Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

I agree 100% garbon, but I take whatever fall of Johnson I can get.

[garbon]

One possible conclusion is that British Tories are not so far gone as American Republicans.

They never have been.

Reading Britain through America has not been a helpful approach for the last five years (if ever) and I think it obscures more than it reveals.

It also seems like the PM only being canned because he lied about parties isn't exactly a good look for a nation.

He lied about breaking the law.

Is that a far stretch from lying about unlawful actions which they've done time and time again?

Robert Jenrick admitted to acting unlawfully and nothing happened to him.

[garbon]

I agree 100% garbon, but I take whatever fall of Johnson I can get.

Oh for sure get him out - even if it won't improve much as we are on to the next Tory.

I just issue with the CC/Sheilbh line that this somehow paints the UK in a positive light. It is embarassing that this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[garbon]

From last September, where none of the following was enough to get him out.

https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/09/a-decade-of-boris-johnson-would-be-disastrous-but-labours-failures-could-allow-it

There it was, bold as you like, on the front page of Saturday's Times. "Boris Johnson Eyes Another Decade in Power" the headline proclaimed. "Cabinet ministers say that Johnson wants to outlast [Margaret] Thatcher's modern record of 11 years in power," the paper's political editor explained in the story below. It put me right off my breakfast.

What a ghastly prospect – ten more years of government by gimmickry, empty promises, fatuous photo ops, misleading slogans, headline-grabbing stunts, jingoism, U-turns and policies decided on the hoof by a deeply unserious but omnipotent Prime Minister who ignores his cabinet and has reduced parliament to a rubber-stamping operation.

He has squandered the goodwill of our former friends and allies in Europe, undermined our "special relationship" with Joe Biden's America, cut our foreign aid budget, demonised migrants and asylum seekers, reneged on international treaties, courted deeply unsavoury characters such as Donald Trump and Hungary's Viktor Orbán, and left Britain scorned, isolated and largely friendless in the world. France's President Macron is reportedly so exasperated by Johnson's conduct that he will not even meet him.

A Prime Minister who constantly wraps himself in the Union Jack has jeopardised England's 314-year-old union with Scotland, risked Northern Ireland's fragile peace, and destroyed the UK's social cohesion with his hardest of hard Brexits and cynical culture wars. A record 61,851 race and hate crimes were recorded in England and Wales last year.

Through Brexit Johnson has created a whole new stratum of job-destroying red tape for British businesses. He has forfeited our automatic right to live, work or study anywhere in Europe, and prompted thousands of Britons to seek citizenship in EU member states. Brexit has caused shortages of labour, food, construction materials, blood test vials, sewage treatment chemicals, Nando's chicken, Ikea furniture, Percy Pigs and much else besides.

Asked by Sebastian Payne, the author of Broken Heartlands, to identify Brexit's benefits, Johnson cited the Covid vaccination programme, freeports and "scuppering" plans for a European Super League. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, we could have done most of that as an EU member state.

Johnson's debasement of Britain's political culture is harder to quantify but no less reprehensible. The man David Cameron once described as a "greased piglet" tells shameless porkies – even in parliament. He acts unlawfully. He wants to restrict the right to vote and to protest. He rewards cronies with jobs, peerages and lucrative government contracts, and presides over rampant influence peddling. He has destroyed the concept of ministerial responsibility by refusing to sack ministers for incompetence, dishonesty or misconduct.

He evades accountability to parliament, the media or anyone else. He seeks to subvert the independence of the civil service, judiciary, BBC, Electoral Commission and various watchdog bodies.

If Johnson can achieve all that in two years. just imagine what destruction he could wreak in ten.

...

[Tamas]

I agree 100% garbon, but I take whatever fall of Johnson I can get.

Oh for sure get him out - even if it won't improve much as we are on to the next Tory.

I just issue with the CC/Sheilbh line that this somehow paints the UK in a positive light. It is embarassing that this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Agreed, but nowadays it would be the same for most countries I think.

[Sheilbh]

From last September, where none of the following was enough to get him out.

I just don't buy the "debased political culture" thing. I think it's nonsense, which is why it's hard to quantify. I think people have been over-egging the pudding for the last 5 years which has been part of the problem (and that I don't think they were critical enough of Cameron and Osborne).

