Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Barrister]

And if you play footsie with them you get fascism.  Not worth it in my view.

Then you get continued Liberal / Labour governments.  :shrug:

I put it down to "don't make perfect the enemy of the good".  But it's a free country and you're free to see things differently.

The whole point of playing "footsy" is that you don't fully adopt someone's platform - you just give them enough for them to give them your vote.  If you completely ignore a crowd like that you risk the Euro option where suddenly a party like AfD or FPO runs the risk of winning outright.

I will say there's a similar dynamic on the left - of not wanting to really denounce the Palestinian anti-semite crowd, or the tankie crowd, or what have you.  Part of keeping a "big tent" is extending it to those you're not 100% in agreement with.

[crazy canuck]

And if you play footsie with them you get fascism.  Not worth it in my view.

Then you get continued Liberal / Labour governments.  :shrug:

I put it down to "don't make perfect the enemy of the good".  But it's a free country and you're free to see things differently.

The whole point of playing "footsy" is that you don't fully adopt someone's platform - you just give them enough for them to give them your vote.  If you completely ignore a crowd like that you risk the Euro option where suddenly a party like AfD or FPO runs the risk of winning outright.

I will say there's a similar dynamic on the left - of not wanting to really denounce the Palestinian anti-semite crowd, or the tankie crowd, or what have you.  Part of keeping a "big tent" is extending it to those you're not 100% in agreement with.

Wait, are you making the argument that a bit of fascism is ok so long as Liberals are not in power?!????

[Barrister]

Wait, are you making the argument that a bit of fascism is ok so long as Liberals are not in power?!????

Are the MAGA-curious voters "fascists"?

I said that playing "footsy" with MAGA-curious voters - which is to say give them enough of a reason to vote for you - is worth it to avoid a Liberal government.

Obviously the hard decision is to what point do you compromise your beliefs, and at what point do you say "to this point and no further!".

Let me put it this way - would cutting funding to Global Affairs Canada be something I'm willing to do in order to defeat the Liberals?  Yes I would, even though I have little problem with GAC.

Where exactly would I draw the line?  I dunno, and that's Poilievre's call to make.  At some point if he drew the line incorrectly I would not vote for the Conservatives (I voted NDP recently!).  But I don't expect perfection - because that's how you get Palestinian activists refusing to vote for Harris and getting Trump promising ethnic cleansing of Gaza instead.

[crazy canuck]

Now you sound like you are rationalizing.

[Barrister]

Now you sound like you are rationalizing.

I'm being rational.

You're the one who hates to hear any hint of "Trumpy" language.

You remind me of an old-school Progressive Conservative - you dislike the Liberals, but want to vote for a party that is nearly identical to them but is coloured blue.

I could be wrong - it's just my observation.

[crazy canuck]

I hate any hint of fascism creeping into our country. Yes, that is certainly true. 

[Sheilbh]

And this goes even if your concerns are for these minority rights- its the fucked economic inequality which is helping the snake oil salesmen sell hate to the desperate.

I don't know that you can necessarily separate them out or talk about economic inequality without taking account of, in the US, desegregation only happening in the 60s. In the UK the first anti-discrimination legislation (Race Relations Act and Equal Pay Act in the late 60s). Economic equality was, in part, present for a narrower, more homogenous labour-force - it was only beginning to apply to racial minorities and women.

On the double glazing point, in 1970 there were still millions of households in the UK without indoor plumbing and a third didn't have a washing machine. Again the economic equality was, in part, premised on women providing unpaid labour at home - the wages were designed to sustain a single earner family. There's a reason why when Barbara Castle was introducing the Child Benefit Act in the 70s it was explicitly designed to go to women (first benefit to do that) in order to give them some independence and cash that was not going straight into the hands of the male householder.

To an extent it's a great historic failure of unions - as someone who thinks the union movement should be the foundation of a left-wing politics - that it really failed (here and in the US) to organise changing workforces and in particular to move beyond white, male "classic" industrial labour.

