Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Separately on seizing Russian ships (which the UK has done once I think) but other European countries been more active. Another example of the say-do gap in British politics (particularly on defence) as Starmer has said we will "go after" these tankers and John Healey has been very robust too.

It turns out it is the true tri-fecta of the modern British state

There's basically been three lines of reporting on this about why we're so passive - and Putin's shadow fleet is regularly going through British waters. The first and biggest issue is that we don't have the ships in the Royal Navy to do it (or they're all under maintenance). The second was that even when we do have ships in the area that are able to do it the Attorney General has taken a very strict approach on international law and is requiring sign off "at the highest level" on a case-by-case basis - apparently there have been cases that by the time that assessment is done the Russian ships have gone.

Then in the Times yesterday the third strand, is that there's a big spending row over it in Whitehall. Basically seizing a ship means you need to berth it somewhere which costs money as well as providing maintenance and security. The MoD don't want to pay for it and the Department of Transport are also refusing to pay for it - the Treasury won't provide additional or separate funding for it. Apparently Department of Transport civil servants have been pointing to Ireland which seized a Panamanian registered ship carrying 2.2 tonnes of cocaine - and maintaining, securing and berthing that vessel has cost the Irish state more than £10 million.

So there we have it - no state capacity, wildly legalist self-imposed constraints and no-one's willing to pay for it

(I'd add on the payment from £10 million is literally a rounding error for government budgets - but also that they're using that Irish example feels like a really bad one to make. Or does the UK government just not try to stop any unlawful contraband/smuggling because it might incur a cost? )

[Valmy]

For some reason this comes to mind:

Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

[mongers]

I'm kinda hoping Starmer survives all of this, just to see if consequently Shelf's head explodes. 

[Sheilbh]

I'm fuming that after fourteen years Labour win - get a huge majority and are pissing it up the wall.

Sadly I can fully see a route to Starmer surviving until the next election and the punishment voters would (rightly) give them.

[HVC]

It's your karmic punishment for flirting with the greens. I hope you're happy, the uk is suffering for you follies

[Sheilbh]

It's your karmic punishment for flirting with the greens. I hope you're happy, the uk is suffering for you follies

I'll still be voting Green despite all the issues. Labour need punishing.

I flirted with Your Party (Showing my customary unerring political nous )

[HVC]

It's your karmic punishment for flirting with the greens. I hope you're happy, the uk is suffering for you follies

I'll still be voting Green despite all the issues. Labour need punishing.

I flirted with Your Party (Showing my customary unerring political nous )

Stop making me question universal suffrage . It's disquieting

[garbon]

I just saw the Conservative ad. I feel motion sick as they kept doing some swooshing motion from Kemi to her cabinet members.

[Valmy]

It's your karmic punishment for flirting with the greens. I hope you're happy, the uk is suffering for you follies

The Greens emerging is the only thing that will remind Labour who their constituency is.

Might be too late though.

[Sheilbh]

Labour's challenge is that it's both. It's losing basically the same share of votes to Reform as the Greens (and in fairness there's a fair bit of evidence of Reform-Green swing voters too):


There was a bit YouGov MRP in London (using StatsforLefties to present this because the YouGov graphic is not good):


It's very close in London so there's a huge range from very small swings (Labour from 7 to 18 boroughs, Tories from 3 to 8, Greens from 3 to 8, Reform from 1 to 5).

So when you say this is Labour's constituency - it's part of it. But so is Sunderland which looks like it mightgo to Reform. The problem for Labour really is all of it. If, as looks likely, they lose Scotland to the SNP and Reform, Wales to Plaid and Reform, the Red Wall to Reform and London, graduate heavy diverse cities and areas with a large Muslim community to Greens then I'm genuinely not sure what Labour's constituency is.

But you may well be right. My borough is currently on track to go Green - the last time Labour lost it was in 1968 when the Tories gained 19 boroughs and Labour lost 17. It's an interesting moment in London politics because that election basically kick starts the rise of the new left in London Labour politics - so Ken Livingston, Jermy Corbyn, Bernie Grant other figures on the Labour left (and specifically London Labour politics) start their career in the afermath of that election as they build more radical, grass-roots movements locally. Perhaps something similar happens - or all of that energy has already just moved across to the Greens.

As an aside quite interesting to see Andy Burnham (the country's most popular politician) campaigning in London today - out and about in Lambeth, Haringey and Islington In part a sign of where Labour are in trouble but also who will be welcomed on the campaign trail.

[Sheilbh]

The Mandelson story continues to develop with former head of the FCDO giving evidence this morning followed by Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's key aide, who recommended Mandelson as ambassador and was (reportedly) putting pressure on the FCDO to "just fucking approve him".

