Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

What were those "big" welfare payments in the US? A 1200 USD cheque?

[Josquius]

Completely unrelated to anyrhing in the news. Somewhat brexit related, also a opportunity to bash thatcher...
But I haven't seen any articles addressing the looming super tradesman shortage.
There's been a shortage of trades for years of course. Since way back into the 20th century. But this is set to become even worse soon as the last people to have gone through the old apprenticeship system approach retirement age. It's only i years old the 90s that much began done to close this gap (and not reaching that far) which leaves a big looming shortage. Especially over the 10-20 years when the people who should be towards the end of their career just won't exist.
Its coming at just the right time with brexit too...

[Sheilbh]

There's been rumours about this for a while - though I can't imagine anything worse than a conference of centrists listening to Elon Musk and Emmanuel Macron for guidance

I feel like it isn't going to be a party for Blair, especially as Blair has now done an election campaign ad for Starmer and is, it seems, broadly happy with the direction Labour's in. But I think a lot of these other figures like Stewart and Gauke are possibly looking for a way back in and this may be a launchpad for some new party movement.

It seems to me that the answer to British politics was never a new centrist, technocratic party (and Change UK tested that to destruction), just a sane, electable Labour Party. But it also feels like for some people a new technocratic centrist party is the answer to everything.

Still it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it - as ever with this sort of thing Blair is just wildly more impressive than anyone else here. I mean who, in British politics, is yearning for an update from David Miliband?

Tony Blair's new centrist project — just don't call it a party
By Eleni Courea
May 27, 2022 4:00 am

LONDON — Tony Blair is organizing a conference in late June alongside a new group dubbed the British version of Emmanuel Macron's La République En Marche.

The Future of Britain conference, set to take place on June 30 and hosted by former BBC broadcasters Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis, according to several people involved in its planning. It is intended to discuss progressive solutions to the biggest issues facing Britain including the economy, technology and climate change.

Blair will be its keynote speaker. Others on the program include the U.S. economist Larry Summers, financial journalist Martin Lewis and former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson.

Organizers have set their sights higher yet with a bid to involve French President Macron, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions. One person said organizers were "desperate to get him on the program somehow." There was also a bid to involve David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, to talk about Britain's place in the world.

The event is being organized by the Tony Blair Institute and the Britain Project — a cross between a think tank and a campaign group. A youth engagement movement called My Life My Say is also involved.

While some see potential for the loose coalition behind the conference to form a new political party, those involved are split about how best to achieve their shared objective to win power from the center of British politics.

'Embryonic new center party'

The Britain Project, a new group said to take its inspiration from Macron's LREM, is holding fortnightly meetings to organize the conference and discuss wider plans.

Its advisory board members include former Tory Cabinet ministers Rory Stewart and David Gauke, both of whom were kicked out of the party by Boris Johnson over Brexit. Ex-Labour MPs Angela Smith and Luciana Berger, former Times columnist Phil Collins and broadcaster Trevor Phillips are also on the board.

The group was originally formed a few months after the 2019 general election by its now director Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrat candidate vying to unseat Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab. Former Sunday Times journalist Cherry Norton is co-director.

For some of those directly involved, the group is sowing the seeds for a new party. For others it is a think tank on a mission to give intellectual heft to centrist principles, and perhaps furnish Keir Starmer's Labour with the policy program it needs to win.

"There are people who think that this is the embryonic new center party, but nobody wants to say it — because they'll be the person who gets struck down," one person close to the discussions said. "There's a bit of that Julius Caesar thing of 'no, please don't give me the crown' going on."

The group talked about a proposal to approach Tesla founder Elon Musk for funding, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. The group is in the process of fundraising to support its activities, which include holding events and commissioning polling.

The half a dozen individuals who spoke to POLITICO made clear that the Britain Project was definitely not a new party — but none would entirely rule out it becoming one in future. Most cited the enormous barrier presented to insurgent parties by the first-past-the-post voting system, and pointed to the experience of the breakaway Independent Group of MPs in 2019, non of whom were re-elected.

"Keir's leadership totally and utterly kills off talk of a new party — at least for the time being. Among the people who are running this — which it goes up to and including Tony Blair — there's no sense of that at all. This thing is closer to a dreary think tank," one of those involved said. "It is designed in a way to be a program, a set of ideas, for whoever wants it."