There's no reason that improved rights for minorities had to be intrinsically tied to our fucked up economic situation. This could have worked perfectly fine, better even, in a world where people on minimum wage (not that there was one in the 70s but...yeah) weren't struggling to survive.

We really shouldn't be too rosy-eyed about the economics of the 70s. You had inflation running at almost 30%, the oil shock, the end of the Bretton Woods system, IMF loans. Politically, for all we worry about democracy now, we had a PM genuinely concerned that there were forces plotting a coup against him. These are years when the armed forces occupied Heathrow in exercises without the civilian government's knowledge or approval. It's the years of lead in Italy (post-war Italian history is the one thing that always makes me pause before ruling things out as conspiracy theories because there it is all true ).

Again I think the thing I find striking about the 70s is the echoes with the present - energy crisis, supply shocks, the Nixon shock of the US unilaterally leaving the Bretton Woods system it created, a friability to democratic politics.

I would contrast that with today where I feel that hard-won improvements are under threat from very powerful reactionary forces. Of course the day-to-day experience remains better than in the past but I still feel there is a negative direction of travel which I find deeply depressing.

I suppose part of this depends on the sense of possibility you have for the 70s - because it ends in Thatcher. And I think that is why the 70s are particularly picked on - it is a period where something ends - at the hands of powerful reactionary forces with a handbag.

Although I query how much Thatcher (or Trump) really matter v the forces that I think produced the neo-liberal order out of the 70s and that are now dismantling it.

But it had positives too.  Politically we were dominated by the Greatest Generation and their memories of sacrifice in WWII (and the Depression) so it seemed like there was more "seriousness" in our politics (except for Pierre Trudeau).

So I totally agree with this. I think they were more serious, more susbstantial figures. On the war, it's something they note in one of the Rest is History ones that whenever you look at politicians in the 70s or 80s - most of them are very uncharismatic, they look like accountants in very thick glasses and then you look at their lives and they were tank commanders on D-Day or one of the first soldiers in Bergen-Belsen.

To nick the phrase of a great politician of that era, I think they had a hinterland which modern politicians often lack. I also think that a formative aspect of the wartime experience (both wars actually) in Britain was that I think all of those politicians had met and lived and worked with people who were very much not like them. It mixed people and broke down barriers - I think particularly in comparison with the university politics to think tanker/special advisor to MP to cabinet minister career path that's so common now.

So Poilievre / Badenoch have to play a certain footsy with it.

I'm not really sure what the particular criticism of Badenoch is on this.

But to be fair I think her approach is probably right for where the Tories are right now and she's vastly less Trumpy than Robert Jenrick who was her final opponent in the leadership race.

[Sheilbh]

Separately this is insane The government should legislate on this fast (can't help but think this is another example of the government discovering that when the Tories were complaining about the civil service or direction of the courts - it wasn't just "populism"). It's been pointed out that when Sir Robert Mark was brought in to clean up the Met (in the 70s ) he was able to force out or fire 400 officers very quickly which helped a lot:

Met police officers who fail vetting scheme may keep jobs after court ruling
Sergeant Lino Di Maria brought a judicial review after being stripped of his warrant card over rape allegations
updated
Ben Ellery, Crime Editor | David Woode, Crime Correspondent | Matt Dathan, Home Affairs Editor
Tuesday February 11 2025, 8.45pm, The Times

Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting scheme implemented after the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.

Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Met, said it was "absurd" that officers who had not passed vetting could not be lawfully sacked following a High Court ruling.

Sergeant Lino Di Maria brought a judicial review claiming that stripping him of his warrant card over allegations of rape breached his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

On Tuesday Mrs Justice Lang ruled that he was unfairly dismissed, leading the Met to warn that the decision paved the way for about 300 officers and staff flagged for vetting in similar circumstances to continue in the force.

It is thought that hundreds of officers from forces across the country will also be affected and could now qualify for reinstatement.

Di Maria argued that having his warrant card removed without the accusations being proved was a breach of his right to a fair trial under article 6 and 8 of the ECHR.

