British Politics Guide

[chris_notts]

EDIT: and now the Speaker has yelled "Be a good boy!" repeatedly at the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think he may have heard that the government intends (unprecedentedly?) to stand a candidate against him in the election.

To be fair, the current system outrageously deprives one constituency of their representation. The speaker is supposed to be neutral and since the seat is not contested, his constituents have been disenfranchised. At least if the Conservatives stand against him, they'll have a choice of not bring represented by the speaker anymore. Just another thing wrong with our crappy democratic system.

[Salmoneus]

People who, tonight, are being thrown out of the Conservative party* as traitors include:

- Winston Churchill's grandson (The Right Honourable Sir Arthur Nicholas Winston "Nick" Soames, former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Tory MP since 1983)

- the most recent Chancellor of the Exchequer (The Right Honourable Philip Hammond, Tory MP since 1997)

- the Father of the House, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the former Home Secretary, who once was nearly elected leader of the Conservative Party (The Right Honourable Ken Clarke, Companion of Honour, Tory MP since 1970, Tory Cabinet Minister from 1987 to 1997 and from 2010 until 2014 (having first become a minister in 1979))

- a former Attorney General (The Right Honourable Dominic Grieve, Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Tory MP since 1997)

- the architect of the Cameron government (The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Letwin, former Minister of State for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, leading member of Margaret Thatcher's "Policy Unit", Tory MP from 1997)

- the most recent Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor (The Right Honourable David Gauke, Tory MP from 2005)

- the most recent Business Secretary (The Right Honourable Greg Clark, former Director of Policy for the party, Tory MP from 2005)

- the former Education Secretary (The Right Honourable Justine Greening, Tory MP from 2005)

- the former International Development Secretary and serious contender in the last party leadership election (The Right Honourable Rory Stewart OBE, Tory MP from 2010)

- the former Minister for Culture (The Right Honourable Ed Vaizey, former close advisor to Michael Howard alongside David Cameron, Tory MP from 2005)

- two further Privy Councillors (The Rt Hons Alistair Burt and Richard Benyon)


Indeed, all but one of the rebels were former government ministers.









*it's a bit more complicated than that. There are three things: having the whip withdrawn (no longer being considered a Conservative MP), being deselected or even banned from selection (not being allowed to stand for election as a Conservative MP) and being expelled (no longer being a member of the Conservative Party). Johnson has stated his intention to do all three to the rebels, but only the first can actually be done instantaneously.

[Pabappa]

Im getting a crash course in British politics this week .... i had no idea that BoJo could just kick people out of the party, or that he would consider it a wise move to do so. thanks for the updates.

also, if theyre not Tories anymore, what party are they?

[Travis B.]

Things that come to mind is becoming to the Conservative Party what the Tiggers are(?) to Labour, or joining the Liberal Democrats.

[Salmoneus]

Well, I'm not certain exactly what Johnson can, technically, do.

He can remove the whip at whim - the parliamentary party is basically just his gang, and he can say who is in it.
It's local party associations who nominate candidates for the election. However, in the past the central party has said that any local conservative association that nominates a candidate the central party has officially blacklisted will itself be expelled from the party.
Members can be expelled from the party entirely by either their local association or the national body. In theory, that's not the same as the PM, but in practice the party supports the PM and the PM nominates all the important party figures, so it's just a formality.

It's not entirely a non-issue, though. Some of the expelled MPs have said that they will challenge some or all of these processes, potentially in court. It's pretty clear that if Johnson doesn't want them as Tory MPs, they cannot be Tory MPs. It's possible that he may not actually have the power to arbitrarily expel them membership of the party altogether, however.

There may also be interesting questions in cases where the local association supports an MP the national party tries to expel. Some local associations in Remain areas may end up leaving the party, which might make a difference to the chances of any of these MPs trying to be reelected.

But yes, in general: UK parties are much stronger and more centralised than US parties.

On the other hand, on it being a good idea: this would normally be seen as a disasterously terrible idea! But these are extreme times!


