Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Maybe - but I think the opposite's also somewhat true in that, in the UK at least, politics has become far more presidential. So it's now quite common for the leaders who do well to poll ahead of their party. For example Cameron, Blair, Starmer and I think Johnson too all had personal approval that was stronger than their respective parties (I'd add this is one of a number of indicators Badenoch is doing well on - ones that in normal times often point to who will win the next election).

Also, France Although I think there is a French exception in that on all sorts of opinion polls the French tend to be outliers in how negative they are about literally everything

[Tonitrus]

Yeah, I know France was somewhat closer to our system, but also...France is just different. 

[Josquius]

]
We can't - I've said it before but my view is that the most important fact for Britain in the 21st century is that America speaks English. We didn't do a great firewall and develop a more national internet (which was probably a mistake). I think for what it's worth I think it's also how the UK ends up serving as quasi-dystopia for both left ("rainy fascist island"), right (whatever Vance is banging on about) or even centrists (here it's bits of and pieces of those two criticisms plus horror at NIMBYism) within American discourse.

And I think we need to be cautious of what we think this would "solve". The fourth biggest country in Western Europe is led by an explicitly post-fascist party (I know I bang on about it - but the FdI really genuinely have a fascist lineage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwZ70JGRio and the youth groups in that film are the same that Giorgia Meloni joined at the age of 15). From recent polls it now looks fairly plausible that we'll have President Bardella in France next year (in particular he is now leading in the polls on all potential run-offs).

It's interesting that Italy with its actual card carrying fascists manages to be less fascist than the US.

But my view was more on culturally closer countries in the north of Europe.
Obviously we can't replace the US with Sweden. But certainly we need to shift the dial a bit so it's not all 100% US and we can at least point to Denmark on a map.

[garbon]

I just read the BBC article doing vox pop of people in the Makerfield constituency. One person cited Henry Nowak as a reason to vote Restore Britain.

[mongers]

John Healey, the UK defence secretary resigns:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgqeg09p3p1t

Healey says he has 'no other option' but to resign
published at 12:23

He outlines areas he is proud of, including leading on support for Ukraine during its war with Russia, and establishing Britain as a leading voice in Nato.

However, he complains about funding for the long-awaited Defence Investment Plan. He says the DIP financial settlement - "which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week" - falls "well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time".

After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary."

The start of Healey's letter, saying he is writing with "great regret and reluctance"

John Healey has resigned as defence secretary in a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Here are some of the key lines - we'll have more soon:

"This new era for defence required further investment through the Defence Investment Plan. The excellent and extensive cross-government work that completed in January-overseen by you, me and the Chancellor - confirmed the scale of the challenge and the rising demands on defence.

"Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

"As I've outlined to you, there are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multi-nationally and as other European nations are doing, to allow us to protect our ability to deliver the missions of our Labour Government.

"You know what defence needs. You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February. Without a DIP (Defence Investment Plan) that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe."

Given the circumstances, the right thing to do.

[Sheilbh]

I just read the BBC article doing vox pop of people in the Makerfield constituency. One person cited Henry Nowak as a reason to vote Restore Britain.

Grim - but from everything I've read Restore are a factor in Makerfield. Basically what Farage has done to the Tories is now happening to him. Possibly worth noting that this already showed up before Nowak's murder - I think I posted about it before then. Also a bit weirdly I've see focus groups where people actually think Restore are more moderate than Farage in relation to Nowak - I think that's because Farage did his "pure, cold rage" statement and then did race-baiting attacks on Badenoch which Rupert Lowe condemned. Lowe is in no way more moderate than Farage - but he wasn't talking about rage or lying about Badenoch so may, weirdly, have become the more face of the more "respectable" right of the Tories party. Also the fact that the family explicitly said they didn't want the sort of thing Farage did has apparently come up quite a lot in focus groups.

FWIW (and apologies for the Twitter and Restore link but I can't find this clip anywhere else), I think this was quite a striking response from Farage to a question from Beth Rigby: https://x.com/RestoreBritain/status/2064726455515279499?s=20
He's not wrong - but also it does seem an odd/defensive response. I've said before that I think stuff's going on in Reform right now. But I think a big part of it is they're very happy dishing it out, they're very happy being the populist challengers - but they really struggle whn they're on the receiving end.

