Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Sharing a flat for your whole 20s is pretty normal all over the country I'd say. Not too many people who rent flats by themselves.
Not massively uncommon in your 30s even. Though by then it's been cut a lot by people buying and people in couples.

Yeah agreed. And I shared a flat into my 30s. I think her comment was she'd be doing for her thirties - all of them. Which is not great and at a certain point you don't want to deal with flatmates anymore.

[Sheilbh]

Johnson "wrote" a piece on Northern Ireland on the day he's visiting Stormont for the Belfast Telegraph. It covers a fair bit including abortion, legacy crimes and the protocol. Broadly I think the points this piece and this article are fair - there is no way in the world this was written by Johnson. He doesn't have this knowledge at all - there is no way Johnson's writing an article referring to the inter-twined strands of the Good Friday Agreement. I think it would have been better if Johnson had started with this approach but we are where we are.

I think this is the first time Johnson or his government have really formally set out their position as opposed to the private negotiations or briefings by various ministers/teams to journalists. It is certainly the most interesting - it is strikingly Dublin-friendly with the reference to the "no selfish interest" in Northern Ireland and the UK's role as a co-guarantor of peace. It does also hint at rather than openly acknowledge that Brexit in itself destabilised the identity and role of the nationalist community, but that's still more than we've seen before.

On legacy crimes it is very, very welcome to see the government drop their plan of some form of blanket amnesty. The proposal here sounds broadly like its in line with the Stormont House Agreement (brokered by the US) and is something like a truth and reconciliation approach, which is, in my view, the only way to address the issue. And frankly I think the government's proposals to mess around with legacy have been far more serious and damaging to the peace process than their position on the protocol - so I'm glad to see them finally formally step back from that (practially they'd already more or less given up).

From what I've seen online, money is that John Bew wrote it. He is a professor of history and foreign policy - he also advises Number 10 a bit through the policy unit largely on foreign policy, including Ukraine. He wrote the integrated defence review and, outside of government, wrote a really good popular biography of Clem Attlee. Perhaps more relevantly for this article he was born in Northern Ireland (liberal unionist background) and his father, now a cross-bench peer, is also a historian and was intimately involved in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement:

Stormont must be restored so politicians can deliver for the people of NI
Boris Johnson
May 15 2022 10:00 PM

I am visiting Northern Ireland on Monday at a time of considerable political change. The Assembly elections brought forth a new generation of voters and representatives who are confident and optimistic about the future.

The Northern Ireland of today does not see itself as a post-conflict society but one that is maturing into a story of sustained success. One in 10 of the population were not born here. Local people have thrown open their doors to those fleeing Ukraine.

A sizeable portion of the electorate were not even born in 1998. They are at ease with change, and at ease with each other.

The Northern Ireland of today is a place that has rediscovered the manufacturing verve that once made it the biggest shipyard in the world. Harland & Wolff is cutting steel again.

Belfast is host to some of the world's most innovative companies in biotechnology and the creative industries, and the No1 international investment location for US cyber security firms.

This means Northern Ireland contributes a huge amount to the rest of the UK.

When the pandemic hit, it was a Co Antrim diagnostic company, Randox, that was at the forefront of the UK's Covid testing regime.

On Monday, I will visit Thales, the high tech company which has played a vital role in the defence of Ukraine.

But there is more to be done to level up this place with the rest of the UK. If NI's productivity grew to match the UK average by 2030, its goods exports could be around double the level recorded in 2020. The Government will do its part with record investment, funding and the new City Deals.

But I know from my time as Mayor of London that there is no substitute for strong local leadership. I will tell party leaders that this progress will be stalled without a functioning Assembly and Executive.

RESTATING OUR COMMITMENTS

In a time of change, against the backdrop of European war and a cost of living crisis, I also want to use my visit to affirm some core principles about the UK Government's approach to Northern Ireland.

Thirty-two years ago, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a speech which many see as playing an important role in the initiation of the peace process.

