British Politics Guide

[mèþru]

damnit
I want a party with positions like the SDP faction of the Lib Dems

[chris_notts]

In other news, Caroline Lucas, who a few deluded fools have suggested might be the woman to head a government of national unity for the purpose of requesting an extension to article 50, has disqualified herself immediately with this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eal-brexit

That's right. It's a time of national crisis, and what we apparently really need is not any politically feasible government with a better Brexit strategy than Boris, it's specifically a government with a 100% female cabinet. Because nothing demands feminist tokenism more than a national emergency which will set the course of the country for decades.

Luckily, though, she promptly realised how ridiculous she was for making Brexit about gender relations at the expense of... race relations:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... m-proposal

I expect there'll be another apology tomorrow when she realises that her female shortlist is lacking in lesbians and trans-women. Or maybe she'll realise that escaping the burning building is more important than conducting a gender audit of the fire service management.

[Salmoneus]

It's the Greens. Nothing will ever be more important than a gender audit - unless it turns out the auditing supplies come from only 99.9% renewable resources, then it's better to do nothing. If you see Rome burning, it's always best to sit still and play the fiddle - the fire and rescure service is unpresentative (more men than women) and hierarchical (firefighters aren't allowed to each fight the fire the way their own individual mystical insights tell them is best), and it's wrong to waste water in such a way.

But seriously, the problem with Lucas and the strain of feminism/progressivism she represents is that she genuinely DOESN'T see this as a form of tokenism. She's not saying we should have a 100% female government because she thinks women have been historically underrepresented and it should be their turn now (she does think that, but that's not her main reason). She's saying we should have a 100% female government because she believes women are essentially different from men, and as a result of their inherent differences - their uniquely female ability to "reach out to people they disagree with" and "cooperate to find solutions" and "work for reconciliation" - they're more suited to politics.

However, as one prominent woman in politics (Liz Truss, International Trade Secretary) retorted: "Is there anything more sexist than claiming your gender determines your worldview/behaviour/attitude?"

Or, as one of the women Lucas did invite (Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland) responded: "I do feel duty-bound to point out that the former prime minister of course was a woman and didn't manage to sort out Brexit - so there's maybe a flaw in that argument".

Others were concerned that a cabal of women taking power specifically to avoid the country having to abide by the results of a democratic referendum would not necessarily be brilliant for the reputation of women in politics.

[the one peson who did agree with Lucas was Heidi Allen of The Independents*, who explained that "women are by nature less tribal".]

Even Lucas' response seems to demonstrate how insulated she is from the mainstream of British political thought. "I should have thought more deeply about who an all-white group represents," she admitted. But the complaints weren't about representation - Lucas' assumption that a black person "represents" black people as a whole. People weren't saying she shouldn't exclude talented or powerful black women because that resulted in a failure of representation, but that she shouldn't exclude talented or powerful black women because that's ignoring the available resources for change. And because so obviously specifically excluding black people from positions of responsibility is deeply insulting and reinforces negative stereotypes. And because doing so so obliviously demonstrates that Lucas is a narrow-minded, latently racist tribalist stuck inside an all-white ultra-progressive bubble. The fact that black people would not have been "represented" in Lucas' cabinet is by comparison a minor concern for most of her critics (after all, she's also proposing to not represent any men or poor people).

[It's an interest difference, actually. Lucas' views on women in power are essentialist, as I say - she thinks women are fundamentally different and should be given power as a result, in order to make use of their unique perspectives. But she doesn't think that black people have unique perspectives we should make use of - they just need to be kept around in order for the government to "represent" everybody. I think that, more than either of these worldviews, it's the stark difference in how she treats racial and gender divides that rubbed people the wrong way on this issue.]


It should by the way, be made clear: this isn't one of those cases where someone drew up, say, a list of the ten best acting performances of the year and it just happens that there were legitimately no really obvious black roles to include that year. If you're drawing up a list of powerful women in British politics today, it's virtually inconceivable that Diane Abbott would not be on that list.Yes, she is herself very controversial, yes, she's arguably an idiot, and yes, there are concerns she may actually have some serious mental problems**, but you cannot possibly ignore her in such a list. She's the Shadow Home Secretary. She's #4 in the Labour Party***, and that makes her the #2 woman in the Opposition. Instead, Lucas invited Yvette Cooper, a Labour backbencher. Now admittedly, Cooper's notable in the Brexit issue because she's been one of the leading campaigners against No Deal, but if you include her, and Justine Greening from the Tories, you establish the principle that you're not just inviting the #1 woman from each party, and it makes the fact that you're ignoring Abbott very obvious.

