Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not sure qualification is the right frame. Truss has been in the cabinet for the best part of a decade under Cameron, May and Johnson. She's been Environment, Justice, Trade and Foreign Secretary. In this campaign she's been vastly the most experienced candidate even against Sunak who was chancellor, but only became an MP in 2015. I think the qualification issue was fairer criticism of Mordaunt, Badenoch and Tugendhat. I think the worry is more what Truss has had to do to become the candidate of the right - plus a little bit of a raised eyebrow at the cynicism of that from a former deputy to Osborne and strong Remainer.

I don't know enough about the UK to know how significant that is. In the U.S. aside from the "Big Four" (State, Defense, Justice and Treasury), most cabinet secretary positions are largely do-nothing political patronage jobs that are designed to embellish the resume of a middle tier politician grooming them for potential higher office (or just better post-political lobbying gigs.) I think as a comparison someone like Rick Perry, who was Governor of Texas for like 12 years (but unlike most States, the Governoship in Texas is almost like a ceremonial office, most of the legislative agenda is set by the Lieutenant Governor and most of the agencies are ran by independent officers who the Governor doesn't control, some of whom are separately elected), and then Secretary of Energy. On paper he'd be a very qualified candidate, but he actually had/has poor real experience and knowledge when it comes to running anything.

[mongers]

Ilia Ponomarenko on latest UK support for Ukraine:

+ over 20 M109 155 mm howitzers
+ 36 L119 105mm artillery guns
+ 1,600 anti-tank weapons
+ counter-battery radar systems
+ over 50,000 rounds of ammunition
+ hundreds of drones
+ hundreds of loitering aerial munitions

Johnson justifying one more trip to Kyiv, and who can begrudge him that. I also suspect he views this as a big part of his "legacy" so will try to lock his successor in on Ukraine - again, I'm not opposed to it I think it's probably key that whoever wins keeps Wallace at Defence and I like Sunak's idea of their first trip being to Kyiv.

Interesting comment from defence people here (I know nothing about this stuff) that a lot of this is stuff that's not in service in the British army which suggests the government's been out buying this equipment etc specifically for sending to Ukraine?

The M109 might be old hardware they've had lying around since the replacement with SA90 SP guns, though as you say those might also be bought in, as they'll be plenty available in other NATO countires like Greece, Germany, Italy etc.

I think the 105mm light guns are the same as the ones shipped out to the Falkland to help win that war, so might be from old stock, existing in service inventory or again bought in from elsewhere like NZ (they use them and were training Ukrainians in their use in recent weeks on Salisbury Plain).

[Josquius]

Ilia Ponomarenko on latest UK support for Ukraine:

+ over 20 M109 155 mm howitzers
+ 36 L119 105mm artillery guns
+ 1,600 anti-tank weapons
+ counter-battery radar systems
+ over 50,000 rounds of ammunition
+ hundreds of drones
+ hundreds of loitering aerial munitions

Johnson justifying one more trip to Kyiv, and who can begrudge him that. I also suspect he views this as a big part of his "legacy" so will try to lock his successor in on Ukraine - again, I'm not opposed to it I think it's probably key that whoever wins keeps Wallace at Defence and I like Sunak's idea of their first trip being to Kyiv.

Interesting comment from defence people here (I know nothing about this stuff) that a lot of this is stuff that's not in service in the British army which suggests the government's been out buying this equipment etc specifically for sending to Ukraine?

1: Maybe Johnson looks to Blair always being welcome in Kosovo and thinks he needs a foreign bolt hole too :p

2: interesting on the equipment point. Not usual British as in warsaw pact? Wonder if there's any nations out there wanting to help ukraine but not wanting to piss off Russia and using the UK as a go between.


3: Though. Bought from manufacturers just for ukraine.... Thinking logically and putting all thought of doing the right thing aside, this sounds like a good investment given the dodgy financial situation of the world. Ending the war is in our economic best interest so its a sound investment.

[Sheilbh]

I would say that I fully expect kids to be named after the PM, like the Kosovar kids called "Tonibler" - but with a name like Boris I think that's a given

But yeah he's getting streets and desserts named after him, honourary citizenship from some cities, street art and paintings of Johnson as a Cossack, and nicknamed "Johnsonyuk" - I think he'll always be popular there. And fair enough for that - he did the right thing, for whatever mix of motivations.

[Sheilbh]

So on Johnson's personal situation the House of Commons' clerks made thing complicated for him today.

During the stories about parties Labour proposed a motion asking the privileges committee to investigate if Johnson "misled" Parliament over parties in Downing Street. Not wanting to force a vote on that, the Tories didn't object so it was passed unanimously - unfortunately (for him/them) the Tory whips didn't clock that "misleading" Parliament is significantly broader than "knowingly misleading" parliament.

The privileges committee have the power to suspend MPs but it wasn't clear if a suspension, if for more than ten days I think, via that route (as opposed to the standards committee) would trigger a possible by election under the law allowing constituencies to recall their MP. The clerks have advised the Speaker that it would and that's his ruling.