I'm also very worried with the unrest in Northern Ireland following the attempted beheading of a man there. The Times and several politicians have referred to it as a pogrom and I don't think there's another word for what we saw a couple of nights ago. There are also a few distinctively, specific Northern Irish characteristics that I think are troubling. This is the third summer in a row with anti-immigrant violence in Northern Ireland (and worth noting Northern Ireland, like Ireland, is far less diverse than England - immigration to Northern Ireland is, for obvious, reasons very recent - so we're talking very small communities here). This is, though, the first distinctively Northern Irish one - by which I mean 2024 was largely unionists and tied to the riots in Great Britain, 2025 was largely nationalist and tied to similar riots in the South (and there were nationalist contingents across the border participating in both). This summer is the first in response to a Northern Irish event.

Slightly related to the point about immigration being relatively recent to Northern Ireland for obvious reasons - migrant communities are often living in distinct existing ethnic/religious enclaves. So the attempted beheading was on a nationalist street (the man who fought the attacker off did so with his hurley). However, especially with recent immigrants who may be looking for cheaper homes (and definitely asylum seekers who are housed by G4S and Serco contractors in the cheapest properties) the specific streets they're on tend to be close to interface areas (that is areas where there are peace walls or peace gates where the unionist and nationalist communities meet). Typically during unrest in Northern Ireland the focus is very much on those interface areas - so there is unrest on a semi-regular basis and immigrants are likely to be in the cross fire pretty regularly. In this case though the interface areas have been okay. This is where it then gets particularly alarming. There are reports that loyalist and Republican groups have been meeting and coordinating even to the point of some saying they have "joined forces" in the last couple of nights. I think you slightly see that in Tuesday night being very focused on unionist areas of Belfast (despite the attack being in a nationalist area) while last night things were spreading to Derry.

As always with disorder a lot of it is just people having fun/getting their jollies from fighting the police and/or each other. But there's a particular layer to Northern Ireland - I've seen British journalists surprised at how young the boys in balaclavas clearly are (if you look at photos of the last couple of nights it is clear that these are teens). There is an element within the violence of LARPing or performing the traditions of violence and disorder from periods when that was more clearly directed by paramilitaries - you see this also in the line one journalist got from two locals in balaclavas who stopped a journalist, took their phone and scrolled through their photos to check that they'd not taken any that showed faces. They gave the phone back and told them "with no animosity, like" to "fuck away off before you get kneecapped". There are rituals and traditions to communal violence that are being re-played. And one particularly concerning trend I've seen is people calling for the paramilitaries to take charge because they wouldn't allow this type of disorder/pogrom (their disorder/pogroms were targeted). In the unionist areas where this happened, the UVF and UDA were the traditional dominant loyalist forces while in the nationalist area where the attack happened the INLA has sway (and worth noting the political wing of the INLA, the Irish Republican Socialist Party, has been using immigration to draw a contrast between itself and Sinn Fein).

Last night the PSNI started using water cannons and rubber bullets (Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where those are legal), as I mentioned it seems like this has spread from Belfast to other cities (total aside I was slightly astonished to see the Guardian refer to Derry as "Londonderry") and doesn't seem specific to one community. I've read that over 200 police are being sent from other forces to support the PSNI in case things kick off tonight. It might not. It might now be contained. But again in terms of differences with GB it has been raining quite heavily for the last two nights in Northern Ireland - that normally spells the end of any protests/riots in GB but there are different, embedded tradiions and patterns of communal violence in Northern Ireland that I think can and have been tapped into - which makes me suspect the 12th in a month's time will be potentially very, very difficult. Might be a tough weekend for the PSNI around those interface areas.

A comment I saw online which rings very true. Maybe there is something to this two tier policing thing afterall

If you say "I support Palestine Action", they might put you in jail.
    If you incite a racist riot, they put you on the news.

Just wanted to quickly come back to this because we've had the first sentences for people arrested in the Southampton disorder (which was very localised) and the first five have gone down for at least two years (so in practice at least one).

I know I slightly bang on about this and I'm not saying that we should have a three strikes law (which I think is bad). But I was struck that a couple of them are 21/22 year olds where this is their first ever brush with the law. But then with two of the others who are older - one has 25 previous convictions for 45 offences and another has 19 previous convictions for 33 offences "and on one occasion, he broke a partner's front teeth, punched her unconscious and when she woke up told her he had put bleach in her hair". Not sure the sentences for those two groups should necessarily be the same (which they are - I feel like judges maybe should be able to take more account of history?), but also those last two are, bluntly, bad people.

I don't know all their previous offences, but I sort of feel like a 30 year old with 19 convictions including beating his partner unconscious should still be in prison for that. At best I feel like he must have received a very light sentence for that crime.

[Sheilbh]

Given the circumstances, the right thing to do.