The same person added: "You do have to concede that the Labour right and the Tory left have been deficient intellectually for quite a long time. The only ideas in British politics, like it or not, have come from the Tory right and the Labour left. They have been more intellectually interesting, in a way, than the center."

Another person involved said: "It's not a political party, but it potentially could be a movement that puts pressure on existing parties to move in the right direction. Otherwise, there is a risk that our politics becomes, on the one hand, the populist and nationalist Conservative Party, and then a Labour party that is perhaps fighting over the same voters."

There are similarities between the nature of the Britain Project and the origins of Macron's LREM, which started out by holding a form of citizen's assembly involving in-depth interviews with 25,000 people in France and formed a think tank before becoming a party. Like LREM, the Britain Project prides itself in being open to people of all political affiliations.

Most of those involved speak warmly of the project and are hopeful that it will craft a compelling set of ideas to grapple with challenges like the economy, health and climate change. But internal splits have already emerged about the group's purpose and direction. Some suspect other participants of trying to use it as a vehicle for their personal ambitions and there are some frustrations that the project is becoming misguided and lacking in substance.

"Some of it is just monstrously ego driven," one of those close to the discussions said. "There is no sense that there is even any desire to tackle all these major problems — the economy, technology, climate and so forth."

They added: "It is a smugfest that will invite utter ridicule. The worst thing in practical politics is to be laughed at — it will just be the stuff of comedy."

Not so fast

Blair has been closely involved with the project and mentioned it in a keynote speech he gave in January, when he said the planned conference would seek to "set out a broad direction for the future of Britain."

A spokesperson for the Tony Blair Institute said: "The event planned for 30 June was flagged in Tony Blair's speech in January on the Future of Britain, when he said: 'There is a gaping hole in the governing of Britain where new ideas should be ... Above all, we need to make our economy highly competitive, attract world class talent, and make our independence from the EU a platform for economic growth. But it needs a plan, into which hard work and thought has gone. Policy detail. Strategic analysis. At present, there isn't one.'"

The spokesperson added: "The event has nothing to do with creating a new political party. It's an ideas conference."

Notable in his absence from any of the discussions is Peter Mandelson, the architect of the New Labour movement, who remains close to Blair. An insider says he is focused on getting Labour into government.

Those around Blair say he has absolutely no appetite to lead a new party and does not see the Britain Project as the main vehicle for his work. Earlier this month he gave his explicit backing to Starmer in a party political broadcast ahead of the local elections.

A former member of Blair's team who remains close to him said: "Tony is impressed by Keir. He thinks he's good, he thinks he can and will be prime minister. So that's quite a commendation."

The same person added: "His reservation is that he would want Keir to go harder and quicker, and push the party back towards the political center faster. But the limitation on that is not really, in Tony's estimation, a deficiency of Keir's; it's that the Labour Party is much more resistant to moving in that way than it was when he was leader."

Meanwhile senior Labour figures now believe there is a strong likelihood of them emerging as the largest party at the next general election without winning an outright majority. Some shadow cabinet ministers believe that, in that scenario, they should govern for a period with support from smaller center-left parties on a vote-by-vote basis.

A Labour official said there were no discussions with smaller parties at present.

If Labour lost the election, senior advisers to Starmer have discussed a proposal for him to stay on for a transitional period of six to twelve months to give ample time for the election of his successor.

Blair's former team member said: "It's much harder for Keir than it was for Tony. Because by the time Tony became leader, not only had the Tories collapsed, but the Labour party was really hungry to be the government, really suddenly quite pissed off with losing all the time. And the Labour party is almost in that position now — but not quite. It doesn't quite have that real, desperate hunger."

[The Larch]

But it also feels like for some people a new technocratic centrist party is the answer to everything.

So true! 

[garbon]

Wtf?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/27/boris-johnson-changes-ministerial-code-to-remove-need-to-resign-over-breaches

Boris Johnson changes ministerial code to remove need to resign over breaches

Boris Johnson is changing the rules to let ministers avoid resigning if they break the ministerial code, allowing them to apologise or temporarily lose their pay instead.

The prime minister, who is facing claims of breaching the code, published a policy statement on Friday saying it is "disproportionate to expect that any breach, however minor, should lead automatically to resignation or dismissal".

