Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I mean ultimately it was a delayed broadcast. They cut other stuff, just cut or bleep it out. I've a lot of sympathy for the actual people at BAFTA running the live show in the room which would be very difficult, but the BBC broadcast piece just seems like a fuck up.

Although I'm not totally sure that the guy with Tourette's feelings were prioritised given that he left halfway through (so I think he missed the film inspired by him picking up best actor), or really at play.

Edit: And I suspect his feelings were mortification and embarrassment which, I suspect, is partly why he left. That's part of what makes it I think upsetting for everyone.

[garbon]

Although I'm not totally sure that the guy with Tourette's feelings were prioritised given that he left halfway through (so I think he missed the film inspired by him picking up best actor), or really at play.

From their own reporting it doesn't sound like they asked him to leave. Per Hannah Beachler, it wasn't the only time it happened and sounds like he was still around in some capacity after the show given when she reported it was directed at her.

[garbon]

Mandelson also now arrested

[Sheilbh]

Mandelson also now arrested

Purely from the emails that have been released in the latest Epstein dump I think it was impossible to see him not getting arrested for this.

Worth noting, as I think this will leak into conspiracy theory (especially online and especially Americans where the rules are very different) that what the media can report now is very, very restricted. It's not full contempt of court reporting restrictions which kicks in after charging, but it is likely there will be a fair bit of radio silence on these stories now.

From their own reporting it doesn't sound like they asked him to leave. Per Hannah Beachler, it wasn't the only time it happened and sounds like he was still around in some capacity after the show given when she reported it was directed at her.

That's fair. I think it is so difficult. If he wasn't asked to leave then he probably chose to leave halfway through the ceremony where the biopic of his life was being awarded. To me that doesn't feel like he was prioritising himself - although I suppose you could almost see it the other way in that. I think he's said he's "deeply mortified" and you can almost see from the disability perspective that that is the experience of the disease and he left.

Totally agree on the people at the event although I slightly wonder the extent to which they did or should have warned people (particularly hosts) that there's someone with the type of Tourette's where they say taboo, obscene, socially unacceptable things as part of their tic. But then I don't know - I mean it doesn't feel right that you have to warn people there's someone with x disability in advance.

On the other hand the BBC excuse that they just didn't hear it because they were working in a truck is risible.

Edit: Incidentally on the by-election - not particularly keen on the Greens social media video in Urdu with pictures of David Lammy and Netanyah, plus Starmer and Modi. As I say I don't go all in on worrying about communitarianism, but all the big parties do this - there was a by-election where Labour ran leaflets about voting for politicians who are "really on your side" next to a picture of Johnson meeting Modi, the Tories are developing a track record of communitarian campaigns in constituencies targetting Hindu British Indians. Doesn't feel like this sort of thing will end anywhere good.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If I understand correctly, the UK has a type of arrest that we don't have in the U.S. In the U.S. to actually arrest someone, you need to have proven probable cause, either the arresting officer has to articulate he has established PC in the particulars of his encounter with a person or an officer needs to have already articulated such to a judge who has issued an arrest warrant.

Police here can detain you upon reasonable suspicion (an even lower evidentiary bar), for the purposes of an investigation, but that normally means a brief detention on the street or side of the road. They normally have to establish PC during that detention or cut you loose.

If I understand correctly this guy is more the American equivalent of an investigatory detention, except here you can't formally arrest someone for that purpose.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not a criminal lawyer but I think that's right - and you're not normally detained after arrest in the UK you're likely to be released on pre-charge bail (which isn't typically monetary but may have conditions).

I think what qualifies as arrest in the US is normally similar to charging here. That's basically when the police believe they have enough of a case (in consultation with the prosecutors). That's also when the really strict reporting restrictions kick in. So people can be de-arrested and re-arrested as well.

I suspect here they're arresting with a warrant - given that both have been accompanied with searches of properties. My understanding is that arrest is necessary here in certain circumstances to in effect give the accused a sort of warning - so if you've got a solicitor they may say to the police that they need to make an arrest to go down certain lines of questioning or investigation. They need to make it clear they're no long interviewing/investigating with a potential witness but with a suspect.

[Richard Hakluyt]

In general the police can only hold someone for 24 hours before they either charge you with a crime or release you.

https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody

The police would like longer of course 

They can also just ask you to turn up to answer some questions of course, a voluntary interview which I suspect one would be advised to attend.

[Valmy]

In general the police can only hold someone for 24 hours before they either charge you with a crime or release you.

This was my understanding of how it worked in the US as well. But it seems like they just sort of hold people forever now without charging them.

[Sheilbh]

In general the police can only hold someone for 24 hours before they either charge you with a crime or release you.

https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody

The police would like longer of course 

They can also just ask you to turn up to answer some questions of course, a voluntary interview which I suspect one would be advised to attend.

I think if you're arrested they can compel you to attend a police interview (obviously they can't make you answer - but unlike in the US silence/refusal to answer can be used against you in certain circumstances).

