Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

That is rather questionable apparently. It might have a net negative effect on the UK if the economic activity e.g. from farmers that is replaced by imports is bigger than the economic activity generated by higher exports.

Wouldn't that just mean more economic activity for importers like retailers and more money for consumers (who'll spend it on something else)?

Plus it might hurt one sector - like farmers - but exports will increase even if imports increase more. All of which economic activity in the UK - so there's an argument if that hit is worth the other stuff. I don't see how it would be a net negative for the UK overall. Just whether the positive is enough to outweigh the damage to certain sectors. I doubt this agreement is big enough to make much of a difference either way, but my default would be the anti-May: agreements are generally better than not having an agreement.

[Josquius]

Seems my reaction on the trains was true..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/23/great-british-railways-rebranding-not-renationalisation

Yes its a trap.

[Gups]

Seems my reaction on the trains was true..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/23/great-british-railways-rebranding-not-renationalisation

Yes its a trap.

Well, that is hardly a massive insight. Obvoiusly it was never renationalisation as private companies would bid to run services. Rather it is similar to the model operated in London by TfL which works well (for tube, trains and buses). Instead of franchises paying money to the Govt for the right to run the railways and collect fares, the Govt collects the fares, specifies the services and pays a company (which could and in some case is likely to be a state owned company) a fixed sum for running the service with bonuses linked to punctuality etc.

I'm not sure what kind of a trap it could be.

[Tamas]

I don't trust Cummings' claims on what role he played in regards to opposing or not the herd immunity strategy, but the sequence of events he describes does line up with my memory of events. Like that early Johnson interview where the only alternative he talked of in any length (as in, 2 sentences not one) was "letting it wash all over us", or how repeatedly they talked about a hard lockdown producing a much more dangerous winter second wave, a talk which ended when they introduced a hard lockdown.

[Sheilbh]

It's not about trust though - it was reported at the time that he was pushing for hard and early lockdown so it's fairly consistent.

Interesting news - the independent Singh Report into Islamophobia in the Tory Party has just been published. Apparently the Tories are a bit blindsided by this - the chair of the investigation could his own publication schedule.

No idea what's in it as journalists are just reading it now - I imagine it's bad because I think Islamophobia is an issue for the Tories. But it'll be interesting to see especially given that they've not had time to prepare spin/lines on this report

[Tamas]

I am not a big fan of the Islamophobia term but whatever. Its problematic that it's a religion linked to ethnic minorities so you can't criticise the issues it's more orthodox wings are creating without giving ammunition to racists.

Anyhow, the sort of nightmare scenario I can see for Britain is that in a generation or so the Tories will be the pro-Hindu/anti-Muslim party, and Labour the opposite. There does seem to be the nucleus of a Hindu/Muslim divide between the parties for a casual observer at least.

[Josquius]

I don't think that's true. You can criticise extremist Islam just fine without being Islamophobic.
The only trouble is islamophobes are often fond of doing this and muddying the ground between valid criticism and Islamophobia.
The key is in where its coming from and establishing where you're coming from as a non islamophobic place.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I think it's easy to criticise extreme or violent ideologies/religious interpretations without criticising Muslims or Islam in general. Or it should be easy, but that's not where we are.

Anyhow, the sort of nightmare scenario I can see for Britain is that in a generation or so the Tories will be the pro-Hindu/anti-Muslim party, and Labour the opposite. There does seem to be the nucleus of a Hindu/Muslim divide between the parties for a casual observer at least.

Yeah I think you can see the outline of this - my understanding is a majority of British Hindus already vote Tory (and have since 2015) while Muslim voters overwhelmingly back Labour.

To be honest I think part of this is quite nasty local sectarian campaigns - by both sides, which is escalating with things like the WhatsApp chain messages. It's strange because at a national/policy level there isn't necessarily much difference between the parties on some issues that come up like Kashmir or investigations into the Golden Temple massacre etc which can be big issues in specific communities. But local parties very much play into and take advantage of it and there's a long history of dodgy local campaigns by Labour in Muslim communities and increasingly by the Tories in Hindu and Sikh communities.

