Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 510 of 738

Thread: UK Politics Thread

  1. #481

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Hasn't Pann done so verbosely? The social turbulences are ideological and cultural, transcending Brexit as event, contributing to a likely future breakup of the UK and an English political environment where civil power-sharing norms and institutions coarsen or break down progressively over time.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  2. #482
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    The Mail is now suggesting that England becomes independent. This would further cement permanent Tory rule, with the loss of the disproportionately non-Tory nations.

    To think that the Tories played on the SNP's desire for Scottish independence thus meaning that a Labour government would threaten the UK.

  3. #483
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The Mail is now suggesting that England becomes independent. This would further cement permanent Tory rule, with the loss of the disproportionately non-Tory nations.

    To think that the Tories played on the SNP's desire for Scottish independence thus meaning that a Labour government would threaten the UK.
    The Tories, or more correctly known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, have tended to be against jettisoning the peripheral scraps - with Sir Tony being the person who has really managed to turbocharge the whole thing with all three quickly developing parties that are extremely Nationalist and parochial. Whether that was his intention or not is somewhat moot now.

    Surely what is odd is that we have a system where there are now separate parliaments in Northern Ireland (when the children stop squabbling), Wales and Scotland with the English sort of told that since Westminster is self evidently the best then this one is enough. The direction is clear - Scotland is solely here for the money, Wales is so stunted it isn't a viable entity and Northern Ireland is as always a mess with the South happier to claim to want it than actually have to deal with the mess.

    If there is a new way for the four Nations to have some structure then I'm happy to hear about it. But surely the starting point is that all four want to be a part of it. As things stand, we seem to get along better with Canada, Australia and New Zealand - and that might well be due to distance and little interference. There is talk of CANZUK and perhaps such a looser grouping would be more suitable. Perhaps not since Scotland wants to get in with the EU and those sweet subsidies as soon as it gained independence and Northern Ireland would one way or another also do the same.

    At least in the USA, even though there seem to be deep divisions and many of each camp think that the other are traitors / criminals / bastards etc - they all intrinsically think of themselves as American first and then loyalty to their state second. Here that just doesn't seem to hold true anymore.

    As to whether this divestment would cement Tory rule, one thought would be for Labour to develop a set of plans that people actually agree with, as opposed to clinging to ideals that have never really managed to scrape over the line in about 50 years, with Sir Tony forcing the party to power by shredding most of the baggage.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

    Member thankful for this post:



  4. #484
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    As to whether this divestment would cement Tory rule, one thought would be for Labour to develop a set of plans that people actually agree with, as opposed to clinging to ideals that have never really managed to scrape over the line in about 50 years
    This.
    Be relevant!
    Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  5. #485

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    When Scots can't live with Angloids and Russians can't live with Ukrainians, in this 21st century, it might do to revisit the general study of disintegrative social forces. Who were the old politologues and sociologists who observed that the presence of social order over chaos is an affirmative mystery?

    Why should we believe that "English" or "Irish" wish to share a country with "themselves?" Polities are always provisional.

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    The Tories, or more correctly known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, have tended to be against jettisoning the peripheral scraps - with Sir Tony being the person who has really managed to turbocharge the whole thing with all three quickly developing parties that are extremely Nationalist and parochial. Whether that was his intention or not is somewhat moot now.

    Surely what is odd is that we have a system where there are now separate parliaments in Northern Ireland (when the children stop squabbling), Wales and Scotland with the English sort of told that since Westminster is self evidently the best then this one is enough. The direction is clear - Scotland is solely here for the money, Wales is so stunted it isn't a viable entity and Northern Ireland is as always a mess with the South happier to claim to want it than actually have to deal with the mess.

    If there is a new way for the four Nations to have some structure then I'm happy to hear about it. But surely the starting point is that all four want to be a part of it. As things stand, we seem to get along better with Canada, Australia and New Zealand - and that might well be due to distance and little interference. There is talk of CANZUK and perhaps such a looser grouping would be more suitable. Perhaps not since Scotland wants to get in with the EU and those sweet subsidies as soon as it gained independence and Northern Ireland would one way or another also do the same.

