure whose butthurt here, but: If they perceive that they can advance their agenda as part of a putative future coalition then no indeed, they [sh]ould seriously consider a coalition.

[Pannonian]

The Allegra Stratton affair sums up the Tories. The recruitment officer rejects her candidacy for press officer because she's substandard in every way. Johnson overrules the professional decision and hires her anyway because of personal links, putting her on the public payroll. She turns out to be incompetent at this role, and is moved to another, remaining on the public payroll. Rumours of parties last Christmas, at a time when lockdown rules (followed by the rest of the country) forbade them. Johnson assures us no such thing happened. Footage is released showing exactly this thing that the PM says didn't happen.

This government has no raison d'etre except corruption and funding friends and family with public money. But they have an indisputable democratic mandate, backed by voters who believe the PM's every word, no matter how it contradicts concrete evidence. If Boris Johnson says it is so, it must be so.

Oh, and Stratton has resigned and apologised for this party that Johnson assured us never happened.

[Furunculus]

live by the sword, die by the sword.

more than anything else: i'm entertained by the sheer amount of political capital boris burned on behalf of carrie in getting allegra stratton hired as chief of staff in place of cummings preferred choice! :clown:

[Montmorency]

Not sure whose butthurt here, but: If they perceive that they can advance their agenda as part of a putative future coalition then no indeed, they [sh]ould seriously consider a coalition.

I have no idea how this is being covered in UK media or analysis, but it deserves more. With the presumptive loss of Scotland to either major party, even the Conservatives suffer a reduction to their maximum hold (though not as much as Labour). This allows the LibDems, unfortunately, to reinforce their role as a gatekeeper party going forward; certainly, Labour seems likely to need LibDem cooperation to form its next government, yet alas:

"So bye, bye to the great Lib-Lab lie
That it’s made in heaven
‘cos that’s pie in the sky
Us Lib Dems will take courage and cry
“Tony Blair can f*ck off and die”"

I mean, if they don't want Tony Blair...


EDIT (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hong-kong-extradition-bill-china-protests-carrie-lam-beijing-xi-jinping-a9167226.html): Might see a pause in those BN(O) visa applications lmao.

[Furunculus]

not sure I understand the "lmao"...?

forcing a retreat on the extradition bill is a valuable victory for hong-kong chinese citizens, but i'm not sure that alone can be said to reverse the collapse in 'two-systems' hong-kong representative democracy.

[Pannonian]

Johnson might not have been at the party that Stratton resigned for, but pictorial evidence has now been posted of him at another party at No.10 a few days earlier. Still within the lockdown period.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

[Furunculus]

is that the pic where he's at the other end of remote zoom quiz - usually accompanied by distraught and tearful #FBPE types saying how they "shocked!" that he was partying while "their relatives died alone in hospital!" **tears well up in thine eyes**?

[Pannonian]

Daniel Kawczynski’s repeated pleas for lucrative employment – revealed in a series of WhatsApp messages seen by the Guardian – show him citing his pro-Saudi stance in parliament as part of an attempt to get paid work from a businessman.

The Tory MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked a fixer to find him work with a Saudi employer, describing himself as the most “pro-Saudi” member of parliament and boasting that the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman, “has stated that Saudi has no better friend in UK than me”.

In one message, Kawczynski said: “I am looking for a position with a company as non exec director or adviser/consultant. Obviously my passion for Anglo Arab relations [is] something which could help a company with relations in the UK or Middle East. Not sure what remuneration I am looking for but you are such a good negotiator!!! Best wishes Daniel.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/15/tory-mp-daniel-kawczynski-fixer-job-with-saudi-contacts-school-fees

Does his democratically elected status excuse this kind of direct grift? NB. this is the bloke who appealed to the Polish government to veto any extension of Britain's EU membership ahead of Parliament's vote on the matter.

[Furunculus]

looks like a wrong-un to me.

may all the legal and reputational forces of calamity fall upon him that be deserving of his egregious sin.

do we need a "quo vadis tories" thread?

[Montmorency]

do we need a "quo vadis tories" thread?

https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/626329504290635776

Dennis Skinner MP: "Half the Tory members opposite are crooks."
Mr Speaker told him to withdraw.
"OK, half the Tory members aren't crooks."

[Furunculus]

https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/626329504290635776

haha, not the first time that 'correction' has been used in the Commons to escape censure from the Speaker.
a classic of the genre.

