Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/01/matt-hancock-loses-tory-whip-after-agreeing-to-appear-on-im-a-celebrity

Matt Hancock loses Tory whip after agreeing to appear on I'm a Celebrity

Former cabinet minister Matt Hancock has had the Tory whip suspended after it emerged he was entering the jungle for I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!

The Conservative chief whip, Simon Hart said: "Following a conversation with Matt Hancock, I have considered the situation and believe this is a matter serious enough to warrant suspension of the whip with immediate effect."

[Sheilbh]

His local party seem thrilled:

Andy Drummond, chairman of Newmarket Conservatives, in Matt Hancock's West Suffolk constituency: "I'm looking forward to him eating a kangaroo's penis. Quote me. You can quote me on that."

I suspect even he's realised his career is over - see also the diary from when he was Health Secretary. It sounds like he's transitioning into being a Tory/political TV personality like Portillo or Balls.

Not sure he can pull it off.

[mongers]

Day 7 of this interminable stay in office of the PM, when will this national nightmare end?

He is proving resilient, this one.

He's still likely to loose one of his principle government ministers within the next week or so.

Swear it was entirely accidental typo, but as you point out rather appropriate.

[mongers]

His local party seem thrilled:

Andy Drummond, chairman of Newmarket Conservatives, in Matt Hancock's West Suffolk constituency: "I'm looking forward to him eating a kangaroo's penis. Quote me. You can quote me on that."

I suspect even he's realised his career is over - see also the diary from when he was Health Secretary. It sounds like he's transitioning into being a Tory/political TV personality like Portillo or Balls.

Not sure he can pull it off.

He seems to be lacking in that department.

Though his surname would make him well named for a inept key advisor to the King in any GoT sequel.

[Legbiter]

Day 7 of this interminable stay in office of the PM, when will this national nightmare end?

 

[crazy canuck]

Point is people from a different part of the world, India, don't refer to themselves as Asians either.  At least not the ones who immigrated here.

Yeah, the ones who immigrate here adopt the terminology we use here. And the ones who immigrate to the UK, I'm pretty sure, adopt the local usage there.

I don't think that is it though.  You need to remember that about 90% of the immigrants to BC were Sikh.  That community always referred to themselves as Sikh.  Never has Asians.  It has become fashionable these days to use the term "South Asian".  But the Sikh community doesn't really refer to themselves that way.

Think about how someone from Iran would react if they started being referred to as "Asian", as another example of the oddity of referring to very different cultural and religious groups with the same single identifier.

I suppose that makes some sense in the context of British colonialism, but it lands with a big thud outside that context.

[celedhring]

So, I just learned that each PM selects his/her own personalized lectern to make speeches outside #10 




Truss' lectern seems a perfect reflection of her premiership.

[crazy canuck]

Makes sense that Truss picked one that screamed instability; Boris picked one that screamed enriching the upper classes; and Cameron picked one that screamed destroying the middle class.

[celedhring]

Makes sense that Truss picked one that screamed instability; Boris picked one that screamed enriching the upper classes; and Cameron picked one that screamed destroying the middle class.

May's support also looks tenuous.

[Sheilbh]

So, I just learned that each PM selects his/her own personalized lectern to make speeches outside #10 

[...]

Truss' lectern seems a perfect reflection of her premiership.

Sunak's isn't - appropriately enough there wasn't time for him to pick one so he used a model that was an option for Truss

Of course back in the good old days we weren't concerned with such fripperies:

[Josquius]

So, I just learned that each PM selects his/her own personalized lectern to make speeches outside #10 




Truss' lectern seems a perfect reflection of her premiership.

Oh ffs.
This is the toriest thing ever.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that is it though.  You need to remember that about 90% of the immigrants to BC were Sikh.  That community always referred to themselves as Sikh.  Never has Asians.  It has become fashionable these days to use the term "South Asian".  But the Sikh community doesn't really refer to themselves that way.

Think about how someone from Iran would react if they started being referred to as "Asian", as another example of the oddity of referring to very different cultural and religious groups with the same single identifier.

That's clear (and true of all broad categories of identity) but I'm curious what you think it is if it's not basically different countries with different demographics and experiences using language in a different way

Also I mean the gag is, at best, Asia is diverse and massive "Asian" is a mad construct even when it's used in the North American way. At worst it's borderline colourism - Indians aren't real Asians (as I say that's definitely been an interpretation which I've seen British Asians say is how they took the gag - and again the context of that comedian probably matters).

I suppose that makes some sense in the context of British colonialism, but it lands with a big thud outside that context.

