Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

I am a firm believer. That one cannot have too many good umbrellas at hand. I currently have two in my office, three in the trunk of my car and a few lying around here in the house.  I am also a firm believer that one should replace their umbrella with some frequency and so if someone were to go roaming around, they would probably find a number of older umbrellas.

I think that's a sign of somebody who is prepared.

[Sheilbh]

Quite enjoying the second layer of people investigating his receipts which is now area specific experts commenting.

For example Joe Fattorini who's a wine expert and writer working throug the £5,500 Murrell spent on "wine accessories. Not actual wine." This includes five decanters ("That's right, five. Even smart restaurants don't have five decanters. Let alone one from Le Creuset and four from Ullo, with three of those being identical models although one that came with the fabulously Alan Partridge detail of including a "display base".") He also acquired a decanter drying stand, two sets of decanter scourers.

He had two different sizes of wicker wine carrier bags, lots of pourers, a two-bottle champagne bucket, microfire storage cases ("I have genuinely no idea what that is."), multiple luxury corkscrews (including a £350 one with a "Damascus steel blade" ). And the most expensive "was also the one I'd say is the most pointless", a £3,500 "Hamilton & Inches Hand Chased Wine Coaster in Britannia Silver" which is apparently a metal wine stand to hold a bottle of wine that can already stand up on its own


Again my credulity about Nicola Sturgeon knowing nothing about what was happening is maybe at breaking point when her husband returns home with a third decanter.

[Jacob]

I do like a good one. But I also identify a lot with, I assume, him losing/leaving behind a lot of brollies, at least that's how I read three fancy umbrellas and five subsequent cheaper ones

I do have a nice umbrella and nice sunglasses but at the cheaper end of nice because I know I will eventually forget/lose them

One of the benefits of working in a cinema as a young man was the inexhaustible supply of umbrellas.

[Jacob]

Again my credulity about Nicola Sturgeon knowing nothing about what was happening is maybe at breaking point when her husband returns home with a third decanter.

Maybe he's decanting in private, secretly nursing a wine based alcoholism?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm beginning to find it a bit sad and I'm wondering about his background. All that silly "posh" tat he bought with the embezzled money, ruining his position in society. (I do understand the luxury motorhome;  but most of the stuff he bought was pointless rubbish). Was he compensating for something? Was he ill?

[Sheilbh]

His background is 100% SNP party apparatchik - and he was CEO from 2001.

There's actually two scandals here and why I'd slightly pushback on the curent SNP leadership's attempt to portray them as the main victim.

Murrell was engaged in low level embezzlement of party funds before 2014 but it was the sort of thing that could really just be bad expenses rather than anything malicious. It was in the low hundreds - after 2014 when his wife becomes party leader and First Minister it kicks up into the £000s of spending.

Notably in 2016 obviously there's Brexit but also Sturgeon wins her first Scottish election and forms her first government (rather than inheriting one from Alex Salmond) - and his spending of party funds is now up to about £50k.

In 2017 the SNP did a huge fundraiser that would be "ringfenced" for a future independence campaign. That raised over £600k from independence supporters - legally it was meaningless it was just spin and advertising and the fundraiser was for the SNP. Shortly after that fundraiser Theresa May called an election and basically all of that "ringfenced" money was spent on the SNP election campaign. So by 2018 the official filings show the party has about £8,000 in the bank.

It doesn't really get noticed at the time but basically they've kind of misled their supporters and by 2020 questions start to be raised about the party's finances which are dreadful and which Sturgeon, Swinney and others deflect from because they reality is they had a record fundraiser and spent it all. I think that also means the other people at the top of the party were not wanting to look too deeply in the finance because they knew about that initial scandal. So they let Peter Murrell manage the finances and take the heat.