He was accused of raping a woman twice in public car parks, touching a fellow police officer's leg, indecent exposure, domestic abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and sending inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. He denied all the accusations, claiming the interactions were consensual, and the rape allegations were withdrawn. He was not charged and no findings were ever made against him.

However, as a result of the allegations he failed a new vetting process under Operation Assure, which was set up after scandals including the murder of Sarah Everard by PC Wayne Couzens.

The process identifies patterns of accusations and resulted in Di Maria being flagged, and facing the sack.

But Lang said the process was unlawful as those suspected of wrongdoing were denied an opportunity to defend themselves at disciplinary proceedings.

The Met said that more than 300 officers and staff had been referred to Operation Assure so far. Of those, 107 failed vetting and await a gross misconduct hearing and 96 have left the force. The others are still going through the process.

Rowley said police were in a hopeless position with no mechanism to remove officers who had failed vetting, including "those who cannot be trusted to work with women, or those who cannot be trusted to enter the homes of vulnerable people".

He added: "It is absolutely absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them. This would not be the case in other sectors where staff have nothing like the powers comparable to police officers."

He called on the government to take urgent action to change the rules around officers' vetting.

Rowley took aim at the Metropolitan Police Federation, a staff association representing 30,000 officers from constables to chief inspectors, for backing the case.

He said: "It seems perverse that the federation has chosen a case such as this ... they want to see someone like him stay in policing. I know many colleagues within the organisation, and particularly women colleagues who've spoken publicly about this, are outraged they are spending their subscriptions fighting cases like this."

It is thought that keeping officers and staff on special vetting leave will cost at least £2 million per year.

Di Maria appeared at the High Court last month to challenge the Met's decision on a number of grounds, including his right to a fair trial.

Last week the force's Network of Women published an open letter criticising the Metropolitan Police Federation for "championing" the judicial review.

Sir Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is understood to be furious about the ruling. A source close to the mayor said: "Sadiq is very angry about this. He fully supports Sir Mark Rowley. This will make it harder to clean up the Met."

Claire Waxman, London's independent victims' commissioner, said: "The Metropolitan Police Federation has failed in its duty to represent all its members. Police officers and staff — particularly women — have rightly expressed outrage that their fees have been used to reinstate a man accused of rape, domestic abuse, and indecent exposure, and it is frankly shameful that the federation has chosen to support him."

Earlier this year the government issued a consultation on new vetting regulations for police forces, which are due to come into force later this year and may be affected by the ruling in this case.

The Home Office said: "It is essential for public confidence in policing that the strictest standards are upheld and maintained. Individuals who fall below the high standards the public expects should not be police officers. That's why this government is acting rapidly to introduce new, strengthened rules that will help forces dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance."

Matt Cane, the Met Federation's general secretary, said: "This judicial review was about ensuring a fair, but more importantly, legal process was in place. I remain curious as to why those in Scotland Yard thought they could operate outside of the law when it comes to police officers."

Cane claimed that he tried to work with the force to ensure any vetting-based dismissal was fair and legal but said "this offer was ignored".

When Sir Mark Rowley took control of the Met in September 2022, he pledged to cull "toxic" officers whose racism, misogyny and homophobia had infected the ranks (David Woode writes).

But he claimed "byzantine and complex" police regulations made it harder to kick out rogue officers and staff who failed vetting — an official process assessing suitability for the police service. Vetting forms require disclosure of previous contact with the police, any arrests and reprimands, plus family information and details of social media profiles.

Every police officer in England and Wales was told they would be re-vetted after police chiefs ordered forces to root out those "simply not fit to wear the uniform". That followed a string of scandals that rocked policing, including the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met firearms officer, Wayne Couzens.

At the Met, the review came in two phases: Operation Assure looked at the vetting of officers and staff where concerns had been raised about their behaviour; Operation Onyx examined every finalised sexual offence or domestic abuse case involving a police officer or staff member between April 2012 and April 2022 where the allegation did not lead to dismissal.