I agree and while it's a very polite letter as is the custom, I can't think of many more damning indictments from a Defence Secretary than these two paragraphs:

"Since then, you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.

[...]

"You know what defence needs. You made the argument for this powerfully in your speech at the Munich Security Conference back in February. Without a DIP (Defence Investment Plan) that meets the moment in this way, I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe."

The fundamental problem, despite how they perceive and present themselves, is that Reeves and Starmer are not serious people.

I totally agree with Healey's point that Starmer has done the oppoiste of speaking softly and carry a big stick. Starmer's made quite a lot of commitments on defence while not actually being willing to make the choice to provide the funding necessary to deliver on those commitments (far less face future ones). As Healey points out since the Strategic Defence Review (which Starmer accepted in full), Starmer has committed to a Franco-British led multi-lateral deployment to Hormuz (after the war ends), the UK has taken up the leadship of NATO's Arctic Sentry mission, the UK has committed (with France) to a post-war deployment to Ukraine. Starmer last week said "it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russi on NATO as soon as 2030". But no movement on defence spending - and the current row, to be clear, is just on what the MoD and Chiefs say is needed to meet current obligations. I'd add that in addition to all of those the fighter project with Japan and Italy is on the rocks because the government won't commit to the necessary funding (which would be particularly damaging diplomatically as this has been a huge diplomatic and political priority for Japan and Japanese-British relations).

To a degree I sympathise with the Treasury in that the MoD has a dreadful record on procurement - but there are common problems here and it runs through Number 10 and Number 11.

Again from Labour's own ministers: Streeting says Reeves has no plan for growth, Healey says the PM is unable and the Chancellor is unwilling to provide funding for the country's security needs, McFadden says the Labour MPs he interacts with are only interested in taxing some people to pay benefits to others, Jess Phillips says the PM only took an interest on some of her policies (which he endorsed last week) on child protection to protect his own position from the Mandelson scandal. To nick a phrase - weak.

I'd just add on the Mandelson affair that so far no messages from Morgan McSweeney have been released, it turns out that Keir Starmer (Mr Propriety as Angela Rayner put it) has enabled disappearing messages on his phone so there aren't many messages to share and while Darren Jones (PM's chief of staff) said he hadn't been messaging Mandelson and one week later a load of messages were released, Number 10 clarified that they interpret the requirement for cabinet minister to not mislead in a "broad" way.

Edit: Incidentally apparently Yvette Cooper also on resignation watch (striking as she's just spent two days with Healey and Australian ministers working on Aukus - another existing commitment we're not actually willing to fund).

Meanwhile the Treasury spokesperson decided to go on the attack "let's be clear on what John is asking for: cuts to schools and hospitals". That was, incidentally, the same point Starmer made at the meeting of the JEF. I've mentioned it before but it was about two years ago with the PM of Estonia also on stage while Starmer patiently explained that obviously Britain is committed to the security of our JEF allies, but couldn't increase spending on defence because the people wanted NHS waiting lists to come down. The Estonian PM behind him looking like he was chewing bees.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The toxic combination of being both boring and unserious 

It is no wonder that they are so disliked.

But then we have the inevitable question....who are the serious people with a shot of being in government?

[Sheilbh]

A second defence minister has resigned - now I think this is a bit more self-serving given that he has an eye on the leadership (insanely), ut similar points:

I have sat in the rooms, seen the assessments, and spoken to the commanders who will be asked to do more with less, and I cannot in good conscience stand at the dispatch box and defend a level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task. A serious country funds its defence to meet the threat it actually faces, not the threat it wishes it faced.

The same instinct, that serious problems can be managed rather than faced, runs through the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill. I have worked to fix the Bill from the inside, but it remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect. Men and women I served with, those I buried friends alongside, people who did their duty under conditions most individuals in Westminster will never have to imagine.

I set out the changes I believed were necessary, and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond. Those lines have not been accepted. I have run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.

[...]

The same failure of seriousness runs through how this country treats the people it asks the most of, in uniform and out of it.

[...]

The machinery of government itself has been left to decay. Decisions that should take  days, take months. Departments fight each other instead of the problem. Officials and ministers who know the truth are not always rewarded for telling it. We are trying to govern a more dangerous world with processes designed for a calmer one, and the gap is now showing in the things that matter most.

