UK Politics Thread

[Furunculus]

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

This.
Be relevant!
Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.

[Pannonian]

This.
Be relevant!
Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.

Depends on what you mean by accountable. There are any number of things that this government has done that would customarily have resulted in resignations in past governments. Except that it's only custom and not legal, so there's nothing to legally force this government to do so.

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

I simply feel that the electorate have become desensitised; they become aware of yet another 120 decibel crowd-sourced rage-fest and tune it out as noise.

[Montmorency]

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

I simply feel that the electorate have become desensitised; they become aware of yet another 120 decibel crowd-sourced rage-fest and tune it out as noise.

What do you make of the British press' coverage of Meghan Markle?

You don't, as it happens, because I am not a utopian.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but unless you want to cosplay in Children of Men,



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.

[Furunculus]

What do you make of the British press' coverage of Meghan Markle?

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

While liberals don't generally have the guts to retaliate toward the coarsening of political norms and institutions, pushing it without forethought is not to the Party's long-term benefit...
...Take it more seriously.

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

To make the British system more dysfunctional and unrepresentative than it already is will foreseeably bring the public further in line with France and the US, even accounting for an herbivorous opposition.

I agree - no-one wants a dysfunctional and unrepresentative system of governance.
Looking at your graph leads me to be both surprised and delighted that despite; the financial crisis, brexit, covid, the cost of living crisis, less than half of britons believe that the political/economic systems need complete or major reform - similar to germany.
I contend that the system is evidently flexible in a way that america and france seem not to be.
And insist the Labour party take an interest in being relevant - if for no other reason than to prevent the further coarsening of political norms and institutions.

If they don't then they will be displaced, eventually. As happened a hundred years ago when the liberals ceased to be relevant to the demands and expectations of the electorate in a previous episode of revolutionary fervour.

[Montmorency]

If you mean specifically; i don't know. I am a monarchist, not a royalist - and therefore entirely disinterested in the private lives of the royal family.

I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.

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

I agree - no-one wants a dysfunctional and unrepresentative system of governance.
Looking at your graph leads me to be both surprised and delighted that despite; the financial crisis, brexit, covid, the cost of living crisis, less than half of britons believe that the political/economic systems need complete or major reform - similar to germany.
I contend that the system is evidently flexible in a way that america and france seem not to be.

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

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

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

If they don't then they will be displaced, eventually. As happened a hundred years ago when the liberals ceased to be relevant to the demands and expectations of the electorate in a previous episode of revolutionary fervour.

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



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

[Pannonian]

I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.



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

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



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



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

The other constitutional aspects might be workable as long as the other constitutional aspects were functional. The problem amongst all this is how pretty much all the constitution is based on custom, and not legally actionable. This didn't used to be a problem in the past when custom alone was enough to force action. It's a problem now that we have a government that decides that custom means nothing, and only the law, which it leans hard on, can force it into action. And this government depends on its support not caring about the custom-based constitution either. And as one of its former peers observed, even this isn't enough, as it gathers up loose strands of power where it does not already control things.

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

[Furunculus]

I think you mean it the other way around, unless you want a stronger monarchy.

To quote Askdifference i am: "An advocate of, or believer in, monarchy" as opposed to a "supporter of a particular royal regime".

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

My confidence is of course hedged around with caveats. And yet both the similarity and the contrast with comparitive nations is striking - accepting that the data is ~2020.

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

The system is what the system is. People understand how it works - including its limitations - and yet they choose to retain the system.

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

How would you like to measure societal resilience?
You might look at the last last time it was subject to revolutionary upheavel relative to its peer nations...

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

That is a view, but it is not one i share.

I remain of the view that:

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

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

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

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

Be relevant. Don't shriek all the time. Get into power. Do what you said you would do to make the world a better place. Be accountable for the consequences. Reflect on where ambitions failed to meet reality. Rinse. Repeat.

[Furunculus]

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

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

On this subject:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/0...-bias-anymore/

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[Montmorency]

On this subject:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/0...-bias-anymore/

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Montmorency]

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

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

That would still reflect very poorly on everyone involved.

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

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