Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

We get a Green government and we lose our nukes as well, which will quickly turn the island status from an asset to a liability.

Just to add as Polanksi has expanded on this - he doesn't trust Putin at all but does feel that he can "build a relationship" with him

I have no love for the hereditary peers, but now that they are totally removed from Parliament I question too the "trappings" of the upper house. My understanding is the whole purpose of "Life Peerages" is the House of Lords had to be made up of, well, Lords. Except the desire was to not continue creating more hereditary lords, so life peerages were introduced.

But now that being a hereditary lord essentially is a pure honorarium, aside from a few that have specific ceremonial duties related to the royal family, one has to question why the upper house should even be called the "House of Lords."

A Lord is, in every honest sense of the word, intrinsically a concept related to hereditary nobility. While the life peers aren't hereditary, they essentially ape the concept.

Makes me wonder why not just call it a Senate? I understand in Britain obsession with tradition is typically impossible to underestimate, but this body is now functionally identical to the Canadian Senate (other than that the Canadian Senate went from life tenure to mandatory retirement at age 75--which is frankly a good idea.)

The government's also passing a mandatory retirement age on the Lords.

I similarly don't particularly care about hereditaries - but I would say, and it's unfortunate this is true, but the House of Lords is the bit of Parliament that functions best and actually does its job. It is a very good revising chamber (in part it has to be because the Commons whether on private member's or government bills is really not good at legislating).

More broadly though I'd argue almost the opposite. In the last 30 years we've had the Human Rights Act, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments, creation of a Supreme Court, Brexit, seven referendums at a "national" or UK level, institution of Fixed Term Parliaments (now repealed) as well as an entire transformation of the House of Lords. To all of that I'd also add there's been huge reforms in how Parliament works, as well as the Freedom of Information Act and numerous public inquiries. I think collectively it's been a period of fairly constant, pretty broad constitutional reform - normally with an eye to "modernisation" - but I'd argue it's been pretty careless. There's not been an overarching view of it - far less a significant public debate about how the constitution should work. But I think collectively all of these changes have had pretty profound impacts on the way our politics, parliament and administration works.

I think a large part of that is actually because of an indifference to tradition. I think the historian Linda Colley is absolutely right (she's made the argument before but it's in The Gun, the Pen and the Ship which is her history of constitutions) has written about the British constitution, by which she doesn't mean just the institutions but sort of the how and why of those institutions - the operating manual. I think she's right in her argument that the British constitution is basically Whig history and is sort of embedded or symbolised in those traditions for want of a better word. But I think there's a generational, class and educational thing going on around these things so none of those traditions have the meaning that they previously did - but nothing else does either because it's not codified and there's not new traditions or conventions. So I think the tradition has in the past served an important purpose but we now just have form with actually quite a lot of constitutional reform in a piecemeal, unthought-through way. I'd add that I think America's cultural influence is huge here - when you see MPs talking about "checks and balances" or the "division of powers" or even hoping the Supremem Court overrules Parliament we're in a bit of trouble

As an example of the indifference to tradition - but also how that interacts with our constitution/the theory of how the system is supposed to work - there's another round of proposals to reform the way parliament works. Apparently many of the new MPs are pushing for fixed speaking slots because it is seen as a waste of time being in the chamber for a debate on the chance they might speak when they have emails and constituency work to attend to. Similarly they're looking at removing in-person voting and even considering allowing totally remote voting. I think both of these kind of go to the type of parliament we have and the way it's supposed to work. To be honest even without the fixed speaking slots, there's basically not really debates any more in parliament. Relatively few MPs speak with notes or ex tempore and they don't really seem to respond to other points other MPs have made - the more common approach now is to read a prepared speech (apparently increasingly drafted by ChatGPT ) in order to get a clip for social media. I've seen some academics who study both say it feels like it's becoming more like Congress in that way.

But I don't think we can regenerate that and restore that narrative (arguably a grand narrative) that explains how we govern ourselves and why. I think it's gone and we're left with the formalities. Having said all of that I'm someone who backs the effective fusion of executive and legislature, a unicameral (or at least profoundly illegitimate and weak second chamber) approach and a microscopic role for the judiciary - our system has elements of that even if everyone seems to have forgotten it so I'd probably just run for it rather than go for a constitutional convention because my side would lose.

FWIW I think the actual crisis point on all of this would come if either Reform or the Greens won. There basically aren't any Reform peers - there are lots of Tories and Labour and lots of establishment types (ex generals, judges, spies, civil servants, businesspeople etc) sitting as crossbenchers. And I think if Reform or the Greens actually tried to do a lot of what they've said they want to do there would be an almighty fight with the civil service and the Lords. I think that's why Farage has in the past called for abolition and replacement with an elected Senate - I think the Greens have also backed that.

