UK Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

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

---

That would still reflect very poorly on everyone involved.

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

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

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

Said Lady Cavendish, a Tory peer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cavendish

The government seems to have only two guiding principles: setting political traps for its opponents, and extending the power of the executive. Its Rwanda immigration scheme falls into the first category: a policy known inside Whitehall to be unworkable, but which is popular and makes critics look wet. More sinister still is the stealthy encroachment upon institutions which are supposed to act as checks on government.

---

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

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

This is wrong on how many levels?

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

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

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

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

~:smoking:

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://twitter.com/ProfMarkElliott/...10755015868421

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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



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



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

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

~:smoking:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

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

---

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

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

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

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

~:smokingL:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

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

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

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

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

~:smoking:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

~:smoking:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

:creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

they are not the same thing.

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

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

What now sovereignty?

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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

---

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

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

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

Edit: 15 AFAIK is the latest number.

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

Edit: Sorry, 21 now.

Edit: 26 now. 5 in one letter.

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

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

Edit: 35 now.

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

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

Edit: 42 resignations and 1 sacking I think.

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

How many records has this utter Legend broken?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

How many records has this utter Legend broken?

~:smoking:

---

He's still 1 day behind Neville Chamberlain.