First take from the PA:

Tory Islamophobia report criticises Boris Johnson over burqa remarks
Comments from PM, who said women in burqas looked like bank robbers, suggested party was insensitive to Muslims, inquiry finds
PA Media
Tue 25 May 2021 11.19 BST

Boris Johnson's comments about women wearing the burqa gave an impression that the Tories were "insensitive to Muslim communities", an independent review into alleged Islamophobia and discrimination in the Conservative party has said.

The inquiry found anti-Muslim sentiment was seen at local association and individual levels but claims of "institutional racism" were not borne out by evidence of the way complaints were handled.

In a pointed message to Johnson, the review led by Prof Swaran Singh said the leadership of the Conservative party "ought to set a good example for appropriate behaviours and language".

The prime minister was cleared by a majority on an independent panel over a complaint he had broken the party's code of conduct following a Daily Telegraph column in 2018 which described Muslim women who wear the burqa as looking like "letterboxes" and "bank robbers".

Johnson said he was "sorry for any offence taken" over his journalism and told Singh's investigation: "Would I use some of the offending language from my past writings today? Now that I am prime minister, I would not."

The Singh investigation report, seen by the PA Media news agency, said several interviewees who spoke to the inquiry considered Johnson's language "discriminatory and unacceptable".

In response to Johnson's assertion he would not make such remarks now, the report said: "While this could be considered leading by example, the investigation would like to emphasise that using measured and appropriate language should not be a requirement solely for senior people, but ought to be expected throughout the Conservative party."

The investigation also examined the controversial and unsuccessful mayoral campaign that Zac Goldsmith – now Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park – ran in London against Sadiq Khan in 2016, during which he accused his Muslim Labour rival of associating with extremists.

The report said Goldsmith "accepts poor judgment in the way his campaign was conducted but forcefully denies harbouring anti-Muslim sentiments or using such sentiments for political advantage".

The report said high-profile cases such as Johnson's and Goldsmith's "give the impression to many that the party and its leadership are insensitive to Muslim communities".

Singh told PA Media: "I'm not saying that the party leadership is insensitive to Muslim communities. I'm saying that the perception is very strong."

The party established the inquiry carried out by Singh, a former commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, following a series of allegations about Islamophobic behaviour in the party, and it was widened to consider all forms of discrimination.

From 2015 to 2020, the party's central database recorded 1,418 complaints relating to 727 incidents of alleged discrimination – an average of 237 complaints about 122 incidents a year in a party of 200,000 members.

More than two-thirds of the incidents – 496 cases – related to Islam and 74% of all the cases involved social media activity.

About a third of cases – 231 – resulted in a sanction, with 50% resulting in a suspension and 29% an expulsion from the party.

No action was taken in 418 incidents, for reasons including the complaint being in relation to someone who was not a party member, insufficient evidence or a prior investigation.

There was no evidence that complaints related to Islam are treated differently from those related to other forms of discrimination, nor did the panel find evidence of attempts to pressure or interfere with the handling of individual complaints.

But Singh said the complaints process was "clunky, cumbersome and slow, and not transparent".

The former Tory chair Lady Warsi has accused the party of "institutional racism" and submitted a dossier of 30 cases to the inquiry.

The report said it carried out "in-depth scrutiny" of the cases provided by Warsi but "we concluded that her allegation of 'institutional racism' against the party was not borne out by evidence available to the investigation as regards the way the party handled the complaints process".

But the report acknowledged that "anti-Muslim sentiment remains a problem" within the Conservative party.

"While the party leadership claims a 'zero-tolerance approach' to all forms of discrimination, our findings show that discriminatory behaviours occur, especially in relation to people of Islamic faith."

But the investigation did not find evidence of a party that "systematically discriminated against any particular group".

The review process has been regarded with scepticism by some critics, with the Muslim Council of Britain warning it would be a whitewash.

Singh said: "I hope fair-minded people who read the report will see that we haven't shied away from criticising the party.

"In fact, this is going to be very uncomfortable for the party. I hope it makes them uncomfortable, I hope it makes the rank and file uncomfortable and it also spurs them into action."