Separately Nicola Sturgeon wins re-election and increases her seats and does very well in the Westminster election in 2019 - she is, at this point, entering her imperial phase. Murrell's spending hits about £100,000 before peaking at £150k in 2020 (this is the year he bought the motorhome). It then tails off - notably 2020 is the first time that journalists start asking questions about that 2017 fundraiser and how a party that had raised so much money from their supporters seemed to be in such a bad financial state. He's still spending tens of thousands but it's collapsed and then really falls as the police start to get involved.

There may be more going on psychologically and I think he's definitely got that's expensive but maybe not actually nice stuff (all of these purchases seem to me deeply, deeply un-Scottish - like not just ridiculously expensive but not good value tat). But my main thought is that his spending seems to rise with his wife's political fortunes and power - as she succeeds electorally and within the party, he uses party funds more and more to fund himself. Part of that doubtlss may also be her becoming First Minister and possible strains in their home relationship - but on the face of it it also seems fairly cynically tied to how strong his wife is and how untouchable he is.

Edit: And I would add with all of the many controversies over Salmond's leadership I don't think either the UK or Scotland have been well-served by the fact that it's all seen as basically a "local" story by the London press because it would involve them showing a bit of curiousity and travelling more than 5 miles from Westminster. I think there's a few huge scandals over the last 10-20 years in the SNP that have just not been covered as well as they should have been.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Sturgeon must have observed that he was spending way above his means, hard not to notice the decanters and wine coaster 

The London press/media is unbelievably parochial and I do think this has allowed protest parties to flourish. The Labour party also, from a Northern perspective, looks like a London party....which is probably a big tailwind if/when Burnham makes his bid for the leadership. The Scots and Welsh have their own nationalist parties to support to illustrate their discontent, North of England it is Reform    . The lazy North-South divide argument lumps places like Harrogate, Rochdale, Liverpool and Sunderland in the same box....they have started to notice Manchester I suppose.

I'm wibbling....but I do think there is a powerful reaction against Westminster that is not unjustified, unfortunately the electoral solutions being considered are probably even worse.

[Josquius]

Yeah it's absolutely justified. It's been there for years. It was key to brexit. Rebellion against the London elites.
What gets me though is how it is being used completely the wrong way- attacking what little positive we do have coming our way to give more power to the London elites.

Something I've really noticed in recent years is the "London so dangerous" thing really ticking up. Loads of people spreading this idea london is on the border of being a war zone and if you go there you'll die.
.... And khan is to blame.
Which as someone who grew up in the north, likes to stay based in reality and has a memory.... Is... What?

This is what I learned growing up long before Khan was mayor. London is a shit hole. It's dangerous. You can't breath the air and you will be stabbed.
It goes back further than what I heard in the 90s even. There's sources from the 19th century saying basically the exact same thing. Further back even.
London is the big dangerous shit hole where good honest boys from the country will surely be murdered.

But no. It's all khans fault. Memes are being spread showing photos of London from the late 20th century and presenting it as a great place.
... When I can explicitly remember at that time being told totally different.

I wonder how much is Americans and bots. Certainly seems some is authentic northerners who've just rewritten reality in their heads.

[Richard Hakluyt]

London is really safe, know where your phone and wallet are in the touristy areas is about all.

The recent Gorton by-election though, the Guardian journalist John Harris (an honourable exception to Westminster parochialism) met electors there who had managed to convince themselves that Manchester city centre was a no go area, no matter the time of day....which is utterly ridiculous.

I do sometimes wonder if Britain is becoming so safe that bad things are always reported and thus make people feel less safe. A case in point, the recent drownings during the heatwave. There is a freakout over the 9 deaths in the past few days. I decided to get some background data; apparently drownings in the UK run at about 400 a year in a population of 70m, In the 1970s there were about 1,200 a year in a population of 55m...so about three times the current rate. The 9 deaths in recent days; though, of course, a horrible tragedy for the people involved; is not really a story at all.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

London was nice again this Easter, as it has been every time we visited. Including Tower Hamlets was charming, at least the bit where we were (not far from the mural depicting the barricades during Moseley and his blackshirts marching).