Edit: Also in terms of alternatives I actually really like Ireland's wildly 1930s corporatist Seanad. There's "administrative", "agricultural", "labour", "cultural" etc panels who elect a number of Senators as well as some nominated directly by the Taoiseach and some university constituencies. I don't like that it does tend to be party-political as I think a lot of the cross-benchers are very valuable. But otherwise I quite like it - inevitably it's pretty unpopular in Ireland and has almost been abolished a couple of times (largely because it's undemocratic, elitist, expensive etc).

[Sheilbh]

I think the concern is that if it ceases to be "The House of Lords" then the people will want the second chamber to be elected; possibly using some sort of PR to act as a balance to the first-past-the-post elections for the Commons. This would remove patronage from the government and also give the second chamber more validity and, in the long run, probably more power.

Yeah - that was Herbert Morrison's line which I think also goes for the monarchy: "the very irrationality of the House of Lords and its quaintness are our safeguards for modern British democracy". Basically if you make it rational and part of the "efficient" constitution it will destabilise everything else.

But also from his perspective (which I share) for example other models which tend to have a slightly different form of composition which is often regional. Not everywhere is as extreme as the US with two senators per state regardless of population but there is an element of that which I think has enough democratic legitimacy without actually being democratic to cause problems for a radical government with a democratic mandate in the Commons.

[Sheilbh]

We have a pretty feckless electorate as well. The whole country is deeply unserious and, to be frank, I find the left here to be just as stupid as the right.

Yeah - I think Henry Hill had a line on this in his final column on Conservative Home where he said a lot of the challenges we're facing are the accumulated consequences of the electorate's decisions/revealed preferences. I think there is a lot to that.

But I also think some of this comes to our political leaders. I think part of their job - and part of being a leader - is first of all making choices so not going along with the public's preferences for multiple contradictory things and pretending there are no contradictions. But also I think this is one of the most important pieces of political communication as a leader - whether it is through dramatising the choice or, effectively, acting as a teacher in explaining and bringing people along.

I also wonder if there's a political class thing? So many of them come from lobbying, comms, charities, NGOs and bits of politics and also as professionals in general. I just feel like those are worlds where you almost need to not acknowledge any trade offs - it's about making your argument with conviction and how you bolster it (and not even in the arguing in the alternative way of lawyers) - compared with say business and unions as the training ground for Tories and Labour.

[HVC]

Sheilbh weren't you in the "the electorate is always right" side? The fact you vote green kind of betrays that view, but that's a whole other issue

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah - I think Henry Hill had a line on this in his final column on Conservative Home where he said a lot of the challenges we're facing are the accumulated consequences of the electorate's decisions/revealed preferences.

Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.

Is that the line you were thinking of?

[garbon]

Sheilbh weren't you in the "the electorate is always right" side? The fact you vote green kind of betrays that view, but that's a whole other issue

I saw that even in my constinuency there is a lot of ground surge for the greens. NOt so much because people are excited about the greens but they are unhappy about the shambles that local (and national) Labour government has been.

It amazes the parallels to the Conservatives as while the Conservatives lost the general to Labour so badly in fair part to voters angry at the ruling party, that took 14 years to oust them. Labour seems to be working at warp speed to lose its supporters. They haven't even been in power for 2 full years.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. For me it is very, very much a punishment vote. Also bluntly on a purely local level I live in a one party state of a borough - I think there are 60 councillors, 58 Labour and 2 Greens (who have both defected from Labour in the last twelve months). In the entire history of the borough there have been a couple of coalitions but they were led by Labour. I think there's only been one period when Labour weren't in charge (when the Tories won in the late sixties). So I can't say they've necessarily done a bad job locally but I think that type of dynamic in local poliics is unhealthy and giving the alternative a go isn't a bad idea - and it does look like the Greens might win the borough

I think the context also matters if Labour had a different leader than Corbyn beteen 2015-19 I think the punishment vote for the Tories would have come earlier. Our system is designed to produce two party politics and what that normally means is there is a see-saw effect so one party does badly the other party is normally there to do well. But we've had both main parties discrediting themselves in such total fashion that I think it's a big part of the rise of Reform and Greens (which will in turn eviscerate the main party's structural advantage in activists, councillors, local government). But I think there is now a similar punishment mood to the public around Labour and particularly Starmer who is loathed.