[to be honest, Lucas might actually have gained more credit for coming back with something along the lines of "I only invited the senior women from each party, and don't blame me that all the other parties are racists who haven't promoted black women!"; as it is, her apology conceded that it was her fault, but didn't do much to convince that she would avoid similar faults in future, which in terms of PR is probably the worst of both worlds]








*The Independents are the group that broke away from The Independent Group to form their own independent group, which they called The Independents. They're also not to be confused with Sarah Wollaston, who also broke away from The Independent Group, but refused to join the independent group of former Independent Group independents called The Independents, preferring instead to sit as an independents. The Independents, unlike the independent, are a group, but unlike The Independent Group The Independents are not a party, but "a co-operative". Their slogan (despite not being a party they do have things like slogans, logos, party colours, etc - they just don't have any policies) is "Independent together", and members must sign up to a six-point ideological platform: country, collaboration, integrity, respect, leadership, and openness.

Splitters.

**She had some sort of serious breakdown during the last election, having been restrained and hidden away somewhere private for a few days, the details being covered up. Since then, it's been explained that she of course doesn't have any mental health problems, she's just a diabetic, and they're just like that. Others, looking at the broader long-term context of her often erratic behaviour, suspect there's something more. Personally, I support the right to privacy about one's mental health. And I also support the idea that having a mental health problem shouldn't disbar someone from a career in government. But I do think it's hard to have it both ways at once: the public have a right to know who they're electing to run the country, and when things are concealed, it just encourages suspicion and stigma. I'd be happy to vote for an MP with even a serious mental health problem, if I felt I understood it and understood how it might impact their job and how it might be controlled; but I'd feel quite wary of an MP who claimed to have no serious problem at all, but sporadically acted very strange and every now and then disappeared for days at a time while important political events were occuring, and never explained why. Particularly if they were seeking to be in the Cabinet. So I can understand the concern, even anger, from some regarding the secrecy.

***technically #5. However, the post of Deputy Leader (Tom Watson) is directly elected, not appointed by the Leader, and therefore they have no actual power.

[MacAnDàil]

Lucas's announcement is disappointing. I agree with Sturgeon's response. And there the Greens were rising in the polls in the midst of both a restructuring of the political landscape and a climate crisis.

[chris_notts]

Nicola is an interesting one since she's not even a member of Parliament. I thought that you had to be a member of either the House of Lords or the Commons to serve in the cabinet, but Wikipedia lists a few exceptions to that rule so apparently it's not obligatory. Nevertheless, when they wanted Mandelson back he was made a life peer at the same time, so it does seem like a strong tendency at least.

So... assuming this happened before an election, would the ennoblement of Nicola be on the cards? I'd imagine that would be controversial since many SNP politicians are also republicans, and English fans of the monarchy would certainly not be that happy either at the head of the SNP becoming a life peer. And what would happen if Scotland did become independent? Can a non British citizen sit in the House of Lords?

[Moose-tache]

Minor parties are the same everywhere: their isolation from any real power means they are likely to have even fewer competent people than the major parties, like the waitstaff at a restaurant no one goes to. They do well when the major parties strike out, because most people know little about them and can therefore staple whatever idealized party platform they want to the front of them. I would guess that 50% of Green voters in the US couldn't tell you anything about Cynthia McKinney or David Cobb.

But serious question: is it really bad for the Greens to be run through the wringer like this? It's not like they would be in the news any other way. And we've seen before that having your name perpetually on the lips of journalists, legislators, and ordinary people, can win you an election, even if every single thing they're saying about you is bad. Google searches for "Caroline Lucas" have increased by a factor of 12 in the last week. "That crazy 2.5th wave feminist" is a big step up from "Who?".

[zompist]

So, does this mean anything?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lp-oust-pm

Corbyn says he wants to call a VONC to prevent No Deal.

I assume it's hopeless because a) he avoided the Independent Group, and b) he'd need some Tories on board. Plus it sounds like the LibDems would scuttle it because they don't want Corbyn as PM even as a temporary caretaker.

