Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

The scots and PR - I'm sure they had some say in the Scottish system as it was set up? They are on record as in favour of PR anyway.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-snp-would-vote-to-introduce-proportional-representation-at-westminster-nicola-sturgeon-confirms-10223302.html

Their being nationalists and wanting Scottish independence. Meh. Personally I fully support their right to have a referendum. Labour would have to step very carefully with the more authoritarian segments of potential support to make clear this is off for them however. If we do get a situation where labour need to deal with the snp to get into power I'd be more than willing to trade democracy for a Scottish independence referendum.
That done it doesn't really matter that Labour broke a promise.

The unions - even their membership seem to be increasingly in favour. And there are rumblings of their influence in labour dropping. It was a close run thing last time around. I really do believe labour will adopt this policy before too long.

Blair... Hadn't he outright promised PR only to forget about it once in power? Rings a bell for me.

Lol at dementia tory. Hope he is lucid when voting time comes.

[Sheilbh]

Heath is kind of unique because almost everything he tried to do as PM he failed at, with the single exception of joining the EEC - which was argubaly the most divisive legacy of any post-war PM.

And it means all sides had good reasons to dislike him. He was a bit of a proto-Thatcherite but that agenda failed and he was beaten by the unions (not least because he was arrogant and didn't put in the work to win a confrontation with the miners, while Thatcher did for years), so he was hated by the left as the most reactionary Tory PM in probably over a century. Because he lost that fight though, he u-turned so he ended up being hated by the right as the last wheeze of flabby, quasi-socialist post-war consensus.

He was a very accomplished concert pianist and sailor - but incredibly introverted (I think most likely because he was probably gay and in public life in post-war Britain so a lot of his life was an exercise in repression). He was not very communicative with people. He was quite arrogant and quite prickly/dismissive of other people. He didn't get on with women - famously he just would not speak to or acknowledge whichever poor women he was sat next to at dinner and he, of course, hated Thatcher I remember reading about his authorised biography and it was striking that all the reviews noted that even an authorised biography was able to get very few examples of people who knew him actually liking Heath.

Even joining the EEC was him driving that through with dogged, single-minded determination that he knew this was the right thing to do rather than trying to persuade others in politics (especially on the left) to try and build a consensus, or to persuade the general public why it was a good idea. That's part of the reason why Wilson felt it had to be validated with a referendum. I think some of that history/Heath's unpopularity attached to the EEC in general.

He bought Arundells which is a beautiful house on the Cathedral Close in Salisbury and left it to the public on the condition that it was turned into a museum about Ted Heath Needless to say there wasn't overwhelming public clamour for that, so I think they've now found a compromise where it's broadly as it was when he lived there and they do a Ted Heath Memorial Lecture but is now just a general "pretty house and gardens to visit at the weekend" rather than the Ted Heath Experience.

[Sheilbh]

The scots and PR - I'm sure they had some say in the Scottish system as it was set up? They are on record as in favour of PR anyway.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-snp-would-vote-to-introduce-proportional-representation-at-westminster-nicola-sturgeon-confirms-10223302.html

As I say - let's see what their cost would be.

Their being nationalists and wanting Scottish independence. Meh. Personally I fully support their right to have a referendum. Labour would have to step very carefully with the more authoritarian segments of potential support to make clear this is off for them however. If we do get a situation where labour need to deal with the snp to get into power I'd be more than willing to trade democracy for a Scottish independence referendum.
That done it doesn't really matter that Labour broke a promise.

The issue is what's in their political interest is an unpopular Tory government at the UK or a dysfunctional Labour one (that is increasingly unpopular in England). They are not going to make anything smooth or easy for a Labour government that relies on their support because a Labour-run, slightly more lefty Britain is not in their interests as it undermines the case for independence. Thats' why I say let's see their cost - it might not be an independence referendum for example (that'll probably be a general thing they want), but revising up the Barnett formula so Scotland gets more money - they're fighting for Scotland's interests, it causes more dissent/frustration in England which is a win-win.

The unions - even their membership seem to be increasingly in favour. And there are rumblings of their influence in labour dropping. It was a close run thing last time around. I really do believe labour will adopt this policy before too long.

