Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Cummings reorganising the civil service. During a pandemic and the proper exit from the EU. What could POSSIBLY go wrong.

I don't really disagree with his analysis. But given his record at Education I am dubious about the execution. I have no doubt we'll hear a lot about "the blob" soon.

Edit: Sir David Frost - who is the civil servant negotiating Brexit - is being promoted to National Security Advisor. While it makes sense to appoint someone like him - 25 years as a diplomat/FCO - I feel like moving from one jobshare to another is not ideal

Edit: And of course Sedwill was not in the job for long compared to other Cabinet Secretaries. They normally last 5-10 years, while he was only in place for 2. Flipside is that while the civil service should be non-political I am kind of sympathetic with the idea that in general the PM should be able to choose who they want to work with (this doesn't apply for other departments because of how regular re-shuffles are).

[Zanza]

Edit: Sir David Frost - who is the civil servant negotiating Brexit - is being promoted to National Security Advisor. While it makes sense to appoint someone like him - 25 years as a diplomat/FCO - I feel like moving from one jobshare to another is not ideal

There will be no deal, so the time spent on Brexit will be limited and it is just four more months.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally the sort of idea behind what's about to happen was described in Gove's recent speech - which starts with Gramsci and cites FDR 17 times:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/896041/Ditchley_lecture.pdf

Sam Freedman who was a Lib Dem SpAd in the Education Department (with Gove and Cummings) during the coalition. He described it as basically a synthesis of David Goodhart's "anywheres/somewheres" theory plus Cummings critique of Whitehall. Both of these have a pretty large element of truth to them. So a growing elite of graduate have created socio-economic culture that has alienated a lot of the country. The government's strategy seems to be to attack the "anywheres" and promote the "somewheres". One problem Freedman notes with this is that lots of younger, poorer people (who would be "somewheres") agree with the social and cultural view of the graduate elite (the "anywheres") but are still just economically shafted. Similarly there is a huge right in Cummings' critique of Whitehall - of the lack of consequences for failure, the lack of deep expertise, the tendency to have to many Oxbridge humanities/social science graduates and a tendency to groupthink. But it's tough to build a civil service on evidence and have outside expertise informning decision-making - those all basically rely on transparency, accountability and basic honesty which this government has not demonstrated an abundance of so far

But it's the core fracture at the heart of Brexit - on the one hand they want to sort of represent the "somewheres", act for deep England and at the same time they've got a vision of this sort of cold technocratic government that's like Singapore or a modern version of Project Cybersyn (). I still don't see a way of marrying the two. I also think there was a line from an ally of Cummings that he is a big believer in decentralisation to people he trusts can deliver - which is basically saying he's not a believer in decentralisation

On the other hand I feel if the government's big idea - the reason they burned all their credibility to save Cummings - is civil service reform, that they've made a huge mistake. On the one hand they have ideas which is useful and a bit of a contrast with the left which I think is still working out its ideas after the Corbyn experiment, on the other hand I expect Labour will lead with the economy, jobs, public services which I feel might connect more with the general public than civil service reform.

[Tamas]

IDK. I withold believing in any government grand (or even little) reform plans until they manage to show any level of competence at anything.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/jun/29/uk-politics-live-boris-johnson-interview-mark-sedwill-civil-servant-coronavirus-covid-19-latest-updates-please?page=with:block-5ef9a6408f08a9bfb62332fc#block-5ef9a6408f08a9bfb62332fc

Parents in England could be fined if they don't send their children back to school in September

The education secretary, Gavin Williamson, said parents could be fined if they do not send their children back to school after their scheduled restart in England in September.

He told LBC:

It is going to be compulsory for children to return back to school unless there's a very good reason, or a local spike where there have had to be local lockdowns.

We do have to get back into compulsory education as part of that, obviously fines sit alongside that.

Unless there is a good reason for the absence then we will be looking at the fact that we would be imposing fines on families if they are not sending their children back.

Fear of fines will trump safety concerns?

