UK Politics Thread

[rory_20_uk]

Iraq happened 20 years ago in another country. Suella Braverman is redefining what is happening now and in the future in the UK. One of them is more relevant than the other.

Not that I supported Iraq back then. I was against every one of Blair's foreign adventures.

It happened 20 years ago in the UK about another country.

What Suella is doing is similar to what I do in my job - checking if things are OK to do. Any idiot can just say "no". She is asking them to mitigate risk and be "solutions focused". Y'know - helpful.

Why not 100% lawful? Because laws are often written poorly with vague language, are out of date and often overlap. Expecting each lawyer to know exactly through this mess what any judge might think in the event of a theoretical complaint is impossible. And frankly, if they were that good they'd probably be in private practice. This of itself doesn't mean she's advocating for bringing back slavery and the Star court or extrajudicial killings.

My ultimate point is that under the current system, people like Blair can get a legal opinion, be told what he's doing is illegal, demand a rewrite one to say its 100% legal and based on this move on. This is if anything worse since it pretends risk doesn't exist.

[rory_20_uk]

Case in point - Kier was 100% certain he'd done nothing wrong and it turns out he's made 8 minor errors registering some small gifts. Humans are fallible - why do politicians appear to have all the answers or perfect recall (Boris is the outlier given ambiguity avoids the criminal threshold for guilt).

And in other news the Heads of the NHS have criticised the two candidates for not having a plan to fix the NHS.

Just let that sink in.

A large number of people, all who are paid easily in the 6 figures with final salary pensions whose sole purpose is sorting out the NHS is bleating two people who have never worked in healthcare and not been the health minister don't have an answer for them! They should be clamoring with proposals and ideas that their decades of high paid strategic leadership created that were refused by the DoH under Johnson. Well, "should" in the fantasy world where those at the top are there for their ability.

[Pannonian]

Clip surfaces of Sunak criticising Labour for putting funding into deprived areas, and that he (Sunak) moved funding away from that.

[Pannonian]

Video from the Leave campaign

Absolutely none of it has come true after Leave won. Just about all of it has gone the opposite of what was promised in that video.

Is there any way of holding Brexiteers to what they had promised?

How will you benefit when we leave the EU?

You'll benefit from better care provided by our NHS thanks to the reallocation of funds from the EU budget

Controlled immigration will lead to reduced waiting times for you and your loved ones

Excess funding that would otherwise be sent to Brussels could also be directed to education

Your wages will rise thanks to better controlled immigration, which will lead to less competition for jobs

Your weekly food shop will become cheaper

Food prices will no longer be inflated by agricultural policies controlled by the EU

You and your family will benefit from a resurgent economy led by new and flourishing small businesses following the removal of burdensome EU regulations and red tape

With less pressure on housing, younger generations will also find it easier to get on the housing ladder

Politicians, both local and national, will become more accountable, helping to strengthen your community and others

Especially those most damaged by EU policies like farming, fishing, and industries like steel

A more prosperous and safer future awaits us outside the EU

A vote to leave is a vote for a brighter future for you, your family and your community

[Furunculus]

Absolutely none of it has come true after Leave won. Just about all of it has gone the opposite of what was promised in that video.

Is there any way of holding Brexiteers to what they had promised?

i'm a leave voter, and i am quite content with the decision six years later.

are you manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist...?

[Pannonian]

i'm a leave voter, and i am quite content with the decision six years later.

are you manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist...?

A lot of the above is measurable using objective metrics (cost before and after, investment before and after, etc.). Are we allowed to measure them and compare what has become with what was promised? Or does your approval override objective assessment?

[Furunculus]

A lot of the above is measurable using objective metrics (cost before and after, investment before and after, etc.). Are we allowed to measure them and compare what has become with what was promised? Or does your approval override objective assessment?

Sure, fill your boots.