In a message to Johnson, Singh said: "As the leader of the Conservative party, I would say lead by example and accept our recommendations unequivocally. Accept them unconditionally. Implement them and get someone to monitor the implementation."

The report called on the Tories to introduce sweeping changes to the complaints process, publishing an action plan within six weeks to set out how it would respond, followed by a six-month progress report and a one-year review carried out by an appropriate body.

Within six weeks, the party should review its social media rules and within six months develop training on "acceptable" behaviour online.

Within a year, the report said the party should produce and implement a single, mandatory code of conduct across the entire membership in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Tory co-chair Amanda Milling said the party would respond to the recommendations later on Tuesday.

[Josquius]

Seems my reaction on the trains was true..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/23/great-british-railways-rebranding-not-renationalisation

Yes its a trap.

Well, that is hardly a massive insight. Obvoiusly it was never renationalisation as private companies would bid to run services. Rather it is similar to the model operated in London by TfL which works well (for tube, trains and buses). Instead of franchises paying money to the Govt for the right to run the railways and collect fares, the Govt collects the fares, specifies the services and pays a company (which could and in some case is likely to be a state owned company) a fixed sum for running the service with bonuses linked to punctuality etc.

I'm not sure what kind of a trap it could be.

The 'trap' is that its pure Boris Johnson. All style and no substance.
A massive rebranding exercise covered in flags .

The main part:

GBR will create an integrated national timetable (the government could do that now) and set fares (as it can now), making up any shortfall in revenue by subventions from the Treasury (as it had to when passenger numbers plummeted during the Covid crisis). It is today's status quo – an enforced retreat from the botched privatisation of the 1990s – dressed up as a great reform.

[Gups]

It's not a great reform but it's not the status quo either as the rest of the article actually makes clear. It's actually a pretty big change and a pleasant surprise that they aren't going to use Covid as an excuse to defund railways. It's precisely the system that Ken Livingstone introduced into London when he was Mayor following the collapse of Gordon Brown's disatrous PPE contracts for the Tube.

[Zanza]

Global Britain was already successfully realized in Q1/2021 as RoW trade now surpasses EU trade! A small caveat is that it was achieved by EU trade shrinking faster than RoW trade.

[Admiral Yi]

Is Islamaphobe a useful term Shelf?

[Richard Hakluyt]

China has replaced Germany as the largest exporter to the UK.

Exports to the EU fell by £7.1bn and imports from the EU fell by £14.0bn compared to the previous quarter. Since the UK runs a large deficit with the EU in the visible sector these both represent falls of about a fifth.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/theimpactsofeuexitandthecoronavirusonuktradeingoods/2021-05-25

There is still a lot of covid and stockbuilding/reducing noise in those figures of course.

[Sheilbh]

Is Islamaphobe a useful term Shelf?

Yeah I think so, at least in the context of the UK. I think the term is widely understood and there's a fairly broad understanding of what it means, even if there is no fixed formal definition that's been widely adopted (as is the case with anti-semitism).

The debate around the definition is fairly academic. The Crown Prosecution Service have one fairly simple definitionn, which they use - as do the police for investigating hate crimes (and Muslims suffer the largest volume of religious hate crimes).

The Runnymede Trust (an anti-racism think tank that does a huge amount of really important research on race in the UK) has proposed: "Islamophobia is any distinction, exclusion, or restriction towards, or preference against, Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

The All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims have proposed "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." Then (as with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism) they have listed various examples of behaviours indicating Islamophobia. This has been adopted by lots of local government, most political parties (not the Tories) and a number of other public bodies as their working definition. But, as I say, it's been rejected by the government and the Tory party.

The Singh Report into the Tories basically said the definition of Islamophobia is contested, but it doesn't matter because it's actually a report on all protected categories in the context of UK equalities law, but the vast majority of reports they received (two-thirds) dealt with anti-Muslim prejudice.

Edit: Unrelated, but really interesting set of research on the Culture Wars in the UK by Ipsos Mori:
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-05/culture-wars-in-the-UK-how-the-public-understand-the-debate.pdf

[garbon]

I just saw BBC currently has an article titled "Who is Dominic Cummings and does he matter?"