Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Love Henry there

Government had a falling out with Dyson?
Mandatory : https://youtu.be/3_zJpMz7Cdg

[Richard Hakluyt]

Love Henry there

The best tory minister we never had 

[Sheilbh]

Love Henry there

Government had a falling out with Dyson?

Well, I mean the only had £2.9 million

[Richard Hakluyt]

The chairs are particularly village hall 

[Sheilbh]

The chairs are particularly village hall 

Have they accidentally built a Travel Tavern function room?

Also Theresa May has made a speech in the Commons especially around the public order/protesting part of the police bill. Imagine pushing for policing legislation that Theresa May finds too illiberal and authoritarian

[celedhring]

I always find it rather odd how many former British PMs stay as rank-and-file MPs after losing their post. It seems in most other places after losing the top job you just ride into the sunset or become the leader of the opposition (not aplicable in May's case).

[Sheilbh]

I think it's pretty rare here. Generally PMs leave the Commons and go to write they're profoundly underwhelming memoirs/earn money on the after-dinner speech circuit.

It is really common for unsuccessful former party leaders though. Ed Miliband is in Starmer's shadow cabinet, on the Tory side Cameron had Iain Duncan-Smith and William Hague in his cabinet, plus Michael Howard was still an MP.

At a certain point they generally move to the House of Lords instead though obviously they still get to vote and comment on the government of the day. So Harold MacMillan spent loads of time criticising Thatcher's decisions from the Lords

[Agelastus]

I think it's pretty rare here. Generally PMs leave the Commons and go to write they're profoundly underwhelming memoirs/earn money on the after-dinner speech circuit.

It is really common for unsuccessful former party leaders though. Ed Miliband is in Starmer's shadow cabinet, on the Tory side Cameron had Iain Duncan-Smith and William Hague in his cabinet, plus Michael Howard was still an MP.

At a certain point they generally move to the House of Lords instead though obviously they still get to vote and comment on the government of the day. So Harold MacMillan spent loads of time criticising Thatcher's decisions from the Lords

Callaghan remained in the Commons for 8 years; Ted Heath was notorious for hanging on until 2001 (26 years after he lost the leadership, 27 years after he lost office.) John Major stayed at Huntingdon until the 2001 election.

Thatcher quit in 1992 at the first election after she lost the Premiership, like MacMillan in 1964.

I actually do wonder if we looked further back what the historical pattern would be - Lloyd George was an MP until just before his death in 1945, and Asquith found himself another seat after losing in 1918 and was in the House until 1924.

[Agelastus]

In fact, since 1945 -

Stayed in parliament and fought at least one more election:

Attlee (four years, fought 1955 election as leader of the Opposition then elevated to Lords)
Churchill (nine years)
Douglas-Home (ten years, served in Edward Heath's cabinet.)
Wilson (7 years)
Heath (27 years)
Callaghan (8 years)

Lost election but served full parliamentary term (subset of stood down at next election):

Major (four years)
Brown (five years)

Stood down at next election:

Eden (2 years)
MacMillan (1 year)
Thatcher (2 years)

"Took an office of profit under the Crown" (resigned before election):

Blair
Cameron

So, actually, quite a mixed bag - May has already not taken MacMillan's or Thatcher's example but whether she will be a Heath or a Douglas-Home is still up in the air.

[Sheilbh]

Well Douglas-Home had left the Lords to become PM and given his general character - the flower arranging hobby and not reporting an attempted kidnapping to avoid ruining the lives of those kids - I suspect he felt like he owed his constituency a time as an MP.

I can't see May lasting until she becomes Mother of the House like with Heath. She's in her mid-60s now. I think she'll probably step down at the next election.

Edit: Also Mike Hill Labour MP for Hartlepool has stood down with "immediate effect". He will be facing an Employment Tribunal soon on allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation. Those allegations were initially made in 2019, so that he's stepping down now suggests thinigs are not going well.