    At least in the USA, even though there seem to be deep divisions and many of each camp think that the other are traitors / criminals / bastards etc - they all intrinsically think of themselves as American first and then loyalty to their state second. Here that just doesn't seem to hold true anymore.

    As to whether this divestment would cement Tory rule, one thought would be for Labour to develop a set of plans that people actually agree with, as opposed to clinging to ideals that have never really managed to scrape over the line in about 50 years, with Sir Tony forcing the party to power by shredding most of the baggage.

    Reminds me of the observation that the center right respects protest and organizing on their side so much more than the center left respects the same on theirs. It's hard for me to perceive in what way Starmer's Labour resembles 1970s Labour more than 1990s Labour.

    I don't understand the concept of setting very low standards of governance for your country and complaining when it lives up to them.

    What is the key to non-partisan enthusiasm? Voter disappointment with the alternative, or positive enchantment with a policy platform? Political demography and geography, or records of good government?

    For half a year now Labour has led the Tories in the polls for almost-certainly the exact same reasons the Republicans have led on the generic ballot for the same amount of time, and why Biden's approval rating came up parallel with Trump's, that being the sting of global inflation that no national leaders can control (short of unpopular or theoretical state interventions).

    The difference between the left and the right sometimes seems to be that the former will choose flight or freeze over fight.

    So maybe inflation will be durable and Labour's proposal to tax oil and gas profits will push them over the 40% line they need to capture a majority, or maybe it won't and Conservatives can offer some new distraction to keep the 35% they absolutely need.

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.
    I have bad news for you...
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  6. #486
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    This.
    Be relevant!
    Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.
    Depends on what you mean by accountable. There are any number of things that this government has done that would customarily have resulted in resignations in past governments. Except that it's only custom and not legal, so there's nothing to legally force this government to do so.

    Except that nearly the whole of our constitution is based on custom. Which means that, due to this (according to you accountable) government's practices, there are no limits on what this government can do.

    Which is why this government is despised by pretty much every ex-minister from past governments.

  7. #487
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    But we're still talking about the failings of this government - which I agree are egregious - and not about the fact that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are not able to be relevant to the electorate.

    But on the point about public indifference to the egregious personal and moral failings of the government, i do genuinely believe the problem is one of the boy who cried wolf:

    In the last decade there has been a complete disappearance of 'calibration' in UK political discourse.
    Every failing, regardless of severity, immediately results in shrill outrage broadcast and amplified.
    There is no distinction, no sober consideration, and absolutely no attempt to do anything but impute the worst possible motive for any deviancy from the norm.
    Just volume. Immediate volume. A Pavlovian response to crowd source 120 decibels of rage.

    The sheer visceral rage that surrounded party-gate's big reveal - that boris had been presented a cake during a ten minute interlude - was frankly absurd. It lacked calibration.

    I simply feel that the electorate have become desensitised; they become aware of yet another 120 decibel crowd-sourced rage-fest and tune it out as noise.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 05-20-2022 at 09:59.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  8. #488
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Hasn't Pann done so verbosely? The social turbulences are ideological and cultural, transcending Brexit as event, contributing to a likely future breakup of the UK and an English political environment where civil power-sharing norms and institutions coarsen or break down progressively over time.
    well, if you were choosing to base your response purely what someone else said you might have stated that my argument was disputed - which would be fair enough - rather than that (an unspecified proportion of) it was unlikely to hold any truth.

    this was written about the american political establishment ~2016, but it maps equally well on the britsh situation:
    https://twitter.com/A_NeedhamNYU/sta...52771834880003

    Quote Originally Posted by Monty
    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.
    I have bad news for you...
    You don't, as it happens, because I am not a utopian.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 05-21-2022 at 11:42.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  9. #489

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    The sheer visceral rage that surrounded party-gate's big reveal - that boris had been presented a cake during a ten minute interlude - was frankly absurd. It lacked calibration.

