Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

What a positive hopeful start from the new First Minister (Totally unrelated but I cannot think of a man who looks more like I expect an Ulster unionist/Protestant to look )

DUP leader Edwin Poots says Irish Government will 'starve' NI of medicine
Updated / Friday, 28 May 2021 09:29


Edwin Poots described his relationship with the Irish Government as 'really, really bad'
By Laura Hogan

The new leader of the DUP has said relationships with the Irish Government are "really, really bad" and claimed it would "starve" the people of Northern Ireland of medicines and the food on their table.

Edwin Poots was speaking last night after he was formally ratified as leader following a lengthy meeting of the party's executive council.

He said that contact will be made with the Irish Government after he takes over from Arlene Foster tomorrow.

However, Mr Poots said that he respects Taoiseach Micheál Martin, but took aim at the Tánaiste Leo Varadkar, Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney and the Northern Ireland Protocol.

He said they "took photographs of blown up border posts to impose upon Northern Ireland people a harshest form of customs, and an internal market that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world".

"They're going to starve Northern Ireland people of medicines, no less, cancer drugs and other materials such as the food that's on our table.

"And I'd say that's a shame on the Irish Government that they done that. And that belongs to Fine Gael under the leadership of Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney. So relationships are really, really bad with the Irish Government as a consequence," he said.

Executive meeting

The party's Executive met at a Belfast hotel to vote to formally ratify the new leadership team of Mr Poots and Paula Bradley, after outgoing leader Ms Foster was ousted during an internal revolt.

The vote was an open ballot.

Before Mr Poots could give a victory speech to the executive, several high profile party members, including Ms Foster, Jeffrey Donaldson, Diane Dodds and Gareth Robinson, walked out of the hotel.

Mr Poots said the DUP was not a divided party. He said there was a contest and the contest had been decided and that the party will move forward in a united way.

Ian Paisley Jr said: "There are issues in the party we have to resolve and we will resolve them, and we are being honest about them."

He said "leadership transfer hurts" and that he knew that better than anyone. "It killed my father," he said, speaking of his father former DUP leader Ian Paisley.

Sammy Wilson said that a change in leadership in any political party will "always leave some people bruised" and "people will get hurt in that process".

He said he did not always agree with Ms Foster, but she did great things for the party and made great sacrifices.

Resignation

Shortly after the meeting, one executive member from Ms Foster's Fermanagh South Tyrone constituency resigned from the party after 20 years.

Paul Bell said that "the treatment of Arlene Foster" brought him to this decision.

Mr Bell said that unionism was in a bad place and that his own party had "wielded the knife" and "publicly assassinated" it's own leader.

He said that the election of a new leader was not the problem, but rather that a number of MLAs and MPs "decided to go behind her back".

Mr Bell said that the election of Mr Poots would be a "real problem" for the DUP and he said they would shed "tens of thousands" of votes as a result.

Mr Poots said Mr Bell had been a very loyal member of the party and that he hoped to speak with him in the near future.

"Sometimes people don't like the outcome and they do things in the heat of the moment. I have a lot of respect for the gentleman," he said.

Meanwhile, Tánaiste Leo Varadkar says he is "not going to get too concerned or too bothered" by the comments from Mr Poots.

He congratulated Mr Poots on his election as leader of the DUP, adding that he "somebody we've worked with in the past" and that Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney worked very closely with him on getting the Northern Ireland Assembly restored.

The Tánaiste acknowledged there are "some practical differences with the Northern Ireland Protocol.

"When it comes to the Northern Ireland Protocol, I've never wanted any barriers to trade north or south, between Britain and Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

"The protocol was put in place because there had to be checks somewhere and we felt it was better to have those checks at one or two ports as opposed to locations where there is a land border and I stand over that decision to protect the country from a hard border."

Edit: And extraordinarily the "moderate" leadership candidate has said his campaign was threatened by the Ulster Defence Association (a loyalist paramilitary group). Obviously this is less influence than with Sinn Fein which is a party that is not democratic in any normal sense and reportedly still, ultimately, governed by the Army Council of the IRA (see the recent in-fighting - which is very rare in Sinn Fein - in Derry), but grim that both the main parties in Northern Ireland are still subject to any sort of influence by paramilitaries.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally - following Cummings' revelations an interesting podcast on special advisors:
https://www.politico.eu/article/westminster-insider-podcast-uk-how-special-advisers-took-over-westminster/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1622201428

And quick article about it:

How special advisers took over Westminster
Special advisers can make powerful enemies — but the Whitehall system might grind to a halt without them.
By Jack Blanchard
May 28, 2021 4:00 am

LONDON — Is Dominic Cummings really so special?

As the dust settles in Westminster after seven hours of jaw-dropping testimony to MPs from Boris Johnson's former chief aide this week, it's worth remembering Cummings was just one in a long line of over-powerful, over-hyped special advisers who have dominated British politics for the past 25 years.

