British Politics Guide

[Salmoneus]

Narrowly defined, "public school" refers to just seven private schools (Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester, Westminster, Shrewsbury, and Charterhouse

I'm slightly surprised by this specific list, in particular the inclusion of Shrewsbury to the exclusion of Durham

Those seven are those that were specified as, and regulated as, public schools in the 1868 Public Schools Act. I don't know, but given Durhams' historical association with the cathedral (it used to be opposite the cathedral, it was founded when the cathedral was founded, and their website hints at the suggestion that it's actually a continuation of the monastery at Lindisfarne destroyed by Vikings*), it was probably still a church school back then. Church schools couldn't be public schools, because their entrance was restricted to members of that denomination, and often of that parish or diocese, and hence they were not truly public. Interestingly, although Durham's in the HMC, it wasn't one of the original 14 members (another restrictive definition of 'public school'). I don't know when it joined.

the kinds of non-stereotypical public students Sal is talking about

To put a number on it, looking it up, apparently around 1/4 of private school pupils are from neighbourhoods with lower than the average national income.

TBF, given that there is a significant both reputational skew in public schools towards the South of England (as the above narrow list of 7 shows) you can't blame a northerner such as myself for thinking of the south as especially posh (I certainly had a bit of a culture shock in my first year at Cambridge realising just how many such schools there are).

Sure, but it's not like we ALL go to public schools! Only a tiny percentage go to Eton and the like!

Plus I'm not sure about the wider knowledge of the northern public schools outside of the region (probably the one most people in the south have heard of will be Ampleforth, and that's weird in its own way cause it's also a Catholic monastery)

Well, Rugby is obviously in The North, and Shrewsbury basically is. And even Eton, Harrow and Westminster are north of the Thames, so they're sort of semi-Northern...

One thing not mentioned here is the existence of equivalent schools in Scotland. Fettes, where Tony Blair went, is basically an English public school that happens to be in Scotland**, and therefore not officially called a public school.


*even if that were true, it still wouldn't be the oldest public school - the King's School in Canterbury was founded in the 6th century.

**it is indeed a school and not, as one might imagine from its architecture, a dark temple to satan (see here...). Although I suppose opinions may differ...

[Salmoneus]

ANYWAY: what the fuck!?

PARLIAMENT HAS NOT BEEN PROROGUED AFTER ALL.

Yes, the Supreme Court decided "unanimously" that the PM's advice to prorogue parliament was unlawful, and that therefore the Queen didn't do it. Anyone who thought they saw her do it is just imagining things.

MPs will be back in the Commons tomorrow.


Bizarrely, Labour are calling for Johnson to resign, and threatening a Vote of No Confidence if he doesn't. I mean, in one way that makes sense. When the Prime Minister is found by the Supreme Court to have lied to the Queen in order to silence Parliament and undermine Democracy, that would normally be considered a resigning matter (or, in the olden days, a beheading matter...).

On the other hand: what the hell, Jeremy? If there's a VONC and Johnson loses, then the government has 14 days to present a new prime minister with the confidence of the house, which they cannot do, and then there will be an immediate election. Which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO AVOID!

I can only assume that either he's bluffing, or else he's done a deal with the Lib Dems and SNP to make him Prime Minister without an election. Or, he may be risking everything on bluffing the SNP and Lib Dems! If he topples Johnson, they'd be forced to back Corbyn as PM in order to avoid an election (and hence No Deal). Or else back Johnson, which would be politically difficult for them. I mean, this is a viable, workable stragegy. It SHOULD work. The downside is, if it goes wrong we'd have No Deal and it would be directly Corbyn's fault, so I'm not sure he has (or indeed should have) the guts to try that.

[Frislander]

MPs will be back in the Commons tomorrow.

Aww, does this mean we won't get the utter joy and delight that is the Tory party conference? (*sarcasm alarm*)

On the other hand: what the hell, Jeremy? If there's a VONC and Johnson loses, then the government has 14 days to present a new prime minister with the confidence of the house, which they cannot do, and then there will be an immediate election. Which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO AVOID!

