UK Politics Thread

[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.

[Pannonian]

A second ethics adviser quits, saying that the PM was pushing him to endorse a position of disregarding the ministerial code of conduct. Downing Street considers scrapping role.

So the ministers, up to and including the PM, do not observe customs regarding ministerial conduct. The PM has changed rules so that lying is no longer a resignable offence according to the code (and he'd ignored the customary action on that front anyway). The supposedly semi-independent advisers on ethics have quit.

What checks and balances are there on this government?

[Furunculus]

The PM has changed rules so that lying is no longer a resignable offence according to the code (and he'd ignored the customary action on that front anyway)

You must stop this:
Flinging out wild assertions, and then ignoring all response that would attempt to correct innacuracy found in those assertions.
Particularly, when it appears that ignoring the response causes you to repeat them after they have been demonstrated to be false.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053833896

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.

[rory_20_uk]

You must stop this:
Flinging out wild assertions, and then ignoring all response that would attempt to correct innacuracy found in those assertions.
Particularly, when it appears that ignoring the response causes you to repeat them after they have been demonstrated to be false.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053833896

He attended one or more events with quiz questions, people wearing tinsel, out of work hours and one on his birthday where he was given cake and at no point did he think he was attending a gathering that was not allowed - when almost all gatherings for any reason were not allowed?

He's either lying or has an IQ in double digits.

As long as he believes that what he did was OK then it is OK - and as long as the record is corrected then no foul, move along. This leniency wasn't shown to anyone else in any walk of life. Why on earth should this be the case with him?

[Furunculus]

He attended one or more events with quiz questions, people wearing tinsel, out of work hours and one on his birthday where he was given cake and at no point did he think he was attending a gathering that was not allowed - when almost all gatherings for any reason were not allowed?

He's either lying or has an IQ in double digits.

As long as he believes that what he did was OK then it is OK - and as long as the record is corrected then no foul, move along. This leniency wasn't shown to anyone else in any walk of life. Why on earth should this be the case with him?

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[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.

[Pannonian]

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

Said Lady Cavendish, a Tory peer.

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

This is wrong on how many levels?

[Pannonian]

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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