Peter Brooke argued that Britain had "no selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland. Not no strategic or economic interest — but no selfish strategic or economic interest. It was a concept that became a pillar of the peace process — the basis of "rigorous impartiality" and "the principle of consent", from the Downing Street Declaration of 1993 to the Belfast Good Friday Agreement itself.

Times have changed, at home and overseas. But our commitment to these principles is as strong as ever.

Equally I want to be clear that this Government is not neutral on the Union.

Indeed I was heartened to hear that Sir Keir Starmer made clear in a recent interview here that the Labour Party under his leadership would campaign for the Union, should there ever be a border poll.

There should be nothing controversial or surprising about that. The Government's commitment to the Union is above politics.

It was proved — with no politics attached — during the pandemic, with one of the fastest vaccine roll-outs in the world. It was proved — with no politics attached — by the remarkable furlough scheme that kept so many businesses and families afloat.

It is partly because of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement that the benefits that accrue from being part of the fifth largest economy in the world need not be a source of controversy, or eternal debate in political life.

They just exist, like Samson and Goliath on the Belfast skyline. They are the structural facts of economic life here, welded even more tightly by the rapid evolution of a high-skilled and high-tech economy.

EMBRACING CHANGE

But nor is there some perfect constitutional clockwork version of how the Union should be. Northern Ireland has always been a place in its own right, in which governance has been contested, broken, re-imagined and carefully nurtured.

Those arrangements continue to evolve. And far better, I think, is the Northern Ireland of today in which people look any way they want (north-south, east-west, or both) — depending on their identity, and their family, and their economic interests.

In today's debates about Brexit and the Protocol, let us embrace that hybridity. Let us make it work.

We stand above all else for the 1998 Agreement. Its three strands. Its commitment to harmonious relations across all these islands.

We do so, first and foremost, as co-signatories and as co-guarantors. And as partners of the Irish Government.

And we do so, next, with a commitment to work with the democratically elected parties in Northern Ireland, whom I will see on Monday.

That means abiding by the rules that have previously been agreed, including those around the title of First Minister.

So I want to repeat my congratulations to Sinn Fein as the largest party. Respect for the rights and aspirations of all communities are an essential part of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement.

And I think it is testimony to the path that Sinn Fein have taken from 1998 that Michelle O'Neill is now awarded the position of First Minister. I have no doubt we will work together well.

But it is equally clear that the balance on which the Northern Ireland institutions have been built has not been fundamentally transformed by these elections.

The unionist and nationalist blocs are largely matched, as they have been at every election since 1998, with the unionist electorate remaining slightly larger. Unionist parties performed well in the recent election, affirming overwhelming support for power-sharing on the basis of consent.

The most significant development in recent years has been the growth of a third grouping in Northern Ireland, represented by the Alliance Party — to whom I also pay tribute. They are an important voice in the new Northern Ireland but also, let's be clear, a party which stuck to its principles in a darker and more difficult past.

Taken together, what the election results tell me is that the basis for successful power-sharing and stability is actually enhanced. Whichever way you cut it, there is a large majority for making Northern Ireland work.

And every single party and MLA has heard the same message from their constituents.

Focus on everyday issues. Schools. Hospitals. Cost of living.

So it is time for all of the local parties to get back to Stormont. Elect a Speaker. Create an Executive. Get back to work.

UNIQUE RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE GOVERNMENT

But the 1998 Agreement bestows other commitments on the British Government that go beyond its position as a co-guarantor.

One of those is to take difficult decisions: to assume a burden of responsibility, and indeed unpopularity, when consensus cannot be reached.

That is why we will deliver on three pre-existing commitments in the coming weeks.

We will take forward the Language and Culture Package agreed as part of the New Decade New Approach agreement, thereby addressing an issue that has prevented the formation of the Executive in the past.

We will intervene to ensure that women and girls have access to abortion services in Northern Ireland that are their legal right, following the failure of the Executive to deliver this.