It is absolutely guaranteed that the privileges committee will find that Johnson misled Parliament, given that he's already admitted and apologised for unwittingly misleading them.

So very early in September it's possible that Johnson's successor ends up with a re-play of the Paterson situation. Either they whip their party to support the finding of the privileges committee which will likely cost Johnson his seat, or they whip the party to ignore their recommendation. Which if nothing else would be a weirdly fitting end to Johnson's premiership.

[Jacob]

That's sort of delicious.

[mongers]

The Sunak vs Truss pantomime smacks of deckchairs and the Titanic.   

[Josquius]

I do recall last election there was some hope of Johnson losing his seat even if the tories won.
In the current climate...



Oh.
And coming back to my unease for which constituency they parachuted Sunak into.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/watch-reactions-as-rishi-sunak-seems-to-think-darlington-is-in-scotland-330065/

Bad enough from any senior government minister. For the guy representing a constituency that immediately borders Darlington....

[Sheilbh]

Slightly counter intuitive - the three regions of the country that are over-represented in the Tory membership: the South-East, South-West and Scotland.

Also more or less in line it's population in London and Wales, but vastly under-representative in the Midlands and North or England. Perhaps a surprising legacy of being the unionist party - also lots of posh people in Scotland, but still a surprise.

[Sheilbh]

Really good piece on Newsnight about what the tax cut fight means - as basically an argument between 79 Thatcher and 87 Thatcher.

[The Minsky Moment]

Really good piece on Newsnight about what the tax cut fight means - as basically an argument between 79 Thatcher and 87 Thatcher.

I don't see it - 87 Thatcher was proposing regressive "poll" taxation, Sunak is proposing increasing corporate tax and freezing bracket shifts on income tax.

Thatcher 79 was proposing cuts to income tax rates as a supply side measure to boost investment, Truss' proposals are  a bit unclear but seem focused on cuts to insurance levies and energy consumption tax.

What I'm seeing is two youngish Oxford educated financial professionals with impressive rises through the cursus honorum seizing on the most convenient symbols at hand to differentiate themselves from each other.

[Tamas]

Massive queues at the Channel crossings as the first post-Brexit and post-pandemic summer holiday kicks off.

I hope every Leave voter in the queue gets stuck in there until their holiday is ruined.

[mongers]

Massive queues at the Channel crossings as the first post-Brexit and post-pandemic summer holiday kicks off.

I hope every Leave voter in the queue gets stuck in there until their holiday is ruined.

What if some of them are refugee Remain voters leaving the country for the last time?

:tongue:

[Sheilbh]

What I'm seeing is two youngish Oxford educated financial professionals with impressive rises through the cursus honorum seizing on the most convenient symbols at hand to differentiate themselves from each other.

Well yes, that's just British politics - although the finance background is more unusual. Symbols matter in democratic politics because they communicate they provide a rhetoric.

If this were a Labour campaign between two youngish Oxford educated politicians (say, Ed and David Miliband) and one was promising nationalisation of x utility and the other was opposing it - I think you'd be missing the point by looking at what that nationalisation would cost and is it significant to the national economy, because in very large part it is mainly a symbol to communicate their position, philosophy etc within the framework of their party.

The same is happening here. One is a tax raising ex-Chancellor who says the number 1 focus is reducing inflation and controlling the deficit, only after that can you look at tax cuts (though he wants to); the other is saying she'd unwind most of Sunak's tax rises and cut taxes further (and one economist supporter has said this may have an impact on inflation which may take 6-7% interest rates to combat - which is good actually ) regardless of the impact on the deficit or inflation. Both, incidentally, have not talked about levelling up so that bit of Johnson, which I think mattered in tying his coalition together post-Brexit, has gone.

As with Labour candidates disagreeing over nationalisation the relevance isn't the policy itself but the philosophy behind it and there's a big quite contentious divide between it: Sunak says Truss is pushing "fairytale economics", Truss says Sunak's policies are leading to a recession and he has no ideas on how to grow the economy.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think you'd be missing the point by looking at what that nationalisation would cost and is it significant to the national economy, because in very large part it is mainly a symbol to communicate their position, philosophy etc within the framework of their party.

The same is happening here. . . As with Labour candidates disagreeing over nationalisation the relevance isn't the policy itself but the philosophy behind it and there's a big quite contentious divide between it: Sunak says Truss is pushing "fairytale economics", Truss says Sunak's policies are leading to a recession and he has no ideas on how to grow the economy.

I understand that; to a certain degree it is similar to the old debate between the Reaganite supply siders and the traditional fiscal conservatives in the US in 80s (the supply siders won the battle long ago - Republicans are only fiscally conservative now when the Democrats control the White House).  To a certain degree signaling is substance.

But in the UK context where Thatcher still looms so large in the Tory consciousness - in a way Reagan used to but no longer does in the US - its important to keep in mind that Thatcherism wasn't just about tax cutting, it was about restructuring the fiscal system to be more regressive, with more "flat" taxation.  Neither current candidate seems to be invoking that critical aspect, which is essential to the traditional supply side creed.