A new version of the ministerial code has been published, suggesting that in future ministers are likely to face making a "public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period" if they retain the confidence of the prime minister.

One of the reasons for changing the rules is to "avoid incentives for trivial or vexatious complaints, which may be made for partisan reasons", it says after a slew of complaints about ministers' conduct from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The change comes as Johnson faces his own investigation by the privileges committee into whether he misled parliament by claiming there were no parties in No 10 during lockdown and that the rules were followed at all times.

The ministerial code continues to say that it is a resignation matter if a minister "knowingly" misleads the House of Commons.

However, if Johnson is found to have breached other principles of public life, such as lacking openness and honesty, then the changes to the rules make it less likely that he would be automatically expected to resign.
...

[Sheilbh]

Slightly misleading/overcooked reporting on this. It implements a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (3 partisan appointees for Tories, Labour and Lib Dems plus, currently, 4 lay members including the chair). They noted that resignation/firing was the only punishment for breach of the code which wasn't proportionate and, instead, there should be others available while resignation/firing was kept for serious breaches.

Also it just reflects reality. The Ministerial Code has been around since the 80s (though was only published in 97). I don't think at any time has any government automatically treated a breach as a resignation/firing matter, it always depends on the individual situation - some people have been fired for minor breaches because of politics (Mandelson springs to mind), others have survived major breaches for the same reason (Tessa Jowell, for example). Ultimately it is up to the PM at the time.

It makes sense if the rules reflect practical reality.

[Sheilbh]

Big YouGov MRP coming out tomorrow evening - apparently out of 88 battleground seats it has the Tories losing 85, including Johnson's

Edit: Worth noting this is consistent with the national polls and a uniform swing, as well as the local election results - so not a single isolated indicator.

[Josquius]

I wonder where the 3 crazy seats are. I hope they have particularly great MPs.

Fingers crossed Johnson holds on.

[Tonitrus]

As Johnson is apparently toxic, and with Sunak torpedoes, what non-deplorables do the Tories have left to tie to the mast?

[Sheilbh]

As Johnson is apparently toxic, and with Sunak torpedoes, what non-deplorables do the Tories have left to tie to the mast?

That's a big reason why they're not moving. There's no clear alternative.

Also on election night Andrew Neil kept asking all the Tory guests how they'd plan to keep their coalition together consisting, as it did, of traditional Tory areas that likes low taxes and a small state with their new areas that want higher spending and a big, protective state. The Tory coalition in 2019 was held together by getting Brexit done and keeping Corbyn out (and the big leap in Tory support was in 2017 under May, Johnson just bumped them up a couple of percent which was enough to win lots of close seats). What held them together has gone, which means they need to make a choice and I think they want to avoid it. I'm not sure that waiting for electorate to decide for you and both those bits of you coalition to give you a kicking is the best strategy, but I think that's part of it too. There's no obvious successor and that will require choosing.

In terms of candidates - Ben Wallace who is doing well at Defence and probably the safe pair of hands to lose the election respectably and leave the Tories able to choose their future afterwards (or possibly do a John Major). Liz Truss - I don't know what to make of her personally but the thing that keeps coming up is that her colleagues think she's very weird (not sure how much of that is because she is or just a little bit of misogyny because ultimately everyone in politics is weird). Nadhim Zahawi who was vaccines minister and now Education Secretary - he also founded YouGov so can credibly make the argument of at least some competence, but I've no idea what his politics are really. And Sajid Javid who is an odd one - allegedly hard-core small state Thatcherite, but never really shown much sign of it in office but that may partly be because he's now at Health which is the ultimate spending department.

None of them are very tempting so I think they might look outside the cabinet. Jeremy Hunt came second last time, looks a bit more seasoned and has been doing well on the backbenches and chairing the Health Select Committee - plus he's only made measured and relatively rare criticisms which means he doesn't look like a sore loser. Tom Tugendhat has thrown his hat into the ring - former army officer and then in the Foreign Office - he chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and is fairly impressive; trouble is, no-one knows anything about his domestic policy views if I had to guess probably similar to his former schoolmate George Osborne as a vaguely liberal small state kind of guy. I think the dark horse who I'd possibly put a small bet on is Penny Mordaunt who is a junior minister, probably because she backed Hunt not Johnson in the last leadership race - she was demoted as soon as Johnson took over. She's a navy reservist, was a Brexiteer (and wrote a book on post-Brexit ideas that got positive reviews from Bill Gates, Tony Blair and Elton John - which is confusing as much as anything else) - and she's pretty robust at the dispatch box which Tories will like. She'd probably run as a bit of a unity candidate who can keep the Tory tribes and coalition together a little longer.