This means there'll be a by-election in (I know Tyr hates the phrase) a red wall seat. In 2017 Labour got over 50% of the vote, in 2019 it was down to 38% of the vote with the Tories on 29% and the Brexit Party (now largely defunct) on 26% so, despite being in government, I suspect the Tories will fancy picking up this seat.

Apparently Laura Pidcock is considering going for the Labour nomination which I think might not be a roaring success given her electoral record From Rob Hutton - the outline of all pieces about this election

Robert Hutton
@RobDotHutton
Your Handy All-Purpose Hartlepool Colour Piece:

* Napoleonic frigate in harbour intro
* Mandelson/guacamole story
* Crisis for Starmer
* Red Wall Left Behind By Labour
* Vaccinated pensioner interview
* H'Angus the monkey pay-off.

[Agelastus]

While I think Labour will win the by-election, it will be interesting to see where those Brexit Party voters go to (at least, the ones who bother to vote - this is a by-election after all.)

[Josquius]

Hartlepool is a dodgy one. Known/stereotyped for being pretty batshit far right. It's interesting that in the last election the tories fluked through in some quite unexpected places but hartlepool held.
I think it helps that the local council there follow something akin to the Preston model and do really well which unites those who would otherwise veer off to lib dem or green in voting Labour.
And the nutter vote being split.

In other news.... Boris Johnson continues down the jingoist hole of batshit insanity by announcing we will build more nukes.
This is just mad.
More actual useful equipment for the military I could understand.
Better pay and conditions for soldiers I could get behind even.
But more nukes? Just.... Wot?

[Sheilbh]

I'll never not be surprised that Sir Lawrence Freedman is on Twitter - but he did a thread that is helpful in explaining the nukes point. In general the review seems to be getting greeted quite positively by people in sort of defence/foreign policy circles.

Anyway - the nuke thread that seems to explain some of the thinking:

Lawrence Freedman
@LawDavF
Thread on UK nuclear weapons policy. Be patient. Quite long.
The statement in the review on UK nuclear policy is the most comprehensive for some time, although it requires careful reading. It largely reaffirms existing policy. 1/
Most important announcement is the increase in the nuclear stockpile from 180 to no more than 260 warheads. The number derives from the maximum that can be deployed if two subs are on patrol. 16 missiles per boat; 8 warheads per missile; two boats on patrol. 16  x 8 x 2 = 256. 2/
Until 1998 UK kept stockpile a secret.  Indeed after his announcement later on says UK will 'no longer give public figures for our operational stockpile, deployed warhead or deployed missile numbers.' So most of the time deployed numbers will be well short of this maximum. 3/
If there will be more than one of the new Dreadnought Class subs on patrol more often, post 2030, this will be as important an increase in capability as extra warheads. 4/
Points out that still lowest stockpile of any declared nuclear state and that others increasing their numbers. But given the devastation individual weapons can cause still not clear why would need more warheads. 5/
Best explanation lies in reference to other states (ie Russia) having 'warfighting' nuclear systems integrated 'into their military strategies and doctrines and into their political rhetoric to seek to coerce others.' 6/
The implication is larger stockpile is to have capacity so that Trident can be counter to both Russian short-range systems for use on European battlefield as well as longer-range missiles that threaten homelands. 7/
Such scenarios are speculative to say the least, but this is a way of stressing UK nuclear commitment to European and not just national security. 8/
This is strongly underlined in review, and potentially of relevance in debates, such as that encouraged by President Macron, to greater European strategic autonomy. The review contains a positive reference to cooperation with France. 9/
The review makes a virtue of deliberately ambiguity 'about precisely when, how and at what scale we would contemplate the use of nuclear weapons'. 10/
It refers to possible need to respond to 'weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact'. /11
At  same time says it would only use nuclear weapons 'only in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO Allies.' So that implies that these other threats could be as extreme as nuclear threats, which currently seems unlikely. /12
Still leaves hanging the problem of extended deterrence. This is difficult enough for US but possibly even greater for UK. Would the UK retaliate if nuclear strike against, say a Baltic state? Would it retaliate of the impact came from biological weapons or cyberattacks?  /13
You can see why easier to stick with ambiguity because clarity would not necessarily be reassuring to allies. /14
Warhead increase will be criticised with ref to Art VI of Non-Proliferation Treaty which requires negotiations on arms control and disarmament measures. This is 'good faith' provision. As review notes other nuclear powers are also increasing their arsenals.
Review endorses 'the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. We continue to work for the preservation and strengthening of effective arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation measures'.  /16
It adds 'there is no credible alternative route to nuclear disarmament.' This presumably is the way to dismiss the current efforts to get states to sign up to the 'Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.'/17
No reference to the demise of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Presumably in a new multilateral forum UK and France will be drawn in (and extra warheads give some scope for later reductions?). But this is not discussed. /18
Important and sensible reference at end to need to work on reducing risk of nuclear conflict and enhancing mutual trust and security, reducing risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation./19
'The UK takes its responsibilities as a nuclear weapon state seriously and will continue to encourage other states to do likewise.' This will cover ensuring security of stockpiles and reliable command and control procedures, and crisis management measures./END