And this week we will introduce into Parliament new measures to deal with the legacy of the past. These are different from those in our Command Paper last year. We have listened to many people in recent months and reflected on what we heard. Dealing with the past will still require difficult decisions but there will be no blanket amnesty. Immunity will only be available to those who co-operate and prosecutions could follow for those who do not.

ADDRESSING THE ISSUES WITH THE PROTOCOL

In the international agreement that sits alongside the Belfast Agreement, as the sovereign government of Northern Ireland the UK also assumes specific responsibilities that go beyond its role as co-guarantor.

To protect the "economic rights" of the people of Northern Ireland. And to ensure "just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities".

We must admit that those commitments have sometimes been difficult to navigate through Brexit.

We insisted throughout that there would be no scenario in which a hard border would be allowed to emerge. And we have delivered that 100%, as we said we would, protecting in full the rights that were enshrined in 1998.

We told the Irish Government that we would take special measures within the UK's internal economy to protect their place in the EU single market. And we have done that.

We committed to maintain the Common Travel Area and associated rights. It is another commitment that British Government has kept, even throughout the pandemic when so many restrictions were enforced.

SEEKING CHANGES TO THE PROTOCOL

It is because of these complexities that the Protocol exists. It is why the Protocol was agreed in good faith. And it is why those who want to scrap the Protocol, rather than seeking changes, are focusing on the wrong thing.

But there is no disguising the fact that the delicate balance created in 1998 has been upset. One part of the political community in Northern Ireland feels like its aspirations and identity are threatened by the working of the Protocol.

And the Protocol involves other responsibilities which also need to be lived up to by all sides, including the commitment to protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.

We cannot allow the impression that one strand is deemed more important than others; or that EU custom codes — designed for vast container ships coming from Shanghai to Rotterdam, not supermarket lorries from Liverpool to Belfast — somehow trump everything else.

We must remember that all parties to the Protocol made a commitment to be willing to revisit, adapt and change these arrangements over time — and to protect the internal market of the UK.

In the absence of change, the prior commitments made by the British Government — to protect all three strands of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, to protect economic rights and parity of esteem — are coming into sharper focus.

Every unionist representative campaigned against the Protocol, as currently constituted. More importantly, every party, across the divide, seeks mitigations and change. None support a zealous zero risk approach to its implementation.

None wants to see grace periods terminated, as the EU insist they must be in return for limited mitigations elsewhere. Some feel that their economic rights as members of the United Kingdom are threatened, which the 1998 Agreement is supposed to protect. The simple reason for this is that the East-West dimension — by far and away the principal artery in Northern Ireland's economic life — is taking too much of the strain.

Strand 3 of the Agreement, which promised the "harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of the relationship among the people of these islands", is not functioning as it must.

And Strands 1 and 2 — of equal importance and mutually dependent — are now being negatively impacted too.

Many things have changed since the Protocol was agreed. It was designed in the absence of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement and when it was unclear one would be agreed. It has not been adapted to reflect the realities of the TCA.

It was designed before a global pandemic and a European war which has created a cost of living crisis on a scale not seen for half a century.

For there even to be a question about the fast availability of medicines or medical testing in Northern Ireland (between two constituent parts of the same National Health Service) is incompatible with the post-Covid era.

For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say in his Spring Statement that people in Northern Ireland could not be granted the same benefits in terms of tax and VAT as those in the rest of the same country is a serious issue. It means that our ability to assist with post-Covid recovery and — moreover, the long-term economic development of Northern Ireland — is restricted.

We have been told by the EU that it is impossible to make the changes to the Protocol text to actually solve these problems in negotiations — because there is no mandate to do so.

We will always keep the door wide open to genuine dialogue. And we will continue to protect the single market — as it has been protected throughout the existence of the Protocol so far — and the open border with the Republic of Ireland which will always be of paramount importance.

There is without question a sensible landing spot in which everyone's interests are protected. Our shared objective must be to the create the broadest possible cross-community support for a reformed Protocol in 2024.