A few interesting indicators with comparable EU nations:
Manufacturing PMI
GDP growth since 2016
Unemployment
Investment in tech and fin-tech sectors
Inflation
% non-performing debts in the banking sector
climate change goals - inc coal use**


https://external-preview.redd.it/IE_...=webp&1de1b0af

[Pannonian]

Sure, fill your boots.

A few interesting indicators with comparable EU nations:
Manufacturing PMI
GDP growth since 2016
Unemployment
Investment in tech and fin-tech sectors
Inflation
% non-performing debts in the banking sector
climate change goals - inc coal use**


https://external-preview.redd.it/IE_...=webp&1de1b0af

Why are we comparing with the EU again, when the promises were made about how we would improve our prospects, ie. comparing with ourselves? We're out of the EU now. Why are you still obsessed with our relationship with the EU?

[Furunculus]

Why are we comparing with the EU again, when the promises were made about how we would improve our prospects, ie. comparing with ourselves? We're out of the EU now. Why are you still obsessed with our relationship with the EU?

because it helps account for the effects of externalities.
small things like covid, ukraine, etc.

how would you like to do it?
perhaps via CER modelling of putative uk doppler economy absent brexit - using the US as the basis (during a time when the worlds reserve currency doubled its balance sheet with money printing)...

[Pannonian]

because it helps account for the effects of externalities.
small things like covid, ukraine, etc.

how would you like to do it?
perhaps via CER modelling of putative uk doppler economy absent brexit - using the US as the basis (during a time when the worlds reserve currency doubled its balance sheet with money printing)...

I remember one of the arguments being made for Brexit (by PVC here?) is that it would force us to stop looking to the EU for excuses, that we would be forced to own up to the effects of our own decisions. I transcribed the list of Leave promises, and the first response is to compare with the EU. We entered a pandemic, and the government's response was to say that we wouldn't have been able to do what we did within the EU, and to compare our vaccination results with the EU. Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and our government compares our response with the EU.

[Furunculus]

I remember one of the arguments being made for Brexit (by PVC here?) is that it would force us to stop looking to the EU for excuses, that we would be forced to own up to the effects of our own decisions.

He would be absolutely right. No argument there.

What does this have to do with using comparable nations to which we economically connected when we measure them and compare what has become of the UK as a result of the variable here; brexit - which is your interest here, correct?

[Montmorency]

I can't tell you what your link reports, but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data, i.e. the past and current performance. For example, if one believes that the UK has posted both higher GDP growth and inflation than its counterparts have for many years (though I'm not sure the former is actually the case), it suggests underlying structural factors are at play in which EU membership is not germane either way. If the point is to identify consequences.

[Pannonian]

I can't tell you what your link reports, but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data, i.e. the past and current performance. For example, if one believes that the UK has posted both higher GDP growth and inflation than its counterparts have for many years (though I'm not sure the former is actually the case), it suggests underlying structural factors are at play in which EU membership is not germane either way. If the point is to identify consequences.

It doesn't help that the minister in charge of identifying Brexit opportunities, who is one of the leaders of the movement, and who said that we should be waiting 50 years before drawing conclusions (see also the argument posted here that we should wait 40 years before having another vote), is on record as saying that we should not be measuring the effects of Brexit. Saying so in his capacity as minister for identifying Brexit opportunities.

[Furunculus]

I can't tell you what your link reports,

the link was no more than cheeky fun, pointing at the poor policy platform that can happen inside the sainted eu.
pointing in particular at germany.

"but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data"

the point is more the opposite, to poke fun at 'the sky is falling in' narrative.
i don't know if you catch the usual media narrative of 'brexit is disaster'...?

well, fine, but show me how we suffering so egregiously...

[Montmorency]

the link was no more than cheeky fun, pointing at the poor policy platform that can happen inside the sainted eu.
pointing in particular at germany.

"but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data"

the point is more the opposite, to poke fun at 'the sky is falling in' narrative.
i don't know if you catch the usual media narrative of 'brexit is disaster'...?

well, fine, but show me how we suffering so egregiously...

Frankly I haven't looked at a single analysis of the effect of Brexit on the British economy since it was enacted, but they would be the place to start.