------


What are they now? Nothing. They now sit as "Independents". As a technical matter. However, they can list their affiliation as different from that, as long as they don't pretend to be representatives of the Tory Party. In the 1990s, when Euroskeptics were expelled, they called themselves "Independent Conservatives" and I suspect some of these lot will do the same. They can form various 'technical groups' for mutual support, and they can even if they want form their own party, though I doubt they will. [the difference is that a grouping is a system within Parliament, whereas an official party is registered to fight elections as a corporate entity]

For instance, The Independent Group is a party, while The Independents are just a group, and the group who were just thrown out of the Tories are not a group, but simply Independents. Nick Boles, who resigned from the Tories a while ago, calls himself an "Independent Progressive Conservative" as a descriptive label, but he's still listed officially as simply 'Independent', because he's a member neither of an official group within parliament nor of an official party outside it...

[alice]

- the former International Development Secretary and serious contender in the last party leadership election (The Right Honourable Rory Stewart OBE, Tory MP from 2010)

Who, in a poetic twist of fate, got the text telling him he was being expelled at the exact moment he was accepting the award of "Politician of the Year" from GQ magazine.

[Frislander]

EDIT: and now the Speaker has yelled "Be a good boy!" repeatedly at the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think he may have heard that the government intends (unprecedentedly?) to stand a candidate against him in the election.

As soon as I heard Bercow give Gove a drubbing down I actually started laughing.

[doctor shark]

Question: Were there to be an attempt at a motion of no confidence simultaneous to the Prime Minister's motion to call an early election, would the confidence motion take precedence?
Also, if there's a motion to request an early election, does there need to be a date specified in the motion, or is it an open-ended motion?

Either way, this is turning out to be quite the train wreck...

[Raphael]

Apparently, the opposition's main problem, now that Johnson has lost his majority, is that the Lib Dems, Tiggers, and independent former Conservatives can't stand Corbyn, and therefore, a vote of no confidence (VONC) might fail, because these groups don't want to do anything that might lead to Corbyn becoming PM.

Hm, could they, perhaps, try to import the German concept of a "konstruktives Misstrauensvotum" - that is, a constructive vote of no confidence? The idea would be to try to pass a motion expressing both a) that the House has no confidence in Her Majesty's government, and b) that the House recommends that Her Majesty ask [fill in the name of some opposition MP other than Corbyn who would be at least temporarily acceptable, at least half-way, to everyone in the opposition, here] to form a new government. Sure, there would be no precedent for that in British constitutional history, but then again, the British constitution is always a work in progress anyway.


-------


During the debate on government spending, the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, called the Government a "unique combination of rightwing extremism and bumbling incompetence". Err, I don't think there's anything unique about combinations of rightwing extremism and bumbling incompetence in today's world.

But yes, in general: UK parties are much stronger and more centralised than US parties.

As far as I know that goes for most parties in most countries outside the United States - by the standards of most countries, the US Republicans and the US Democrats are just barely parties at all.

[Salmoneus]

Question: Were there to be an attempt at a motion of no confidence simultaneous to the Prime Minister's motion to call an early election, would the confidence motion take precedence?

I don't know. Normally, given that the election motion would be backed by the government, and given that it's already been (albeit contingently) announced, it would surely go first. But then, the confidence motion would have to be an 'emergency' motion, so maybe it could take priority, particularly as the Speaker is thoroughly pissed off with the PM personally.

Of course, Labour could, if they wanted, vote for the election, then VONC the PM, then elect someone else as PM, then cancel the election.


On which note: Corbyn's response to the threat of an election was that he was 'delighted' - after all, he's been begging for it for months (or years). But the reaction of the rest of the party was "fuck no", and they've clearly told him what's what, because now they're not backing an election. At least, not yet.

Also, if there's a motion to request an early election, does there need to be a date specified in the motion, or is it an open-ended motion?

Normally, it's open-ended (or has an end that's not much of an issue, like "this year" or something), and the PM sets the details. However, I suppose Parliament could insist on a specific date. But then, the PM might not back that if it's not the date he wants, so...

Either way, this is turning out to be quite the train wreck...

I think you mean "fascinating constitutional and procedural case study"!

...but yeah. Interesting times!