Yeah - but with your other beliefs in the future it's a bit like the arc of history is long but it bends towards Tyr which I'm not sure is right

Blair... Hadn't he outright promised PR only to forget about it once in power? Rings a bell for me.

I think they were committed to a commission and a referendum. The commission happened and I think it recommended AV+. The referendum didn't follow and that promise was watered down in later elections/manifestos.

And for understandable reasons - FPTP produced a Labour majority of about 180 seats (this is why I still don't think Johnson won a landslide, just a good majority ). But also until 2010-ish FPTP favoured Labour because their vote was more efficient while the Tories even though they gained in the popular vote they were just piling up the vote in their traditional anti-Labour areas and not actually making gains in marginal areas (which sounds familiar).

I think there's less of an argument for PR now than there was back then - in 2005 Labout won 35% and the Tories won 32%, but Labour had a majority of over 50. But it was also the peak of that long-term decline in the vote of the two parties so it was more challenging to say their internal big-tent coalitions were working/representative. The last couple of elections we're back to Labour and the Tories collectively winning 75%+ of the vote which is more than in decades.

[Duque de Bragança]

Heath is kind of unique because almost everything he tried to do as PM he failed at, with the single exception of joining the EEC - which was argubaly the most divisive legacy of any post-war PM.

And it means all sides had good reasons to dislike him. He was a bit of a proto-Thatcherite but that agenda failed and he was beaten by the unions (not least because he was arrogant and didn't put in the work to win a confrontation with the miners, while Thatcher did for years), so he was hated by the left as the most reactionary Tory PM in probably over a century. Because he lost that fight though, he u-turned so he ended up being hated by the right as the last wheeze of flabby, quasi-socialist post-war consensus.

He was a very accomplished concert pianist and sailor - but incredibly introverted (I think most likely because he was probably gay and in public life in post-war Britain so a lot of his life was an exercise in repression). He was not very communicative with people. He was quite arrogant and quite prickly/dismissive of other people. He didn't get on with women - famously he just would not speak to or acknowledge whichever poor women he was sat next to at dinner and he, of course, hated Thatcher I remember reading about his authorised biography and it was striking that all the reviews noted that even an authorised biography was able to get very few examples of people who knew him actually liking Heath.

Even joining the EEC was him driving that through with dogged, single-minded determination that he knew this was the right thing to do rather than trying to persuade others in politics (especially on the left) to try and build a consensus, or to persuade the general public why it was a good idea. That's part of the reason why Wilson felt it had to be validated with a referendum. I think some of that history/Heath's unpopularity attached to the EEC in general.

He bought Arundells which is a beautiful house on the Cathedral Close in Salisbury and left it to the public on the condition that it was turned into a museum about Ted Heath Needless to say there wasn't overwhelming public clamour for that, so I think they've now found a compromise where it's broadly as it was when he lived there and they do a Ted Heath Memorial Lecture but is now just a general "pretty house and gardens to visit at the weekend" rather than the Ted Heath Experience.

So introverted means closet homo? Could be asexual for all we know. This tidbit about Thatcher not liking the way he looked at her is ... so Thatcher 

"When I look at him and he looks at me," she once remarked, according to Ziegler (Chapter 4), "it doesn't feel like a man looking at a woman, more like a woman looking at another woman."

I take it the post-mortem pedophile accusations are now discredited?

So, not as bad as BoJo. 

[Sheilbh]

So introverted means closet homo? Could be asexual for all we know.

Maybe. He was rumoured to be gay at the time and there have been allegations that he was active cottaging and cruising in the 40s and 50s and was warned by the police/MI5 when his career started to take off.

I think he basically sacrificed his sexuality and his personal life to succeed in political life and I suspect that had consequences for his personality.

But you're right he could just be a socially awkward introverted and basically asexual man.

Edit: I think there's an interesting contrast with Jeremy Thorpe who absolutely did not sacrifice his sexuality to be a successful politician

I take it the post-mortem pedophile accusations are now discredited?

Yeah the guy who made those allegations and lots of others has been very discredited and prosecuted for wasting police time - I mean it was basically a satanic panic about cases of historic child sexual abuse.