Well, now that the party conference has seen a landslide 52% to 48% victory in favour of Labour having no position on Brexit, perhaps Corbyn thinks he has the will of the party to take part in the election with confidence? Clearly he has a strong democratic mandate to dither and have no fixed opinions when facing off against two parties, both of which actually have strong views on a subject that has got a simple class-warfare-based analysis, making them crazed partisan lunatics that will fail miserably in any election against a party with such a strong electoral platform as "we dunno what we're gonna do when we're elected tbh".

[Raphael]

They're called public because any member of the public is allowed to send their child there, so long as they pay (although in practice there may be waiting lists, so other factors may be considered, like academic ability). Previously, education was either by private tutorship, or by the employers of a private tutor allowing selected friends and/or talented people to join in the tutor's lesson.

Compare "pub" for "public house", that is, a place where any member of the public who has enough money can go and buy a drink, as opposed to private parties.





Meanwhile,

the Supreme Court has decided against Johnson!

[MacAnDàil]

Much as I have as natural dislike to the idea of posh fowk as much as the next man that grew up on a council estate, I don't se why collective schools should be involved in this.

One thing I was thinking about referenda: they should just be trated like ordinary elections.

If we had a general election and anyone suggesting "respecting the result" of it on an indefinite basis and no longer having any more general elections because that wouldn't be "respecting the result", it would obviously not be democratic.

Therefore, the obviously democratic thing is the opposite: have referenda every four or five years on any hot issue, especially ones there has already been referenda on.

[Raphael]

One thing I was thinking about referenda: they should just be trated like ordinary elections.

If we had a general election and anyone suggesting "respecting the result" of it on an indefinite basis and no longer having any more general elections because that wouldn't be "respecting the result", it would obviously not be democratic.

Therefore, the obviously democratic thing is the opposite: have referenda every four or five years on any hot issue, especially ones there has already been referenda on.

Having them every four or five years seems like overkill, but how about, say, once a generation, to keep track of major societal shifts? So, every, say, 15, 20, or 25 years? Not on everything, mind you, but on some really big things like Monarchy vs. Republic, Scottish Independence, or Irish Unification.

[chris_notts]

Having them every four or five years seems like overkill, but how about, say, once a generation, to keep track of major societal shifts? So, every, say, 15, 20, or 25 years? Not on everything, mind you, but on some really big things like Monarchy vs. Republic, Scottish Independence, or Irish Unification.

The problem is this is predetermining the outcome because Irish unification or Scottish independence cannot be easily undone once done. If we're going to lock in permanent referenda on those topics then at some point 51% will vote pro, even if it's just a temporary blip, and then they're out forever. It creates a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Or do you imagine an independent Scotland holding regular referenda on rejoining the UK? Rather than live with that kind of semi-permanent uncertainty about the timing of the union disintegrating I, speaking as an Englishman, would rather just shove them out the door now.

That's how the SNP will win in the end, I think. Not because of a landslide in Scotland for independence, but by pissing off the rest with the topic and creating enough bad blood that staying together becomes impossible. Much like is happening between the EU and the UK right now.

I should say that this mood already exists in the East Midlands amongst what you might call the nationalistic working class. I know a lot of people who'd welcome getting rid of Scotland because they've had enough of Salmond and Sturgeon doing nothing but cast the rest of us as the enemy.

[sangi39]

Does result of the court case have any wider impact beyond "Parliament will be sitting tomorrow"? I guess, more specifically, in terms of how the courts and Parliament or the Government interact, or on the idea of parliamentary sovereignty?

[Linguoboy]

The problem is this is predetermining the outcome because Irish unification or Scottish independence cannot be easily undone once done. If we're going to lock in permanent referenda on those topics then at some point 51% will vote pro, even if it's just a temporary blip, and then they're out forever.

So don't make it a simple majority. Set a higher threshold. It should be easy to make the case for that in a post-Brexit world.

Or make it a multistage process. One vote to seek independence/unification (within a certain window of time, to prevent another "endless Brexit" scenario) and another to approve the actual plan, with "no deal" not an option.

[Moose-tache]

Or make it a multistage process. One vote to seek independence/unification (within a certain window of time, to prevent another "endless Brexit" scenario) and another to approve the actual plan, with "no deal" not an option.