I hope the EU's position changes. If it does not, there will be a necessity to act. The Government has a responsibility to provide assurance that the consumers, citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland are protected in the long-term. We will set out a more detailed assessment and next steps to Parliament in the coming days, once I return from discussions with the local parties.

In doing our part, we expect all elected representatives to get back to work and deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Perhaps more important is that the DUP position is no longer that the Protocol must be scrapped but that the "outcome" matters: "We're in a negotiating process and people start from different points, but in the end it is the outcome that matters, that's what I'm focused on getting, and as soon as we get a solution that removes that Irish Sea border."

Though they did also say words don't matter - especially from Johnson who is (understandably) not popular among unionists. "Words don't cut it for me, I need action."

Again taken with Micheal Martin's comment that the likely solution has already been discussed by the UK and the EU, and Doug Beattie's line that everyone already knows what the landing zone is suggests to me that while there'll be turbulence and unhelpful briefing, it's largely about getting there. The overwhelming experience of the rest of Northern Irish history is that it'll be difficult and take a while - but there is, at last, a sense of what the UK is looking for and why.

Incidentally clear symbolism in Michell O'Neill, who will become First Minister, going to Dublin this morning to meet the Taoiseach before meeting the British PM this afternoon at Stormont. Her tweet of it referring to Martin as "An Taoioseach" ("the prime minister/leader") while I expect her tweet will refer to Johnson as "British Prime Minister". No doubt that was carefully choreographed by everyone and the sort of thing we're going to see a lot more of with a Sinn Fein First Minister.

[Syt]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but since there's "some" talk about planning in this thread, I thought I'd pose the question here.

One of the bits of the original Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (i.e. from the audio drama) was the speech of Lady Cynthia Fitzmilton to celebrate the beginning of construction of the bypass that would demolish Arthur's house.

Based on the discussions in this thread I feel not much has changed in tone and general disconnect on Lady Cynthia's side, and public reaction on the other?

[Sheilbh]

Except now there are no Lady Cynthias and the bypass wouldn't be built because there could be endangered bats nearby

On a separate but similar note - fully endorse this piece's idea

The big idea: should we abolish the Treasury?
This powerful institution is filled with brilliant people – but is it holding Britain back?
Stian Westlake
Mon 16 May 2022 12.30 BST

When we think of things that need fixing in the British state, it's natural to think of institutions that are struggling: from the government's powerlessness in the face of the rocketing cost of living, to the perennial crises of the NHS, to revelations of rule-breaking at No 10. But one powerful way to fix many of the UK's problems is the radical reform of one of our most effective institutions: Her Majesty's Treasury.

The Treasury is a remarkable organisation. It sits at the heart of the British state and employs the brightest young officials. Former Treasury staff occupy top roles in most other government departments, and provide half the current crop of permanent secretaries. Retired ministers, in moments of candour, will tell you that the Treasury is the one part of Whitehall that lives up to RA Butler's description of a "Rolls-Royce" civil service. It is also unusual, compared with other finance ministries around the world, in that it is three things at once: a budgetary ministry, controlling government expenditure; a financial ministry, responsible for public credit and taxation; and an economics ministry, with a brief to stimulate economic growth. In France, Germany, the US, Japan, Canada and Australia these roles are all, in differing ways, separated out. The Treasury is also central to the political news cycle. Its semi-annual "fiscal events" – budgets, statements and spending reviews – dominate the government's agenda for weeks at a time, and set the media agenda for days.

But this accumulation of power and talent comes at a high cost. It fundamentally shapes the mindset and incentives of the British state, changing incentives for the worse, no matter which party happens to be in charge.