[alice]

Plus, nobody is going to see it as anything other than Jezza trying to seize power by questionable means when he couldn't do it at the ballot box.

[Salmoneus]

It's his way of painting the Lib Dems (and others) as not really anti-Brexit, while avoiding being anti-Brexit himself.

The idea seems on the face of it to be a non-starter. The technical issue is that Corbyn is calling for an immediate general election, and only then, if he wins, for a second referendum, and even then he's not commiting to supporting No Brexit; the anti-Brexit parties want him to instead call a referendum immediately and campaign for Remain.

The bigger issue, though, is that Corbyn is a) the leader of the Labour Party and by now virtually a bogeyman for anyone right of centre, or even some people only slightly left of centre; b) not necessarily able to command the assent of all his own MPs; and c) an ambitious politician who wants the job permanently, so that nobody trusts him to focus on the immediate crisis rather than doing whatever he thinks is best for his career.

As a result, Lib Dem, SNP, TIG, I, PC, G (etc) MPs would hate the idea of giving him the job and would only do so as a last resort. And even if they did, trying to persuade Tory rebels (some of whom are not at all that left-wing on non-Brexit issues!) to give the keys to No10 to Corbyn seems at best a huge mountain to climb, if not outright fantasy.

But if anyone sounds uncertain about this, Corbyn and his allies will nail them as hypocrites who care more about their own position than about Brexit.

The Lib Dems have in return immediately agreed to form a temporary government of national unity for this purpose, on the proviso that Corbyn ISN'T PM. They've offered a choice of two names: Ken Clarke, a senior Tory from an older generation, generally respected and liked, and now Father of the House (the longest-serving MP); or Harriet Harman, a senior Labour MP from an older generation, generally respected and liked, and now Mother of the House (the longest-serving female MP). Neither of them have long-term political ambitions anymore, and both have confirmed they'd be honoured to have the job, as a strictly temporary thing. Neither would be universally welcomed with open arms, but they're both very viable candidates, and certainly both far more plausible PMs than Jeremy Corbyn. Clarke would probably be the better choice strategically - he'd be better positioned to appeal to rebel Tories, and he's also a charismatic, cuddly, politician popular with the public, the sort of jovial person you'd want as the figurehead of a coup d'etat. [he was kind of a more old-fashioned, less ruthlessly ambitious Prototype Boris Johnson, in a way...] But putting Harman up as a candidate makes it harder for Labour to reject the idea out of hand.

However, Corbyn will almost certainly reject this idea, because he's a hypocrite who cares more about his own position than about Brexit.

[Raphael]

Oh, and today is the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre.

[Raphael]

I think I remember seeing reports about something earlier today, but I can't find these reports, and I can't find independent confirmation anywhere. The something in question is that supposedly, some people in the Labour Party are planning to try to unilaterally repeal Brexit after it happened, once they've got the votes for it in Parliament. Apparently no one told them that, once the UK is not in the EU anymore, the UK isn't the only actor that gets to decide on a possible renewed EU membership anymore - the EU gets a say in that, too.

[Richard W]

Yep. Brexit looks like a damn good way of being forced to adopt the Euro.

[mèþru]

Even the SNP don't like the EU that much!

oh the irony

[Raphael]

Yep. Brexit looks like a damn good way of being forced to adopt the Euro.

Oh, that seems unlikely to me. I don't think Denmark and Sweden would stand for that. What seems more likely would be various forces within the EU blocking the UK from being readmitted on any terms, either because they are left-wingers, centrists, or moderate right-wingers who are simply sick of Britain, or because they are hard right-wingers who sympathize with the likes of Farage or Johnson.

[Raphael]

Even the SNP don't like the EU that much!

oh the irony

???

[mèþru]

A majority of the SNP are against adopting the euro.

[Raphael]

So are the governments of Denmark and Sweden; doesn't mean they're anti-EU.

[Raphael]

Out of curiosity, when is Parliament's summer holiday over?

[Moose-tache]

September 3. Then they have about three weeks until party conferences (hopefully the really good podium-letter-glue has been stockpiled in anticipation of Brexit). Then it's one more month left of Britain.

[Raphael]

September 3. Then they have about three weeks until party conferences (hopefully the really good podium-letter-glue has been stockpiled in anticipation of Brexit). Then it's one more month left of Britain.

Ah, thank you!