I don't think that's right. My understanding of British (and all) colonialism was that it was closely linked to taxonomising and breaking up into categories that were comprehensible to British administrators, but also a European enlightenment project. Ethnic (and caste) identities were both a thing that existed and a thing that were defined, reinforced, measured etc by colonial powers. As a rule imperial states did not want subject peoples to identify with each other or create coalitions or shared identities with each other - they wanted division and there is a reason the first identity questions in India are from a British census. I think that's why in a post-colonial multi-racial Britain a lot of early energy was in the concept, now outdated, of "political blackness". It was precisely about re-establishing those commonalities across communities who faced similar racism in Britain.

Even in the imperial context there's some incredible recent books on the "Asian underground" of anti-imperial revolutionaries from different societies (China, Afghanistan, Vietnam, India) making connections based on a shared experience and politics. There was never a pan-Asianism in quite the same way there was pan-Africanism but there were similar networks. Part of the reason it was different was possibly the role of Japan as an Asian imperial power - but again, the rise of Japan had a huge impact on revolutionary and reformists across Asia, including India and Iran as an example of resisting European (and American) imperialism from within Asia.  (In particular - Underground Asia is one of the best recent history books I've read: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2022/01/04/book-review-underground-asia-global-revolutionaries-and-the-assault-on-empire-by-tim-harper/)

I think it's about the immigration experience in the UK, which is different than North America. The term has shifted in the past - but I think it emerged as a common identity for different communities that were all facing the same racism and particularly the p-word. As time's gone on it's become more common to refer to "South Asian" (I think that's now preferred) or specific communities, as British Asian has become both more expansive and too limiting as a way of describing an identity. And I think that's a trend with all migrant communities - I think it's not a million miles away from the way Latino as a term is developing in the US from a broad, solidaristic identity to more distinct ones.

[crazy canuck]

Wait a minute, I thought you were the guy arguing that calling your current PM "Asian" was appropriate?  Isn't that the exact opposite of identification of particular communities.  And exactly why calling your current PM "Asian" lands with such a thud?

[Sheilbh]

Wait a minute, I thought you were the guy arguing that calling your current PM "Asian" was appropriate?  Isn't that the exact opposite of identification of particular communities.  And exactly why calling your current PM "Asian" lands with such a thud?

Both

I think identities are always in the process of being created. I don't think there are fixed identities or that they can really apply globally. They are being made in different contexts, by different communities, for different purposes. But those are not labels from the outside - but from that community in the UK (which is different from Canada or the US). I think it's both correct to refer to Rishi Sunak as British Asian - or South Asian or British Indian. I don't think it's correct to say they're wrong.

I'd put it the other way. I don't think Canada or the US is correct or somehow the telos of how people identify. Jokes that are about other identities in other communities in other countries are probably not a great idea. It's a bit like the Daily Show bit on French footballers being "African" which was angrily rejected by many of those players because in their context, that's a far-right Le Penite line.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting Economist correspondent writing up of a Sky News interview with Johnson. What was striking was that he was repeatedly asked political questions about his own imposion or future ambitions - but he basically returned every question to Ukraine.

He threw the intelligence community under the bus a little bit and said that the advice he was getting was that the war would be very one sided and probably over in a week - "the Russians are just going to roll through and numerically they're so strong and so well-equipped". He adds that he thinks it's now "absolutely inevitable" that Ukraine will win "because this is a war of independence and wars of independence only really end one way [...] we just have to show strategic patience."

On the nuclear issue he says that there would have to be "a response of some kind". He said that NATO and France, UK and US have talked about it. But adds that "it's important we don't waste too much time on this conversation, because this is exactly how Putin wants to frame it. He wants to frame it as a stand-off between nuclear armed Russia and nuclear armed NATO. That's how he wants to present it. It's not. It's about a brutal invasion of an innocent country by conventional means and what we are providing is that conventional support that will enable the Ukrainians to win."

Apparently he's spoken to Zelensky since he left office and said he can still be helpful - in particular talking to Republicans and conservativs in America. Separately reports that Johnson is planning to set up an organisation where he'd raise money from private donors to help support Ukraine - primarily on reconstruction - as part of his post-premiership career.

As ever on Ukraine I find myself basically in total agreement with Johnson - in this case his personal interest, political interest and what's right happened to align I've no doubt he'll try to stage a comeback in UK politics but if, in the meantime, he spends his time out of office trying to convince Republicans to keep backing Ukraine and raising money for Ukraine (no doubt with a healthy sideline of other speaking engagements) I think that would be a surprisingly useful post-premiership.

As an aside there was a minor furore here beccause the government wouldn't allow Charles to go to COP27 to give an address and Sunak wasn't planning to go. The Palace then announced that the King would be holding a reception ahead of COP27, attended by the PM and other leaders where he'd address the issue - on the one hand funny but I'm a little concerned constituionally. Sunak is now going to COP27 and the big reason appears to be that Johnson announced he'd go. But it is interesting - and I think an accurate reflection of his time as PM - that it looks like Johnson is choosing climate and Ukraine as his "legacy" issues.