I'm not a huge fan but Wes Streeting spoke about this and mentioned Defence as an example. He basically said there's a lot of drift and part of the problem is that there is BAU conflict between departments (for many reasons). Starmer's approach is that cabinet minister should solve those conflicts and then come to him with a solution that he can sign off on. Which is why things run for months not days but also just not political leadership (again I think this is why I think he considers that he's doing a good job - because he thinks the job is administering a large organisation).

Edit: Actually a third - I hadn't seen that Pamela Nash, PPS in the MoD had resigned. I think that leaves Luke Pollard - who was advised by Healey to stay - for all serving defence ministers to have resigned on a point of principle.

[Josquius]

There are reports that loyalist and Republican groups have been meeting and coordinating even to the point of some saying they have "joined forces" in the last couple of nights. I think you slightly see that in Tuesday night being very focused on unionist areas of Belfast (despite the attack being in a nationalist area) while last night things were spreading to Derry.

Where did you hear this on the coordination? Sounds interestingly mad.
Seeing a lot of stuff around about it just being Loyalists, despite th origin in a Catholic area.

[Duque de Bragança]

Yeah, I know France was somewhat closer to our system, but also...France is just different. 

As in having a Prime Minister, possibly to share the impopularity. 

[Sheilbh]

The toxic combination of being both boring and unserious 

It is no wonder that they are so disliked.

But then we have the inevitable question....who are the serious people with a shot of being in government?

And I think not just a British problem but one across Europe of writing ever bigger cheques and stronger rhetorical commitments, without a commensurate increase in actual resources. I was very struck by this response from the Italian Defence Minister (also involved in GCAP):

Guido Crosetto
@GuidoCrosetto
I am very sorry, my friend, truly very sorry.

I completely understand your reflections and the reasons that led you to make this choice.

It is a choice that cannot leave any of us—your colleagues grappling with the very same challenges—indifferent.

I find myself in agreement with almost everything you have written, and the thoughts you have made public today have often been my own as well.

I have chosen to wait for less difficult times, hoping for a positive evolution of the current circumstances.

I do not know whether the path I have chosen is the right one to help foster greater awareness within the Government and the Nation, but the signals I have received lead me to believe that a more conscious understanding is emerging, and therefore that a positive development is possible.

Your words, however, leave a lasting impression.

I hope to see you soon so that we can talk about it.

Take care of yourself.

All the best, John.
Guido

I've seen a couple of defence reporters note that Crosetto is unusual in being open about this, but a lot of what Healey said in his resignation letter are frustrations and views sared by defence ministers across European NATO. I know I've mentioned it before and it is, on its own terms, very positive - but something like 90% of the European increased defence spending is Germany and Poland. For the rest of Europe in an era with higher interest rates and when inflation is back who are already facing fiscal constraints that require trade-offs and, so far, very few European governments are willing to make them.

In Italy right now - and Italy is far from alone in this - there is a big internal fight between their Defence Ministry and Finance Ministry over what the MoD considers necessary to meet Italy's commitments v an unwillingness to increase the debt. But I think his comments are extraordinary I can't think of a precedent of other European politicians sympathising with resignation matters like this which tend to be parochial - I think exactly because Healey's resignation is so clearly on a point of principle and one facing almost every European capital.

Semi-relatedly I saw some interesting polling that a strong majority of the British public think maintaining sanctions on Russia and supporting Ukraine are worth doing even if it means higher energy prices (and a majority of supporters of every party). That makes me think that the public can be open to trade-offs and choices - but it requires a political class willing to accept that they exist and willing to make the argument.

Where did you hear this on the coordination? Sounds interestingly mad.
Seeing a lot of stuff around about it just being Loyalists, despite th origin in a Catholic area.

The comment about them "joining forces" was in the Times. But on Tuesday night there joint protests at some of the interface areas - and I suspect if the big men of their respective movements wanted cover to have a quiet chat that'd be very helpful. In itself it was unprecedented that the start of unrest in Northern Ireland was with open interface areas and the communities involved in joint protests.

There's also been the men in balaclavas leaving Lenadoon and Ardoyne on the nights of protests - and fair to say they're not Loyalists even if they're off to join Loyalist pogroms. That was pointed out by Mairia Cahill who is a former SDLP councillor, forer Irish Senator and previously in Sinn Fein (and someone who has been alleged to have ties to dissident Republican groups).

My suspicion is "joining forces" is too strong but it does definitely seem like there's been some degree of coordination/communication between the radical/dissident fringes of Loyalism and Republicanism - which is fairly unprecedented. The slight caveate to that is that the boundaries between paramilitary movements and organised crime is very, very porous and I think there's defniitely been reports over the years of the organised crime side of Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries coordinating/cooperating.