Later the Speaker will allow a vote on referring Starmer to the Privileges Committee to determine if he mislead the House. This was the Committee that Johnson was referred to. The test for the Speaker is that he should block "frivolous" motions but otherwise it's a very low bar. It is a Tory motion that the government was arguing against for a variety of reasons - that the Tory line keeps changing, that it's pointless and that it's party political etc. Some of which are true - but the nature of politics will be political. Starmer addressed the Parliamentary Labour Party last night on this. But the government will be imposing a three line whip to oppose the motion - to me that suggests the gentle persuasive approach has failed, but I could be reading that wrong. Number 10 are apparently confident there won't be a major revolt and they will be able to kill the motion - flipside is if you're having to impose a three-line whip to get there... Also to the party political point I think this is win-win for the Tories. Either Starmer gets referred (arguably the really attractive thing about this is actually that the Committee takes a few months to report so Labour get locked with very damaged goods waiting for it) or Labour impose a three line whip defending a historically unpopular PM for misleading parliament (which I think on a plain reading of the English language he did) over appointing a mate of Epstein over FCDO concerns.

The other strand is what comes next and there's been reporting that basically Labour MPs are coming to the view that they need to get Burnham into the race. They have noticed that it would be insane for the Labour Party in its current state to decide to turn up its nose at the most popular politician in the country. Story over the weekend of Labour MPs being particularly struck by polling but also focus groups with people saying things about Burnham like "he cares about people like me". That's gold and rare in politics - and contrasted by one MP with their experiencing canvassing in these local elections, when they were chased down the street by a woman

There are still procedural obstacles - Burnham is not an MP, he would need to be approved by the National Executive Committee which Starmer controls. My own view is that rules and procedures don't really matter when there's political will and I think if the will of the Labour Party is to get Burnham onto the ballot a way will be found. On that note one Liverpool MP has said he might step aside to allow Burnham back into the Commons.

But we are very much at the Downfall stage of things with the Times reporting that Starmer is determined to block Andy Burnham coming to Westminster "at any cost".

Again what is striking in it all for a man who I think cast himself as its antithesis (and I think genuinely sees himself in that way) is all the echoes with Boris Johnson. Misleading parliament, privileges committees, three line whips against the Commons' disciplinary proceedings, the "burn a village to save a village" attitude to the party/office. It'll be after the local elections but I think it'll end in a similar way with, in Johnson's phrase, the "herd moving" - as whether they've got the successor lined up or not, whether they can see a good alternative or not this is unsustainable. I could see a route to Starmer clinging on with the Labour Party like that Dr Evil henchman watching a slow moving steam roller approach (the Gordon Brown model) - but the three line whips, blocking Burnham "at any cost" all those signs of Starmer entering his Caligula phase of holding power will provoke action.

[Norgy]

How the hell do you lose such a big lead?  Oh. Yeah. Starmer and Mandelson.

But I suppose, Labour in Britain is different than Norway's Labour party, which still heavily relies on the trade unions.

In my local council, Labour held power from 1923 until 2019. They were still the biggest party, by far, but since Norway uses proportional representation, an unlikely coalition managed to get the mayoral seat.

Is it "winner takes all" in local elections too in the UK?

[garbon]

It is a Tory motion that the government was arguing against for a variety of reasons - that the Tory line keeps changing, that it's pointless and that it's party political etc. Some of which are true - but the nature of politics will be political.

Omg, I was just saying that this morning as like what, of course politicians will do something political. Maybe you should too?

[Sheilbh]

Labour are still attached to and funded by the unions. The majority of party funding and resources is still from the big unions. Mick Lynch former leader of the RMT (who disaffiliated with Labour about 20 years ago) was saying he won't vote Green because he still believes in the need for a labour movement with an industrial wing and a political wing. He's very open to working with or coalitions with Greens or other socialist movements but thinks you need the labour base. Also slightly loved that he framed this as being because he's "more Martov than Lenin"

Ironically historically the unions tended to keep the left out in Labour. Even in 2015 - of the electoral college (MPs, unions and party members each getting a third of the vote for leader) was still in place Andy Burnham would have beat Corbyn with union backing That is changing particularly on the union front a lot of unions are starting to elect industrial rather than political general secretaries and there's more talk of the unions breaking the link with Labour and focusing more on industrial and workplace disputes v internal fights in the Labour Party. This happened in my union - the last contested election was basically between a pro and anti Corbyn candidate, but then won by an underdog who was absolutely on the left but ran as an industrial, workplace focused candidate.

Councils are FPTP (Scottish Parliament and Senedd more like German system) - but also multi-member. So you can get splits. I think my ward has 2-3 councillors.

Directly elected mayoralties, the Tories moved to FPTP but are traditionally AV (and should go back to that).

Also on how it happened I think BBoy was right and I was (mostly) wrong about Labour's incredibly low vote share in 2024. It was a punishment election were voters who are sophisticated in relation to electoral systems maximised the votes to kick out Tory MPs but were never sold on Labour and, I think, particularly Starmer.

[Sheilbh]

Omg, I was just saying that this morning as like what, of course politicians will do something political. Maybe you should too?

And the most risible line I've heard is that in a time of international crisis with the Iran War it would be irresponsible to deprive the world of Sir Keir Starmer's sage leadership.

Another echo with Johnson though and Ukraine happening at the peak of danger for him - and interestingly both of them basically getting that issue right.