My understanding is that's why people may be arrested for a while so the police can make you come back for further questions.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There seems to be something called "police bail" from the link I posted :

"The police can release you on police bail if there's not enough evidence to charge you. You do not have to pay to be released on police bail, but you'll have to return to the station for further questioning when asked.

You can be released on conditional bail if the police charge you and think that you may:

commit another offence
fail to turn up at court
intimidate other witnesses
obstruct the course of justice
This means your freedom will be restricted in some way. For example, they can impose a curfew on you if your offence was committed at night."

[Sheilbh]

Ah okay thanks - I think that sounds like what I thought was called "pre-charge bail".

[OttoVonBismarck]

Does the arrest meaningfully worsen things for Keir? Or was this something that had been "priced in", since Mandelson had already been in the press so much for the Epstein connections.

[crazy canuck]

I'm just an outsider, but I've always seen the Lib Dems as rather fungible. 

So have the Lib Dems

[Sheilbh]

Does the arrest meaningfully worsen things for Keir? Or was this something that had been "priced in", since Mandelson had already been in the press so much for the Epstein connections.

It doesn't help.

It's probably not great two days before a by-election that Labour might win and should win (and would win if Starmer hadn't blocked Andy Burnham from running) - but could also lose to the Greens or Reform and could come third behind them both. It's probably an unhelpful reminder of this story just before that vote. I think that result probably matters a bit more than this story which was more expected.

It is now also likely to be in the news in a limited way because of reporting restrictions but also a fairly consistent way - if it goes to charging and trial - for months if not years. The other thing on Mandelson is that Parliament voted to force the government to release the vetting information about Mandelson (i.e. what Starmer was told when he made the appointment) and communications from ministers and political advisors with Mandelson. They also stripped the power of redacting those documents from the civil service and have given it to the (bicameral, very respectable) Intelligence Committee. There has been some reporting that part of the reason Starmer also changed his Cabinet Secretary and part of the in-fighting within the civil service at the moment is over quite how broadly they interpret that instruction from Parliament and quite how many documents get passed to the Intelligence Committee. There will now be an element of not prejudicing a possible trial but again I suspect that story will run.

After the by-election the moment everyone expects there to be a leadership challenge is probably after the May elections (Welsh Senedd, Scottish Parliament and local elections - which look very, very bad for Labour). But in part that's also why Starmer is safe, for now - no-one wants to replace him when they know there's a very tough set of elections coming (plus the complications of Labour's leadership process meaning you can't separate out bringing down Starmer from electing a replacement).

That last point is how I can see Starmer somehow actually getting to the next election as Labour leader. I think there's always a good reason to not do the bold thing - such as trying to force the leader out and replace him - it's often a very good reason. And that's how you end up with huge lists of "greatest Prime Ministers we never had" because some of this is actually just politics as action in time - when is the right time to move. We've seen this with Labour before under Gordon Brown when you had David Miliband almost challenge him and then not, or James Purnell and Pat Hewitt try to start a cabinet coup that petered out. There were always very good reasons to not do it - and that's why they're all has-beens.

For example, I personally think Wes Streeting, from the Labour right, may have lost his chance and the moment to go was last autumn (Angela Rayner, his main rival, had been forced to resign over tax issues and there was a big story about Number 10 briefing against him). Angela Rayner is holding out until she's acquitted over her tax issues. But by the time that's happened the latest crisis may have happened the party may be thinking that they're only 2 and a half years away from an election and is it too late to change leader (until the next crisis, when they'll look back regretfully at missed opportunities).

Also in fairness - or to give the real, I think, implausible steelman case for Starmer - the latest economic stats for the UK in January were all far better than predicted. There is a possibility that this is basically 1981 when a new breakaway party of the centre-left was splitting the Labour Party and often polling at over 50%. The Tories were behind the SDP and Labour in the polls. But the economy started to recover, inflation fell, Thatcher was able to position it as "staying the course" and passed significant legislation (such as right to buy) and her polling basically increased consistently to the next election. I don't think it's likely for many reasons but that is probably the sort of argument people around Starmer are making.

And while I don't think that's likely, I think it does get to the key question in British politics right now: are we going through the 1920s were a traditional established party is being replaced as one of the main parties (or, in this case, both the traditional established parties) or are we going through the 80s where there is a very effervescent, exciting challenge but that at the election the remorseless logic of first past the post disciplines the electorate into the two big parties again? I think your instinct on that probably leads to quite different strategies and I've no idea which is right (though I lean more 1980s - but not for the Starmer steelman case).

[mongers]

...snip....

Also in fairness - or to give the real, I think, implausible steelman case for Starmer - the latest economic stats for the UK in January were all far better than predicted. There is a possibility that this is basically 1981 when a new breakaway party of the centre-left was splitting the Labour Party and often polling at over 50%. The Tories were behind the SDP and Labour in the polls. But the economy started to recover, inflation fell, Thatcher was able to position it as "staying the course" and passed significant legislation (such as right to buy) and her polling basically increased consistently to the next election. I don't think it's likely for many reasons but that is probably the sort of argument people around Starmer are making.

...snip....

No mention of the Falklands War.