Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

That is a redeeming feature of the whole imbroglio 

It's a little bit writers' room of the Crown too. If the Queen, whose first PM was Winston Churchill, has someone whose heritage is Indian or Pakistani as one of her last PMs.

It is a disappointment that Labour is so poor on this metric.

My experience is that Labour members are very aware of it and disappopinted in themselves but unable to do otherwise. I remember a lot of naval-gazing in 2010 when the only female candidate was Diane Abbott as the customary sacrificial candidate of the left.

Even the latest leadership election - and I think Starmer's done better than I expected - it was weird to hear lots of Labour people basically frame it as "Starmer looks Prime Ministerial/like a Prime Minister". I get that framing after Corbyn, but it also feels designed to favour the middle-aged white guy.

I say Meh on that and worth considering labours minority MPs tend to be people who represent their constituency rather than parachuted randomers.

I'm not sure that's a good thing though. Labour pioneered parachuting people in with all-women shortlists and have considered all-BAME shortlists (I think it's difficult because of the Equality Act). And not always to increase diversity, as with the Tories, sometimes just to get aides a seat - I'm not sure Ed Miliband has an abiding connection to Doncaster or Peter Mandelson to Hartlepool (though he still talks about Hartlepool a surprising amount).

But also I think if there's concerns about, say, Labour being too London focused I'm not sure it's great that a big chunk of minority MPs represent London seats - or that minority MPs basically get to run in a certain type of seat (more diverse, probably younger etc). I think the A-list is possibly Cameron's lasting achievement in many ways - he identified that the Tories didn't look like Britain and they fixed it.

But also it's just not an issue with white MPs. I live in Camberwell and Peckham which is about 40% black British, about 40% born outside the UK. Our MP is, until the next election, Harriet Harman - who is a brilliant MP. I don't think it's ever been seen as an issue that she (a white woman who went to private school and worked as civil liberties lawyer and no doubt parachuted into a safe seat as a rising star - and as a prominent feminist) is representing this seat. Although I think there is a fairly strong feeling that when she steps at the next election the next Labour candidate should be black (I think particularly a black man because so far, in Labour, I think there's only Lammy).

I think it's the same in reverse with Sunak representing Richmond in North Yorkshire which I imagine is not a wildly diverse part of the country

Though down the line who knows. Khan and Lammy, Lammy, and Nandy are potentials for the future.

That's putting a lot of pressure on Lammy

[Zanza]

What do you think about the attempts to defund the BBC?

It's got an extremely good reputation abroad, not sure why the Tories dislike it.

[viper37]

What do you think about the attempts to defund the BBC?

It's got an extremely good reputation abroad, not sure why the Tories dislike it.

it's biased to the left, ergo, not pro-Tory.

Same goes with CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation).  It's infeoded to the Liberal Party (left) and disliked by the Conservatives.

[Sheilbh]

What do you think about the attempts to defund the BBC?

It's got an extremely good reputation abroad, not sure why the Tories dislike it.

There two sides to the BBC - and I can't think of anything the British public are more cakeist about.

On the one hand there's the BBC which is enormously popular except for a very small minority on right (over-represented in the right-wing media) and an increasingly vocal very small minority on the left (who have for the last ten years started chundering about the BBC's right-wing bias - especially among Corbynites and the "alternative" left media like Novara). Anti-BBC Tories have always existed, but I think it's coming under attack from both sides now which is not great (and I think the left will regret joining in).

On the other the licence fee has always been unpopular. It is effectively a tax and the BBC police - so about 10% of magistrates' court cases are licence fee enforcement. They prosecutes hundreds of thousands every year for lost fees, but then because it's then a court matter you can go to jail for failure to pay. I'm not sure it's the best funding model - and I think there's been concerns within the BBC about whether it's even sustainable as people move to primarily online media consumption, but at the minute 75% of their audience is still on the main TV channel.

I think the licence fee is difficult to defend - but this is where I get a bit small-c conservative because it's been around for ages, everyone know how it works, it's not particularly broken. So we probably shouldn't meddle, but on every issue that's a bit of an unpopular position.

No idea what would replace - Tories have liked the idea of a subscription model (but see above - 75% of consumers watch it offline), some just want to privatise it, some talk about an internet licence fee (so on whether you have an internet connection, not an aerial), others think about a tax, or just government grants like in Australia, some want to privatise the bits that basically do big popular commercial TV anyway (Strictly Come Dancing, Masterchef etc) and just publicly fund the stuff that otherwise would exist (culture and religious broadcasting, new talent, World Service etc).

More practically, I don't think this will happen. I think there will be popular anger over this and it's another sign of the Tories getting high on their own supply and underestimating the public's support for the BBC (though I could be wrong).

It's apparently part of "operation red meat" to save Johnson which includes military to stop Channel migrants (which I think will be the fourth or fifth time they've announced that), more cash for the NHS (ditto), licence fee feeze for two years then abolition in 2027 (I think that's the charter renewal date), end of covid restrctions, "levelling up" white paper (but there's no money from the Treasury for any new spending) and measures to help with energy costs (ditto). I'm not convinced it's as appealing a package as they think it is. I don't think it'll work and Johnson will have to go. I very much doubt Nadine Dorries stays in the cabinet with any other Tory leader to push it through and obviously in the six years between now and then there'll be at least one election.