Two narratives can be true at once though, but so far that's not my experience over any of our visits.

[garbon]

What part of Tower Hamlets? The Tower of London or bits of Shoreditch? That borough has Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, Bow, Poplar, Limehouse and Shadwell. Not a one is charming.

Or maybe Canary Wharf? Mudchute farm?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Shadwell was the subway station.
And with charming I meant nice enough.
No banlieu vibes

[Sheilbh]

The London press/media is unbelievably parochial and I do think this has allowed protest parties to flourish. The Labour party also, from a Northern perspective, looks like a London party....which is probably a big tailwind if/when Burnham makes his bid for the leadership. The Scots and Welsh have their own nationalist parties to support to illustrate their discontent, North of England it is Reform    . The lazy North-South divide argument lumps places like Harrogate, Rochdale, Liverpool and Sunderland in the same box....they have started to notice Manchester I suppose.

I'm wibbling....but I do think there is a powerful reaction against Westminster that is not unjustified, unfortunately the electoral solutions being considered are probably even worse.

Yeah and to that I'd add on the political side that with Labour especially there is a repeated theme of voters being taken for granted and local parties being allowed to wither away from an organisational perspective.

It happened in Scotland. It's astonishing how moriibund and quickly collapsed the Scottish Labour Party was after 2010 - and it was hugely powerful political machine. Crucially, I think, the SNP very quickly realised that Scottish politics was going to be in Holyrood so moved their best talent into the Scottish Parliament with Westminster as a feeder to that (see Stephen Flynn recently making the move from very effective and respected leader of the SNP in the Commons to becoming an MSP and straight into the Scottish Cabinet. Labour did the opposite - with the exception of the great Donald Dewar its Holyrood intakes have often been a bit second rate. The ambitious bright young things wanted to be in the Commons (especially when Gordon Brown was around). There was lots going on in the election this year but one theme for Labour was apparently a bit of a power struggle between Douglas Alexander, now Scottish Secretary, but very much a minister sponsored by Brown in the 2000s, who wanted to run the campaign and Anas Sarwar. Basically between who runs the campaign: London or Scotland (and London won the internal fight).

I think we've seen similar stuff happen in other traditional Labour heartlands in the North and most recently in Wales. Sadiq Khan is wondering the same may be happening in London (where the party organisation is far better developed and maintained).

I think in part it's also driven by the media problem and where I'd slightly pusback - and I think this goes to Jos' point - is that one of the areas that is badly served by the media is actually London. What we have is a Westminster media and political class that is feverishly obsessed with what happens in SW1 and American politics but is otherwise spectacularly incurious. They're not interested in the politics of London any more than they are of Scotland, Birmingham, Manchester, Wales etc (I don't think they're actually interested in the actual politics of anywhere else in Europe either - but will all have the collected works of Robert Caro on their shelves) - and now we don't even have the strong regional/local medias that could push back (leading to my panacaea for all Britain's woes: the return of the ITV regions half-joking...). There are honourable exceptions - I think John Harris is fantastic (doesn't live in London, doesn't cover Westminster), and I think Lewis Goodall is really good on Birmingham. I think the Jen Williams at the FT (poached from the Manchester Evening News) is also one of the best reporters in the country. I liked Helen Pidd when she was still writing for the Guardian but I often find Guardian articles on the "North" a bit like the sort of flavour/lifestyle pieces about foreign countries

This is a total aside but there was an interesting comment from Michael Crick about the astonishing lack of on the ground reporting about Makerfield on the broadcast news. Obviously that's the sort of stuff he used to do when he'd set off with a cameraman and a mic to follow candidates round and ask them questions. There was an interesting response from Tom Harwood who is at GBNews who said they've wanted to do that type of piece but apparently their legal team has basically said it's really difficult now - I'm not sure how much that is legal just throwing up objections for other reasons, or a corporate being too risk averse. But I thought it was an interesting response - Crick seemed surprised by it and said you don't need to give all the candidates equal time or ask the same sort of questions, you just need to give them all a chance.