[alice]

One thing I find particularly amusing about the whole business is that Boris was supposed to be a PM who would bulldoze his way through any obstacles by sheer force of charisma, and yet... I don't ever think I've seen a PM look so, well, impotent.

[Salmoneus]

Apparently, the opposition's main problem, now that Johnson has lost his majority, is that the Lib Dems, Tiggers, and independent former Conservatives can't stand Corbyn, and therefore, a vote of no confidence (VONC) might fail, because these groups don't want to do anything that might lead to Corbyn becoming PM.

Hm, could they, perhaps, try to import the German concept of a "konstruktives Misstrauensvotum" - that is, a constructive vote of no confidence? The idea would be to try to pass a motion expressing both a) that the House has no confidence in Her Majesty's government, and b) that the House recommends that Her Majesty ask [fill in the name of some opposition MP other than Corbyn who would be at least temporarily acceptable, at least half-way, to everyone in the opposition, here] to form a new government. Sure, there would be no precedent for that in British constitutional history, but then again, the British constitution is always a work in progress anyway.

A CVNC could indeed be carried out, although it would be trickier than in some systems. I think there'd be objection to the idea of one law passed today (the CVNC) forcing members to vote in a certain way on another day (i.e. for the new PM). MPs can't be bound like that. And also VONCs aren't actually laws. However, a vote of no confidence could surely be worded to include a verbal commitment to a certain replacement, or at the very least be immediately preceded by a resolution to that effect, which would make it politically difficult to renege on it. Those who really loved diving into constitutional deep waters could maybe try compelling the PM to nominate a certain successor - MPs wouldn't be bound to back that successor, but it would be hard not to once the Queen had appointed them. The PM can be bound, unlike MPs, because he's responsible to (i.e. accountable to) Parliament, and is a servant of the Queen, so the Queen could be instructed to instruct the PM to advise the Queen to accept, say, Ken Clark as the next PM. However, MPs aren't an imaginative lot, so I'm not sure this would occur to them.


In any case, it's not a serious option in practice, because there is no replacement PM. The Tory rebels and Tiggers and The Independents won't accept Corbyn (the Lib Dems probably would if they really had to and it all came down to them, but are glad they won't really have to because it won't come down to them). Corbyn, on the other hand, won't accept anybody other than Corbyn. Because Corbyn doesn't particularly care about Brexit one way or another, and primarily sees this as a way to become PM...

But yes, in general: UK parties are much stronger and more centralised than US parties.

As far as I know that goes for most parties in most countries outside the United States - by the standards of most countries, the US Republicans and the US Democrats are just barely parties at all.

Yes. Traditionally, the US was famed in political science circles for its lack of partisanship and in effect lack of national political parties in a conventional sense. That's obviously beginning to change somewhat - as part of a gradual process beginning in the late 80s or early 90s and ongoing to this day - but despite the volume of the arguments, the actual institutional infrastructure of the parties remains unusually weak. Meanwhile, UK parties are unusually strong.


As WS Gilbert put it in 1882:
When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

[chris_notts]

So the government has conspired to get the Stephen Kinnock amendment passed, which tries to revive May's deal, via some stupid procedural means (seriously, we should just burn the whole defective rulebook and rewrite it in a saner way). I'm not sure if this is:

1. As part of a plot to make the bill fail via some other arcane rule, e.g. the one against voting on the same issue twice
2. As part of a propaganda campaign for the election. But they already accuse the other parties of wanting to stop Brexit completely, so how can they also accuse them of wanting to pass May's deal?

[Raphael]

On which note: Corbyn's response to the threat of an election was that he was 'delighted' - after all, he's been begging for it for months (or years). But the reaction of the rest of the party was "fuck no", and they've clearly told him what's what, because now they're not backing an election. At least, not yet.

Ah, that explains it. I had wondered what the contradictory messages from Labour on that topic meant.

[chris_notts]

So the government has conspired to get the Stephen Kinnock amendment passed, which tries to revive May's deal, via some stupid procedural means (seriously, we should just burn the whole defective rulebook and rewrite it in a saner way). I'm not sure if this is:

1. As part of a plot to make the bill fail via some other arcane rule, e.g. the one against voting on the same issue twice
2. As part of a propaganda campaign for the election. But they already accuse the other parties of wanting to stop Brexit completely, so how can they also accuse them of wanting to pass May's deal?