The first problem it causes is what we might call "government by accountant". Britain's economic history is littered with businesses such as ICI and GEC that were taken over by bean-counters and financiers, leading to a short-term cash-focused mindset, underinvestment, decline and insolvency. The Treasury's remit to protect Britain's public credit and mind the purse strings breeds a similar myopia in the British state, as public investment is routinely diverted to meet short-term pressures. It helps explain why the NHS invests less in equipment and IT than any other European health system. It is why defence procurement, which inherently involves occasional, large expenditures, gets inefficiently dragged out over years to create smooth spending profiles. It is why the national tutoring programme was whittled down by 90% to the point of ineffectiveness. The story is still told of how in the 1980s, Treasury officials argued that the new M25 only needed to be two lanes wide.

This short-termist attitude combined with the political theatre of big fiscal events explains the Treasury's second problem: an addiction to policy wheezes, to be pulled like rabbits from the chancellor's hat on budget day to wow the media. Occasionally, these ill-considered surprises lead to public blow-ups, such as George Osborne's infamous "pasty tax" or Philip Hammond's war on White Van Man. But the real damage is more deeply seated. It makes policymaking more volatile and less consultative, so it is harder to make the kind of long-term partnerships necessary for effective industrial strategy, serious public service reform or devolution to cities and towns. And it disempowers other government departments, putting civil servants who are often experts in their field at the mercy of brilliant but inexperienced young Treasury officials.

All of this is underpinned by the Treasury's historic pessimism about the government's ability to improve the UK's economic growth. The accountant mindset and the focus on firefighting and in-year expenditure goes hand in hand with a house view that the UK's sluggish growth rate is a fact of nature, and the most the government can do is not make things worse. This is an understandable attitude for a budgetary or a finance ministry – all good accountants are mild pessimists – but not for a department responsible for the stewardship of the economy.

The first step to addressing these problems is to recognise that they are not the result of a failing institution or of lazy or incompetent officials. On the contrary, the Treasury is highly effective, staffed by extremely talented and committed officials. The root cause is the structure of the organisation, and the incentives and culture that it fosters. To fix it, we must unwind the unique accumulation of powers that makes the Treasury so unusual and so mighty. One way to do this would be by dividing it into three parts. Its budgetary function, the so-called "spending teams", would be beefed up with more subject-matter experts, and brought together into a department along the lines of the Office of Management and Budget in the US. This would be placed in the Cabinet Office, giving future prime ministers significantly more direct oversight and control of public services. (A side benefit would be to professionalise and reform the strange Renaissance court that is 10 Downing Street – something that feels especially urgent in the light of Partygate.)

The Treasury's economic role should be merged with the business department into a big new Department for Economic Growth, led by a deputy prime minister or first secretary of state, with a mission to address the UK's dismal rate of productivity growth over the past 15 years. (The department could also take responsibility for digital technology, which has sat awkwardly in the culture department since a 2018 land-grab by Matt Hancock.) And the Treasury's financial regulation, borrowing and tax functions should be housed in a useful, modest finance department, like that of Australia or France.

This plan is not entirely new. Indeed, it has been entertained by several of the most ambitious reformers of the UK government. Harold Wilson set up the Department of Economic Affairs to be a growth-oriented rival to the Treasury – but the experiment was brought down by an alcoholic secretary of state and a run on the pound. Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell considered it, but in the context of the Blair-Brown wars decided it was a bridge too far. I am told it was on Dominic Cummings's agenda before he resigned.

We should not pretend that the politics of making the change are easy: as Blair found, it is hard to get rid of an incumbent chancellor. And because the chancellorship is such a desirable office, it is a useful piece of patronage for a prime minister to be able to promise to an ally. But right now, the chancellor is unusually embattled, and it is not clear that the prime minister owes any single politician a big favour, or that his promises of patronage would be trusted in any case. Equally, if Keir Starmer wins the 2024 general election, he may welcome an opportunity to signal a radical break with the past, and to commit to reform and economic growth.

Whoever is in power, the next few years look like an unusually propitious opportunity to make this change, and to repurpose the talent and energy within the Treasury in Britain's long-term interests.