[Pannonian]

Shropshire North falls to the Lib Dems in the second biggest swing post-war, after the previous Tory MP resigned due to corruption. This was the bloke who was suspended by the Commons committee investigating him, only to have his mate the PM pass a Law retrospectively exonerating him (that said corrupt MP voted for).

Now will Daniel Kawczynski face the same for using his Parliamentary status to try and get Saudi money?

[Furunculus]

A good result. Happy to see the Lib-Dems do well and dodgy MP's get punished, and complacent Governing parties put on notice.

do we need a "quo vadis tories" thread?

[rory_20_uk]

I realise that it seems to be the only recourse is to vote against the party rather than anything happens to the individual who was culpable - the politician resigned before the vote and the new person that lost (seemingly) has nothing against them.

It would be great to see recall votes against others that have also shown themselves to be corrupt - hell, even perhaps that some mechanism exists inside Westminster. Politicians of all parties react extremely negatively against actions that might shorten their tenure in what many see as jobs for life rather than representing their constituents.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The cabinet secretary who'd been appointed to investigate the truth behind allegations that parties had been held at Downing Street during lockdown has resigned. Because it's come out that he'd held parties during lockdown himself.

[Furunculus]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d8f882d2-bd00-11ec-b03a-035ba70491ca?shareToken=01ba301d151dd065d3c2140704b066a5

Once again, the British left is at war with itself. The cause of this most recent conflict: the war in Ukraine. The territorial dispute to be settled: who are the real bad guys here? Putin’s Russia, or the US and its Nato allies? Or is it perhaps both? Friendly fire is flying in all directions, injuring the reputations of all who come into contact with it.

In an interview with the Double Down News website last month, Jeremy Corbyn defended the controversial campaign group Stop the War, which is no fan of Nato. The former Labour leader’s comments served to “defend a bunch of genocide deniers and Putin proxies”, wrote the activist and journalist Paul Mason, previously a Corbyn supporter. “You sound like an unhinged McCarthyite,” responded a fellow leftist, the Guardian columnist Owen Jones, at the end of a lengthy Twitter exchange.

This is not a new battle. Mason, a former Trotskyite, says he has been fighting within the Labour Party for years. “Internally, we fought and decisively won a battle to keep Labour pro-Trident and pro-Nato,” he wrote on Twitter.

Inevitably, lurking on the fringes, are the conspiracy theorists. The comedian and actor Russell Brand is perhaps the left’s most high-profile proponent of pro-Russia conspiracies. “You’ve Been LIED To About Why Ukraine War Began”, screams one video that has garnered 2.7 million views on his YouTube channel.

James Ball, a former WikiLeaks and Guardian journalist who co-hosts the podcast The New Conspiracist, notes that such thinking stems from the far left’s scepticism of mainstream media. “If you don’t believe anything the western media says, you often end up inevitably pushed towards taking a pro-Russia line,” he says.

Lunatic fringe aside, where does this instinct come from, which opposes Nato and, its critics say, gives succour to Putin? “For older socialists, there is often a sense that they are fighting the last war,” says Ball. In their eyes, Russia still means the Soviet Union, and the urge towards a viable alternative to capitalism moves them towards support for the only alternative that has been tried.

For younger people on the left, who grew up in the shadow of the Iraq War, the case is simpler. In their eyes, the US is the world’s imperial power and, since imperialism is bad, US-backed Nato must be bad too. Seen through this lens, the fact that eastern European countries wish to join Nato is seen not as a voluntary embrace of western values but as an expansion of the US empire.

David Lammy, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, highlighted this false dichotomy in a speech to an American audience. “For too long, parts of the left, even some members of our own party, falsely divided the world into two camps: America and the West on one side, and their victims on the other. This has never been right, but this view has now been exposed for all to see as a farce.”

This is fighting talk from Lammy, turning his sights on his own side. Yet his boss, Sir Keir Starmer, has made it clear his team is up for waging this battle to the bitter end. When a group of MPs on the party’s left, including the former shadow home secretary Diane Abbott and the former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, signed a letter from Stop the War criticising Nato, Starmer threatened to withdraw the whip from them. The MPs duly removed their names, their brief stand crumbling against cold reality. Corbyn, already freed from the Labour whip, kept his name on the letter.

“Let me be clear,” Starmer told a meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) at the end of February, “there will be no place in this party for false equivalence between the actions of Russia and the actions of Nato.” Since his intervention, the PLP seems to have fallen into line. “The Labour Party has changed profoundly in the last two years. Our support for Nato is unshakeable,” he told Radio 4’s World at One.