And the rest basically boils down to Tories not getting rid of Leave campaigner Boris Johnson, after winning on election on "Get Brexit Done", doing hard Brexit. Of course they're not going to.

Some of it is just disingenuous, the race and hate crime stat for example. It's cherry picking a dodgy stat (crimes reported to the police) that makes your point rather than the one that's usually considered more accurate because it doesn't fit your argument - the Crime Survey of England and Wales which is based on what crimes people have experienced, not which ones they tell the police about, has shown about a 40% decline in hate crimes over the past 15 years on a relatively steady trend.

This is just what a Tory government looks like. It's why I don't like them and think the sole focus of the Labour party should be beating them and salting the earth. But it's not special just because it's the first one we've seen with a bit majority in 30 years. And as a rule Tory MPs won't remove their leader for that.

[garbon]

From last September, where none of the following was enough to get him out.

I just don't buy the "debased political culture" thing. I think it's nonsense, which is why it's hard to quantify. I think people have been over-egging the pudding for the last 5 years which has been part of the problem (and that I don't think they were critical enough of Cameron and Osborne).

And the rest basically boils down to Tories not getting rid of Leave campaigner Boris Johnson, after winning on election on "Get Brexit Done", doing hard Brexit. Of course they're not going to.

Some of it is just disingenuous, the race and hate crime stat for example. It's cherry picking a dodgy stat (crimes reported to the police) that makes your point rather than the one that's usually considered more accurate because it doesn't fit your argument - the Crime Survey of England and Wales which is based on what crimes people have experienced, not which ones they tell the police about, has shown about a 40% decline in hate crimes over the past 15 years on a relatively steady trend.

This is just what a Tory government looks like. It's why I don't like them and think the sole focus of the Labour party should be beating them and salting the earth. But it's not special just because it's the first one we've seen with a bit majority in 30 years. And as a rule Tory MPs won't remove their leader for that.

[Gups]

One possible conclusion is that British Tories are not so far gone as American Republicans.

They never have been.

Reading Britain through America has not been a helpful approach for the last five years (if ever) and I think it obscures more than it reveals.

It also seems like the PM only being canned because he lied about parties isn't exactly a good look for a nation.

He lied about breaking the law.

Is that a far stretch from lying about unlawful actions which they've done time and time again?

Robert Jenrick admitted to acting unlawfully and nothing happened to him.

Jenrick acted unlawfully in granting planning permission for a development in his capacity as a minister. That happens al the time in planning, immigration, education and other areas of law. The decision is held unlawful and is quashed. But no criminal offence has been committed and there was nothing which could happen to Jenrick as a result of the legal decision. That is different to Boris who it appears broke the law and could be charged with an offence.

[Tamas]

Jenrick acted unlawfully in granting planning permission for a development in his capacity as a minister. That happens al the time in planning, immigration, education and other areas of law. The decision is held unlawful and is quashed. But no criminal offence has been committed and there was nothing which could happen to Jenrick as a result of the legal decision. That is different to Boris who it appears broke the law and could be charged with an offence.

Fair enough but it does sound silly and proving garbon's point that you can try to push through permissions and grants to your friends and sponsors and worst that could happen to you is somebody who isn't in on it notices and it gets cancelled.

[Gups]

Jenrick acted unlawfully in granting planning permission for a development in his capacity as a minister. That happens al the time in planning, immigration, education and other areas of law. The decision is held unlawful and is quashed. But no criminal offence has been committed and there was nothing which could happen to Jenrick as a result of the legal decision. That is different to Boris who it appears broke the law and could be charged with an offence.

Fair enough but it does sound silly and proving garbon's point that you can try to push through permissions and grants to your friends and sponsors and worst that could happen to you is somebody who isn't in on it notices and it gets cancelled.

Like most planning lawyers I thought the whole thing stank (and we were all amaze how long it took to be picked up by the media). IMO there should have been a criminal investigation into Jenrick but there wasn't and ultimately he hasn't been found guilty or charged with anything.

FWIW the planning system now is far cleaner then it was 30 years ago.

[Sheilbh]

Fair enough but it does sound silly and proving garbon's point that you can try to push through permissions and grants to your friends and sponsors and worst that could happen to you is somebody who isn't in on it notices and it gets cancelled.