There was a twist here as I read somewhere that the government tried a similar trick of vanishing the tellers for the GE vote that they lost, but that time they were foiled as it got spotted. I can't find the claim now, but maybe reviving May's deal was a test run of the wheeze?

[Salmoneus]

some stupid procedural means (seriously, we should just burn the whole defective rulebook and rewrite it in a saner way

This is how we get Trumpism - "I don't understand it, therefore it's too complicated; I don't understand what the bits do, but I'm sure we can just demolish it all and then easily rebuild something better". Actually, politics needs rulebooks, and rulebooks are inherently really complicated if they to be able to deal with really complicated, and varied, situations. Actually, this crisis is showing how good the system is, that it's able to do these things it doesn't normally have to do, without breaking.

In this case, you can call it a 'wheeze', but it's just a way to ensure that nobody gets screwed over by being unable to communicate a plan quickly enough to their supporters.

[The government were going to oppose an amendment. So its supporters headed to the lobby where their votes would be counted. The government then realised it actually wanted to accept the amendment, but its MPs were already in the lobby (this is an artifact of the opposition jamming a weeks-long process through the House in half a day!), so it simply effectively surrendered, by not offering anyone to count the votes on its side.]

In any case, if "we" rebuild the constitution, who is "we"? It's the government. Personally, I don't want any government, let alone this one, to rewrite the constitution, because I can bet right now that I will not like the result...

. I'm not sure if this is:

1. As part of a plot to make the bill fail via some other arcane rule, e.g. the one against voting on the same issue twice
2. As part of a propaganda campaign for the election. But they already accuse the other parties of wanting to stop Brexit completely, so how can they also accuse them of wanting to pass May's deal?

Apparently the amendment makes it harder to call for a referendum. The government can say "we can't take weeks out to hold a referendum on whether to leave, the law says we have to spend until January debating a withdrawal agreement! Why are you ignoring the law you yourselves just passed!" (it apparently doesn't have to be May's agreement, though it's not like any other one is likely to come along between now and January. They probably also want to be able to show that they're willing to debate a deal (should any arise).

And the law that the Prime Minister can't just force Parliament to vote on the same bill again and again until it surrenders through exhaustion is not an "arcane rule", it's a key rule for ensuring the sovereignty of the house, and it was put in place specifically because the government was trying to override parliament. Without that rule, the government can say "we won't do XYZ [pass a budget, save kittens from trees, have an election, etc] until you pass this bill!" - with it, the government can try once, and then can no longer hold Parliament hostage.
The rule doesn't stop parliament voting on the same 'issue', only the same bill. And it can vote again on the same bill, but only if there's a new session of parliament - this lets the government bring back a bill if it needs to, but also imposes a cost for doing so.

[chris_notts]

In this case, you can call it a 'wheeze', but it's just a way to ensure that nobody gets screwed over by being unable to communicate a plan quickly enough to their supporters.

[The government were going to oppose an amendment. So its supporters headed to the lobby where their votes would be counted. The government then realised it actually wanted to accept the amendment, but its MPs were already in the lobby (this is an artifact of the opposition jamming a weeks-long process through the House in half a day!), so it simply effectively surrendered, by not offering anyone to count the votes on its side.]

Sorry, but MPs should be MPs first, and members of their party second. The fact is, there were MPs who wanted to vote against, but they were prevented from doing so by the games of a government that clearly didn't command the confidence of all of those MPs. MPs should not be prevented from choosing how to vote because the government decides it doesn't want to contest the vote, regardless of whether the MPs are a member of the governing party or not. If the assumption is that those MPs should always vote with the government, what is the point of them even being there? Why doesn't Boris Johnson just exercise all of their votes by proxy? And if they are allowed to vote against the government, as they are, then the government should not be able to concede on their behalf.

In any case, if "we" rebuild the constitution, who is "we"? It's the government. Personally, I don't want any government, let alone this one, to rewrite the constitution, because I can bet right now that I will not like the result...