Wait... How does that work? The referendum triggers a time limit to come up with a deal, but it's not allowed that the deal doesn't happen? What if, stay with me here, they don't come up with a deal? Either side could just fold their arms and not agree to a deal and then we're stuck in an infinite loop of "no-deal is not an option, but we have to vote on a deal by June, but we don't have a deal even though that's not allowed so I guess that means we do, but..."
As clearly as we can see the flaws in the Brexit referendum, it doesn't help to just ban them. Referenda on ideas not yet attached to a concrete plan will always run the risk of turning out to be impossible to deliver, or infeasible within a certain time limit. I guess it would be handy to have the plan ahead of time, but that would require governments to negotiate a deal just to stay ahead of the possibility that the public might want one, which seems like a big ask.
The problem is that "independence" is not a bill that can be finalized on the floor of Parliament or Congress before the final vote is tallied. People have to vote on an idea and then the government has to hope and pray that they can deliver something passably similar to the notion voters had in their imaginations when they voted. There is no procedural solution to this, other than to just not have these kinds of referenda. There's no reason why a non-binding referendum needs to be part of the process, legally speaking. We've just used them historically as proof that when the UN comes in and starts carving up Occupied West Gorbistan, they have the aegis of local support. If 90% of Scots wanted FREEEEEEDOM, the Westminster Parliament would not suddenly be under any greater obligation to give it to them after they passed around a piece of paper confirming the obvious. And the legal mechanism for doing so, unilateral action by Westminster, would be the same. Scotland gains no legal claim to independence simply by asking for it (for examples, see any book containing the words "History of England" in the title).

[MacAnDàil]

One thing I was thinking about referenda: they should just be trated like ordinary elections.

If we had a general election and anyone suggesting "respecting the result" of it on an indefinite basis and no longer having any more general elections because that wouldn't be "respecting the result", it would obviously not be democratic.

Therefore, the obviously democratic thing is the opposite: have referenda every four or five years on any hot issue, especially ones there has already been referenda on.

Having them every four or five years seems like overkill, but how about, say, once a generation, to keep track of major societal shifts? So, every, say, 15, 20, or 25 years? Not on everything, mind you, but on some really big things like Monarchy vs. Republic, Scottish Independence, or Irish Unification.

No, for specific cases we can see that we already have the mandate for a second independence referendum because of Brexit and tides have turned on Brexit itself as well.

Having them every four or five years seems like overkill, but how about, say, once a generation, to keep track of major societal shifts? So, every, say, 15, 20, or 25 years? Not on everything, mind you, but on some really big things like Monarchy vs. Republic, Scottish Independence, or Irish Unification.

The problem is this is predetermining the outcome because Irish unification or Scottish independence cannot be easily undone once done. If we're going to lock in permanent referenda on those topics then at some point 51% will vote pro, even if it's just a temporary blip, and then they're out forever. It creates a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Or do you imagine an independent Scotland holding regular referenda on rejoining the UK?

Of course they wouldn't, and for good reason. The only case I have heard of people wanting unification was in Germany. And the only poll which asked what Scots would vote for if we were already independent, got a very clear majority in favour of independence. Most popular in favour of Union are actually in favour of the status quo, whatever that may be.

By the way, some people in England and Wales would vote for the SNP if they could: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-vote-snp The main policy of the SNP obviously is independence but they are not a single issue party either: https://www.snp.org/policies/

The problem is this is predetermining the outcome because Irish unification or Scottish independence cannot be easily undone once done. If we're going to lock in permanent referenda on those topics then at some point 51% will vote pro, even if it's just a temporary blip, and then they're out forever.

So don't make it a simple majority. Set a higher threshold. It should be easy to make the case for that in a post-Brexit world.

That's the sort of thing that can create impossible hurdles, or at least significantly greater hurdles than for changing the PM, even though referenda often get higher turnouts.

Problems with the way Brexit has been dealt with include, but are not limited to: lack of factchecking in the media, lack of oversight of campaign funding, reinterpretation of the wording of the referendum, lack of diplomacy, lack of consultation with other Members of Parliament, stubborness.

Or make it a multistage process. One vote to seek independence/unification (within a certain window of time, to prevent another "endless Brexit" scenario) and another to approve the actual plan, with "no deal" not an option.

That could maybe be an idea, pace part of what Moose-tache said. Needless to say, in contrast to Brexit, there was already a plan for independence before the referendum.