Sure and I don't know about planning or education. The Jenrick case just sounds bad because he acknowledged that people could see it had the appearance of bias - at which point he should have recused himself. If he doesn't, it doesn't even matter if he was actually biased because to any normal person on the outside it looks like he is.

But I know a bit about government procurements and they are incredibly slow and expensive purely on legal costs, because it is almost certain that it will be challenged in the High Court by the other bidders. It's not a somoeone notices and it gets cancelled - the risk is when you're sued about it, you will lose. Because government contracts are huge compared to private sector contracts (annual spend on various procurements is about £250-300 billion) and the government pays its bills on time. And normally if one company wins it means another has lost.

The most extreme I can think of was nuclear decommissioning where the procurement took two years. There was then a two year legal challenge and the court found the process defective. That led to early termination of a £7 billion contract, damages of £100 million for the claimants (other companies that bid for the work) and the procurement had to be run again.

If it is anything to do with contracts or competitive procurement there will be legal challenges and a lot of money spent trying to avoid it with lots of process. There's no "if" about it.

I think the issue is they almost always base the ultimate decision on price (over quality) and are then surprised when the service isn't very good. And companies bidding for the work know this so they overpromise what they can deliver for a low price.

The latest example of this is the Department for Education which did a procurement for running the National Tutoring Programme to help kids catch-up after covid. They scored quality too low v price and the procurement was (surprisingly) won by Randstand, a big Dutch outsourcing company who'd never had any experience in the education sector but massively underbid everything else. It may be a surprise to learn that the programme is now said to be at risk of "catastrophic failure". No suggestion of corruption - just business as usual. The company that came with the lowest expenses won and they're delivering a dreadful, dreadful service we're all paying for. I genuinely think that and the revolving door between government contractors and government civil servants is probably a bigger issue - even if only because it affects almost all of that £250-300 billion spend throughout government.

[Sheilbh]

Obvs only one poll snap poll etc. But oooft

Britain Elects
@BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 38% (+1)
CON: 28% (-5)
LDEM: 13% (+3)
GRN: 7% (+1)
REFUK: 4% (-1)

via @YouGov

Edit: Semi-relatedly in the latest variation of Johnson caring more about his position than the union, Jacob Rees-Mogg has been doing the media rounds today (a sign of how bad things are - they don't normally let him near the cameras so everyone else must have said no) and after saying that the leader of the Scottish Tories is "not a big figure", he's now doubled down with "Douglas Ross has always been a lightweight figure." The unionist party

[Tamas]

It seems Rees-Mogg wasn't done, he has also offered an explanation to the outrage over Johnson's parties: the issue is that the restrictions were too strict, not that the No.10 crew ignored them (I guess by his take, rightly):

Everybody understands, on all sides of the house, that people were obeying the rules and that these rules were very hard for people to obey. I received a message last night was from a friend of mine who was unable to go to the funeral of his two-year-old granddaughter. One cannot hear these stories without grieving for people who suffered. Decisions were taken at the beginning of the pandemic that affected people up and down the country and they were very hard.

And we must consider, as this goes to an inquiry and we look into what happened with Covid, whether all those regulations were proportionate, or whether it was too hard on people.

[Sheilbh]

"Decisions were taken" is a bold use of the passive voice there.

The issue is - the Prime Minister took those decisions that led to these very sad stories and he didn't follow them. If he broke the rules to attend the funeral of a loved one, I don't think it'd be a scandal because people would sympathise and understand that. But he broke the rules that he'd imposed for a piss-up.

The rules were not equally hard on a man who couldn't go to the funeral of his two-year-old granddaughter and on a man in his fifties who wanted to host a party. It may be that they were disproportionate for some, but not for Johnson

I can't believe they're still letting Rees-Mogg talk given that he's the walking embodiment of what people hate about the Tories, as opposed to just locking him in a cupboard for the foreseeable.

And another poll with a ten point lead for Labour.

Edit: And Labour MP asks Rees-Mogg to name the leader of the Welsh Conservatives - which he can't:
https://twitter.com/davidcornock/status/1481596505173770241?s=20

The only Tory in Scotland or Wales who matters to him, is the one appointed by London. Again a disgrace for the "party of the union"

[Tamas]

Javid says the UK is the the freeest country in Europe. It is "leading the world in learning to live with Covid", he says.

GREAT Britain!