Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

So yep. Cancellation of hs2 to Yorkshire is official. They're also cancelling Northern Power House rail. The tory levelling up stuff has been shown to be a complete sham. The opposition really need to start putting the boot in with this.

[Sheilbh]

They barely need to - comments from Tory MPs today:

Transport comm chair Huw Merriman: "This is the danger of selling perpetual sunlight & then leaving it to others to explain the arrival of moonlight."

Tory MP Robbie Moore: "I'm deeply disappointed by today's a/ment. The Bradford district has been completely short-changed."

Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh: "HS2 was always a white elephant. Now... it's a white elephant missing a leg. Where's that promise?"

Tory MP Kevin Hollinrake: "A new station would have given (Bradford) a KX-style regen opportunity. The economic price will be paid for generations".

As ever once things start going wrong everything starts piling up.

[Josquius]

That's encouraging. A north Yorkshire tory on Channel 4 was spinning around making excuses that it wasn't all bad and all this spending was great really.

[Tamas]

See this is exactly what I was talking about not long ago.

There was an inordinate amount of analysis of "levelling up" and I don't mean just Sheilbh but the whole British press, even though they had nothing more to evaluate then the change of tone of Johnsons voice between ocassions of talking about how awesome it is going to be.

And of course not only there fails to be any detailed plans let alone actions on those plans, the actual actions go straight against all the bluster and slogans.

[garbon]

Though his presence was lacking, I liked this morning when Keir pointed out how it would be strange to trust the new promises from the transport secretary given old promises broken that same day.

[Sheilbh]

See this is exactly what I was talking about not long ago.

There was an inordinate amount of analysis of "levelling up" and I don't mean just Sheilbh but the whole British press, even though they had nothing more to evaluate then the change of tone of Johnsons voice between ocassions of talking about how awesome it is going to be.

And of course not only there fails to be any detailed plans let alone actions on those plans, the actual actions go straight against all the bluster and slogans.

But I was thinking this was exactly what I was talking about.

"Levelling up" was now his new domestic agenda. It's what the government have said is their priority - so now the press (and opposition) are judging and able to point out the gap between that and what's being delivered. Which was exactly what I said would and should happen.

Broken promises only matter if you treat the promise seriously in the first place, and I think you have to because all politicians make them, generally they try to keep to them or spin about them - but they are what you can hold them accountable for.

I don't know how accountability works otherwise. Johnson will not keep promises and is not trustworthy - but treating him as someone who doesn't keep promises and trustworthy I think let's him get away with things. Take the promises seriously, report what they mean and then hold him - or any other politician - for failures. I don't know how accountability works otherwise and I think it can get you to a slightly nihilist anti-politics position otherwise that can easily slip into anti-democratic views.

Edit: Basically this is also a Trump/Johnson point - I don't think the normal rules of politics really apply to Trump. I don't fully understand it, but they just don't seem to work in the same way (obviously part of this is structural - difference of presidential v parliamentary system, lots of power to voters in US v power in the party in the UK and, in the Tories, especially the parliamentary party etc).

I think they do with Johnson and that's almost the point I've made all along - fights with a Chancellor, successors on manouevres, backbench unrest etc are all normal things that happen to every PM we've ever had and they're all big issues for Johnson too. And I think he should be treated like any other politician in reporting when he sets out his agenda and makes promises and then when they are broken.

The better comparison for Johnson I still think is probably Blair. He is someone the party have deep distrust and a fair amount of dislike about actually - but he has delivered victories that they're not sure anyone else could. So it's a question of how long they continue to think that, or how long they're willing to tolerate him.

The bit I think the media have got wrong in their analysis is that I never really bought the "he's master of his party" after the conference as from everything I could see that was about a cm thick mastery and there was lots of restiveness barely under the surface.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, you don't have to lawyer everything. :p

Sometimes what sounds like a shameless lie by a professional con man is just a shameless lie by a professional conman.

[Josquius]

Sheilbh, you don't have to lawyer everything. :p

Sometimes what sounds like a shameless lie by a professional con man is just a shameless lie by a professional conman.