Tellingly, controversy and scandal have followed each and every one.

Tony Blair had Alastair Campbell, his fiery director of communications, notorious for his alleged role in "sexing up" the government's case for war in Iraq. Gordon Brown had Damian McBride, a hard-drinking spin doctor forced to quit over an apparent plot to spread scurrilous gossip about Tory opponents. David Cameron had Andy Coulson, forced to resign — and then jailed — for misdemeanours relating to his previous job as a tabloid newspaper editor.

Most recently, Theresa May had Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, two all-powerful chiefs of staff who wrote her policies, her speeches and much else besides. Their central role at the very heart of her operation would prove a poisoned chalice — for it was they who furious Tory colleagues forced to carry the can for May's 2017 election disaster.

"I think if I'm really honest, I'd say that there might have been a bit too much of me in a lot of what Theresa did say," Timothy reflects on POLITICO's Westminster Insider podcast.

"When she made the speech on her first evening as prime minister, I remember somebody — I think it was a Tory MP — saying in the press: 'That was pure Nick Timothy.' And you know, I did write that. People react badly when special advisers who aren't elected are seen to have too much say over the substance. And I think they're right — elected politicians are the people who should have the say over the substance. And I think for whatever reason, there probably was a little bit too much of me."

Timothy had been a relatively low-profile special adviser for the five years May was home secretary. But like Campbell and Coulson before him — and like Cummings over the past 18 months — he found the public glare of being a top aide in Downing Street a very different pill to swallow.

"I think partly because Theresa herself isn't a big, boisterous personality, in the way that someone like Boris is ... there was a lot of focus on us. There was an opportunity for a little bit of color, and I suppose a sense of mystery. 'Who are these people behind the prime minister?' Which, to be honest, I hated — because you always know that the more you're built up, the more somebody is going to try to knock you down. And obviously, I had no idea how right I was about that."

Timothy's sometimes aggressive style made him powerful enemies within government, though he firmly denies ever overstepping the mark.

But Peter Cardwell, one of more than 100 special advisers working in the May and Johnson governments, says some senior aides definitely let the power of their roles go to their heads.

"I didn't see it happening with Fiona or Nick or Dominic, but I've definitely seen special advisers who've lost the run of themselves, who are hysterical, who are too powerful or exercising too much power," he tells the podcast. "I've seen people screaming at civil servants. I've seen people being unreasonable to other special advisers. It is a very high octane and high pressure environment — and it is a very emotional environment as well. You can feel an almost siege mentality sometimes."

But for all the controversy around special advisers, most people working within Whitehall say the system simply would not work without them.

"I don't think everything would fall apart, but definitely things would get slower," says Tim Durrant, a former civil servant who now works for the Institute for Government think tank. "They do a lot of stuff behind the scenes. For example, if two secretaries of state are arguing over an issue, often it can take a lot of time for officials to resolve that."

Durrant adds: "Special advisers can talk to their ministers, can talk to each other, they can WhatsApp each other, they can go to a cafe somewhere — they can sort it out. And that can resolve that problem a lot quicker than the sort of official paper-based processes would do. And they can do that on behalf of the ministers, who might be too busy to find time to sit down together. So that sort of behind-the-scenes unblocking is hugely important in government. And it would be a massive loss if that went away."

Cabinet ministers, too, would feel their loss — as former Chancellor Sajid Javid proved last year. He resigned from his role — the second-most powerful in government — after Boris Johnson ordered him to fire his entire team of aides.

"In reality, the minister doesn't have anyone [else] that belongs to them," says Salma Shah, who worked for Javid as a special adviser for five years, before stepping down in 2019.

"They're people just like the rest of us, who have really stressful jobs, and by and large are trying to do their best. To go and do that at the top of a department, making some really difficult decisions, but not having the ability to hire or fire anyone around you, is difficult. And so having that person in whom you've put some faith, and who is tied to you as an individual, I think is incredibly important."

I think it's a little decorous - the "scurrilous gossip" McBride was caught trying to spread were false rumours about the mental health of George Osborne's wife, which is pretty disgraceful. Similarly Andy Coulson's "misdemeanours" were phone-hacking.

[Sheilbh]

A propos of nothing this new ONS tool on local income deprivation is amazing and really interesting:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/#/E07000223

[Josquius]

Nice explanations of different data patterns. Nice how they even mention the issue with local authority areas being a bit artificial in that part near Liverpool.
I really like this stuff, the 2011 census data has been on my bookmarks bar for a while now. Was pretty key when I was looking into where to live et al.
https://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS611EW&col=QS611EW0005&ramp=RdYlGn&layers=BTTT&zoom=9&lon=-2.0248&lat=55.2492

[mongers]

I really feel Shelf should break this happy news to you guys, but he's probably gone to bed so I'll have to do the honours:

Boris Johnson has married is nth wife in a private ceremony at the low key location of Westminster Cathedral.