In this case, all that's required is some remote controls / buttons with two options, issued to each MP. The speaker calls for the vote to be held, everyone present presses the right button, the vote is counted by computer. Job done, and on the plus side you don't need tellers or MPs to be constantly entering or leaving the room. A much simpler solution than the incredibly stupid system we have right now. And, if the government does change its mind, all it has to do is get someone on the front bench to stand up pre-button-push and shout "we've changed our minds, guys!".

In any case, even you have to admit that the whole show is ridiculous and childish, with magic maces somehow controlling when and if things can happen, people denting very old doors, etc. It's not impressive, it's childish tradition hoarding where people copy something just because some idiot did it 500 years ago, regardless of how much sense it makes. And some people become fascinated by these childish games and write huge tomes on the silliness, but that doesn't change the fact that the mess detracts from the functioning of our democracy rather than enhancing it.

[Raphael]

Sorry, but MPs should be MPs first, and members of their party second.

Very good point. It is a bit odd to see that point coming from you, of all people, though.

In any case, even you have to admit that the whole show is ridiculous and childish, with magic maces somehow controlling when and if things can happen, people denting very old doors, etc. It's not impressive, it's childish tradition hoarding where people copy something just because some idiot did it 500 years ago, regardless of how much sense it makes. And some people become fascinated by these childish games and write huge tomes on the silliness, but that doesn't change the fact that the mess detracts from the functioning of our democracy rather than enhancing it.

Speak for yourself. I'm from a country where there's basically no pageantry in politics, and very little in public life unless you're an observant follower of the one or other pageantry-rich religion (which I am not), and I do sometimes get the feeling that something is missing, in a hard-to-define way.

[chris_notts]

Sorry, but MPs should be MPs first, and members of their party second.

Very good point. It is a bit odd to see that point coming from you, of all people, though.

Really? I remember we had some disagreement a while ago about party loyalty, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the legal rights and responsibilities of MPs. MPs should directly exercise their vote without the government or parties somehow subverting or interfering with it legally, although of course there is peer pressure. And parties, which are groupings of like-minded MPs, should be free to decide who is like-minded enough to be a member. I'm not sure how these two views contradict each other.

Speak for yourself. I'm from a country where there's basically no pageantry in politics, and very little in public life unless you're an observant follower of the one or other pageantry-rich religion (which I am not), and I do sometimes get the feeling that something is missing, in a hard-to-define way.

The thing about rituals is that eventually everything becomes about the rituals, and magical thinking takes over where the presence or absence of a lump of metal is somehow more important than actually resolving the issue at hand. I think it's a good thing if government decision making processes are protected as much as possible from that and kept as simple and clear as possible, while still supporting good and stable decision making. Anything which isn't required for that should be pared back.

Rituals are great for the personal (weddings, funerals, births, ...). But I don't believe they're good in our main decision making institutions.

[Salmoneus]

Anyway, today was meant to be fun. The Tories proposed 90 different amendments in the Lords just to the question of whether to debate the extension bill; the Lords were in session until 1:30 in the morning last night fighting over it. It was expected to be an entire day of filibustering. Now, the Lords can agree to work on Friday, and Saturday, and Sunday, but doing so would be a proposal that could ALSO attract a hundred amendments. [I don't actually know the precise rules on filibustering in the Lords, it's not that important, but in essence they can all propose amendments and they can demand a debate on each amendment.]

Normally, filibustering in the Lords doesn't matter much - the Lords cannot delay a money bill, and after any other bill has been delayed by the Lords for a year, the Commons can override them. So it's a delaying power only. However, in this case, with prorogation next week, which cancels all outstanding legislation, it was a race against time.

But in the end, the Tories capitulated, probably wisely. They've now said that not only will they not filibuster in the Lords, they also promise not to prorogue parliament until the bill has been passed.

But wait, what? The government's trump card with this legislation is that they can stop it by prorogation, and stopping it is crucial (the PM today said he'd rather be "dead in a ditch" than have to obey this law, which not only tells him to beg for an extension, but actually dictates word-for-word what he has to say to the EU). So why on earth would they capitulate?