    I simply feel that the electorate have become desensitised; they become aware of yet another 120 decibel crowd-sourced rage-fest and tune it out as noise.
    What do you make of the British press' coverage of Meghan Markle?

    You don't, as it happens, because I am not a utopian.
    I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but unless you want to cosplay in Children of Men,



    shouldn't be your default instinct toward anything your political opponents find, ah, distasteful.

    I'll elaborate. You find the Conservative Party relevant and accountable to your preferences in governance. That's fine (sic). But most Briton's don't. While liberals don't generally have the guts to retaliate toward the coarsening of political norms and institutions, pushing it without forethought is not to the Party's long-term benefit. Take the NYMag quote to heart. It concerns the refusal to acknowledge the existence of radically-divergent ideologies, but applies to more basic differences in the nature of the disregard.

    Evidence against, but not for, the credibility of

    People forget we've been through these social turbulences before, and will do again. The important point is for 'the system' to be flexible and adaptable enough to accomodate the pressures, rather than resorting to revolutionary rupture.
    appears throughout even your own postings. Take it more seriously. To make the British system more dysfunctional and unrepresentative than it already is will foreseeably bring the public further in line with France and the US, even accounting for an herbivorous opposition.

    Last edited by Montmorency; 05-22-2022 at 04:31.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:



  10. #490
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    What do you make of the British press' coverage of Meghan Markle?
    If you mean specifically; i don't know. I am a monarchist, not a royalist - and therefore entirely disinterested in the private lives of the royal family.
    If you mean generally; then i laugh at meghan's failed attempt to to bring american PR and 'personality' into british distance - and disappointed that Harry lacks the capacity to realise the inevitability of this failure.
    Either way, i'm not sure how it relates to UK political governance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    While liberals don't generally have the guts to retaliate toward the coarsening of political norms and institutions, pushing it without forethought is not to the Party's long-term benefit...
    ...Take it more seriously.
    We have an adversarial political system; it is explicitly the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to hold the gov't to account.
    Labour cannot perform this role if people won't vote for them, and yet they seem incurious about what the electorate actually wants.
    They need to be relevant!

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    To make the British system more dysfunctional and unrepresentative than it already is will foreseeably bring the public further in line with France and the US, even accounting for an herbivorous opposition.
    I agree - no-one wants a dysfunctional and unrepresentative system of governance.
    Looking at your graph leads me to be both surprised and delighted that despite; the financial crisis, brexit, covid, the cost of living crisis, less than half of britons believe that the political/economic systems need complete or major reform - similar to germany.
    I contend that the system is evidently flexible in a way that america and france seem not to be.
    And insist the Labour party take an interest in being relevant - if for no other reason than to prevent the further coarsening of political norms and institutions.

    If they don't then they will be displaced, eventually. As happened a hundred years ago when the liberals ceased to be relevant to the demands and expectations of the electorate in a previous episode of revolutionary fervour.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 05-22-2022 at 09:34.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  11. #491

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    If you mean specifically; i don't know. I am a monarchist, not a royalist - and therefore entirely disinterested in the private lives of the royal family.
    I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.

    We have an adversarial political system; it is explicitly the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to hold the gov't to account.
    Labour cannot perform this role if people won't vote for them, and yet they seem incurious about what the electorate actually wants.
    They need to be relevant!

    I agree - no-one wants a dysfunctional and unrepresentative system of governance.
    Looking at your graph leads me to be both surprised and delighted that despite; the financial crisis, brexit, covid, the cost of living crisis, less than half of britons believe that the political/economic systems need complete or major reform - similar to germany.
    I contend that the system is evidently flexible in a way that america and france seem not to be.
    It's in the image captioning, but these survey materials are from 2020. So for example the numbers would be higher for the US today. I don't know about the rest, but I doubt they've diminished for the UK. You seem confident that they have or are, but the long-term discontent the Conservatives are sowing makes that estimation a gamble. I didn't expect half the British public condemning fundamental aspects of the existing system to be a cause for optimism.