Rowley had called for greater powers for police chiefs to sack officers deemed unfit to serve. Scotland Yard launched a process in which an officer who failed vetting faced a gross misconduct hearing and risked losing their job. Almost 100 officers were either sacked or resigned and 29 were placed on special leave when their vetting was rescinded.

One of those officers was Sergeant Lino Di Maria, who challenged the Met after he was stripped of his warrant card in 2023 after complaints from colleagues and members of the public, including accusations of rape, sexual assault and indecent exposure, which he denies.

The crux of Di Maria's case was that the decision to revoke his vetting and dismiss him was unlawful because after misconduct proceedings he had been found to have no case to answer.

Di Maria, who joined the Met in 2004 and most recently managed a team in forensic services, argued that having his vetting removed without the accusations being proved was a breach of his right to a fair trial. In this case, it related to his ability to defend himself in a civil case such as disciplinary proceedings.

Lawyers for the Met told the High Court that the force was entitled to reach its decision based on the allegations as a whole, even though there was no case to answer on the individual allegations.

John Beggs KC, who acted for the Met, said: "This is a police officer who has repetitively, over three years, attracted a certain kind of public complaint."

On Tuesday Mrs Justice Lang rejected the Met's argument and, in her ruling, noted that the secretary of state "has not yet made regulations for dismissal by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance".

Quashing the vetting decision, the judge said: "In my view, dismissal without notice for gross incompetence will be a serious stain on a police officer's record when seeking alternative employment, in addition to the loss of vetting clearance. It ought not to be imposed without an effective and fair hearing."

The Met is seeking leave to appeal but for now it remains in a "hopeless position" as it works to win back the support of women and girls and vulnerable Londoners whose trust in the force remains on a knife edge.

As ever - parliament is supreme and the government has a massive majority. It can act.

[Barrister]

To an extent it's a great historic failure of unions - as someone who thinks the union movement should be the foundation of a left-wing politics - that it really failed (here and in the US) to organise changing workforces and in particular to move beyond white, male "classic" industrial labour.

So this is just an aside, does not really require a response.

I've never been a huge fan of unions (although they have their place) precisely because while they will often speak to wider principles, and yes assert that they're a 'foundation of left-wing politics', fundamentally they are a creation of their members and will always look to the interests of their members above all else.

Housewives were never going to be dues-paying members of unions, and as such their interests would always be secondary.

[Barrister]

Separately this is insane The government should legislate on this fast (can't help but think this is another example of the government discovering that when the Tories were complaining about the civil service or direction of the courts - it wasn't just "populism"). It's been pointed out that when Sir Robert Mark was brought in to clean up the Met (in the 70s ) he was able to force out or fire 400 officers very quickly which helped a lot:

That's completely ridiculous.

Look, if you want to argue these people are a "without cause" termination and should receive notice (or payment in lieu of notice) I'm not horribly offended by that notion.  But to say they must remain on the payroll indefinitely?  Bullshit.

[Sheilbh]

So this is just an aside, does not really require a response.

That's never stopped me before :

I've never been a huge fan of unions (although they have their place) precisely because while they will often speak to wider principles, and yes assert that they're a 'foundation of left-wing politics', fundamentally they are a creation of their members and will always look to the interests of their members above all else.

Housewives were never going to be dues-paying members of unions, and as such their interests would always be secondary.

Fair on housewives - and women were the core of Conservative voters until very, very recently. My criticism is less housewives though than the unions failing to adapt to certain sorts of workplace that were more likely to employ women (and racial minorities) - like service sector jobs. I think employers deliberately atomised those workplaces to help prevent organisation, but in the 50s-70s peak union era, the unions lagged behind in even trying as the focus was on the traditional, "proletarian" workplaces like the factory and the mine. In the UK unions weren't even that interested in organising factories that mainly employed women - women organised themselves and kind of forced the unions to get involved.