I was saying the link is broken btw.

Error 403 Forbidden
Forbidden

Error 54113
Details: cache-bos4630-BOS 1659911197 2186096025

[Pannonian]

the link was no more than cheeky fun, pointing at the poor policy platform that can happen inside the sainted eu.
pointing in particular at germany.

"but for establishing EU membership status as a substantial factor in the development in a variable, the least you need is the progression of domestic data"

the point is more the opposite, to poke fun at 'the sky is falling in' narrative.
i don't know if you catch the usual media narrative of 'brexit is disaster'...?

well, fine, but show me how we suffering so egregiously...

Doesn't the winning side get to enact their agenda? I listed the promises made in the video. How do they stack up with the reality?

It really is remarkable how a winning side that has won the last few elections/referendum continues to point at the losing side for everything they haven't done. The Tories have a landslide majority. The opposition can do absolutely nothing to stop them from enacting their agenda, as seen in how the government has been steadily eroding what we understand to be the constitution.

[Pannonian]

Frankly I haven't looked at a single analysis of the effect of Brexit on the British economy since it was enacted, but they would be the place to start.

I was saying the link is broken btw.

Just comparing with your US politics. Excluding the Speaker and Sinn Fein, the Tories had 365 MPs versus the Opposition's 277, a majority of 88 (out of 642).

Using the same proportions, if the Democrats control the chief executive, have 59 more representatives than the opposition, and 12 more senators than the opposition, would you expect them to be effective in enacting their flagship policy? If they do all sorts of stuff regarding the constitution, but do not enact their flagship policy, what would your conclusion be?

[Furunculus]

Frankly I haven't looked at a single analysis of the effect of Brexit on the British economy since it was enacted, but they would be the place to start.

I was saying the link is broken btw.

I don't disagree, but the problem here is retreiving the signal from the noise.
i.e. looking to isolate the effects of brexit on UK econono-social performance from other events like covid and ukraine.
This is why i suggested comparitive results with similar economies that were similarly effected by those same events.

Re: the link - it was a infographic map of europe showing coal use (both brown and hard) for european nations.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comm...rts_in_europe/

[Pannonian]

"Let's keep Brexit safe", says one of the candidates of the Tory leadership contest.

It's been 6 years and 2 elections since Leave's victory, and they still push it as a political issue. They've had 3 years with a landslide majority, potentially another 2 years with that landslide majority. Why is it still an issue?

[Furunculus]

Doesn't the winning side get to enact their agenda? I listed the promises made in the video. How do they stack up with the reality?

It really is remarkable how a winning side that has won the last few elections/referendum continues to point at the losing side for everything they haven't done. The Tories have a landslide majority. The opposition can do absolutely nothing to stop them from enacting their agenda, as seen in how the government has been steadily eroding what we understand to be the constitution.

This is kind of the point of the argument over the NIP - the winning side isn't getting to enact their agenda.
Which is exactly what the EU intended to happen - their ambition has always been dynamic alignment.

The problem in NI is evidence of this: how do you meaningfully diverge without leaving NI behind?
By allowing Single Market regs in NI how do you discourage regulatory reach back from NI into British markets?

Sticky problems, yes.
Problems caused by May with her assenting to 'sequencing' and an asinine interpretation of 'no hard border', yes.
But the problem is right there in front of us.

[rory_20_uk]

It doesn't help that the minister in charge of identifying Brexit opportunities, who is one of the leaders of the movement, and who said that we should be waiting 50 years before drawing conclusions (see also the argument posted here that we should wait 40 years before having another vote), is on record as saying that we should not be measuring the effects of Brexit. Saying so in his capacity as minister for identifying Brexit opportunities.

First off, I would rather an assessment done by, say, the ONS.

Secondly, if Mogg had done a report is there any outcome other than "abject, crippling failure" that you'd accept?

[Pannonian]

First off, I would rather an assessment done by, say, the ONS.