Stian Westlake is chief executive of the Royal Statistical Society. He is the co-author with Jonathan Haskel of Restarting the Future: How to Fix the Intangible Economy.
Further reading

From Third World to First:Singapore and the Asian Economic Boom by Lee Kuan Yew (Harper Business, £12)

Markets, State, and People: Economics for Public Policy by Diane Coyle (Princeton £32)

Inadequate Equilibria by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Machine Intelligence, £4.99)

Incidentally the point on investment in IT systems in the NHS rings true more broadly - there's a huge foucs in our politics on spending on the "front-lines" so any money on the NHS that isn't paying nurses or doctors is waste; same with the police and education. This means they all tend to be bureaucratic nightmares with really outdated administrative systems because spending on admin which would help those public services run better and deliver more to the public, has to be focused on front-line services not pencil pushers.

[Josquius]

Correction. The bypass would almost certainly be built.
A railway or something we actually need meanwhile? Nah

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally - it's far from the best reason to get rid of Johnson but I think with another PM, not provoking getting everyone fizzing with rage every day, there might be some attention paid to the numerous scandals/fuck-ups dropping in Scotland right now.

In part it's a huge issue that the UK-wide media do not report the SNP and Sturgeon as part of British politics and just don't pay enough attention. News at the UK level and in Scotland both ends up becoming parochial because of it. But the census which is now 50% over budget, had a four week extension and doesn't look like it'll be finished on time or have a high enough participation rate, which is just one example - there's also a big sexism scandal in Police Scotland with a policewoman in Scotland winning £1 million in compensation for her treatment (which is huge for an employment claim in the UK), plus the massive ferry procurement that's gone to pot and the auditors have discovered that no-one seems to have been keeping any records when the contract was awarded. With the ferry scandal the essential ferries to the Western Isles have had to be nationalised and are at the very end of their lives, their replacements are vastly over budget and over two years late (and missing documents about the award of a massive government tender is normally not a great sign).

Unless you actively look at the Scotland section none of these stories have really broken through into the UK press in that they should because they're all pretty big deals - and they also link to wider issues. I absolutely that the loathing of Johnson in Scotland is incredibly high, but I really hope that post-him there might be at least some time for Britain's other 15 years old government that's looking pretty ineffective and more than a bit sleazy.

Also I swear this has got worse because I definitely remember coverage in the UK media of something far more minor like Henry McLeish's Officegate scandal that forced him to resign ("a muddle, not a fiddle" proving not a good enough defence ). But it feels in recent years that Scotland sort of gets covered like it's another country - which is incredibly helpful for the SNP - like if we all had a vague interest in Belgium or something.

Edit: Incidentally on the optics of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland - after the An Taoiseach/British Prime Minister point - this image of Johnson with Sinn Fein in Stormont is fascinating. The person he is meeting with is Mary Lou MacDonald, President of Sinn Fein who sits in the Dail and is an all-Ireland leader. Michelle O'Neill, who is the Vice President of Sinn Fein and future First Minister of Northern Ireland is on the aides' sofa:


The weirdness of a party that's going to lead a sort of country that it doesn't acknowledge exists is going to keep popping up like this.

[Tamas]

It truly is shocking, but Simon Jenkins is right, for once:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/16/boris-johnson-brexit-mess-northern-ireland-dup

Boris Johnson created this Brexit mess in Northern Ireland – and he should own it

The prime minister lacks the authority to fix the problems his protocol has caused. Meanwhile, Northern Ireland suffers

Two of Boris Johnson's most reckless chickens are coming home to roost. To get hard Brexit into law and topple his predecessor, Theresa May, he told Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist party that he would allow no border in the Irish Sea. He promptly allowed one, and signed a protocol to the Brexit deal to that effect. An enraged DUP is duly refusing to let the new Northern Irish executive take office until that border goes. Johnson is now threatening to unilaterally renege on the protocol, in turn enraging the EU by flagrantly breaching the withdrawal deal. Precisely this trap was built into hard Brexit from day one. Everyone knew it. It was classic Johnson. He lied his way out of each scrape, sacking or ennobling colleagues according to taste.

