UK Politics Thread

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Furunculus]

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

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Pannonian]

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

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

Do you think he should resign?