Secondly, if Mogg had done a report is there any outcome other than "abject, crippling failure" that you'd accept?

I wouldn't mind an assessment done by a respected organisation either. However, isn't it a tad concerning that the government, who are the people with the power to decide these things, are fundamentally against any kind of trustworthy assessment?

[Montmorency]

Just comparing with your US politics. Excluding the Speaker and Sinn Fein, the Tories had 365 MPs versus the Opposition's 277, a majority of 88 (out of 642).

Using the same proportions, if the Democrats control the chief executive, have 59 more representatives than the opposition, and 12 more senators than the opposition, would you expect them to be effective in enacting their flagship policy? If they do all sorts of stuff regarding the constitution, but do not enact their flagship policy, what would your conclusion be?

This scenario is a bad comparison, because it's basically impossible in our system of government. I don't mean just that those kinds of majorities are almost unattainable to either party (Obama had better in 2009), but that the institutions are arranged too differently from the UK's. The Constitution is not just a body of laws and norms here but a concrete and heavily contested document of a few thousand words. Functionally, only the states and courts - in practice just the courts - have "control" over the Constitution. The only way around this for a legislature (Congress) is to attempt to exercise jurisdiction stripping or to create new judicial positions to install hundreds of party hacks very rapidly in a way that has never occurred before, but this too does not make sense within your scenario because a legislative caucus and president with such intractable and vicious unity of purpose and will to power would never fail to pursue their substantive policy goals, be they extending healthcare access and reducing university costs or eliminating Medicare and public education.

[Pannonian]

This scenario is a bad comparison, because it's basically impossible in our system of government. I don't mean just that those kinds of majorities are almost unattainable to either party (Obama had better in 2009), but that the institutions are arranged too differently from the UK's. The Constitution is not just a body of laws and norms here but a concrete and heavily contested document of a few thousand words. Functionally, only the states and courts - in practice just the courts - have "control" over the Constitution. The only way around this for a legislature (Congress) is to attempt to exercise jurisdiction stripping or to create new judicial positions to install hundreds of party hacks very rapidly in a way that has never occurred before, but this too does not make sense within your scenario because a legislative caucus and president with such intractable and vicious unity of purpose and will to power would never fail to pursue their substantive policy goals, be they extending healthcare access and reducing university costs or eliminating Medicare and public education.

Brexit doesn't contravene the UK constitution though, other than requiring the UK government to abide by domestic and international laws and agreements (which should be a given). Its implementation, however bad an idea it is (eg. hastily concluding a trade deal with Australia that's actually worse than the one we already had, and described as such by the Australian side), is just a collection of lawmaking. The UK government has a majority of lawmakers in the proportions that I translated above. In any case, the UK government has found time to contravene the constitution in numerous ways, but still claims that its lawmaking ability to enact Brexit is in danger.

If the US government has control of the executive, a 59 majority in Congress and a 12 majority in the Senate, would you expect it to carry out its manifesto? If it doesn't enact its manifesto, would you conclude that it cannot, or that it doesn't bother to? Especially if it finds time to amend the constitution in ways not listed in the manifesto.

[rory_20_uk]

I wouldn't mind an assessment done by a respected organisation either. However, isn't it a tad concerning that the government, who are the people with the power to decide these things, are fundamentally against any kind of trustworthy assessment?

Drugs are still banned in this country. Evidence for years has demonstrated that this is poor policy.
Prostitution is still poorly defined, with brothels illegal although have been shown to protect women.
An annual assessment of the budget - if done, it doesn't seem to make politicians change course.

Yet no calls for a review or assessment (not that one is really required since the evidence is so strong). And these have some pretty simple variables to take into account.

To decide whether Brexit was "good" / "bad" you'd first need to define what these two things are and then disentangle such things as COVID and the Ukrainian war. How many Civil Servants would you like working on this undertaking? How many million is it worth to know - sorry, guess?

[Pannonian]

Drugs are still banned in this country. Evidence for years has demonstrated that this is poor policy.
Prostitution is still poorly defined, with brothels illegal although have been shown to protect women.
An annual assessment of the budget - if done, it doesn't seem to make politicians change course.