But it's probably the most open since 2005 - maybe earlier.

[Josquius]

Am I being a bit much of a conspiracy nut to, between his past actions and current events, smell a whiff of vodka around the rmt boss?

BBC News - RMT boss says more UK workers should push for strikes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61607005

[Tamas]

Slightly misleading/overcooked reporting on this. It implements a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (3 partisan appointees for Tories, Labour and Lib Dems plus, currently, 4 lay members including the chair). They noted that resignation/firing was the only punishment for breach of the code which wasn't proportionate and, instead, there should be others available while resignation/firing was kept for serious breaches.

Also it just reflects reality. The Ministerial Code has been around since the 80s (though was only published in 97). I don't think at any time has any government automatically treated a breach as a resignation/firing matter, it always depends on the individual situation - some people have been fired for minor breaches because of politics (Mandelson springs to mind), others have survived major breaches for the same reason (Tessa Jowell, for example). Ultimately it is up to the PM at the time.

It makes sense if the rules reflect practical reality.

  Yes, I am sure the timing is merely coincidental.

[Sheilbh]

Yes, I am sure the timing is merely coincidental.

Maybe not - but I don't really see why it matters.

It's a code - a set of guidelines for conduct by ministers that they all sign. But you can't go to a judge to enforce it and remove a minister, or get the civil service to do it. The bit that Johnson's accused of is "knowingly misleading" parliament which is still identified as a resignation matter.

Johnson probably wouldn't resign even if the Committee found he had knowingly misled parliament - so, as is always the case, it would depend on the parliamentary party removing him. This changes nothing about that.

I do see people complaining a lot that there's basically nothing anyone can do if Johnson chooses to break rules - and it's nonsense. MPs can remove a prime minister at any time for any reason; the Tory parliamentary party can remove a party leader at any time. They're choosing not to (yet), which is different in a really important way.

[Sheilbh]

Am I being a bit much of a conspiracy nut to, between his past actions and current events, smell a whiff of vodka around the rmt boss?

BBC News - RMT boss says more UK workers should push for strikes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61607005

Maybe - I kind of love the RMT though

There's always a moan about how much Tube drivers earn etc and I think it's normally a great argument of the benefits of union membership. They get stuff for their members.

The RMT's always been militant in a more hard left way than a lot of the unions. Bob Crow used to be General Secretary, they disassociated from Labour after Iraq, they campaigned for Corbyn's leadership and supported leave in the referendum. My guess would be his position on Ukraine, NATO, Russia etc is basically the same as Corbyn's but as with him probably because those are just his politics rather than because he's a Russian agent.

[Josquius]

Am I being a bit much of a conspiracy nut to, between his past actions and current events, smell a whiff of vodka around the rmt boss?

BBC News - RMT boss says more UK workers should push for strikes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61607005

Maybe - I kind of love the RMT though

There's always a moan about how much Tube drivers earn etc and I think it's normally a great argument of the benefits of union membership. They get stuff for their members.

The RMT's always been militant in a more hard left way than a lot of the unions. Bob Crow used to be General Secretary, they disassociated from Labour after Iraq, they campaigned for Corbyn's leadership and supported leave in the referendum. My guess would be his position on Ukraine, NATO, Russia etc is basically the same as Corbyn's but as with him probably because those are just his politics rather than because he's a Russian agent.

In this case with wanting extra pay with inflation, etc... Then sure, totally legit and what unions should be doing, even if the timing is quite sus.
I'll never forgive them for turning on working people during brexit though. They really gave the impression of not having a clue about their industry and just being contrarian for shits and giggles.

Russian agent is likely over selling things. But I do think there's likely some link there. With Corbyn too. Someone who has his ear is in putins pocket. Or merely they've swallowed a lot of kremlin propeganda without being paid for it.