    The substance of your judgement on the relevance of Labour politics is difficult for me to judge objectively - would 39% vote share be qualitatively less relevant than a 42% share? - but this expectation

    And insist the Labour party take an interest in being relevant - if for no other reason than to prevent the further coarsening of political norms and institutions.

    If they don't then they will be displaced, eventually. As happened a hundred years ago when the liberals ceased to be relevant to the demands and expectations of the electorate in a previous episode of revolutionary fervour.
    would bely your confidence that Britain is inherently resilient to social upheaval. It's also a troubling outgrowth of a certain political Americanism, namely that it is up to the center-left to take responsibility for the center-right's flaws. You probably said this on the basis of the parliamentary opposition's traditional role being to devise optical and electoral penalties against ruling parties, but to go beyond that and invert the responsibility for good government just reproduces American pathologies.



    TBH I think one thing that has become clear is that simple FPTP is one of the worst available electoral systems, including all the others. If stability is the highest priority, it's clear that ditching FPTP would alone offer considerable inoculation to the French, British, and American polities. Notwithstanding all the other problems - that is, FPTP alone is such a major and singular source of dysfunction that removing it would support the lifespan of almost any political system.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 05-23-2022 at 07:05.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  12. #492
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.



    It's in the image captioning, but these survey materials are from 2020. So for example the numbers would be higher for the US today. I don't know about the rest, but I doubt they've diminished for the UK. You seem confident that they have or are, but the long-term discontent the Conservatives are sowing makes that estimation a gamble. I didn't expect half the British public condemning fundamental aspects of the existing system to be a cause for optimism.

    The substance of your judgement on the relevance of Labour politics is difficult for me to judge objectively - would 39% vote share be qualitatively less relevant than a 42% share? - but this expectation



    would bely your confidence that Britain is inherently resilient to social upheaval. It's also a troubling outgrowth of a certain political Americanism, namely that it is up to the center-left to take responsibility for the center-right's flaws. You probably said this on the basis of the parliamentary opposition's traditional role being to devise optical and electoral penalties against ruling parties, but to go beyond that and invert the responsibility for good government just reproduces American pathologies.



    TBH I think one thing that has become clear is that simple FPTP is one of the worst available electoral systems, including all the others. If stability is the highest priority, it's clear that ditching FPTP would alone offer considerable inoculation to the French, British, and American polities. Notwithstanding all the other problems - that is, FPTP alone is such a major and singular source of dysfunction that removing it would support the lifespan of almost any political system.
    The other constitutional aspects might be workable as long as the other constitutional aspects were functional. The problem amongst all this is how pretty much all the constitution is based on custom, and not legally actionable. This didn't used to be a problem in the past when custom alone was enough to force action. It's a problem now that we have a government that decides that custom means nothing, and only the law, which it leans hard on, can force it into action. And this government depends on its support not caring about the custom-based constitution either. And as one of its former peers observed, even this isn't enough, as it gathers up loose strands of power where it does not already control things.

    Both the government and its support can most accurately be described as Trumpian.

  13. #493
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.
    To quote Askdifference i am: "An advocate of, or believer in, monarchy" as opposed to a "supporter of a particular royal regime".

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    It's in the image captioning, but these survey materials are from 2020. So for example the numbers would be higher for the US today. I don't know about the rest, but I doubt they've diminished for the UK. You seem confident that they have or are, but the long-term discontent the Conservatives are sowing makes that estimation a gamble. I didn't expect half the British public condemning fundamental aspects of the existing system to be a cause for optimism.
    My confidence is of course hedged around with caveats. And yet both the similarity and the contrast with comparitive nations is striking - accepting that the data is ~2020.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    The substance of your judgement on the relevance of Labour politics is difficult for me to judge objectively - would 39% vote share be qualitatively less relevant than a 42% share? - but this expectation
    The system is what the system is. People understand how it works - including its limitations - and yet they choose to retain the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    would bely your confidence that Britain is inherently resilient to social upheaval. It's also a troubling outgrowth of a certain political Americanism, namely that it is up to the center-left to take responsibility for the center-right's flaws. You probably said this on the basis of the parliamentary opposition's traditional role being to devise optical and electoral penalties against ruling parties, but to go beyond that and invert the responsibility for good government just reproduces American pathologies.
    How would you like to measure societal resilience?
    You might look at the last last time it was subject to revolutionary upheavel relative to its peer nations...