The Met and media organistions have had to pay out quite a lot to the men who were falsely accused (and the pattern of accusations did seem to disproportionately fall on closeted gay men from a very intolerant and Jewish men).

So, not as bad as BoJo. 

I'd say it's level pegging. One big divisive achievement. Not much else.

[Josquius]

As I say - let's see what their cost would be.

Their being nationalists and wanting Scottish independence. Meh. Personally I fully support their right to have a referendum. Labour would have to step very carefully with the more authoritarian segments of potential support to make clear this is off for them however. If we do get a situation where labour need to deal with the snp to get into power I'd be more than willing to trade democracy for a Scottish independence referendum.
That done it doesn't really matter that Labour broke a promise.

The issue is what's in their political interest is an unpopular Tory government at the UK or a dysfunctional Labour one (that is increasingly unpopular in England). They are not going to make anything smooth or easy for a Labour government that relies on their support because a Labour-run, slightly more lefty Britain is not in their interests as it undermines the case for independence. Thats' why I say let's see their cost - it might not be an independence referendum for example (that'll probably be a general thing they want), but revising up the Barnett formula so Scotland gets more money - they're fighting for Scotland's interests, it causes more dissent/frustration in England which is a win-win.

And I really don't care about any of this. If we can get democratic reform that will go a long way towards shifting the country leftwards.
Once a bill to give enhanced democracy is passed the government can collapse and roll on the new democratic election.
The only potential risk is in the early days a party running on reactionary bs promising to roll back the reforms.

Yeah - but with your other beliefs in the future it's a bit like the arc of history is long but it bends towards Tyr which I'm not sure is right

It's certainly very possible we end up in a world which is more Blade Runner than Star Trek but I've got to believe good will triumph over evil eventually or else I might as well just hang myself already :p

On this one there are seperate clear shifts going on with the beliefs of labour members on democracy and the Labour /Union relationship.

¿I think there's less of an argument for PR now than there was back then - in 2005 Labout won 35% and the Tories won 32%, but Labour had a majority of over 50. But it was also the peak of that long-term decline in the vote of the two parties so it was more challenging to say their internal big-tent coalitions were working/representative. The last couple of elections we're back to Labour and the Tories collectively winning 75%+ of the vote which is more than in decades.

I don't believe this logic follows. That the majority vote for 2 parties ergo fptp is the correct system.

This is more explained that recent elections have been particularly divisive and people are becoming more aware of the flaws in the system and the need to vote tactically.

It's also worth noting where those non Labour and tory votes are going. The fascists and the greens get a lot more votes than they did in 97.

[Sheilbh]

And I really don't care about any of this. If we can get democratic reform that will go a long way towards shifting the country leftwards.
Once a bill to give enhanced democracy is passed the government can collapse and roll on the new democratic election.
The only potential risk is in the early days a party running on reactionary bs promising to roll back the reforms.

Yeah I don't buy the Jenkins view that Britain is a fundamentally left wing country ruined by a combination of splits on the left and the voting system. And I don't think it's necessarily right-wing either I just don't really the idea that we'd magically have a "progressive"coalition with PR as opposed to a Tory-Reform one.

Not least because the Lib Dems are not a progressive or left-wing forcce and there is not a single cut to budgets or decimated public service that they didn't back. None of that would have passed without their support. It was true a hundred years ago when the Labour Party had to be set up because the Liberals couldn't be trusted to care about working people and the poor, and it's true now when we're still living in the mess they made. Give them a choice of a left-wing coalition or a right-wing one and they'll go right every time (and what else would be in the material interests of the residents of Richmond-upon-Thames). They're not left wing, they're not progressive and they can't be trusted

It's certainly very possible we end up in a world which is more Blade Runner than Star Trek but I've got to believe good will triumph over evil eventually or else I might as well just hang myself already :p

I mean let's not do down Blade Runner it looks very cool and they have noodles

I don't believve in progress or that there's an end point - or that the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice. Or even necessarily that it's all about good or evil, because I just don't believe I'm not just being incredibly kind to myself by identifying what I believe as "good" I think it's always a fight largely through politics and nothing's inevitable.