And by the time its revealed the time has passed and they can just go onto something else and getting people to scream "DO YOU REALLY THINK LIEBOUR IS BETTER"

[Sheilbh]

I'd love to know at what point the backbencher realised their elephant metaphor was getting out of hand (I had this at work recently where a lawyer on the other side started a fish analogy that went wild ):

Boris Johnson can't escape the growing backlash of Tory sleaze – now MPs are imagining life after him
By Paul Waugh
Chief Political Commentator
November 19, 2021 6:20 pm(Updated 6:32 pm)

Last Saturday night, Boris Johnson was at the Royal Albert Hall for the Festival of Remembrance to mark the 100th anniversary of the Royal British Legion. The event, televised on the BBC, was a moving tribute to all those who had lost their lives in conflicts since the First World War.

But even amid the sombre splendour of the evening, I'm told the Prime Minister couldn't escape the ongoing backlash from his handling of the 'Tory sleaze' affair.

Joined by other MPs, he was warned by one senior colleague that he ought to draw a line in the whole row by saying sorry for his own misjudgement in trying to use Owen Paterson's case as a battering ram for wider standards reform. "I'm not bloody apologising," Johnson replied, impatiently.

Less than 24 hours later, at an impromptu Downing Street press conference to hail the end of the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, the PM grudgingly came the closest he had to expressing regret for his personal role in the fiasco. "I think that things could certainly have been handled better let me put it that way...by me."

A few days later, in front of the Commons Liaison Committee after a bruising PMQs, he croakily nudged his not-quite-apology a step further. The attempt to conflate Paterson's case with a rigged reform of the system had been "a total mistake...I totally accept that", he admitted. To paraphrase Keir Starmer, that was a lot of words, but not an apology.

With the opinion polls narrowing (although many voters have switched to 'don't know' rather than to Labour), Starmer's description of Johnson as "a coward, not a leader" rang true with some Conservative backbenchers.

And it's not just the PM's handling of sleaze and second jobs that is causing unease among his troops. "Things can only get worse," one MP half-jokes, in a deliberate inversion of the anthem that propelled Tony Blair's 1997 victory.

The list of Tory troubles this winter is rising almost as fast as inflation itself: a "cost of living" crisis that will be compounded by energy bill increases and tax hikes next April; a backlash over the broken promises on northern rail links; worries about social care reforms that will force older, northern voters to sell their homes; even whispers that "local lockdowns" could follow a spike in Covid cases over Christmas.

Some Tory MPs were shocked at the way the PM lurched from support for Paterson to suddenly cutting him adrift, while refusing to take responsibility himself.

For them, the past fortnight has laid bare that a misfiring Johnson is not just his own worst enemy, but theirs too. One former minister puts it bluntly: "What's the mood? I'll tell you: there's been a big increase in the number of people who think Boris is a c**t."

"We're like a herd of elephants smelling danger," a senior backbencher tells me. "There's been a distinct stirring, we're anxious and distressed. There's some trumpeting. But the real shift is we're slowly on the move – away from Boris."

For the first time, several MPs are contemplating what they call "life after Boris". "Rishi is the coming man," says one. Both the 2019 intake and longer-serving MPs have been courted by the Chancellor.

Although it's his decisions on raising taxes and keeping a lid on social care and rail costs that have caused discomfort of late, several backbenchers simply like that he takes decisions and sticks to them in the name of balancing the books. They also noted he expressed regret earlier than the PM over the standards U-turn.

Others like the look of Foreign Secretary Liz Truss for a return to Thatcherite rigour, and some ministerial eyebrows were raised at the public warning from her Parliamentary aide Bim Afolami this week that the Government is "close to losing the benefit of the doubt".

Perhaps the most overlooked contender however is Jeremy Hunt. Although heavily beaten by Johnson for the leadership two years ago, the former Health Secretary's interventions on Covid have increased his stature among the backbenches. "Jeremy has shown just how much less chaotic life would be for us all if he were in No.10," one MP says.

Johnson's hardcore supporters, many of whom stem from his days in London's City Hall, make up only a tiny fraction of the Parliamentary party. Some newer MPs were unnerved when his former close ally Jake Berry dripped with contempt at the way the PM abandoned his promises on Northern Powerhouse Rail.

The past few weeks have undoubtedly exposed splits within the Tory tribe at Westminster, whose Balkanisation has been fuelled in part by the numerous single-issue WhatsApp groups that include and exclude their colleagues.

Although there's an uneasy consensus about the PM's rushed new curbs on second jobs (though many prefer the limit to be on hours rather than wages paid), the tensions remain. "Some of the 2019-ers have never been paid so much in their lives", says one, in reference to the £81,932 salary MPs earn.

