Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

These issues should be handled in elections just like every other.
To be in the EU or not was not the issue, it was a complete distraction, both in terms of the overall problems in the country and our relations with Europe.

Yeah I totally disagree

Being in the EU or not is a really important issue - it's constitutional. It shouldn't just be something that you can have in a manifesto and if you win an election you have a mandate. I think it would be wrong for the Tories to run on a manifesto pledge of leaving the EU, or the SNP to run on a manifesto pledge of declaring independence and them then proceeding to do that without first going to the people on that single issue.

For me issues of constitutional importance: what laws have effect in our community, who gets to make them, how we elect them and how we can get rid of them are not like other issues. They define the rules by which other issues are dealt with.

Its kind of like computer programming.
Ultimately its all 1s and 0s, on top of that there's machine code which abstracts this to e.g. hex, moving up you've second generation abstractions of assembly language, then things get more and more abstract as you move upwards, the languages get simpler and the level of actual engagement the 'programmer' has with the machine lessens.
This isn't to say someone with a drag and drop builder isn't actually creating something machine readable. Its just they don't have to actually know about the actual 1s and 0s to get the end result they want.

In a working democracy politicians are the programmers, their teams are in the place of the system actually piecing together the 1s and 0s, and members of the public are external stake holders asking for end results.

Following a JTBD framework actual policy decisions such as hard brexit are not end results. They're means to an end.
End results are less crime, higher wages, more jobs, etc... and the decisions used to get towards this can only work as part of a whole rather than taken in isolation.
In having a referendum you're effectively asking the entire company whether the new product should be made in C++ or Java despite only a small number of them having the slightest clue how to make that decision. This should be left to the programmers- with (this is where the analogy breaks) the decision of which programmer to hire being up to everyone.

Again I totally disagree.

The public are not external stakeholders interested in results or there to be managed. In a democratic system the public are where sovereignty lies - they delegate it to politicians based on what those politicians have said they'll do for a period, but that sovereignty is returned to the public on election day and if there's a referendum. It's the basis of the idea of democracy as being about the "semi-sovereign people" - and that two part view of democracy there's a legal constitutional element (for the people - which you're talking about) but also the popular sovereignty element (by the people) which is essential.

Frankly what you've described sounds more like "consultative democracy" which is how China positions their system theoretically.

Thats not what I've read.
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-51281722

Can't find it but there was a Guardian piece I remember because I was surprised on polling showing satisfaction with democracy in the UK was at its highest since pre-financial crisis/back in the early-ish Blair years. Obviously timing matters I read that in the last year or two - while that report was from January 2020 so the surveys would have been done at some point in 2019, probably before the election, during the hung parliament that was breaking.

On the system change thing I was thinking of this - plus there was a set of polling done for this year's Munich Security Conference. The UK views on their system and risks etc was basically in the same place as Canada and Germany v more polarised/social conflict perspectives in places like France and the US:

[The Brain]

What's the numbers for West Taiwan and Russia?

[Sheilbh]

Humanists UK have published a response on the sections of that NYT podcast involving them - including lengthy transcripts in contrast to what was included in the podcast. Again I think this doesn't look great. I understand the NYT have started issuing sections that have been re-recorded but these aren't flagged as a correction in the podcast:
https://humanists.uk/2022/02/23/humanists-uk-comment-on-trojan-horse-affair-podcast/

Edit: Incidentally I think there are just more ethical/journalistic issues with podcasts that I'm not sure have really been worked out. But the annoying thing is everyone failed in some way on the Trojan Horse scandal and no-one comes out of it particularly well. But there are apparently other public statements etc expected on other issues.

There is a really interesting story there and the idea of re-framing it and looking at it again is one that I think would make the basis of a really good investigation. But you need to get the basic factual reporting right and it can resist the desire to have well-shaped narrative (key for podcasts) or fit one alternative narrative (my general view is that re-framing/interrogating normally reveals multiple narrative not just an alternative).

[Sheilbh]

Another possible sign the Met are not very good at their jobs because I can see a crucial flaw in this reasoning:

Josiah Mortimer
@josiahmortimer
NEW - Met deputy chief Sir Stephen House defends the officers who stood outside No 10 while parties took place: "They are there to protect against terrorist attacks - not to check what's in people's bags"

[Tamas]

Another possible sign the Met are not very good at their jobs because I can see a crucial flaw in this reasoning:

Josiah Mortimer
@josiahmortimer
NEW - Met deputy chief Sir Stephen House defends the officers who stood outside No 10 while parties took place: "They are there to protect against terrorist attacks - not to check what's in people's bags"

IDK about England but in Hungary "policeman" used to be the same thing in jokes as "blond" as in euphemism for stupid.

[The Larch]

Apparently the British Defence secretary brought up the Crimean War and the performance of the Scottish Guard in it as a way of expressing the UK's capacity to harm Russian interests nowadays.

What's it with these Tory gits and their penchant for bringing up cringeworthy historical examples as a way to make a point?

[Sheilbh]

Not quite like that, but there's PC Plod.

[Sheilbh]

Apparently the British Defence secretary brought up the Crimean War and the performance of the Scottish Guard in it as a way of expressing the UK's capacity to harm Russian interests nowadays.

What's it with these Tory gits and their penchant for bringing up cringeworthy historical examples as a way to make a point?

In his case I think it's that he was in the Scots Guards and speaking to currently serving soldiers:

"It's going to be a busy Army. Unfortunately we've got a busy adversary now in Putin, who has gone full tonto."

He said the UK has 1,000 personnel on stand-by to respond to the crisis, adding: "The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in 1853 in Crimea - we can always do it again."

Mr Wallace added: "Tsar Nicholas I made the same mistake Putin did... he had no friends, no alliances."

[The Larch]

Still cringe.

[Sheilbh]

Still cringe.

Yeah - but I have more sympathy with a former soldier talking to current soldiers about old regiment history and "they don't like it up 'em" than if it was, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg doing it.

[Grey Fox]

I don't understand why it's cringeworthy?

[Tamas]

We sure showed them in 1854 (very relevant!) and now will show it the same way by stopping to deal with 5 (five!) of their rich guys!

[HVC]

Also, full Tonto seems racist... but he's a fictional character so I'm not sure.

[The Larch]

From the senior Politico UK correspondant:

Keeping MPs in the Palace of Westminster while it is refurbished could take up to 76 years and cost £22bn, a new report shows.


Main options for restoration:

Full decant: £7-13bn, 19-28 years
Partial decant: £9.5-18.5bn, 26-43 years
No decant: £11-22bn 46-76 years

The sponsor body report finds that keeping MPs in parliament during restoration "substantially heightens the overall risk profile... In particular the pre-existing level of fire risk in the Commons Chamber is not reduced until completion"

As reported in Playbook over the last few weeks, the Commons Commission asked for this report to be carried out at a cost of £5m and has now recommended scrapping the body which produced it.

In the meantime, the Commons has shared no new information on the possible asbestos exposure which took place recently:

Exclusive:

Dozens of people may have been exposed to asbestos in an incident at Speaker's House last autumn

Those affected are currently being notified by House of Commons authorities.

One person familiar with the maintenance of parliament said it looked like "a huge failure of safety systems."

HoC spokesperson: "The House is currently working with our contractors, supply chain and HSE following an incident of possible asbestos exposure on the estate. A temporary pause in construction projects was implemented to ensure lessons from this incident are rapidly implemented"

Holy shit what a clusterfuck the House of Commons restoration project seems to be. 

[The Brain]

Why can't they use a different facility during restoration work?