My take on it would be that it is something they are briefing now in an attempt to distract from Johnson's issues and try to shore up Tory support. I don't think it'll work, I don't think it'll happen. I think the whole package of measures they're going to announce - most of them recycled or with no funding attached - is a little bit "Cones Hotline" (when John Major announced, as a major policy initiative to show they were in touch, a freephone number that people could call to ask about roadworks or report cones that didn't seem to need to be there ) and will be as effective.

[garbon]

One part that is broken is the needlessly threatening letters.

[Sheilbh]

One part that is broken is the needlessly threatening letters.

Yes. I think I've had one everywhere I've lived but I have always been paying my licence fee

[Sheilbh]

Reports of more Tory MPs putting their letters of no confidence in after the weekend in their constituencies (this is one of the valuable things I think about a constituency link).

Also reports that 5% of the Tory party have cancelled their membership

They're not and don't really aspire to be a mass party any more, but even so that's not great.

Meanwhile the Mirror has reports of another party. Downing Street are still briefing that there's going to be a big clear-out of staff around Johnson to try and stop bleeding.

95% of the time normal, well-adjusted people don't watch or pay attention to politics. At the moment they are. Because the firing loads of aides has been heavily briefed, even if it was enough to satisfy public opinion (and it isn't) everyone already knows it's coming. So instead we have the rather tawdry spectacle of the inevitability of more revelations every day this week (Pippa Crerar at the Mirror, Paul Brand at ITV and the guy at the Telegraph) and the much briefed firing of Number 10 staff.

It's starting to remind me of expenses - except entirely focused on one party - in that I think it's starting to taint them all because the party (and especially the cabinet) are choosing to keep Boris in his job. So it feels like, whatever they say, they don't quite get why people are so angry - just like with expenses.

[Jacob]

There is no way throwing a whole bunch of aides under the bus is possibly going to backfire, is there? I expect that even if some of them would have damaging stories they could share, they would have no reason to... right?

And yeah, Sheilbh, I think the problem for the Tories (or one of them) is that this is really compelling political theatre. It has a whole range of tawdry characters, it has clear villains and a bunch of people who could go either way, it is darkly humorous and engaging, the plotline is easy to grasp, there's a strong moral component, and it is super relevant to people's lives but recent and current. And, of course, there's even the Queen angle, which never hurts.

Of course people are watching. It's super entertaining and people - whatever else their disagreements - can broadly agree that the Tory Party Partiers are a complete shower.

[Sheilbh]

There is no way throwing a whole bunch of aides under the bus is possibly going to backfire, is there? I expect that even if some of them would have damaging stories they could share, they would have no reason to... right?

Nothing could possibly go wrong.

And yeah, Sheilbh, I think the problem for the Tories (or one of them) is that this is really compelling political theatre. It has a whole range of tawdry characters, it has clear villains and a bunch of people who could go either way, it is darkly humorous and engaging, the plotline is easy to grasp, there's a strong moral component, and it is super relevant to people's lives but recent and current. And, of course, there's even the Queen angle, which never hurts.

Of course people are watching. It's super entertaining and people - whatever else their disagreements - can broadly agree that the Tory Party Partiers are a complete shower.

Yeah I think there's just a shabbiness and tawdriness to them now that's going to be difficult to shake. A bit like sleaze in the 90s - this is more direct but they just look like a party that's been in office for 12-13 years.

Even this firing of the aides. It's all been pre-briefed, so have all the policies they're going to announce (again) to try and seize the initiative. It's like that steamroller scene in Austin Powers. I think it's also why it won't work. If you want to distract people, or drawer a line under something, or seize the initiative - don't tell them that's what you're doing first

There's still a long way for Labour to go. They're on 202 seats to the Tories' 365. The last election was an absolute disaster. But it's not looking impossible now to imagine a Labour majority.

But I think that also gets some of the appeal of Sunak to Tories: always well dressed/very neat looking, tee-totaller, by all accounts a very hard worker, not chaotic. It's a nice and clear contrast, if you think Johnson's the problem.

[alfred russel]

Any chance that a new PM will call early elections?

[Sheilbh]

Really interesting and surprisng debate on the BBC on people I follow on Twitter - and this may just be who I follow but the split is not as I expected.

More conservative/right-wing people seem pretty opposed to these changes on quite classic conservative grounds. It's not broke so don't fix it, it's a great British institution and we don't have many of those left and it's good for the UK's reputation internationally. This is probably where I am.

A lot of people I follow on the left are a bit more pondering than I expected. So there's lots of people pointing out that, for example, it's more difficult to argue the BBC as a public service broadcaster now. Lots of people pointing out that they've basically stopped original culture broadcasting (BBC4 stopped commissioning new shows a year ago and that's where the BBC sent its culture stuff to live), that the BBC news output domestically isn't miles ahead of the commercial competitors (ITV and Sky News), that lots of the interesting/exciting stuff the BBC commissions it basically puts online only - I think that's how I May Destroy You started before they realised they had an incredible show. So lots of people are basically saying it doesn't seem right that we basically pay a tax to subsidise Strictly Come Dancing and Eastenders. Also obviously huge salaries for certain hosts which always comes up.