Apparently hardly anyone in Westminster knew about this event. 

[PDH]

Oh for the days when a PM married once and cheated on her with a string of women for the rest of his life.

[Josquius]

Also in what is definitely a wonderful use of money, a new national boat

[Zanza]

A new national flagship, the successor to the Royal Yacht Britannia, will promote British trade and industry around the world, Boris Johnson has said.

The vessel would be used to host trade fairs, ministerial summits and diplomatic talks as the UK seeks to build links and boost exports following Brexit.

Must be a big boat to host a trade fair. I hope they name it HMS Boaty McBoatface.

[Sheilbh]

Also in what is definitely a wonderful use of money, a new national boat

I'm kind of with Duncan Weldon on this one:

Duncan Weldon
@DuncanWeldon
I'm quite in favour of a new royal yacht/flag ship/trade promotion vessel/whatever.
In the grand scheme of public spending it isn't very costly, it might do some good, it'll make a lot of people happy and it feels like the kind of thing Britain "should" probably have.
This is my most boring lukewarm take.

But having said that where I lived as a kid was somewhere Britannia went quite a lot (the Queen Mum's castle - as featured in the Crown - was in the county) so I possibly have a bit of a soft spot for it. Ultimately a one off cost of £2-300 million and annual funding of around £10-20 million is really nothing in public spending. Having said that I doubt the plans will survive contact with reality/will end up being a bit like the Millenium Dome - and it must be a delight for Christopher Chope in the Telegraph who's published at least two royal yacht stories a year since 1997

And I think we need to spend the billions it will cost to renovate the Palace of Westminster - which will be attacked as a waste of money and politicians spending money on themselves. But that building's a world heritage site and every year a report comes out explaining how dangerously run-down and at risk it is (especially of a fire because - from what I've read it would spread incredibly quickly if there was any spark). There was this article from 4 years ago on it - the cost will only have increased and the number of problems too since then:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/01/a-tale-of-decay-the-houses-of-parliament-are-falling-down

If MPs and Lords can't be trusted to vote for properly renovating Westminster because of the bad press then we should move them to a new building and let Westminster just become a museum that can be properly funded.

[Josquius]

The key point that stands out for me is no other country has one.
You have to figure there's a reason for this.

As to Westminster.... Yes. Move them elswhere. Nottingham would be a good shout. Even temporarily its helpful though I'd say in the long term this should be done too. London is the capital of everything else so let's have the political capital elswhere.

[Sheilbh]

Some more interesting polling - from the Telegraph - on English attitudes to Scottish independence:

Only 20% strongly oppose independence and basically another third are indifferent/think it's a matter for Scots to decide.

Similarly there's limited support for spending more money to keep Scotland in the union:


Most people think Engalnd would be weakened without Scotland, but about a half think independence would not go well v about a third who think it'd go well.

People have more of an opinion than they do about Northern Ireland but it is basically the same picture as elsewhere with most people either supporting independence or seeing it as an issue for Scotland to decide/have an opinion on, not England.

[Sheilbh]

The key point that stands out for me is no other country has one.
You have to figure there's a reason for this.

I'm not sure if that's right - from a quick Wikipedia it looks like Italy and India have one for their Presidents. Obviously the Russians do but so do the Norwegians and Danes plus, as you'd expect, the Gulf States. It's not universal but it's not unique and I think I'd guess that any one bought by the UK would be at the cheaper/more frugal end than the Gulf or Russian yachts

The US has historically had one but hasn't since the 70s.

[The Larch]

Why would paying for the renovation of Westminster be controversial?

[Agelastus]

The key point that stands out for me is no other country has one.
You have to figure there's a reason for this.

Other than Denmark and Norway, for example, who both have Royal Yachts that serve much the same function Britannia did?

There's a few others around as well.

It was a disgrace Britannia was not replaced back when she was originally retired.

As to Westminster.... Yes. Move them elswhere. Nottingham would be a good shout. Even temporarily its helpful though I'd say in the long term this should be done too. London is the capital of everything else so let's have the political capital elswhere.

They need to move temporarily, but I doubt Nottingham has the infrastructure for it.

Symbolically it ought to be either Edinburgh or Winchester for the temporary move (Edinburgh being more appropriate for the British symbolism, Winchester for the English.) But the first option seems to be unthinkable, the second equally so but with infrastructure issues as well.

If they do shift anywhere it will most likely be elsewhere in London - with Birmingham or Manchester as outside bets.

Of course, if my opinion meant anything it would be Edinburgh.

[celedhring]

Why would paying for the renovation of Westminster be controversial?

The amount required is stratospheric. It will surely raise eyebrows on the eve of Covid. It's still a world heritage site so it has to be done at some point, imho.