[Sheilbh]

This is not getting the coverage it deserves in England - because the English media cover Scotland like a foreign country.

But David Davis has clearly had whistleblower/leaker in the Scottish goverment who had provided him with various text messages and emails. He used Parliamentary privilege to basically accuse several SNP officials of crimes including perjury. They apparently show that the SNP officials, including Sturgeon's chief of staff were aware of allegations about Salmond in February 2018 while they've told the Scottish Parliament they weren't aware until April. He's said the messages give evidence of SNP figures pressuring witnesses, withholding evidence, lying about time frames and misusing institutions (particularly the Scottish civil service).

At the end of this he basically blamed the way devolution was set up and called for an amendment to devolution (which would require a change of law in Westminster). Among other things he noted that MSPs do not have the same powers and privileges as MPs (including parliamentary privilege or powers to compel evidence) - so he can raise these allegations in the House of Commons, but an MSP could not raise them in Holyrood. Similarly he's proposed more clearly separation of powers - the main issue here is that the Lord Advocate who is the Scottish government's law officer (like the Attorney General for the British government) is also the head of the Scottish prosecution system, the Procurator Fiscal. The Lord Advocate can sit in the Scottish cabinet - this was suspended by Salmond when he was First Minister to de-politicise the role, but I think the current government takes a different approach so he does sit in cabinet. I'd hope and expect that he'd recuse himself from any investigations to do with the government/SNP but I'm not sure that's the case.

Both of these suggestions seem like good ideas but re-opening the devolution legislation would probably be a nightmare especially if these amendments were opposed by the Scottish government.

The Scottish government have said that Davis was quoting from cherry-picked messages and that all of these messages have been provided to the Scottish Parliament committee investigating this issue and they've dismissed them.

Edit: As I say - this isn't even on the splash page of the Guardian because Scotland's basically New Zealand or Germany - it primarily exists not as part of our country but as a place to contrast with our government

The Herald - a Scottish daily has the story:

Tory MP reveals Salmond 'conspiracy' messages in Commons
By Tom Gordon @HTScotPol Scottish Political Editor

A TORY MP has used parliamentary privilege to reveal "whistleblower" evidence about the Alex Salmond affair and claim Nicola Sturgeon misled Holyrood.

David Davis said the First Minister knew Mr Salmond was being investigated by her officials for alleged sexual misconduct well before the date she gave to MSPs.

Mr Davis also alleged Ms Sturgeon's chief of staff had been "interfering" in the process.

And he said evidence given under oath by Ms Sturgeon's husband, SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, was "hard to reconcile" with the leaked material he had seen.

A Holyrood inquiry is looking at how the Scottish Government botched a probe into sexual misconduct claims made against Mr Salmond in January 2018.

The former First Minister had the exercise quashed in a judicial review in January 2019, showing the whole process had been "tainted by apparent bias".