But the newer MPs are still resentful at the way they were patronised by their older colleagues about the Paterson affair.

Many point to the defiant speech given by Bolsover MP Mark Fletcher during the standards debate, when he hit back at those suggesting he hadn't been in Parliament long enough to understand the way it worked. "I say with the greatest of respect to those colleagues that I think that two years here is more than enough to know the difference between right and wrong," Fletcher had said.

The perception of being condescended as a tranche of inexperienced ingenues was furthered this week when Transport Secretary Grant Shapps confirmed the downgrade of the Manchester to Leeds rail route plan.

After Keighley MP Robbie Moore complained that his constituents had been "completely short-changed", Shapps hit back that Moore should focus on the shorter-term benefits of the proposals. "He may well not be an MP in 2043...the advantages I'm talking about...will be delivered in his first couple of terms," the minister said. That was interpreted by some backbenchers as a suggestion that Red Wallers had a very limited lifespan.

Others point out that of the 109 new MPs from the 2019 election, less than half are in the "Red Wall" and most were in the "Blue Wall", having replaced retiring MPs in safe seats.

Moreover, the "Red Wall" itself is far from homogenous, as proved by the numbers who were very happy with the amended rail plans. On ideology too, they are a mix of traditional fiscal Conservatives and free-spenders like Johnson himself.

One 2019 intake MP tells me the backbench 1922 Committee is "utterly dysfunctional" and unrepresentative of them and their colleagues. But there are certainly limits to the new MPs' appetite for change. When 1922 chairman Sir Graham Brady was challenged earlier this year, he survived in part because his rival Heather Wheeler was seen as a Government plant.

One member of the House of Lords who has worked closely with Johnson said that his fate was finely balanced. On the one hand he was dangerously close to a tipping point of dissent. On the other, he could still reshape the party even more radically than David Cameron's A-list of candidates.

"If he gets this second jobs thing through, he could clear out the old deadwood in a way Cameron never could." The argument is that Johnson would have another new intake who owe him loyalty, but this time in safe seats.

Despite the grumbling, many MPs are nowhere near demanding Johnson be removed before the next election. One loyalist says: "No one else has the star factor Boris does, the man's the best campaigner we've ever had. These are all classic mid-term blues, and everyone should calm down."

Still, backbench worries are shifting from the traditional moans about the No.10 team (with chief of staff Dan Rosenfield seen as lacking the political antennae needed for the job) to worries about the PM's own plunging popularity.

Many in marginal seats already knew their emperor had no clothes but were happy as long as he still sprinkled his stardust on the Tory brand. The past torrid two weeks has made them realise they are the ones who could be walking naked into the next election.

Next year's local elections will give a temperature check for all sides. Many "Red Wall" MPs have seats in the Metropolitan council areas that are up for re-election and will be looking anxiously what the results project for their own futures.

In the "Blue Wall" and in classic marginal seats, where the sleaze row could hit middle class support hard, both the Lib Dems and Labour could also prosper.

The PM nearly lost his voice this week. His backbenchers will be watching next May to see whether it looks like he'll lose his 80-seat majority too.

The thing that strikes me with Sunak is there's a bit of a paradox: he's popular for a Chancellor, but his popularity largely stems from doing things he doesn't want do and is forced to by Johnson. Everything we've seen of his instincts suggest he's basically in the Cameron/Osborne mould (right down to being susiciously soft on China).

[Tamas]

The fuck kind of a country are they building?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice

New bill quietly gives powers to remove British citizenship without notice
Clause added to nationality and borders bill also appears to allow Home Office to act retrospectively in some cases

Priti Patel in parliament.
Priti Patel in parliament. Critics say the new bill will make the home secretary's powers even more draconian. Photograph: UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor/PA
Haroon Siddique Legal affairs correspondent
Wed 17 Nov 2021 13.34 GMT

Individuals could be stripped of their British citizenship without warning under a proposed rule change quietly added to the nationality and borders bill.

Clause 9 – "Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship" – of the bill, which was updated earlier this month, exempts the government from having to give notice if it is not "reasonably practicable" to do so, or in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or otherwise in the public interest.

Critics say removing citizenship, as in the case of Shamima Begum, who fled Britain as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State in Syria, is already a contentious power, and scrapping the requirement for notice would make the home secretary's powers even more draconian.