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    TBH I think one thing that has become clear is that simple FPTP is one of the worst available electoral systems, including all the others. If stability is the highest priority, it's clear that ditching FPTP would alone offer considerable inoculation to the French, British, and American polities. Notwithstanding all the other problems - that is, FPTP alone is such a major and singular source of dysfunction that removing it would support the lifespan of almost any political system.
    That is a view, but it is not one i share.

    I remain of the view that:

    a) a significant proportion of the alleged coursensing of political norms and institutions is nothing more than performative outrage, from a political pole that has forgotten that the role of "HMML Opposition" entails more than just pavlovian shrieking on general broadcast...

    b) ...further, that not only is a significant proportion invented behind performative outrage, another significant proportion [IS] that performative outrage; where calls for 'direct action' are fine, and every action is perceived through in the least charitable interpretation possible.

    c) that we have a political system that prioritises internal coalitions that negotiate manifesto platforms in public before an election, rather than external coalitions that negotiate policy platforms in private after an election...

    d) ...and that such a binary choice requires a manifesto offer that appeals to the electoral common ground, across the geographic and social divide, which should obsolete niche policy proposals that generate widespread electoral distaste.

    Be relevant. Don't shriek all the time. Get into power. Do what you said you would do to make the world a better place. Be accountable for the consequences. Reflect on where ambitions failed to meet reality. Rinse. Repeat.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 05-25-2022 at 13:37.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  14. #494
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    One of the few remaining ways of ensuring accountability, now that the Tories have secured control of most of the legal avenues and ignored the ones based on custom, is independent reporting on the PM's actions. And Johnson pressured the investigator to not publish her report. And has instigated other meetings since then (and lied about them).

    Government accountability is something in other countries that I can read about. Not something that happens in the UK.

  15. #495

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    To quote Askdifference i am: "An advocate of, or believer in, monarchy" as opposed to a "supporter of a particular royal regime".
    This is concerning to me, because your literal meaning is that you don't (limit yourself to) support the existing British monarchy but rather espouse monarchy - more than a symbolic one - as a desirable principle for the organization of society. Unless we're swapping the usage of the terms, it's pointless to discuss here the operation of parliamentary or other forms of democracy.

    My confidence is of course hedged around with caveats. And yet both the similarity and the contrast with comparitive nations is striking - accepting that the data is ~2020.
    Don't be caught with your pants down. There must be a number of plausible progressions, but my watch-for remains Scottish independence consequent to a medium-term Labour-SNP coalition, coinciding with long-term degradation of public institutions such as the NHS and a long wilderness period for Labour, radicalizing much of the electorate. One such scenario was visibly averted by the satiation of the anti-EU element of the British right.

    The system is what the system is. People understand how it works - including its limitations - and yet they choose to retain the system.
    The alternative is immediate civil rupture, a revolution that may or may not be violent. So it's not saying much for the UK not to be Syria or Myanmar. Neither is the US.