After the Government's defence collapsed, Ms Sturgeon revealed she had three meetings and two calls with Mr Salmond about the probe, and insisted she first learned about the investigation when he told her himself at her Glasgow home on April 2, 2018.

It later emerged Mr Salmond's former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein told Ms Sturgeon on March 29, a meeting she claims she forgot as it was a busy day at Holyrood.

If Ms Sturgeon knowingly misled parliament on the point it would be a breach of the Scottish ministerial code - a resignation offence which she denies.

Mr Davis said the Crown Office was barring publication of evidence which was "critical in determining whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code".

He said: "It is clearly in the public interest to see this evidence. I have it on good authority that there exists from 6 February 2018 an exchange of messages between civil servants Judith McKinnon and Barbara Allison suggesting that the First Minister's chief of staff is interfering in the complaints process against Alex Salmond.

"The investigating officer complained, 'Liz interference v. bad'.

"I assume that that means very bad. If true, this suggests that the chief of staff had knowledge of the Salmond case in February, not in April.

"The First Minister tied herself to that April date in both parliamentary and legal statements. She was, of course, aware earlier than that. The question is just how aware and how much earlier."

The former Brexit Secretary said he had been sent "dozens" of messages from the phone of SNP chief operating officer Sue Ruddick, which were obtained for Mr Salmond's criminal trial last year.

Mr Salmond wanted the jury to see them, but was blocked by judge Lady Dorrian.

He claims the messages show a concerted and malicious effort by senior SNP and Scottish Government figures close to Ms Sturgeon to ruin and even imprison him.

However the Holyrood inquiry has refused to publish them.

Mr Salmond has been threatened with prosection if he makes them public himself, as they were obtained solely for the purpose of his trial defence.

However Mr Davis told the Commons he had been leaked text messages downloaded from Ms Ruddick's phone and proceeded to share some of them.

Speaking in an adjournment debate, he said he was doing so because the Holyrood inquiry had been hamstrung by the Scottish Parliament's limited powers.

He said: "We need to reinforce the ability of the Scottish Parliament to hold its own Government to account.

"I am here to strengthen the Scottish Parliament, not to bury it.

"A few weeks ago I was passed some papers from an anonymous whistleblower.

"The information in those papers consisted of a download of text messages from the telephone of Sue Ruddick, the chief operating officer of the Scottish National party."

After SNP MP Own Thompson warned court orders were in place to protect the anonymity of Mr Salmond's accusers, Mr Davis said he had often raised whistleblower issues in the past.

The Haltemprice and Howden MP said: "Now Alex Salmond has asserted that there has been, and I quote 'a malicious and concerted attempt to remove me from public life in Scotland by a range of individuals within the Scottish government and the SNP' who set out to damage his reputation, even to the extent of having him imprisoned.

"These are incredibly grave charges, the whistleblower clearly agrees with those charges.

"He or she starts their communication with the assertion that the evidence provided, and I quote, 'point to collusion, perjury, up to criminal conspiracy'."

Mr Davis told MPs the messages presented a case "which demands serious investigation, by which I mean at the very least a thorough review of all the emails and other electronic records for the relevant personnel at all the relevant times".

He added: "For example, these texts show that there is a concerted effort by senior members of the SNP to encourage complaints.

"The messages suggest that SNP chief executive Peter Murrell co-ordinated Ruddick and Ian McCann, the SNP's compliance officer, in the handling of specific complainants.

"On 28 September [2018], a month after the police had started their investigation of the criminal case, McCann expressed great disappointment to Ruddick that someone who had promised to deliver five complainants to him by the end of that week had come up empty, or 'overreached', as he put it. One of the complainants said to Ruddick that she was 'feeling pressurised by the whole thing rather than supported'.

"The day following the Scottish Government's collapse in a judicial review in January 2019, Ruddick expressed to McCann the hope that one of the complainants would be 'sickened enough to get back in the game'.

"Later that month, she confirmed to Murrell that the complainant was now 'up for the fight' and 'keen to see him go to jail'.

"Ruddick herself, in one of her texts, expressed nervousness about 'what happens when my name comes out as [redacted] fishing for others to come forward'."

Mr Davis said that, given a police investigation was underway in late 2018, this was "improper".

However in preliminary hearing before Mr Salmond's trial, Lady Dorrian noted there was nothing improper in people encouraging others to report a crime.

Mr Davis said the Salmond inquiry had shown the need for a greater separation of powers in Scotland between the Government, the parliament and the justice system.

He said: "The Holyrood inquiry has exposed some critical failings at the heart of the Scottish Government. They failed with the complaints process, they failed to heed legal advice, and they failed to honour commitments to ensure a transparent parliamentary review, but perhaps more worryingly the inquiry has revealed the limits of what the Scottish Parliament can expose. There is a deficit of power, and with it comes a deficit of accountability."

Replying for the Government, Scotland Office minister Iain Stewart did not comment specifically on the allegations made by Mr Davis.

Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross said: "If the First Minister's side were aware of complaints against Alex Salmond in February 2018, an outrageous breach of those women's privacy and confidentiality has occurred.

"February 2018 is also two months before Nicola Sturgeon originally claimed to find out about complaints. If her chief of staff knew then, and was interfering in the investigation, it blows another enormous hole in the First Minister's story.

"If civil servants said the First Minister's chief of staff was interfering in the investigation in a 'very bad' way, then that is a sacking offence.

"It raises serious questions about how she tried to interfere, how she found out, who told her, when she knew, and who she went on to tell.

"It further raises the question if anyone told Nicola Sturgeon that her chief of staff was interfering in the investigation. If they did, a number of lies have been told to the Scottish Parliament. If they didn't, it still makes Nicola Sturgeon's story of when she claims to have found out about complaints even more implausible.

"These are all 'ifs'. We need Nicola Sturgeon to immediately confirm or deny these new allegations, and to agree to release the evidence that has been cited this week."

The First Minister's spokesman said in a statement: "As with Mr Salmond's previous claims and cherry picking of messages, the reality is very different to the picture being presented.

"Every message involving SNP staff has been seen by the committee previously.

"Their views have been widely reported as dismissive of them."

[Sheilbh]

Interesting and surprising - following the Supreme Court decision I expected Uber to fight on and argue that the changes to their system in 2016 meant that the decision only applied to drivers before that data and, for the last five years, they've not had workers. Instead they're just accepting that drivers are workers:

Uber 'willing to change' as drivers get minimum wage, holiday pay and pensions

Uber has insisted its fares will not rise after saying that its 70,000 UK drivers will be guaranteed a minimum wage, holiday pay and pensions.

The ride-hailing giant said drivers would earn at least the National Living Wage, or £8.72 an hour, in a move that could shake up the wider gig economy.

It comes a month after it lost a legal battle in the UK over drivers' status.

Uber said it was "turning the page" on workers' rights, but some said it had not gone far enough.

Analysts also warned the company had increased prices in California after a similar ruling and was likely to do the same in the UK.

Writing in the Evening Standard, Uber's chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi said: "This is a significant improvement in the standard of work for UK drivers. But I know many observers won't pat us on the back for taking this step, which comes after a five-year legal battle.

"They have a point, though I hope the path that we chose shows our willingness to change."

Union leaders and employment experts said Uber's move would have far reaching consequences for the gig economy. Bates Wells lawyer Rachel Mathieson, who represented Uber drivers fighting for worker rights, called it "a very significant milestone".

However, one union complained Uber would still not pay drivers for the time they spent waiting in between jobs.

The changes also do not apply to couriers in its food delivery business, Uber Eats, who remain self-employed.

How did we get here?

In February, Uber lost the third and final stage of a five-year legal battle with drivers who claimed it had wrongly classified their employment status.

It argued it was a third-party booking agent, and its drivers were self-employed.

But the Supreme Court ruled its drivers were workers, a category that means they are entitled to minimum legal, holiday and pension rights.

Uber was not legally obliged to grant these benefits across its business, but it was facing further action from drivers as well as calls for compensation for past missed entitlements.

The company is also being challenged by its drivers in many other countries over whether they should be classed as workers or self-employed.

What happens now?

Uber, which is worth $110bn but has never made a profit, said the changes to its UK drivers' pay would come in from Wednesday, and form an earnings floor, not an earnings ceiling.

The company said the new rates would come on top of free insurance to cover sickness, injury and maternity and paternity payments which have been in place for all drivers since 2018.

Uber says:

    It will pay at least the National Living Wage for over-25s, irrespective of a driver's age, after accepting a trip request and after expenses
    All drivers will be paid holiday time based on 12.07% of their earnings, paid out on a fortnightly basis
    Drivers will automatically be enrolled into a pension plan with contributions from Uber alongside driver contributions, setting drivers up over the long term
    It will continue free insurance in case of sickness or injury as well as parental payments, which have been in place for all drivers since 2018
    All drivers will retain the freedom to choose if, when and where they drive

What does Uber say?

Jamie Heywood, regional general manager for Northern Europe at Uber, said: "Uber is just one part of a larger private-hire industry, so we hope that all other operators will join us in improving the quality of work for these important workers who are an essential part of our everyday lives.

"Drivers have consistently told us that they wanted both the flexibility that we provided but also they wanted the benefits and we've been struggling to find a way of bringing those two together in a way that work for us and work for drivers," he said.

Uber pointed out in its statement announcing the changes that a worker is a classification that is unique under UK employment law. Workers are not full-blown employees but are entitled to the minimum wage, holiday pay and a pension.

The company said the recent UK Supreme Court ruling had provided a clearer path forward as to a model that gives drivers the rights of worker status - while continuing to let them work flexibly.

Are unions and drivers happy?

Boss of the TUC union body, Frances O'Grady, said the announcement was "really important because it shows that no multi-national company however big is above the law".

But she suggested Uber was trying to "cherry pick" from the Supreme Court's ruling, which said Uber should consider its drivers as workers from the time they logged onto the app, until they logged off.

Instead it will only commit to these entitlements from the time a trip is accepted to the drop-off.

James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, the two former drivers who sued Uber over worker status, said the company was still "short changing [drivers] to the tune of 40-50%".

"Also, it is not acceptable for Uber to unilaterally decide the driver expense base in calculating minimum wage. This must be subject to collective agreement," they said.

Others pointed out that Uber had said nothing about compensating drivers for past entitlements they had missed out on.

What could the impact be on the wider gig economy?

Despite the reservations, employment experts and unions heralded Uber's announcement as a big step forward for workers' rights that would be felt across the gig economy.

Nigel McCay of law firm Leigh Day, which represented Uber drivers in the recent court battles, told the BBC: "We see so many other operators using this employment model which is questionable.

"And they'll now see this decision and think: 'Hang on, if Uber have had to finally give in and accept that the drivers are workers then how long are we going to be able to sustain an argument that our workers shouldn't be entitled to those rights?'"

Uber competitor Bolt told the BBC it had no plans to change its driver's conditions, as they "already make more with Bolt compared to other ride-hailing companies because our commission rates are lower".

However, it said it would continue to consult with its 50,000 UK drivers to make sure "any changes we make directly benefit them".

Mary Walker, partner and employment lawyer at law firm Gordons, said the additional costs facing the gig economy mean "some businesses will simply be unable to continue trading". Other firms will be able to restructure, but perhaps with fewer workers, she added.

Union leaders also warned other gig economy firms they would have to change. "This is the end of the road for bogus self employment," said Mick Rix, national officer of the GMB union, which has been fighting for employment rights through the courts.

"It's a shame it took the GMB winning four court battles to make them see sense, but we got there in the end and ultimately that's a big win for our members. Other gig economy companies should take note," Mr Rix said.