I think it gets a tension at the heart of the BBC which is that one of their principles is to entertain and they like to prove their relevance by having successful, widely watched shows they can point to. But the more they do that, the more they look like any commercial broadcaster and less like a public services broadcaster that justifies being subsidised because what it's doing wouldn't be commercially viable. I think in recent years the BBC has maybe leaned a little bit too commercial and that means a lot of people who would normally be defenders of the BBC are a little more reluctant.

I don't know what the answer is by the next charter renewal but I think there is a bit more of a sense that actually there is a debate we need to have in light of the rise of streaming, what is the BBC for etc than usual or than was the case in 2012 when their charter was last renewed.

[Sheilbh]

Any chance that a new PM will call early elections?

Maybe but I think it's unlikely. I think we still have the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (for now). So to get an election you'd need a vote in the Commons where the government actively votes to bring itself down. I think people understand the reason for that if there's no majority and there's just deadlock where nothing can move forward (say, the 2019 election) because that's how the system's supposed to work - the government has the confidence/a majority in the Commons so it can pass its agenda, if it loses that then it goes back to the people. I think there'd be very little sympathy for a government with a majority of 80 forcing an election on the people for no good reason except for the new PM to have their own mandate. They can pass their agenda and function as a government, so it would seem very weird to have an election and I'm generally of the view that most people don't like and aren't interested in politics - and they really don't like being forced to pay attention with unnecessary elections, so I think it'd be high risk

Gordon Brown is the model here. It's a little bit like Sunak actually in the way he drew a contrast with Blair - "no flash, just Gordon". He had a strong honeymoon period and responded well to a lot of crises (foot and mouth outbreak, terrorist attack in Glasgow etc). He was toying with the idea of going for an early election in 2007. Cameron called his bluff with a "bring it on" speech at conference. But basically Brown let the speculation get out of hand and then decided not to call an election which I think is seen as the point that his premiership never recovered from. It's that point of once the people form an opinion it's tough to shift - and the opinion that formed was that he was a bit of a ditherer and, contrary to the "no flash, just Gordon" line, very driven by polls/daily politics, plus he'd repeatedly said on TV that he wasn't even thinking about calling an early election when he very clearly was.

I think that will be a lesson for anyone who takes over.

Earliest I'd expect an election is probably May/June 2023. But, obviously, I could have that all very wrong and if Sunak takes over and the Tories are polling in the mid-40s again it would be difficult to resist trying to lock it in.

Edit: Incidentally I think there's also a danger for the Tories in getting rid of him after the May local elections. We have another four months until then - and I do not expect that we've seen the end of the revelations. But I think it will also look to the public as if they got rid of him because he started losing, not because of the scandal.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, I think this government will be here for the long haul. 2022 is going to be a bad year for so many people, high inflation, below-inflation old age pension increase, massive increase in energy costs and the increased NI contributions for the working population. There is really something there to piss off everyone apart from people with substantial wealth.

Maybe 2023 will be a better year; but I think they will be circling the drain and then get hammered in spring 2024.

This is also what I hope for of course, so maybe take the above with a pinch of salt 

[Duque de Bragança]

I think the licence fee is difficult to defend - but this is where I get a bit small-c conservative because it's been around for ages, everyone know how it works, it's not particularly broken. So we probably shouldn't meddle, but on every issue that's a bit of an unpopular position.

No idea what would replace - Tories have liked the idea of a subscription model (but see above - 75% of consumers watch it offline), some just want to privatise it, some talk about an internet licence fee (so on whether you have an internet connection, not an aerial), others think about a tax, or just government grants like in Australia, some want to privatise the bits that basically do big popular commercial TV anyway (Strictly Come Dancing, Masterchef etc) and just publicly fund the stuff that otherwise would exist (culture and religious broadcasting, new talent, World Service etc).

More practically, I don't think this will happen. I think there will be popular anger over this and it's another sign of the Tories getting high on their own supply and underestimating the public's support for the BBC (though I could be wrong).

How much is the license fee? Over here it's 138 € per annum (10 % more if you don't pay it on time), and it's coupled to the habitation/housing tax so much harder to dodge.

I never paid it in Germany though by the end it was starting to get difficult to avoid it.

[Sheilbh]

Pensions will still be linked to inflation, I think. I thought the only bit of the triple lock that was suspended was the link to average pay growth because of the way covid with redundancies then people back in work, furlough and then back to full time etc means the pay growth figure is a little crazy - like 10% or something.

I agree though.

Sunak might be able to do a reset, but it just all feels a little bit 90s at the minute. There's no fresh ideas, there's hypocrisy and sleaze - everything just looks grubby and public services are in a bad way etc. The only counter to that is that Labour are starting from their worst position in terms of seats since 1935 - so they're 160 seats behind the Tories, not 60 seats behind like they were after 92.