I should also flag I got this wrong and BarristerBoy was right both on the lack of detail around Starmer and the lack of enthusiasm for him being huge issues. I thought they were surmountable and reflected realism from the electorate in looking at what was the most effective way in their constituency to punish the Tories. I think that was true but I hugely underestimated the lack of preparation that Starmer and his team and the Labour had done for government over the last 14 years and the degree of antipathy towards Starmer.

I slightly wonder if part of it is the American thing again. Because I think Starmer's whole strategy makes sense in American politics. You run to the left/right in the primary and then pivot to the centre - but I don't think it's common in the UK. Every party leader I can think of basically ran the party (and government if they won) as they basically said they would in their leadership campaign. I mentioned shortly after he won that the Left were already attacking Starmer as spectacularly dishonest based on his pivot from a Corbynism without Corbyn pitch for the leadership to the Labour right - it was picked up by the Tories very early as an attack line. And it is striking that Starmer as a liar, this government as to its core dishonest is something that is really broadly picked up (you go to literally any football match in the country and there will be a "Starmer's a liar" chant at some point).

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've always viewed British people as intrinsically somewhat dishonest so that vibes with my views on Starmer.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh weren't you in the "the electorate is always right" side? The fact you vote green kind of betrays that view, but that's a whole other issue

Fair

I have my issues with the Greens which I've detailed here - and I might struggle to vote for them in a general election. But Labour need to lose badly and they need to get rid of Starmer and the sooner they do it the better (still have over 3 years and a massive majority ).

On the other stuff I think the electorate is always right in the sense that I'm a democrat - and not from a sort of functional perspective that I think it provides better government than autocracy (though maybe it does). So I think electoral results need to be respected and delivered. I don't like upper houses, legal challenges, judges - I am very opposed to that whole conservative and liberal tradition of needing to restrain the mob. Doesn't mean I'm going to agree with them, or that they will get it "right" every time. I think there is still a tension/relationship between the governed and the governors (who have a role to lead, to educate and to confront) - but I think people broadly rise or fall to the expectations you have socially. We are in a very depoliticised, demobilised era (which started with New Labour) and we need to fix that if we want to move beyond politics as entertainment or consumer choice.

I've always viewed British people as intrinsically somewhat dishonest so that vibes with my views on Starmer.

Fair - although you and basically everyone else. I've had numerous foreign friends and colleagues moan about basic, constant British insincerity - especially from certain more direct cultures (the Dutch! ).

[crazy canuck]

At least the Brits are only somewhat dishonest - try dealing with an American businessperson.

[HVC]

I don't think Brit's are necessarily dishonest, just their communication is built on a lot of subtext. Which can be confusing in cross cultural communication.I blame a class system and a repressive religion


*edit* actually, reminds me of southerners. Bless your hearts.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think Brit's are necessarily dishonest, just their communication is built on a lot of subtext. Which can be confusing in cross cultural communication.I blame a class system and a repressive religion


*edit* actually, reminds me of southerners. Bless your hearts.

Not sure I can buy the repressive religion point when we're talking about Anglicanism and comparing cultural communication to, say, Italians

I worked for a very big international law firm and I think everyone had the "cross-cultural communication" but it's always stuck with me because it was quite funny (and also true having worked in global English companies).

But I remember the guy saying there were basically five axes of direct to indirect (e.g. use of humour, use of idiom, politeness etc) and Brits are on the extreme indirect end of basically all of them

FWIW and I have no idea if there's anything to this but years ago I read a book by an anthropologist on English behaviour. One thing I remember is that they talked about polling on social attitudes - things like politeness, privacy/private space or public/private divides - and on loads of areas the country with the closest attitudes to the English was Japan. And I think that's also probably true on extreme indirect communication. I think class is part of it but I also wonder if part of it is just being quite densely populated and socially dense islands.

[Jacob]

You're saying the Brits are a bit dense, then?

[HVC]

Catholicism isn't so much about repression as it is guilt. Don't do it, but if you do it feel bad about it. Protestantes throw you straight into hell


*edit* I guess it's the difference between shame and guilt. Shame is enforced externally and guilt is enforced internally.

[Sheilbh]

Catholicism isn't so much about repression as it is guilt. Don't do it, but if you do it feel bad about it. Protestantes throw you straight into hell

Maybe I think there's two strands to Catholicism - the Italian which is what you're describing and the Irish which is not (FWIW my impression is Quebecois Catholicism was more in the Irish strand ).

*edit* I guess it's the difference between shame and guilt. Shame is enforced externally and guilt is enforced internally.

Again - see Ireland and the laundries and the mother and baby homes and all the rest of it.

But I always remember my Old English tutor at university explaining the difference between shame and guilt cultures: "do you ever blush in the bath? That's a guilt culture."

You're saying the Brits are a bit dense, then?

I couldn't possibly comment.