    How would you like to measure societal resilience?
    You might look at the last last time it was subject to revolutionary upheavel relative to its peer nations...
    "It can't happen here" is not a strong argument when made irrespective of contemporary conditions or trends. Technically speaking, the US has experienced fewer wars and revolutions on domestic soil than the English polity has. But it can happen - is happening - here. We can observe similar developments across the Anglosphere, just with a difference of degree. That the US is worst off doesn't make anyone else Safe. Who's in second place after America?

    a) a significant proportion of the alleged coursensing of political norms and institutions is nothing more performative outrage, from a political pole that has forgotten that the role of "HMML Opposition" entails more than just pavlovian shrieking on general broadcast...
    Yes, but you're a supporter of the ruling coalition, so the lack of substance you perceive in some of these will at least partly reflect the philosophical and temperamental gulf between coalitions. One thing that is clear from what (extra-electoral) surveying I happen upon is that very often non-coalition members are unified in rejecting the Conservatives in terms of relevance and accountability - they just don't share an anti-coalition. The ratchet turns for all; how will the Conservatives be poised to carry on when they lose power next, given how they act when in power?

    b) ...further, that not only is a significant proportion invented behind performative outrage, another significant proportion [IS] that performative outrage; where calls for 'direct action' are fine, and every action is perceived through in the least charitable interpretation possible.
    I mean, Vote Leave was performative outrage. But in the end, it is what it is - the coarsening is happening regardless of its 'true origin.' No one here, other than Pann I guess, is trying to valorize legacy normative arrangements, but they're going out because they've failed to constrain politics in a positive way, yet leaving no replacement.

    c) that we have a political system that prioritises internal coalitions that negotiate manifesto platforms in public before an election, rather than external coalitions that negotiate policy platforms in private after an election...

    d) ...and that such a binary choice requires a manifesto offer that appeals to the electoral common ground, across the geographic and social divide, which should obsolete niche policy proposals that generate widespread electoral distaste.
    The distinction between executive and legislature is more nuanced in a parliamentary system (e.g. in America both are referred to as "government," but typically only the (ruling coalition of the) legislature is "the government" in parliamentary systems), but the aggravation with this government as far as I can tell usually stems from the conduct and policies of the executive, making policy promises kept or unkept by the parliament less relevant.

    Be relevant. Don't shriek all the time. Get into power. Do what you said you would do to make the world a better place. Be accountable for the consequences. Reflect on where ambitions failed to meet reality. Rinse. Repeat.
    You said you weren't a utopian.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 05-24-2022 at 02:58.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  16. #496
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    This is concerning to me, because your literal meaning is that you don't (limit yourself to) support the existing British monarchy but rather espouse monarchy - more than a symbolic one - as a desirable principle for the organization of society. Unless we're swapping the usage of the terms, it's pointless to discuss here the operation of parliamentary or other forms of democracy.
    Do not be too concerned; we inhabit the 21st century not the 15th. When I describe myself as a monarchist it is in the current British sense of a constitutional democracy, i.e. as opposed to that modern alternative of a presidential system.
    I do not yearn for the rule of a Sun King.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  17. #497
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Boris Johnson changes rules so that being a lying **** doesn't carry with it an expectation to resign. Other changes include independent adviser no longer having power to launch investigation without the PM's permission.

    So if the PM does something wrong, he is no longer expected to be penalised, and the independent investigator can only investigate with his permission. If the PM decides to be above investigation or accountability, then it is so.

    Cue calls on the Queen to use her constitutional powers whilst knowing that will never happen, thus excusing the Tories because it's all legal and constitutional.

  18. #498
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Boris Johnson changes rules so that being a lying **** doesn't carry with it an expectation to resign. Other changes include independent adviser no longer having power to launch investigation without the PM's permission.

    So if the PM does something wrong, he is no longer expected to be penalised, and the independent investigator can only investigate with his permission. If the PM decides to be above investigation or accountability, then it is so.
    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1530286112274534403

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Peston
    I got something stupidly WRONG. As @timd_IFG has pointed out. Willingly lying to parliament is still an offence where resignation is expected. That paragraph in the code has not been changed. Here it is: ? It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate nd truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister ?. So if the PM were found to have ? knowingly mislead MPs, he would have to offer his resignation to himself. Sorry for getting that wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus
    not only is a significant proportion (of the alleged coarsening of political norms and institutions), invented behind performative outrage, another significant proportion [IS] that performative outrage; where calls for 'direct action' are fine, and every action is perceived through in the least charitable interpretation possible.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 05-28-2022 at 14:18.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  19. #499
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Will be expected to resign... A good chap would, wouldn't he?