EDIT: except of course that he sees the regular EU custom rules in effect due to Brexit as some Johnson-punishing punishments installed by the EU. It is rather incredible how much the view of the EU has been distorted by decades of right-wing propaganda.

[Josquius]

The trouble with the northern Ireland situation is so many people are just incapable of understanding it. They think it's just the EU being awkward. Nobody has a clue about the Irish situation at all.


Read today referencing yougov...

Starmer is right to pledge to resign if issued with a fine for breaking lockdown rules': Tory voters agree 53% to 29% while Labour voters agree 79% to 10%. 'Johnston should resign if issued with further fines': Tory voters *disagree* 70% to 21% & Labour voters *agree* 91% to 4%.

:BLEEDING:

[Tamas]

The trouble with the northern Ireland situation is so many people are just incapable of understanding it. They think it's just the EU being awkward. Nobody has a clue about the Irish situation at all.


Read today referencing yougov...

Starmer is right to pledge to resign if issued with a fine for breaking lockdown rules': Tory voters agree 53% to 29% while Labour voters agree 79% to 10%. 'Johnston should resign if issued with further fines': Tory voters *disagree* 70% to 21% & Labour voters *agree* 91% to 4%.

:BLEEDING:

In other words, the problem with dedicated Tory voters is the same as with the rest of the right nowadays everywhere: for them this is a tribal battle to be won. Fate of the country we share is of secondary importance to defeating the other tribe within it.

[Sheilbh]

In other words, the problem with dedicated Tory voters is the same as with the rest of the right nowadays everywhere: for them this is a tribal battle to be won. Fate of the country we share is of secondary importance to defeating the other tribe within it.

Politics has always been tribal especially. I mean I'm tribally anti-Tory - I can't imagine the set of circumstances when I wouldn't prioritise beating them over almost everything else because I think they're bad for the country

Also I'd be interested to see when that polling was done and whether it happened after Starmer's pledge to resign, because that changes things.

This was the YouGov poll before he said that - and the thing that's really striking is that Tory voters are better able to see the issue with Starmer resigning over a fine than Tory papers or MPs did. So fewer Tory voters wanted Starmer to resign than Labour voters

The thing that's striking is that while voters for both parties have clearly decided what their partisan preference is, they're applying it to both leaders:


For what it's worth there's no sign in the wider polling that beergate has had any impact on Starmer's numbers and people are clearly (and rightly) drawing a distinction between it and Number 10 - if anything it's possibly slightly boosted Starmer (again the voters were smarter than the right-wing hacks and MPs):

It truly is shocking, but Simon Jenkins is right, for once:

He's still wrong It is - which is a theme in the British papers - an incredibly London-centric of Northern Ireland. It's very imperial - none of the political movements or parties in Northern Ireland seem to have any agency in that article. They're just distorted shadows of British politics. Which is patronising and untrue.

I mean this paragraph would undermine the entire basis of the Good Friday Agreement. And I'd love to see the response of Sinn Fein at the idea that we should try direct rule from London with a role for them in a "ghost executive"

Johnson has to demand that Donaldson return to Stormont or that Northern Ireland must be ruled without him. Until power-sharing returns, with first minister designate Michelle O'Neill in post, London must find a mechanism for re-establishing the executive, with a role for O'Neill. This might involve some sort of "ghost" executive under the formal aegis of the Northern Ireland secretary. The reality is that democracy in Northern Ireland is starting to change, and in a welcome and more open direction. London has ruled its Irish territory abominably for over a century. It owes it help towards a new dawn.

And Johnon has said that to Donaldson. Generally speaking unionists don't trust or like Westminster and they particularly don't trust or like Johnson. Sir Simon may not like it but the chances of unionists responding favourably to a "demand" from Johnson are pretty slim.

Also on a purely factual point there was a Northern Irish Parliament and Prime Minister from 1922 to 1973. That was an abominable administration but it was not rule by London. In fits and starts there has been a an Assembly and Northern Irish Executive since 1998. It's been a mixed bag but, again, it has not been rule by London.