I think it's a big part of why, in most Western democracies women were more likely to vote right/conservative. Obviously there's other factors. But that trend was even more pronounced and lasted longer in Britain than elsewhere - in part I think Thatcher must play a part in that. And I do think it matters that Labour are on their second white male leader named Keir while they've still not elected a woman, while the Tories are on their fourth female leader, first black leader (having just had a British Asian Hindu leader).

That's why I like them I think they are tied to a class with specific material interests to advance - it's the connection to a membership and a constituency that is separate from just political activists that I think is helpful and "grounding" for left-wing politics.

[Sheilbh]

That's completely ridiculous.

Look, if you want to argue these people are a "without cause" termination and should receive notice (or payment in lieu of notice) I'm not horribly offended by that notion.  But to say they must remain on the payroll indefinitely?  Bullshit.

Be interested in Garbon's take on this too - hopefully it's less ridiculous than it sounds.

[Barrister]

And I do think it matters that Labour are on their second white male leader named Keir while they've still not elected a woman, while the Tories are on their fourth female leader, first black leader (having just had a British Asian Hindu leader).

Just to go all Canadian on you (I have a brand to protect) it's interesting that in Canada the Liberals have been 100% white males, the Conservatives/PCs/Conservatives have been 100% white, all but one male (the ill-fated Kim Campbell), whereas it's the left-wing NDP that have had two long-serving female leaders and now a Sikh leader (and I wound tend to note the NDP has done best under its white male leaders).

I would speculate because in addition to the usual race/gender divides we have a linguistic divide and there's been much more of an effort to divide between anglo and franco leaders.  Heck there's anecdotal evidence to suggest that francophone leaders (if not necessarily Quebecois leaders) have more success: Trudeau, Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau, St. Laurent, Laurier...

[crazy canuck]

Separately this is insane The government should legislate on this fast (can't help but think this is another example of the government discovering that when the Tories were complaining about the civil service or direction of the courts - it wasn't just "populism"). It's been pointed out that when Sir Robert Mark was brought in to clean up the Met (in the 70s ) he was able to force out or fire 400 officers very quickly which helped a lot:

That's completely ridiculous.

Look, if you want to argue these people are a "without cause" termination and should receive notice (or payment in lieu of notice) I'm not horribly offended by that notion.  But to say they must remain on the payroll indefinitely?  Bullshit.

What BB may not know is that the Canada Labour code already provides the protection you are talking about for non unionized federal employees.

The UK could follow that model.

[garbon]

That's completely ridiculous.

Look, if you want to argue these people are a "without cause" termination and should receive notice (or payment in lieu of notice) I'm not horribly offended by that notion.  But to say they must remain on the payroll indefinitely?  Bullshit.

Be interested in Garbon's take on this too - hopefully it's less ridiculous than it sounds.

I think it sounds like the Met was playing fast and loose with Operation Assure/Onyx. Rowley was trying to clean up the force however he could without the government giving him proper powers to do so. I think he's whining now to try to jar them into action.

It feels to me like they did a messy job of trying to line him up for departure. I started reading part of the judgment and it looks like there were numerous mistakes/errors in the process - including in the facts relied on for removing his vetting.  Repeatedly the allegations that were made against him were not substantiated and/or dropped by CPS and he was actually even promoted during the period in question.

Now where there is smoke, there is probably fire, but feels like the Met botched it and the government has botched it by not yet updating the regulations on what the Met can do.

Relevant bit from BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r5nrzn4z0o

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Lang said the Met's powers did not "extend to the dismissal of a police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance".

Her judgement, external stated that dismissal should be provided for in regulations from the Home Secretary, which they are currently not.

Mrs Justice Lang added: "This results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed."

She ruled that part of the problem was that the previous Conservative government had not decided on potentially more effective rules before the election was called.

The new Labour government announced last October it would introduce rules to dismiss officers who could not hold vetting – and the formal consultation on its proposals is closing this week.

Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said it was "acting rapidly" to ensure police forces could "dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance".