Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tonitrus]

They've apparently sent an email around the entire civil service that they want people to inform by end of today on what other appointments they have - from companies to school governors or church wardens.

Would this include Bearers of the Dog Whipper's Rod? 

[Sheilbh]

They've apparently sent an email around the entire civil service that they want people to inform by end of today on what other appointments they have - from companies to school governors or church wardens.

Would this include Bearers of the Dog Whipper's Rod? 

That's an ecclesiastical position

There are now 8 separate inquiries into Greensill

[Sheilbh]

Almost tempted to get Sir Alan Duncan's diaries because every section I've seen is incredible and impossible to parody:

At around 9pm the PM claims she has secured Cabinet agreement. But who the hell are the Cabinet anyway? They are so puny, with others invited too, such as the Minister for Housing. It is logically absurd that a housing minister attends but the Minister for Europe does not. Not that I want to.

[Josquius]

You might have noticed along with out means out and other such things a sure way to tell if somebody's opinion is not worth much is if they refer to a guy called keith.
I was curious about why and found this


https://www.thesocialreview.co.uk/2020/12/01/call-me-by-your-name-keith/

[Sheilbh]

Alex Salmond there saying that Scotland will join the EU as an independent state, but this shouldn't cause any issues with the border with England. I see we're in for the next instalment of Britain: the banter years

Luckily I think most nationalists accept there will be a border in that case. It's not a core part of anyone's identity unlike Northern Ireland so we'd just have a hard border - and there's less day-to-day border crossings than Ireland/Northern Ireland too.

Edit: And we're back to claimst that Scotland will simultaneously be an Irish style dynamic, low-tax economy and a comprehensive, Scandinavian style welfare state. Meanwhile the latest official stats suggest that Scotland will have a deficit of 10% on independence

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf, is the dead chick the one who featured in that movie about the female Ford workers?

Sorry if it was mentioned in your 4,000 word article, but, you know.

[Sheilbh]

No. That's Barbara Castle - probably the best PM we never had

And a more formidable and loyally/tribally Labour person than Shirley.

[Josquius]

Nice to see more evidence coming out for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/19/half-of-brexit-supporters-were-not-left-behind-red-wall-voters

Brexit was the rich and powerful, and their cap doffing pensioner followers, enlisting the sub working class to the detriment of the working and lower middle class folk squeezed in between.

[Sheilbh]

From the Football thread:

This is excellent luck for them with the whole Cameron thing going on.

How does the Cameron thing hurt the government?

I don't quite get the connection. Cameron in his time in office was very close to a banker (as was the head of the civil service) who got lots of meetings with various bits of government. Cameron also introduced him to Obama and MbS and the banker described himself as a Downing Street advisor.

In terms of the current government Cameron lobbied Sunak for covid relief funds. Sunak told officials to have a look at it and see what the could do, they did and decided the bank didn't qualify under the rules so it didn't get any money. And it's gone bust.

The only person in the government who, so far, I think has questions is Hancock who had meetings with this bank and Sir Simon Stevens who is Chief Executive of NHS England over his meetings (though he was appointed in 2014).

I can't really see a link between Cameron's behaviour, and the loads of second jobs for civil servants with this government. I think it all stinks but it's more about the further tarnishing of Cameron's legacy rather than an issue for the current government.

Also it's all come out in their first year or two in office so now, no doubt, there'll be loads of inquiries and recommendations followed by some reforms.

[Tamas]

From the Football thread:

This is excellent luck for them with the whole Cameron thing going on.

How does the Cameron thing hurt the government?

I don't quite get the connection. Cameron in his time in office was very close to a banker (as was the head of the civil service) who got lots of meetings with various bits of government. Cameron also introduced him to Obama and MbS and the banker described himself as a Downing Street advisor.

In terms of the current government Cameron lobbied Sunak for covid relief funds. Sunak told officials to have a look at it and see what the could do, they did and decided the bank didn't qualify under the rules so it didn't get any money. And it's gone bust.

The only person in the government who, so far, I think has questions is Hancock who had meetings with this bank and Sir Simon Stevens who is Chief Executive of NHS England over his meetings (though he was appointed in 2014).

I can't really see a link between Cameron's behaviour, and the loads of second jobs for civil servants with this government. I think it all stinks but it's more about the further tarnishing of Cameron's legacy rather than an issue for the current government.

Also it's all come out in their first year or two in office so now, no doubt, there'll be loads of inquiries and recommendations followed by some reforms.

1. I don't actually think this will hurt them that much. People don't care about corruption as long as they get their bread and circus and the disliked minorities are kept down. But it does highlight things that must be widespread behind the scenes so I'd imagine the politicians are worried.

2. However, if they won't be hurt by this scandal it won't be because people will (very falsely) think "oh these are different Tories than the ones who did that, I am sure it's just one rotten apple and nothing more"

[Sheilbh]

1. I don't actually think this will hurt them that much. People don't care about corruption as long as they get their bread and circus and the disliked minorities are kept down. But it does highlight things that must be widespread behind the scenes so I'd imagine the politicians are worried.

I don't think it's because people don't care - I think it's that there's no clear link to this government and there's nothing I've seen that indicates corruption around Greensill from this government.

But it's also at this point quite complex and financial and diffuse - and the public's basic assumption is as cynical as yours that politicians are all in it for their own game and they're all as bad as each other. I disagree with that and think that cynicism can easily tip into nihilism which makes politics open to a chancer. Corruption stories cut through normally with lots of hard work by reporters to clarify it - this is still in lots of different places with different people and moving parts. I think it will cut through once it's clarified as the reporting (or public inquiries) develop.

2. However, if they won't be hurt by this scandal it won't be because people will (very falsely) think "oh these are different Tories than the ones who did that, I am sure it's just one rotten apple and nothing more"

I think they will and probably fairly. Cameron resigned because Johnson beat him in a referendum - and I've just had a quick look at Cameron's cabinet after the 2015 election and from a skim I think there's only two ministers who are still in the cabinet (Gove and Truss - though Hancock and Patel were senior-ish junior ministers). I think it's fair to say in personnel and style and (broadly) beliefs this is a very different Tory government to Cameron's.

I think people take leadership changes relatively seriously so Major was perceived as different to Thatcher, Brown to Blair etc.

[Sheilbh]

Also taken from the Football Thread to avoid de-railing it into UK politics:

Meanwhile Johnson is planning some sort of populist authoritarianism :

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/apr/20/uk-government-may-legislate-to-stop-european-super-league-says-minister

We don't know what the proposals are yet or what this will look like but legislation is the easiest way to end this talk by the English clubs - and this is separate from the new wider review into football governance but I'm sort of torn on this. It seems like a classic free market v cultural conservative clash. On the one hand I can't think of a consistent, coherent position for this type of legislation and my general is that should be avoided - on the other I think there's an argument for protecting things that are part of the warp and weft of people's lives even if they're not economically efficient/the free market result.

I feel like part of the reason we are where we are is because there are things that people care about and see as part of their lives (local pub/post office/village shop, reduced shopping hours on a Sunday, how their high street looks etc) that aren't economically efficient and for a for 40+ years governments focused on the economics and not the intangibles people care about. Why on earth might people want to take back control after 50 years of everything they care about being subject to the rigours of global market forces?

There's no doubt in my mind that the end goal for these clubs is a global league playing matches in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai and New York and probably re-locating their clubs (it makes no sense to have three Super League clubs in London - that's an over-saturated market). I'm not sure that's really what the much mythologised "global fans" want either.

I've changed my mind a lot on this in the last 20 years but would broadly fall into the cultural conservative camp on this now.

[Tamas]

If there's going to be any legislation it will be after striking a deal with both sides. One, and Johnson especially, does not just fly into the brawl of such heavyweights when just empty platitudes about doing so will yield the same political capital.

[Sheilbh]

If there's going to be any legislation it will be after striking a deal with both sides. One, and Johnson especially, does not just fly into the brawl of such heavyweights when just empty platitudes about doing so will yield the same political capital.

What heavyweights?

They've got money but no-one is backing them. There's now been some polling and 80% of people oppose this League (including most fans of these clubs). You don't have to be particularly good at politics to realise which side of that issue you want to be on - and what's their alternative, Labour?

We'll see what happens - I think the government's preference is that the League/FA/UEFA deal with this and stop it from happening. But if they can't there could be really simple solutions such as banning professional football games from being played in England unless they are in competitions authorised by the FA or otherwise authorised by the FA (to cover friendlies) - I understand that's the law in France and Germany already. The governance review and reform will be the bigger, more interesting challenge - and it was a manifesto promise.

[Tamas]

If there's going to be any legislation it will be after striking a deal with both sides. One, and Johnson especially, does not just fly into the brawl of such heavyweights when just empty platitudes about doing so will yield the same political capital.

What heavyweights?

They've got money but no-one is backing them. There's now been some polling and 80% of people oppose this League (including most fans of these clubs). You don't have to be particularly good at politics to realise which side of that issue you want to be on - and what's their alternative, Labour?

We'll see what happens - I think the government's preference is that the League/FA/UEFA deal with this and stop it from happening. But if they can't there could be really simple solutions such as banning professional football games from being played in England unless they are in competitions authorised by the FA or otherwise authorised by the FA (to cover friendlies) - I understand that's the law in France and Germany already. The governance review and reform will be the bigger, more interesting challenge - and it was a manifesto promise.

Neither the owners' money and business interests nor politicians the interest of them and their sponsors exist in separate vacuums.