[Sheilbh]

So this is kind of fascinating. There's a set of long-standing questions that political scientists have been polling for years and are basically left v right, liberal v authoritarian. The questions are:

Survey Questions: Economic Values
•  Government should redistribute income from those who are better off to those who are less well off
•  Big business takes advantage of ordinary people
•  Ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation's wealth     
•  There is one law for the rich and one for the poor
•  Management will always try to get the better of employees if it gets the chance     

Survey Questions: Social Values
•  Young people don't have enough respect for traditional British values
•  For some crimes, the death penalty is the most appropriate sentence
•  Schools should teach children to obey authority
•  Censorship of films and magazines is necessary to uphold moral standards
•  People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences

On economic values, Labour are more in touch with their voters and the electorate (and the rest of their party) than Tories:


But on social values the Tories are closer to their voters, party and the electorate - and, astonishingly, actually more liberal than the electorate:


Edit: Just another example of the big gap in British (and most other?) politics being the economically left-wing, socially authoritarian space. Also it seems to undermine the old theory that party leaderships tend to be more in touch with the wider electorate than party activists - it feels like councillors should have more of a say.

[Gups]

Those are all crap questions most of which can't answered yes or no by anyone serious.

[Tamas]

Interesting, thanks, Sheilbh.

Seem to align with what I have been thinking, namely that "the masses" never subscribed to the political aspects of the left, they tolerated them due to the benefits they received from the economic aspects. Once those (were perceived to) lapse or at least align with the economic policies of the right, they dropped the moderate left like it was burning iron.

[Sheilbh]

Those are all crap questions most of which can't answered yes or no by anyone serious.

They are. But I think it's more "tend to agree"/"tend to disagree" than yes/no.

Looking at the report the Tory MPs are most out of touch on "Management will always try to get the better of employees if it gets the chance" and "There is one law for the poor and another for the rich", which Tory MPs tend to disagree with far more than anyone else. On social values the two big ones (for both parties) are stiffer sentences and the death penalty. Which makes sense I think there's an aboslute opposition to the death penalty among most politicians but I don't think there's ever been a poll where most British people oppose the death penalty (but its support goes up and down in relation to particularly horrible crimes).

[Josquius]

Interesting, thanks, Sheilbh.

Seem to align with what I have been thinking, namely that "the masses" never subscribed to the political aspects of the left, they tolerated them due to the benefits they received from the economic aspects. Once those (were perceived to) lapse or at least align with the economic policies of the right, they dropped the moderate left like it was burning iron.

Never is putting it harshly.
Historically the working class did tend to be on board with the social aspects too. The idea of solidarity for mutual benefit was believed by all, the evidence was clear to see.
But now we live in selfish times.

[Gups]

Interesting, thanks, Sheilbh.

Seem to align with what I have been thinking, namely that "the masses" never subscribed to the political aspects of the left, they tolerated them due to the benefits they received from the economic aspects. Once those (were perceived to) lapse or at least align with the economic policies of the right, they dropped the moderate left like it was burning iron.

Never is putting it harshly.
Historically the working class did tend to be on board with the social aspects too. The idea of solidarity for mutual benefit was believed by all, the evidence was clear to see.
But now we live in selfish times.

Bollocks. The trades unions were always hot beds of racism and sexism and the working classes always used to be less liberal on criminal and homosexual law reform than the middle classes.

[Josquius]

Interesting, thanks, Sheilbh.

Seem to align with what I have been thinking, namely that "the masses" never subscribed to the political aspects of the left, they tolerated them due to the benefits they received from the economic aspects. Once those (were perceived to) lapse or at least align with the economic policies of the right, they dropped the moderate left like it was burning iron.

Never is putting it harshly.
Historically the working class did tend to be on board with the social aspects too. The idea of solidarity for mutual benefit was believed by all, the evidence was clear to see.
But now we live in selfish times.

Bollocks. The trades unions were always hot beds of racism and sexism and the working classes always used to be less liberal on criminal and homosexual law reform than the middle classes.

I was thinking more with regards to international relations.
I've heard some great stories from the miners strike and before of aid between workers in different nations.

[Gups]

Well there was a donation of £1.5m from the Soviet miners' union in the 1984 strike. Not heard of anything else. They couldn't really get much support from unions in Britain in that strike (in contrast to 1972)

[garbon]

As Churchill wasn't working out so well for him, it seems Boris is now poised to try on FDR's mantle.

[Tamas]

As Churchill wasn't working out so well for him, it seems Boris is now posed to try on FDR's mantle.

I wonder how many people that's going to resonate with. Its 2020, for most people the New Deal can't be more to most people than a faint memory from history class.