The next paragraph is similar:

The short-term question remains whether Johnson can say anything to the unionists sufficient to entice them back. For most in Northern Ireland, the border is not the chief political issue. It has been replaced by the cost of living and the state of the health service. By the same token, it is clearly worth attempting yet again to plead with Brussels' better nature to find some partial compromise on the border question. The present controls are indefensible.

It is true but irrelevant and incomplete to say "for most" the border is not the chief political issue. Northern Ireland does not and cannot function on a majoritarian basis.

So while it's true the border wasn't the chief issue for the 40% nationalist vote and 20% non-sectarian vote, but it's also true that every unionist party campagined against it and the unionist vote has radicalised (the DUP and UUP lost voters, TUV won them). Similarly, nationalists actually lost more seats than unionists.

And while Sinn Fein focused on bread and butter issues in the campaign, immediately after the votes were counted they said they now have a mandate for a border poll (they don't under the terms of the GFA). It may not have been the chief political issue during the campaign but it is their entire reason for existing as a political movement. Same for unionists, it's uncomfortable becaus eit's an entirely different model of politics to the rest of the UK (and most of the rest of Europe/the world).

As ever in Northern Ireland a simple narrative as we have in British politics doesn't work - it always needs a qualification or a paradox. A London commentator may want to smooth it into "normal" politics focused on the cost of living or the health service or other issues, but the reality is that the core is still identity politics. It was both a historic breakthrough and stalemate on existing divisions.

Even the success of the non-sectarian parties is historic but also a re-inscription of existing patterns. Another way of breaking down Northern Irish politics would be the hard-line tribalists (Sinn Fein, DUP, TUV) v moderates (SDLP, UUP, Alliance, Greens). The proportion of tribalists to moderates is still basically 60-65% tribalist v 35-40% moderates, as it has been since the 2007 election - it's just the moderates had a bit of a re-shuffle with the UUP, SDLP and Greens losing votes and Alliance gaining them.

Edit: Totally unrelated but absolutely love that John Prescott re-tweeted the 21 years since he punched a voter on the day Labour launched their manifesto for the 2001 election
https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1526093840247050241?s=20&t=W6zMVnpvw0w3O8alnBGryw

[celedhring]

Things that need to die: calling nearly every political scandal "xxxxgate".

[Sheilbh]

Things that need to die: calling nearly every political scandal "xxxxgate".

Yes - I couldn't agree more.

When Andrew Mitchell calling a policeman a "fucking pleb" at the gate to Downing Street when he tried to get past without showing his pass, I think we all failed in allowing that to be "plebgate" not "gategate"

[Richard Hakluyt]

GateyMcgategate...

....after that happens we can call it quits.

[Josquius]

Politics has always been tribal especially. I mean I'm tribally anti-Tory - I can't imagine the set of circumstances when I wouldn't prioritise beating them over almost everything else because I think they're bad for the country

Me too. But I think that's a bit different. Support my one team no matter what vs. My options are open just not those fucking guys and for good reason.

Things that need to die: calling nearly every political scandal "xxxxgate".

Waterbeer it is.

[Sheilbh]

Me too. But I think that's a bit different. Support my one team no matter what vs. My options are open just not those fucking guys and for good reason.

Maybe for you - I'm less convinced there's any difference between my type of partisan tribalism and someone else's. Mine is more negative (anti-Tory) than positive, but that's about it - and I'm not generally open minded about who I vote for. I'll vote for who can win in my seat. Living where I do now that means anyone because Labour get 70% of the vote but in a marginal I'd vote for whoever would beat the Tories

And I'm not sure I've found the limit to that. With the 25th anniversary of 1997 there's lots of content and lots of lefties doing retrospectives on New Labour often along the lines of how they were never fooled, while I just look back to 13 years of non-Conservative government and the first Tory leader to not become PM and think it was a good thing, even if I disagree with bits of it