Well, they've picked a strategy and, rather than fannying about trying to cover all options, they've gone all-in (Corbyn should be taking notes!).

They've bet that their best option is an election. So they're clearing all the obstacles out of the way. The opposition say the reason they can't agree to an election is simply that they need to get this bill through parliament first. Fine, says Johnson, then lets get it through quickly so we can have an election!

[abandoning the filibuster tactic also means they can hope to get the constitutionalism-hating chrises in the electorate on their side, painting Labour as the party of rule-following pedantry and underhand procedural shenanigans, and themselves as the plainspoken fair dealers who wouldn't stoop to that sort of thing - "Parliament," as they are saying, "versus the People".]

If he wins the election, he can rewrite this bill immediately anyway, whatever's in it. If he loses the election, it doesn't matter what's in the bill, because he won't be around to have to implement it. So he may as well let the bill pass.


------

Now, there's still another issue: other parties don't trust Johnson to have the election when he says it'll be (15th October) - they're worried it'll actually be after Brexit, or so soon before that it might as well be after.

I, to be honest, don't know the exact procedural niceties here, but the problem seems to be that the FTPA has this procedure for calling an election (needing a supermajority), but it's not actually a law (it can't be, they can't require supermajorities). So the PM's promise when calling for the election isn't legally binding at all (it would be politically damaging to publically renege on a promised election date for obviously underhand reasons, but everything is so high-stakes now that he might just think it worth it (though to be honest, I think he is telling the truth on this one)).

So, what can the government do?

The obvious, but insanely, thrillingly risky, ballsy thing to do would be call a Vote of No Confidence... in himself. There would then be two weeks in which Corbyn (or anyone else) could try to form an election, and when they failed, there'd be a general election automatically called under the FTPA rules. This is very clever, but has an obvious problem: although everyone else says they won't back Corbyn... maybe, if it came to the crunch, they might? It's easier to reject the idea of Corbyn as PM than it is to reject actual Corbyn looking for the actual votes to actually become PM and stop No Deal. Or maybe Corbyn would fail, but would let Labour vote for someone else instead, even if only as a caretaker administration? It's very risky. [although it has the delicious advantage that the only way the opposition could be certain of stopping an early election would be to admit they had confidence in the PM...]

More likely, they'll drive the constitutional carriage and six horses through the gaping, obvious loophole that's been in the FTPA from the start: the law requires a supermajority to call an election, but changing the law only requires a majority!

Apparently the thinking is that they won't change the FTPA itself, they'll just pass a law saying "notwithstanding the FTPA, we're going to ignore the FTPA just this once".

Of course, Boris' next problem is that in the last vote on the election, he didn't even have a simple majority. But a simple majority might be easier to reach if people knew that a simple majority was all it took. The impossibility of a supermajority allowed a lot of MPs to simply abstain on the first vote, knowing that their vote wouldn't make a difference anyway. If he only needs a majority, he doesn't need many rebel opposition MPs to break ranks and follow their hereditary opposition hunting instincts of calling for an election at all times...

Anyway, apparently there's going to be some sort of election motion on Monday, though the details haven't yet been revealed.


-----

In MP news:

- Luciana Berger, who went from Labour to CUK due in theory to anti-semitism, is now a Lib Dem (at least until there's a new Labour leader, I suspect). The Lib Dems now have 16 MPs, a quarter of whom have defected from other parties...

- Dame Caroline Spellman, former Conservative Party Chairman, voted against the government yesterday, but was not expelled, leading to some anger (and there is a LOT of anger over the expulsions, even from many Brexiteers; apparently in the '22 they were cheering everyone who attacked the PM and booing everyone who supported him). However, today she's said that she won't contest the next election.

- The Prime Minister's own brother has resigned from Cabinet, and said he'll leave politics. He said he could no longer deal with the conflict he faced between family loyalty and the national interest. To be honest I think people were more surprised he was ever willing to be in Boris' cabinet in the first place, but still, your own brother saying that he can't trust you and believes you're acting against the national interest is not great for PR.