Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

You have a point but what are the actual odds of Labour going with an ethnic minority lady over a white guy? :p

[Sheilbh]

There is also a junior minister called Keir - so they may even get to a third leader called Keir before they're willing to trust a woman or someone from an ethnic minority.

[Sheilbh]

I can see why people find the Right more comforting - no discussions or arguments in the open, gives you the illusion of things going swimmingly.

Nicest possible way - that's mad

My experience of the last Tory government was not peace and quiet on the right. But constant boiling rage, dissension and revolt as they had big rebellions that meant they weren't passing their core legislation, there were multiple votes of no confidence in their leaders and they burned through four leaders in eight years. And none of that was hidden. It was constant exhausting psychodrama briefed and counter-briefed all over the media - including (in fact particularly) in the Tory press (which makes sense - left wing papers have better sources in Labour, right wing papers have better sources in the Tories). It admittedly probably didn't help that for much of that time Labour was going through the exact same experience just without power

Having said that I think a fairly significant part of Labour's pitch was actually that they end that. Starmer's promise that he'd deliver politics "that treads more lightly in people's lives", "stability is the change" etc. As it turns out Labour has its own brand of psychodrama to offer. And it took six years of coalition government and two seismic referendums before the party had its nervous breakdown. All the problems Labour has it's having after eighteen months and having achieved nothing - which I think is a concern

Reading daily news that have standards yet craves controversy for clicks, like the Guardian, is very exhausting.

I sort of agree. I get we're not in a world like 1930 when the BBC could announce "There is no news today" and cut to a piano concert But for example I saw this today:

MoJ to remove right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in controversial overhaul

Exclusive: Courts minister says change needed to stop criminals opting for juries to delay cases, sometimes by years, and clear huge backlog

Which feels a little sensationalist, given as noted in the fifth paragraph, this is the government following recommendations from a review they commissioned by former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson. On the other hand I think it is fair given how the Guardian covered the last government which was always at a pitch of hysteria.

"Reeves is rumoured to be raising income tax, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"Reeves won't be raising the income tax, this is really bad according to a lot of people"

So on this - I don't think this is a media problem, I think this is a Reeves problem.

For two budgets now we have had six months of the Treasury kite-flying various taxes and spending cuts. I think it's a strategy from a weak chancellor to see what measures might provoke least trouble politically - as opposed to her doing her job.

But I think we've now had several cycles where Reeves' political operation is, I think, materially hurting growth. I saw Andy Haldane, former Chief Economist of the BofE say he thinks that there's "without a shadow of a doubt" a link between poor growth and all the pre-budget speculation. But you see it in charts on consumer and business confidence and spending: it tanked when Labour won an election and Reeves and Starmer toured the country saying "it's worse than we expected" (as had been pre-briefed before the election) prompting speculation there'd be austerity or tax cuts, you see it in the run up to the last budget and the run up to this one.

I'd add that I also think even on a purely policy level it's fairly mad. You can have different views on a wealth tax or an exit tax (both briefed as possibilities by Treasury sources in the last few months) - but I'd suggest whatever your view pre-briefing that sort of tax probably renders it significantly less effective.

"Labour isn't tackling immigration so Reform is surging, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"Labour is trying to address immigration, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"We don't build anything, this is really bad according to a lot of people"
"Somebody almost built something, this is really bad according to a lot of people, luckily somebody else intervened in time"

On both of these - I've always said for the government to succeed they need to really upset a lot of the Guardian columnists.

I think there's the Nye Bevan line about power corrupting, but only opposition is comfortable - and sadly I think a lot of the soft left are still pretty comfortable (and I think the PM is probably in that group). Not yet confronting political or policy reality - again I think there are many echoes with the last government and right-wing columnists and similar swing of attitudes from appeasing to outraging them.

[Josquius]

We are really in a weird place on social media I noticed with LABOUR BAD just a default go to that can never be deviated from.
Yes they're terrible on some areas. Many areas.
But come on. This trial by jury stuff... Half the people don't realise 90% + of cases don't get a trial already or that basically all of Europe abolished trial by jury*.

*mostly over a century ago. Switzerland in Swiss style just last decade. France seems a bit of a key exception but it's rare.

[Tamas]

Omg I agree with Simon Jenkins: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/20/unelected-lords-blocking-assisted-dying-democratic-outrage

I didn't realise we are the only non-Muslim country where bloody clergy can sit in the upper (or any) house just because they are the clergy.

[Sheilbh]

Sure and I don't necessarily have an issue with the actual proposals (according to polling 80-90% of lawyers do Although I have a slight theory that everyone is a conservative about the things they know well - it's why people hate software updates at work) - but most of Europe has a radically different legal traditions often involving investigating, or at least probing judges in a slightly inquisitorial role (this may actually still involve a jury).

It's very much apples and oranges.