FWIW I also think this is part of what's going on with Starmer. I've read so many peieces and heard podcasts from the "media class" expressing bamboozlement at how deeply and swiftly people started to dislike Starmer. I think I posted the bit from an FT columnist watching a focus group and being confused how much they hated Starmer and saying it was basically inexplicable while quoting the people in the focus group saying that they Starmer was dishonest, didn't believe anything he said etc. I think part of it is that Starmer is a mirror of that class: university educated, professional, moved to London and did well. And I think he was their analysis - put the "grown-ups" in charge, return to sensibles running things and everything would be fine and instead the country hate it. On their analysis Starmer was the answer (and as noted, got an astonishingly easy ride from the press). And I think in part it's because the country kind of hates them/that class and what they represent - the reaction against is a reaction against them. It's not a psychic shock on the level of Trump or Brexit in 2016 but I think it's a similar process and similar incomprehension.

I wonder how much is Americans and bots. Certainly seems some is authentic northerners who've just rewritten reality in their heads.

There's been a lot of reporting on this recently both the Londonas a hellhole, but also a lot of the Islamophobic content online. It has an impact on Americans and global perception for sure (I posted an article from Londoncentric - like the Manchester Mill for London - about this which was really interesting).

But in the recent reporting what seems to be a really big source is actually people in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka using AI to generate the content basically for clickfarming. There was a Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigation on a lot of these and it wasn't London focused but they interviewed the guy who was making really rancid Islamophobic content. He was Pakistani, he was Muslim, he didn't have great English and used AI to generate the content which he didn't really understand (again his English wasn't great) - and he earned $1,500 a month from it in a country where the average wage is $200 per month.

I would add however that London Mayor is an under-powered job but I think Khan is at best profoundly underwhelming as mayor and at worst genuinely just not very good. It's why I'm slightly glad the Dawn Butler who has been running sotto voce campaign to become Labour candidate is still not out and out in the running but a lot more open about it because at the minute Khan is still not saying whether he'll go for a fourth term or not and I just do not think he has the record to go for another term, or for the party to just go along with it.

London is really safe, know where your phone and wallet are in the touristy areas is about all.

I think there's two things going on. In terms of violent crime, London is incredibly safe and violent crime is falling. I think it has the lowest murder rate of any big city in the world - it is safer than Paris or Berlin far less literally anywhere in the Americas.

At the same time in terms of the low-level criminality that has been increasing and is significant. So almost half of all phone theft in Europe is in London - largely phones being grabbed by people on bikes. And indeed bike theft is very serious as an issue. There is a fair bit of anti-social behaviour and also "anti-crime" measures that make the city look and feel less safe than it is. I think all of that matters from lived experience perspective for most people - and certainly for tourists. I also think it is actually serious - a lot of that stuff (not all, but a significant proportion) is actually tied to wider organised crime networks. So it is low-level criminality but it is often tied to rather more significant crime.

What part of Tower Hamlets? The Tower of London or bits of Shoreditch? That borough has Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, Bow, Poplar, Limehouse and Shadwell. Not a one is charming.

Whitechapel, Bethnal Green and Limehouse are all very charming! (Admittedly I'm a biased ex-resident).

[garbon]

Whitechapel, Bethnal Green and Limehouse are all very charming! (Admittedly I'm a biased ex-resident).

I had a think while in Tower Hamlets today (Canary Wharf) and I think I can say pretty fairly that Tower Hamlets is the worst of the inner boroughs (bar perhaps Hammersmith and Fulham but I've not been enough to make a full judgment). 

[Valmy]

I love how delightfully confusing London is. You have boroughs but then you also just have a bunch of other places, some of which are really famous, that are like neighborhoods. And they don't overlap.