On this one there are seperate clear shifts going on with the beliefs of labour members on democracy and the Labour /Union relationship.

Maybe but I think it'll take a long time for the unions to move on this (especially if it looks like Labour might win). The membership are abslutely won over on PR but if the past 5 years have taught us nothing it's that Labour members shouldn't be allowed to make decisions or use scissors unsupervised.

I don't believe this logic follows. That the majority vote for 2 parties ergo fptp is the correct system.

This is more explained that recent elections have been particularly divisive and people are becoming more aware of the flaws in the system and the need to vote tactically.

Tactical voting was higher in 97. People's voting decisions change depending on the voting system. Voters are clever and they know how to get what they want in the system they've got.

You're right that people vote for the two big parties because they are the options that win - that's a feature not a bug of FPTP. But all you've said could apply to those votes in the 50s and 60s. 75% of people want either the Tory or the Labour manifesto - how much power do we give to the 10% of Lib Dem lovers. I think in the mid 2000s when you had over a third of people voting for smaller parties but the result was a strong Labour government that's more unfair and problematic. The question is whether the two big parties winning around 35-45% of the vote each is the future or if our politics will go back to the 2000s trend of becoming more European. I'm not sure. I used to assume that fragmentation and Europeanisation was the most likely couse - but I'm not sure anymore.

There's no perfect system and they all have different pros and cons. I think PR is fairer, but it's not without its cons. Although I am 100% opposed to the d'Hondt method which the Electoral Reform Society really likes

It's also worth noting where those non Labour and tory votes are going. The fascists and the greens get a lot more votes than they did in 97.

The Lib Dems collapsed because instead of being a protest party they became a party of government which was catastrophic for them.

[Sheilbh]

Third poll in a row from different pollsters with an almost 10% lead for Labour

I imagine a few more Tory MPs will be working out how at risk their seat is. And Johnson's approval rating have taken a turn (Starmer's still basically 1/3 approve, 1/3 don't and 1/3 don't know):


This is all a bit soft at the minute - across these polls it looks like 10% of the 2019 Tory vote have moved to Labour but another 20-30% are planning to just stay at home. The challenge will be whether the Tories can win those voters back or if Labour can get them.

Based on my Twitter - the Tories have gone very quiet (plotting), but the hard-left/Corbynite wing are insolable and cautioning that this doesn't mean anything

Edit: But I think in general these leads are the biggest since before 2015.

Edit: Also about 60% think Johnson should resign v 25% who don't. It feels like a lot is hanging on North Shropshire now. In other news, if they had simply accepted the recommendations of the Standards Commissioner Owen Paterson would be at the end of his 30 day suspension

[Valmy]

If Corbynite Labour fans thought polls meant anything they wouldn't have joined the Corbynite wing of Labour.

[Josquius]

]
Yeah I don't buy the Jenkins view that Britain is a fundamentally left wing country ruined by a combination of splits on the left and the voting system. And I don't think it's necessarily right-wing either I just don't really the idea that we'd magically have a "progressive"coalition with PR as opposed to a Tory-Reform one.

Not least because the Lib Dems are not a progressive or left-wing forcce and there is not a single cut to budgets or decimated public service that they didn't back. None of that would have passed without their support. It was true a hundred years ago when the Labour Party had to be set up because the Liberals couldn't be trusted to care about working people and the poor, and it's true now when we're still living in the mess they made. Give them a choice of a left-wing coalition or a right-wing one and they'll go right every time (and what else would be in the material interests of the residents of Richmond-upon-Thames). They're not left wing, they're not progressive and they can't be trusted

I never said there'd be a permanent left wing government nor did I say the lib dems were left wing. However give me the lib dems any day of the week over Johnson and Co.

If we must have conservatives, which sadly we must, then chained liberals with a genuine belief in lesser regulation actually helping people and who don't revel in the suffering of the poor are the ones to get.

What I would see happening is that left wing governments would end up in power more often than now and with the fascists going off and doing their own thing when conservatives get into power it would be conservatives of a lesser evil centre right liberal variety.