Yet no calls for a review or assessment (not that one is really required since the evidence is so strong). And these have some pretty simple variables to take into account.

To decide whether Brexit was "good" / "bad" you'd first need to define what these two things are and then disentangle such things as COVID and the Ukrainian war. How many Civil Servants would you like working on this undertaking? How many million is it worth to know - sorry, guess?

Here's a list of promises from that Leave.eu campaign video. At least some of them are quantifiable.

How will you benefit when we leave the EU?

You'll benefit from better care provided by our NHS thanks to the reallocation of funds from the EU budget

Controlled immigration will lead to reduced waiting times for you and your loved ones

Excess funding that would otherwise be sent to Brussels could also be directed to education

Your wages will rise thanks to better controlled immigration, which will lead to less competition for jobs

Your weekly food shop will become cheaper

Food prices will no longer be inflated by agricultural policies controlled by the EU

You and your family will benefit from a resurgent economy led by new and flourishing small businesses following the removal of burdensome EU regulations and red tape

With less pressure on housing, younger generations will also find it easier to get on the housing ladder

Politicians, both local and national, will become more accountable, helping to strengthen your community and others

Especially those most damaged by EU policies like farming, fishing, and industries like steel

A more prosperous and safer future awaits us outside the EU

A vote to leave is a vote for a brighter future for you, your family and your community

From that list, I can define the following questions.

1. Has the NHS had increased funding?
2. Has immigration decreased?
3. Have waiting times decreased?
4. Has education funding increased?
5. Have wages increased?
6. Have food prices decreased?
7. Has the economy improved?
8. Is it easier to get on the housing ladder?
9. Are politicians more accountable?
10. Have prospects improved for the fishing, agriculture and steel industries?

AFAIK the answer is a clear no to all the above, based on a verbatim list of Leave's promises. If there is a yes somewhere in there, it's a very, very qualified yes amongst an answer that's mostly no. If it were a manifesto, one would compare the promises with the results. Is there any reason why we should not compare the above promises with the results so far?

[Furunculus]

1. Has the NHS had increased funding?
...
AFAIK the answer is a clear no...

Seriously?

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/project...ell/nhs-budget
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-su...-data-analysis

[rory_20_uk]

Here's a list of promises from that Leave.eu campaign video. At least some of them are quantifiable.



From that list, I can define the following questions.

1. Has the NHS had increased funding?
2. Has immigration decreased?
3. Have waiting times decreased?
4. Has education funding increased?
5. Have wages increased?
6. Have food prices decreased?
7. Has the economy improved?
8. Is it easier to get on the housing ladder?
9. Are politicians more accountable?
10. Have prospects improved for the fishing, agriculture and steel industries?

AFAIK the answer is a clear no to all the above, based on a verbatim list of Leave's promises. If there is a yes somewhere in there, it's a very, very qualified yes amongst an answer that's mostly no. If it were a manifesto, one would compare the promises with the results. Is there any reason why we should not compare the above promises with the results so far?

Why should we, post COVID, with the biggest war in Europe since WW2, not do a direct comparison...? And these are the two most obvious confounding variables. As I thought all you want is for a statement "Brexit caused everything bad!" And you'd be happy. I'm sure you realise that leave.eu was merely the propaganda of a group - certainly not a government position. But each time it is trotted out like some sort of predefined study primary endpoint.

Right at this moment in time, if the government started printing money like it was water (like in the good old Tony-Brown days where boom and bust was declared dead) then each and every one could be turned in to a "yes" - merely at the risk of massive long term damage to the country.

It neglects one obvious one from the list:

Is the UK a sovereign state again?

Where the answer is yes - and you can look around the world how much countries have been prepared to suffer for independence.

[Pannonian]

Genuine newspaper headline (Metro, 12th August 2022):

"PM turns up for meeting"

[Montmorency]

Its all going really well in the UK at the moment