[cedh]

Or make it a multistage process. One vote to seek independence/unification (within a certain window of time, to prevent another "endless Brexit" scenario) and another to approve the actual plan, with "no deal" not an option.

Wait... How does that work?

The way I understand it, it would be like this:
1) A referendum whether people want X in general.
2) A time limit for the government to come up with a deal.
3) If a deal is agreed, there is another referendum between (a) this deal, or (b) cancelling X altogether, so everything stays more or less like it was before the first referendum. (Presumably, if no deal can be agreed, then X would be cancelled automatically.)

[Raphael]

Trying to post some barebones updates while Salmoneus is busy with his computer problems - I don't have his background knowledge, so I'll just repeat what I'm seeing on the Guardian's website: On the day Parliament returned, everyone involved ratcheted up the rhetorical aggression level, with the Attorney General saying Parliament has "no moral right to sit" and everyone in the opposition saying various harsh things about the Government. Johnson and friends have clearly decided to try Trumpian double-down. My completely uninformed guess is that right now the main question is whether Johnson can somehow cling to his office until October 31st. If he can do that, and there's Brexit on that day, and he can afterwards get a new election before the post-Brexit disaster gets too bad, he might well stay PM for a while. But those are a lot of "if"s.

[Raphael]

This just in: Johnson just "guaranteed" that if he comes up with some kind of Brexit deal, he'll submit it to the House for approval.

[KathTheDragon]

If he comes up with deal...

[Raphael]

Some people have claimed, and I tend to agree with them, that if he comes home with any kind of deal, he's finished - the hardcore Brexiteers would revolt, and his power is entirely based on their support.

[Raphael]

Oh, and now, apparently, Team Boris is floating the idea of a second prorogation.

[Raphael]

I have very low expectations of people like Boris Johnson, but ...

Johnson just said in the Commons that the best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox and to bring this country together is to get Brexit done.

(Guardian)


...that surprises even me in a bad way.

[Richard W]

We have just had a confirmation from the PM that he will respect the law but an unambiguous statement ('No') that he will not request an extension under Article 50 even if the conditions of the Withdrawal No. 2 Act are met. That seems a pretty strong prediction that he will cease to be prime minister by 20 October. The House seems to have taken as an indication that he intends to defy the law.

After the use of alternative names such as the 'Capitulation Act' and mention of traitors, the House is now discussing death threats they have received and the like. (The speaker has just declared that calling another MP a 'traitor' is 'unparliamentary' language.)

[Salmoneus]

The language thing is an easy issue to hit the pm with and i think they're bein a bit opportunistic about it (althouh they're riht that some lanuae has been inflammatory).

But yes, Johnson badly misjuded a few responses toniht. When one of Jo Cox's friend, from an adjacent constituency, points to the memorial plaque to her and calls for care not to inflame the situation, to respond with "humbug!" (even if it's true) is not really acceptable. And to say that the memory of Jo Cox, a Remain politician murdered by an extremist Brexiteer, is best served by capitulatin to extremist Brexiteers, is indeed abominable and I think even a lot of Tories will feel very uneasy about it.

----------

One interestin thin is how overtly the Speaker is now anti-government. He was effectively mockin Johnson at times, with very little provocation.

-------

I don't think anyone knows what the PM will do about the extension. One option is that there's not necessarily a real dichotomy between disobeyin the law and askin for an extension. The government have been clear that they're going to try hard to find loopholes in the legislation. I suspect the timeline will be:
- up to end of EU leader's summit: doesn't ask for an extension because he's still 'negotiating a deal'
- after EU leader's summit: doesn't ask for an extension because he says the law doesn't require it
- a week and a half of legal debate results in the supreme court rulin that, yes, the law does require that
- PM says oh dear, but look, Brexit's already happened so it's too late now, and let's have an election.


It reminds me, as a lot of politics does, of Yes Prime Minister's account of the Foreign Office's "four stage plan" for discouraging intervention in events in other countries:
Stage 1: nothing is going to happen.
Stage 2: well, something might be going to happen, but we should do nothing about it
Stage 3: perhaps we should do something about it, but there's nothing we CAN do!
Stage 4: there may have been something we could have done but.... *shrugs* it's too late now...