Advertisement
Frances Webber, the vice-chair of the Institute of Race Relations, said: "This amendment sends the message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country. Their citizenship, and therefore all their rights, are precarious and contingent.

"It builds on previous measures to strip British-born dual nationals (who are mostly from ethnic minorities) of citizenship and to do it while they are abroad, measures used mainly against British Muslims. It unapologetically flouts international human rights obligations and basic norms of fairness."

Home Office powers to strip British nationals of their citizenship were introduced after the 2005 London bombings but their use increased under Theresa May's tenure as home secretary from 2010, and they were broadened in 2014.

The requirement to give notice had already been weakened in 2018, allowing the Home Office to serve notice by putting a copy of it on a person's file – but only in cases where their whereabouts were unknown.

The new clause would remove the need for notification altogether in a range of circumstances. It would also appear to be capable of being applied retrospectively to cases where an individual was stripped of citizenship without notice before the clause became law, raising questions about their ability to appeal.

Maya Foa, the director of Reprieve, said: "This clause would give Priti Patel unprecedented power to remove your citizenship in secret, without even having to tell you, and effectively deny you an appeal. Under this regime, a person accused of speeding would be afforded more rights than someone at risk of being deprived of their British nationality. This once again shows how little regard this government has for the rule of law.

"The US government has condemned citizenship-stripping as a dangerous denial of responsibility for your own nationals. Ministers should listen to our closest security ally rather than doubling down on this deeply misguided and morally abhorrent policy."

Other proposed rule changes in the bill have already attracted criticism, including rendering claims from anyone arriving in the UK by an illegal route inadmissible, while criminalising them and anyone who seeks to save their lives, and giving Border Force staff immunity from prosecution if people die in the Channel during "pushback" operations.

The Home Office said: "British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. The nationality and borders bill will amend the law so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person."

[Sheilbh]

As noted this is part of a long trend going back to the 2005 bombings. Then they could only strip citizenship if the individual was a dual citizen, then it was expanded and used a lot more under the coalition (and there's always been a big controversy over "hate preachers" around this) so it could be done if the Home Office had reasonable belief that the individual could have another citizenship - and now it's without notice if not reasonably practicable (for example, it's practically difficult to give notice to someone who's gone to fight for IS).

In practice it's absolutely right this will primarily be used against British Muslims, but I think it has an unforeseen huge impact/risk for British Jews and people from Northern Ireland because they always have a second citizenship option.

My view tends to be with the American take on this - if they're UK citizens they're our responsibility and we shouldn't be stripping citizenship. I don't have an enormous amount of sympathy for, say, Shamima Begum or other individuals who went to fight for IS, but they're our problem. And interesting to see David Davis, out of cabinet, back to campaigining against this and other stuff (like holding asylum seekers overseas when their case is being processed).

My understanding is this is a bit of a European trend since IS of expanding/increasing rights of governments to remove citizenship - though in some places it only applies to citizens born overseas or who acquire citizenship as an adult and the criteria vary so in France I believe it's available for disloyalty, treason, terrorism, acting against the constitutional order and national institutions or acting against the national interest, while in the Netherlands, say, it's more limited to terrorism or serious crimes against the state. Italy didn't need to change their laws because they could already strip citizenship (of dual citizens) for individuals who have "served" an emey state or fought for an army in conflict against Italy. I think in the UK it's acting against national interests - which is flexible, especially as UK courts are incredibly reluctant to substitute their view of the "national interest" or national security for the executive's.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't see the point of pretending that traitors are foreigners. Shamima Begum may have been a traitor deserving of a 50 year sentence, or she may have been a stupid teenager; but, as you say, she is British and our problem.

It all looks like an attempt to avoid responsibilty to me; either the necessity to impose harsh sentences for treason or to be forgiving and get condemned by right-wing yahoos.

[Zanza]

The Home Office said: " British citizenship is a privilege, not a right

Wow.

Deprivation of citizenship against the will of the concerned person is impossible here as it was a tool the Nazis used systematically against their opponents and against Jewish citizens.

[Syt]

I believe a lot of nations have high hurdles for stripping citizenship? And I know it's incredibly hard in Germany as Zanza says; not least in cases where a person would be left without any official nationality afterwards.

I mean if you want to deport a stateless person ... where to?

[The Brain]

Seems completely bizarre to strip citizenship. But then it's Nutsville, UK.