I think you might mean 90% don't get trial by jury not that they don't go to trial. Less serious offences (or offences with a low or no custodial sentence) are heard by magistrates or district judges who sit without a jury. More serious cases (or sentences) are heard by a jury with a judge - and I think there are some where the defendent gets to pick. A lot of cases don't go to trial because the defendent pleads guilty, but even then only the most serious offences would go to a jury trial.

[Sheilbh]

Omg I agree with Simon Jenkins: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/20/unelected-lords-blocking-assisted-dying-democratic-outrage

I didn't realise we are the only non-Muslim country where bloody clergy can sit in the upper (or any) house just because they are the clergy.

You'd think that was relevant to the issue of assisted dying, but I don't really see the connection except to generate a misleading impression. I'd also just add an awful lot of MPs said they had profound concerns about the bill, but they were voting for the "principle" in the expectation that the House of Lords would amend it. That's not how legislators should behave but we are where we are. Advocates of the bill made the argument in the Commons that issues with it could ironed out in the House of Lords; they're now arguing amending it in the House of Lords. I don't think they can have it both ways. I'd also just note that advocates controlled the timetable in the Commons and they chose to make it very, very short. Numerous MPs on all sides of the debate criticised the lack of time for proper debate or amendment - having said that I think it was because (as happened in the Commons) the longer this bill was examined the more MPs voted against it.

I'd also add advocates are also proposing amendments. For example Lord Birt (of the BBC) and Lord Pannick KC have proposed an amendment requiring a specific Assisted Dying Help Service. The day you have had a preliminary discussion is day 1. On day 2 the ADHS must assign you a "personal navigator". If you want to proceed you'll see the first doctor on day 4 and the second doctor on day 12. You can be referred to a panel on day 14 who must make their decision by day 16. You (or your proxy) can ask that the second reflection period after the panel can be shortened to 24 hours and you must be given the drugs within 24 hours of the end of the second reflection period - so, in theory on day 18. Again my entire impression of this is that far too many of the advocates have had agency over their lives and cannot comprehend that is not how other people experience it - because God help you if you're vulnerable in an NHS bureaucracy moving to those deadlines.

The seven peers responsible for most those amendments are:
Ilora Finlay - a palliative care consultant (as in, she still works in a cancer hospital) and former President of both the Royal Society of Medicine and the British Medical Association.
Tanni Grey-Thompson - a former Paralympian medal winner who has spent her post-sports career campaigning on disability issues (again, a reminder that every single disability rights group in the country is opposed to the bill as it's currently drafted - though they have multiple positions on the principle of assisted dying).
Lord Carlile - former high court judge, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and ormer president of the Howard Leage (prison reform campaign group) as well as chair of numerous public inquiries.
Therese Coffey - former Secretary of State for Health (the current Secretary of State for Health has also voiced concerns around the bill as drafted - having previously voted for assisted dying).
Lord Mansfield - who is an elected hereditary peer But was elected relatively recently and is a KC and former chair of the Bar Council.
Lords Moylan and Goodman are both former Tory politicians. Lord Moylan mainly in local government and then transport (he was on the board for Crossrail) and Lord Goodman a long time ago.

I don't really have an issue with the bishops as another oddity is that the House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber this side of China. There are over 800 members (about 200 Labour, 300 Tory, 100 Lib Dems and the rest are minor parties and about 200 crossbenchers). There are also the 24 bishops (as well as some other religious figures, who typically sit as crossbenchers - for example Baroness Neuberger and Lord Sacks, both rabbis). Personally I'd go further and, for example, make it standard that the Chief Rabbi becomes a member of the Lords and I also think there should be a leading Imam or two in the Lords.

(Hell I'd have that even in a reformed House of Lords as I'd probably go down the Irish model of having panels representing specific interests and communities and would definitely have religion in there )

[Tamas]

Is your acceptance of religion in legislature part of your far-left shift?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p

[Sheilbh]

"This is what we believe" (joking probably mostly)


Obviously my ideal would be to simply abolish the Lords full stop. Although this relies on the assumption that the sudden removal of a safety net would encourage MPs to take their role as lawmakers seriously which I think could be a disappointment.

But if you must have a second chamber it shouldn't be as democratic so it doesn't have enough legitimacy to create gridlock/block a governing majority from governing. If it's not elected I lean to the Irish model (which is basically corporatist with seats for farmers, universities, industry, labour etc) - but I'm not massively averse to the UK model of some partisan appointments but lots of people appointed like those listed above "the great and the good" of former judges, senior doctors, intelligence chiefs, sportspeople and artists. Within that I think religion absolutely has a role - but it should be more representative of all faith communities. So far it is very Christian and Jewish (there are, obviously, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh etc members of the Lords but they're not there as faith leaders).

[crazy canuck]

Is your acceptance of religion in legislature part of your far-left shift?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p