It's a mistake to think of this in terms of the currently existing parties.

I mean let's not do down Blade Runner it looks very cool and they have noodles

I don't believve in progress or that there's an end point - or that the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice. Or even necessarily that it's all about good or evil, because I just don't believe I'm not just being incredibly kind to myself by identifying what I believe as "good" I think it's always a fight largely through politics and nothing's inevitable.

There are only two options as I see it. We succeed and end up in a federation sort of situation or our civilization dies.
Both are possible. Progress isn't inevitable at all. It has to be fought for. Remaining optimistic is a vital part of this or else as said, plenty of easy ways to kill one's self.

On this one there are seperate clear shifts going on with the beliefs of labour members on democracy and the Labour /Union relationship.

Maybe but I think it'll take a long time for the unions to move on this (especially if it looks like Labour might win). The membership are abslutely won over on PR but if the past 5 years have taught us nothing it's that Labour members shouldn't be allowed to make decisions or use scissors unsupervised.

The Lib Dems collapsed because instead of being a protest party they became a party of government which was catastrophic for them.

Yes. Not sure I get your point here.

[Sheilbh]

Pippa Crerar has another scoop (with pictures) of Johnson hosting a Christmas quiz in Downing Street in breach of lockdown rules. So the "so far as I'm aware defence" appears to have fallen

And the Sun has joined in with reports of Johnson breaching covid rules on a date with Carrie during lockdown last year.

Edit: It's the santa hat and tinsel I enjoy most:

Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson accused of personally breaking Covid laws by hosting a Christmas quiz in No10 last year - and we've got pictures
PM caught on screen, sitting beneath portrait of Margaret Thatcher, as he hosted round of quiz on December 15 last year.

He was flanked by two members of top team, one wearing Santa hat, other draped in tinsel. At time, law banned mixing w/ other households for social reasons.
The quiz was supposed to be virtual - but many staff (one source says around 70) stayed in No 10 after work instead.

They huddled by computers, conferring on questions and knocking back fizz, wine and beer. Private office, policy unit & press office all had in-person teams.

Edit: Nest week's statement:

Michael Deacon
@MichaelPDeacon
Like the rest of the country, I was sickened by the pictures of me hosting a Christmas quiz inside Downing Street last December.

I had been assured that I did not host this quiz. But, in light of public concerns, I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate whether I did

Edit: Looks like there's another poll tomorrow showing a ten point lead. Truss, Sunak and Patel all prepping leadership campaigns. Johnson apparently is telling people "it'll all blow over" and is being described by allies as "in denial".

[garbon]

 

[Sheilbh]

Apparently - according to previous aides at No 10 - the photo of Johnson doing the quiz appears to have been taken from the press office. So apparently shafting junior staff in the press office, who in their daily job interact with the media, was not a great idea

Edit: And Number 10 parties have already become panto jokes.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It only happens every 25 years or so, but it is truly delightful to watch the wheels coming off a Tory government 

[Sheilbh]

It only happens every 25 years or so, but it is truly delightful to watch the wheels coming off a Tory government 

It's wonderful.

Apparently the latest defence on the quiz photo is that the staff next to Johnson were there to work on pandemic response and "just decided" to start the quiz at their desk

Reports that ITV has video (and even if Johnson survives this - Number 10 is leaking like a sieve which should be a worry for them). Meanwhile Johnson's apparently stating he's going nowhere and will fight the next election, while Matt Hancock is preparing a leadership bid (the level of delusion is incredible ).

It might all calm down, they might win North Shropshire. But it feels pretty febrile - especially when you add in a backbench revolt on plan B which is likely to rely on Labour votes to pass.

Edit: Actually the last line on this - about Hancock - is elegantly savage:

Gove has told friends that he would not run in a leadership contest but, as one fellow Brexiteer noted, "he has said that before". Priti Patel, the home secretary, is understood to be considering a run and MPs looking for a "clean skin" untainted by recent failures suggest Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary, would be a contender. Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat are talked about as backbench contenders by others, while some claim Matt Hancock, who quit after being filed kissing his lover, has talked up his prospects to himself.