When it comes to Ukraine, Starmer is taking a position largely indistinguishable from that of the Conservatives. He welcomed the prime minister’s package of sanctions against Russia, but called on the government to go harder and faster. On refugees, he called its efforts “too slow, too narrow, too mean”. Do what you are doing, seems to be his message to the Tories, but do more of it. Allies of Starmer say he is following his natural instincts. His position will also probably prove to be an electoral asset.

On his own side, however, he is engaged in a game of political Whac- A-Mole. The National Education Union (NEU) gave the party leadership a further headache last week after delegates rejected a motion calling for a “negotiated settlement in Ukraine” and voted against adding a clause to the motion that declared that the people of Ukraine “have a right to defend themselves against this invasion”. While the NEU is not officially affiliated with Labour, its position does give a sense that there are still those on the left who are not toeing the party line.

In his quest to change his party, Starmer has won some significant early victories. But every time it looks as if peace might break out, a new skirmish begins. The conflict is in its early days, though, and as every good general knows, what matters is not who wins the battle, but who wins the war.

[Furunculus]

i'm not sure i entirely understand this, but it looks like the left is eating itself:

the left, is using shady intelligence tactics to deplatform... the left.

there are of course shades of leftism at work here: the "hard-left", the "melts", the "trotskyist backstabbers", the "blairite warmongers", but at this stage it remains unclear as to whom can be deemed pure enough in the leftism to fit into their chosen leftish category, vs having other lefty people categorise them as the wrong sort of leftishness.

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/06/07/paul-masons-covert-intelligence-grayzone/

[Pannonian]

i'm not sure i entirely understand this, but it looks like the left is eating itself:

the left, is using shady intelligence tactics to deplatform... the left.

there are of course shades of leftism at work here: the "hard-left", the "melts", the "trotskyist backstabbers", the "blairite warmongers", but at this stage it remains unclear as to whom can be deemed pure enough in the leftism to fit into their chosen leftish category, vs having other lefty people categorise them as the wrong sort of leftishness.

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/06/07/paul-masons-covert-intelligence-grayzone/

Don't know what's new. The Corbynite left hate "centrists" above all else, and would rather attack them than the Tories. It's what's known as the "horseshoe effect".

[rory_20_uk]

Don't know what's new. The Corbynite left hate "centrists" above all else, and would rather attack them than the Tories. It's what's known as the "horseshoe effect".

It seems to be an ailment solely of the Left where ideological purity is better than power; the Right power first, ideals where possible.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

It seems to be an ailment solely of the Left where ideological purity is better than power; the Right power first, ideals where possible.

~:smoking:

It's been around a while. Why is Furunculus highlighting it now, just as the Tory party is tearing itself apart over Boris Johnson? Isn't there a more prominent example of a political party ripping itself apart in internal struggles than some non-entities on the left pining over someone who isn't even a Labour MP?

[rory_20_uk]

It's been around a while. Why is Furunculus highlighting it now, just as the Tory party is tearing itself apart over Boris Johnson? Isn't there a more prominent example of a political party ripping itself apart in internal struggles than some non-entities on the left pining over someone who isn't even a Labour MP?

It's not tearing itself apart on ideology - it is tearing itself apart over differing views over who can win elections. There's no belief here - have you heard either side have a vision beyond the power itself? There are no contenders who are challenging. Boris stays if he wins by-elections or Council seats - he might have to go if he looses. So it will settle down as soon as they find someone who they think is a "winner" (or if they find they were wrong - as was the case with Hague or Howard they'll remove ASAP and start again after a quick Knighthood or Lordship). The Left it is continuous since winning isn't the point.

Historically, PMs have given up either by this point or soon afterwards due to a combination of a decent grasp on reality or else do what is good for the whole and not just for them. Neither is likely in this case.

Oh, I didn't realise that in the Confidence Vote there are something like 160 Conservative MPs who directly have a Government stipend for something that they are apparently doing - and if Boris were to loose they'd all have to resign (or highly likely to be replaced). I imagine that if these votes were removed - whichever way they voted - the vote would be either much closer or most likely a majority against.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Oh, I didn't realise that in the Confidence Vote there are something like 160 Conservative MPs who directly have a Government stipend for something that they are apparently doing - and if Boris were to loose they'd all have to resign (or highly likely to be replaced). I imagine that if these votes were removed - whichever way they voted - the vote would be either much closer or most likely a majority against.

~:smoking:

one of my least favourite elements of 21st government - the growth of the payroll vote. creating a client parliament and thus preventing its proper functioning.