    We need to choose the approach the Military has - where "conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman" is a crime. As I have the controversial view that bieng in charge of the country is important.

    Failing that, have the same approach the Pharmaceutical Industry does where the rules are enforced by an independant panel and one can be in trouble if what one did gives a bad impression.

    But no. Even suggesting that stopping subsidised drinkies at work is unfair and finding evidence of cocaine on most toilets gets mildly tutted.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

    Member thankful for this post:



  20. #500
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Will be expected to resign... A good chap would, wouldn't he?

    We need to choose the approach the Military has - where "conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman" is a crime. As I have the controversial view that bieng in charge of the country is important.

    Failing that, have the same approach the Pharmaceutical Industry does where the rules are enforced by an independant panel and one can be in trouble if what one did gives a bad impression.

    But no. Even suggesting that stopping subsidised drinkies at work is unfair and finding evidence of cocaine on most toilets gets mildly tutted.

    There were some independent bodies that sort of oversaw certain aspects of government and elections, but this government has brought them under its control. The electoral commission is now expected to follow government guidelines as per a couple of months ago. The independent investigator into government affairs, as per this week, can now only investigate with the PM's permission. And of course, people without photo ID, overwhelmingly a group that votes non-Tory, are no longer allowed to vote.

  21. #501
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

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

    Do you think he should resign?

  22. #502
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,688
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

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

    Something apart is the only rigorous approach.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  23. #503
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    They're never independent - they're chosen by and removed by the government. Remember the Independant drug panel who were all removed when they ranked drugs by harm?

    Something apart is the only rigorous approach.

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

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

  24. #504
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

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

    Do you think he should resign?
    Yes, i'd like him to resign too, for the reason you mention.

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

    The coarsening of norms and institutions cuts both ways.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 05-28-2022 at 23:07.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  25. #505
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    920

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Boris busy with the real issues...

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

    Member thankful for this post:



  26. #506
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Thought this was rather good:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-death-trust/

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Partygate is really about leadership, lies and the death of trust

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

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

    Three points stand out from this grubby saga.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lord Sumption sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, 2012-18.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  27. #507
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Crandar View Post
    Boris busy with the real issues...

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

    Member thankful for this post:



  28. #508
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

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

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

    “We believe that the BoE is hiking for a different set of reasons than the Federal Reserve,” Sharma said. “Whereas the Fed is hiking against the backdrop of a strong domestic economy, the Bank is facing a number of unique supply challenges — most notably Brexit. As a result, each rate hike has been met by a confusing communication strategy as the Bank finds it increasingly difficult to sell rate hikes on its merits.”
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9...e9871f5b5364e4

  29. #509
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    I had caught the same headline yesterday.

    BoA do appear to have form here:
    https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/st...42824646320128
    Shout out to Bank of America today for their contribution to recycling (the same analyst said the same thing about sterling in 2020, and it was soon debunked)...
    On the 'why' this claim is disputed:
    https://www.ft.com/content/4d7b4e18-...2-f27cb329a11c
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Sterling has not become an emerging market currency
    And neither will it any time soon.
    Jemima Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In for a penny, in for a pound

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

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

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

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

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

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

    All this is not to say that the pound’s status hasn’t been significantly affected by Brexit; clearly it has been, at least temporarily. But the UK is still one of the world’s biggest and most influential economies, with leading universities, the English language, and high-quality cultural and manufacturing exports. Let’s not get carried away; the Great British Peso will live to see another day.
    Last edited by Furunculus; 05-31-2022 at 09:14.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  30. #510
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In related, more recent news, Alexander Lebedev has been sanctioned by Canada as one of Putin's inner circle, while the UK government has taken steps to protect him. NB. his son Evgeny was made a Lord by Boris Johnson against the advice of the security services.
    Last edited by Pannonian; 05-31-2022 at 13:57.

Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO