British Politics Guide

[Salmoneus]

I dare say her husband is broadly in her favour at least?

To the extent, at least, that it gets her out of the house a bit. Although he apparently hates attention, so I imagine he won't be entirely disappointed when the cameras go away.


Other that that: no, I've not encountered anyone who specifically want Theresa May to be Prime Minister any longer. Some people might still think she's better than the alternatives on offer, but I don't think there's any actual enthusiasm for her. Well, I'm sure there's some Tory grassroots somewhere who'll wave a flag for her because she's PM, but they're a minority even in her own party.


Yougov's latest tracking poll puts the number of people who think she's doing a good job at 32%, against 57% who think she's doing a bad job and 11% who aren't sure. 31% think she should stay to contest the next election - including only 55% of people who intend to vote conservative. And those headlines flatter her - sure, 29% are willing to say she's doing "fairly well", but only 3% say she's doing "very well"!

The next question in their poll begins "thinking about who becomes party leader after Theresa May steps down..." - which is not an encouraging for a question about a PM to start!

Boris is the most popular replacement - a whole 10% think he'd be very good at the job (compared to 1% each for Gove and Hunt). On the other hand, 54% would describe him as "incompetent" and 58% as "untrustworthy". There is no Tory candidate with a positive public rating - the closest is Mordaunt, who is on only -11%, largely because 66% of people don't know who she is and another 13% have no opinion. Their best bet is Javid - 18% think he'd be a good leader, and only 30% think he'd be bad.

73% think Brexit is going badly, with 2% thinking that we have the 'advantage' over the EU so far, and 8% thinking the right sort of Brexit will be delivered. Only 22% think there'll be any sort of deal, but only 18% say leaving with no deal would make them happy (55% say it would make them unhappy).

------

Read an article in the Guardian with a nice phrase that sums up the party factions. Comparing the Tory conference to a family:
Just as adult family squabbles bring with them that same sense of “Why am I still dealing with this shit?”, so it is here: the patrician fossils aren’t talking to the reckless Atlanticists, and the oleaginous metropolitan wing is at odds with the racist granddads – and Cousin Jacob must have his special plate.

----


BUT! Here's a positive thing: among 18-34s, the charity about which most people have heard something good lately is the National Trust - astonishingly, over 45% of young people have heard good things about the National Trust from their family or friends in the last two weeks. That's just ahead of Mind, the mental health charity. The rest of the top ten are the Dogs Trust (DOGS!), the Battersea Dogs Home (DOGS!), Guide Dogs (DOGS!), Macmillan (Cancer!), the British Heart Foundation, Children in Need, Cancer Research (Cancer!) and the RSPCA (DOGS!!). We're living up to national stereotypes (DOGS!) at least. Set up a charity to let children with cancer walk dogs in parks and you're the most popular person in the world...


For those, who don't know: The National Trust is a quango (privately run and funded, but with some statutory powers), founded in 1895, dedicated to conservation. Its two big things are preserving old palatial country houses and estates (mostly forfeited in lieu of tax in the mid-20th century) and conserving areas of natural beauty and wildlife preserves - though it does also own quirkier things, like some celebrity houses and representative industrial and working class heritage sites. It's the largest private landowner in the country, owning about 1.5% of the country (including 20% of the coastline) - its nature sites are usually freely accessible, while its buildings and estates usually have a fee, but are free with membership. It's one of the largest private organisation in the world - around 10% of the adult population are members.

So it's nice that even if our current leaders don't know what they're doing, the youth of today seem like they might keep some of the better things in British culture alive...

[mèþru]

Also the stress has taken a toll on May's health, so I think from a well-being standpoint her husband should not support her leadership.

[mèþru]

I'd like to hear an analysis on Plaid Cymru's leadership election, especially as my mother closely identifies with them according to Political Compass (she thinks Welsh and Scottish independence are stupid ideas and thinks of herself as centrist, so lol)

[Linguoboy]

Rhun ap Iorwerth totally had the coolest name of any candidate.

[mèþru]

I kind of like the whole "let's keep equidistant from both Labour and Conservatives" thing but the current name is much better than "New Wales"

[Salmoneus]

I'd like to hear an analysis on Plaid Cymru's leadership election, especially as my mother closely identifies with them according to Political Compass (she thinks Welsh and Scottish independence are stupid ideas and thinks of herself as centrist, so lol)

Plaid Cymru exist, still, I'm told.


EDIT: to be more detailed: Plaid were interesting in the 1990s, as their support was rising. But with first New Labour, and then Devolution, the support of Plaid plateaued, and has been declining. In the Assembly, they've dropped from 30% to 20%. In the General in Wales, from 15% to 10%. In European elections in Wales, from 30% to 15%. So long as Labour don't implode, they're going nowhere.

Of course, if Labour DO implode, they have a chance of sweeping the board. But the lack of interest in Welsh independence would likely hold them back (compared to the SNP). And if Labour implode, who knows what would happen.

So... nobody cares. Looking it up online, I see that there WAS an article run about their leadership election, but I'd bet 99% of the English population hadn't heard about it.

As for their new leader, I see he's a failed businessman, who campaigned on both increasing and simultaneously reducing income tax, and on Plaid Cymru not being Plaid Cymru anymore, and that he has his supporters call him The Son of Prophecy. cool.

[mèþru]

I feel it's important in Wales at least. They hold 1/6 of an assembly where the majority is 31-29 and have only two less seats than the Conservatives.

[Salmoneus]

I feel it's important in Wales at least. They hold 1/6 of an assembly where the majority is 31-29 and have only two less seats than the Conservatives.

a) with all respect to the Welsh, Wales has a population only slightly over three million - slightly bigger than greater manchester or the west midlands, and far smaller than yorkshire. You can be an extremely important person in Wales without anyone in the rest of Britain having ever heard of you.

And yes, Plaid hold 1/6th of a devolved assembly, and are the third-largest party there at present. Well done them.

Nonetheless, I know little about them and have no particularly strong opinions about them. Although that does give me an idea for a quick post here...

[Salmoneus]

Question: what is the third-largest party in British politics?

[hang on, we already did this back on the old board, didn't we? well, never mind...]

Well, it might depend how you define a party's size. Let's go with something simple and objective: which is party has the third-highest number of seats in the House of Commons?

Many people will tell you it's the SNP. They're wrong. Some will tell you it's the Lib Dems. They're both wrong, and out of date.

In fact, the answer is: The Co-Operative Party.

The Co-Operative Party has a long, rich history - it began as a lobbying group in the late 19th century, before in 1917 being established as an independent political party in its own right. The party quickly made a mark - as soon as 1923, as many as six Co-op MPs were elected. The party's been represented in Parliament ever since, and the 2017 election marked its highwater mark so far, with 37 MPs, slightly more than the SNP.

Why haven't you heard of it? Well, it's allied to Labour. VERY allied. Not only do the two parties have an electoral alliance (the Cheltenham Agreement of 1927), which means the parties never compete against one another, but the Co-operatives allow their members to be members of Labour as well, and in practice all Co-op MPs are ALSO Labour MPs (they are down as "Labour and Co-Operative" on the ballot papers).

[interestingly, The co-ops also allow their members to be members of the SDLP. I'm not sure whether this could in theory mean there were Co-op/SDLP MPs. I suspect so! However, they have no presence in northern ireland (and the sdlp doesn't have much of one anymore), so the question is rather hypothetical...]

The Co-Operative Party has no leader - it doesn't need one, since it just does what it's told by Labour, and having a leader would be un-co-operative. It does, however, have all the rest of the apparatus of a political party - it has its legal identity, and it's budget, and even it's own party conference. It just has no independence, and most people don't know it exists.

[it's also the third-largest party in Wales, with one seat more than Plaid Cymru].

----------


Who are the other minor parties? The SNP and the Lib Dems, you presumably know. And Plaid are the less-succesful Welsh SNP. The Greens have 1 MP. Other than the NI parties and UKIP, and the Scottish version of the Greens, the only other party with a seat in a non-local body are, weirdly, the Libertarian Party, who somehow have an MEP - this is accidental, it's just that a UKIP MEP defected. As for UKIP: they're in a weird state of undeath, theoretically the joint-largest British party in the European Parliament and with a notable presence in many other places (eg the Welsh Assembly), all on account of the fact that the electoral system is too slow to measure the catastrophic collapse of the party. Nonetheless, discontent over the softness of Brexit, and the party's increased allegiance to the extreme right have lead to a resurgence for UKIP this year, more than doubling their support compared to last year - to over 4%.

The 12th largest party by the number of elected officials is "The Resident's Associations of Epsom and Ewell". However, outside of NI, only one other party has representation across the country: The Liberal Party, the continuity splinter wing of the Lib Dems, who refused the merger with the SDP. A euroskeptic party, they have 9 district councillors spread across the country - representing a steady decline from a peak of 28 in 2003. They once came second in a parliamentary election.

[alice]

The Liberal Party, the continuity splinter wing of the Lib Dems, who refused the merger with the SNP.

I think you have a redundant nasal articulation in that acronym

[Salmoneus]

So, it's that time again: cabinet members are privately predicting May may be gone by the end of the week.

The problem is, again, Brexit. There's general dislike of her soft brexit approach. But more importantly, she's now said to be considering accepting a 'backstop proposal' to put a border down the Irish Sea and give northern ireland to the EU - regulatorily, at least, if not politically. This 'backstop' would only happen if no more specific deal on the border were done - the plan is for technology to solve the border question in some as-yet-unknown way in the next couple of years.

May now faces three immediate challenges:

A: the DUP will not accept this, so the government won't have a majority and won't be able to pass legislation. The government have pre-emptively said that if Parliament votes against the Budget (which the DUP have threatened will happen - and, because the DUP are not subtle, they've referred to the "blood-red lines" they will not allow the government to cross), this remarkably won't be considered a vote of no confidence - in other words, the government intends to stay around, unable to pass legislation, until either the Queen removes May from office or, more likely, Parliament eventually gets around to passing into law An Act To Demand That Theresa May Fuck Off Now. Or, even more likely, the Tories execute her on behalf of the country and bring in someone else the DUP can deal with.
The DUP have now said that they believe No Deal is the most likely outcome and that they are 'ready' for it.

B: her cabinet is threatening to resign. The Sunday Times is very specific in its (usually well-sourced) conspiracy theory: Andrea Leadsom (Leader of the House), Penny Mordaunt (International Development), and Esther McVey (Work and Pensions) are actively in discussions to resign collectively in an attempt to bring down the government. All three are figures from the right of the party, whose status is higher than their office: Mordaunt I've mentioned before as effectively a princess of the party (TV-friendly and capable, with ambition); McVey has very recently been raising her profile and positioning herself; and Leadsom has no hope, but has some profile left-over from the last leadership election, where she ended up as May's last token challenger (nobody knew how) and made a fool of herself. Apparently, all three have (probably correctly) been advised that as outsiders for the Leadership, their only hope is to make the first move.

The problem, however, goes deeper than just those three. Many outlets are also now reporting that the Scottish Secretary (David Mundell) may resign too, specifically on the issue of a mid-sea customs border - and that he'd be backed up by Ruth Davidson resigning too. Davidson, as leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, is theoretically not employed by the PM, and has made clear she doesn't want the job, so she's something of a wildcard. If Davidson and Mundell both go, claiming the deal is bad for Scotland and will fuel a new push for scottish independence, it'll probably be seen as a principled condemnation of May (rather than the more political move by Mordaunt &co). What's more, while their resignation threat is currently only through backchannels, it is believed the ultimatum itself (the formal "stop..." to the resignations' unofficial "...or else", as it were) has actually been made in a formal joint letter to the Prime Minister.

But the problem goes deeper than just those five. The Times has also suggested another half-dozen members of cabinet may also be planning to resign if May doesn't back down. This group, including the Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, are theoretically OK with the border question as a temporary fix, but are demanding that either the UK has sole authority to declare when the temporary transition ends (without the agreement of Brussels), or the transition is for a fixed-term agreed in advance and written into the deal. Both of these seem difficult to achieve - the EU won't willingly give up its powers, and they're unlikely to agree happily to a deal that would effectively revert to chaos on a fixed date regardless of whether or not the problems have been fixed by then.

Meanwhile, David Davis, who has already resigned, for those who have lost track, but who has until now supported May in principle (while disagreeing with her policies) has now openly called for a "mutiny" against the PM by her cabinet, presumably so that if everyone resigns it looks like they're just following his orders.

Raab, incidentally, has been summoned to the Continent for emergency talks.

Theoretically, cabinet resignations can't automatically topple May, but they do damage her authority further and free rebels up for attacks against the PM. Theoretically, Cabinet as a whole could rebel and just block May's plans - remember, the PM's in theory just the person who chairs Cabinet meetings - but this is unlikely, since it would seem to be going against the will of their party membership as shown in the last leadership election - if it got that far you'd expect them to just challenge her for the leadership directly.




And on that note...
C: the ever-looming threat of the 1922 Committee continues to loom. The Times says there's been another handful of letters from MPs submitted in the last couple of weeks, and pins down an exact number of these theoretically anonymous letters: 44. And as a reminder for those who aren't dedicated followers of British politics: once that number reaches 48, a leadership election is automatically triggered. May would be able to stand in that election, so it wouldn't automatically mean her downfall... but I suspect that in practice once the firing gun was fired, a lot of the 'wait and see' MPs who are keeping her alive would race to support whoever they thought most likely to replace her.

May's coterie, for their part, have apparently been threatening to bypass her party, and to respond to any challenge from the backbenchers or cabinet by calling a fresh general election... but then the question becomes whether they have the power. They'd need the support of the opposition and a sizeable part of the tory party to get around the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and its possible Tory backbenchers could just refuse to allow an election.


The key dates coming up are Tuesday, when Cabinet will get together and yell at each other very loudly, and Wednesday, when the theoretically-final EU Brexit summit begins.

[chris_notts]

I don't really see a solution to this. I think the majority of actors on both sides do want an organised departure instead of a chaotic "no-deal" Brexit, but there is no obvious solution which is politically possible on both sides of the Channel. The best we can hope for is kicking the can of the future relationship a couple of years down the road via the "transition period", but that's still likely to end in chaos when the magical outside-inside no-fee deal that everyone seems to want proves impossible to agree.

The only routes to any kind of orderly withdrawal I see are:

1. May capitulates completely on key EU demands (e.g. an "all-weather" backstop for NI) and gets it through the Commons on opposition votes.

This seems unlikely because May's committed herself so firmly to many of her red lines. It's hard to see how it's not political suicide for her, so it would have to be a "national interest" thing. But if she cared more about the national interest than the party and her career, then we wouldn't be where we are now.

At this point, the Conservative party might not even survive its leader trying to thwart the revolutionary zeal of the loons. And if it did, I don't see any hope for a sane long-term relationship being negotiated during the two years the deal might buy.

2. Someone else free from those red lines takes over very quickly and adopts a strategy with more realism and fewer unicorns

Very hard to see this. Any new Conservative leader would likely be even more committed to an impossible to negotiate position than May. We would need to start organising a general election immediately and for the Conservatives to lose it, which is by no means certain at this point. I am sure they would lose after the chaos of a no-deal exit, but that would be too late since we'd already have left.

Even if there were a change of leadership, would it help that much? Jeremy Corbyn, although I support many of his policies, is not exactly keen on single market membership because he thinks it would constrain his industrial policies. He would probably be more likely to accept a border in the Irish sea in exchange for the "transition period", but if the destination is still a bog standard FTA then that's just delaying the cliff edge for a couple of years. In two years, we still won't be ready to cut all the ties we've spent decades building.

Of course, he could be pushed into the Norway option by the heavy support in much of the party for continued single market membership...

Even in this scenario, it's hard to see how there's enough time to strike the deal, given the likely time it would take to have the GE, negotiate, and approve the deal on the EU side, without extending the article 50 period. The EU has suggested in the past that they might be willing to do this if the UK's position changed, but it would need to unanimous.

3. Complete breakdown of decision making in Parliament, followed by a referendum in which staying wins

Some people have suggested this, but I just don't see it. Any referendum would be slow to organise as every step would be challenged by those who want to leave. Even if we could do it in time, it isn't clear legally if the UK could withdraw its notification unilaterally. If it couldn't, then the other members would likely extract a price in terms of giving up the rebate and/or opt-outs. The nationalist leavers would see that as a national humiliation and further political chaos would ensue.

In summary, I give it 70% that we crash out chaotically in March, 25% that we crash out chaotically at the end of the transition period with either no agreement or one inadequate to our economic needs, 4% that the exit is successfully managed to minimise economic disruption, and 1% that we decide to revoke article 50 and succeed.

[Raphael]

In summary, I give it 70% that we crash out chaotically in March, 25% that we crash out chaotically at the end of the transition period with either no agreement or one inadequate to our economic needs, 4% that the exit is successfully managed to minimise economic disruption, and 1% that we decide to revoke article 50 and succeed.

Those odds sound about right to me.

[Raphael]

Re the palace intrigues reported by Salmoneus: I don't understand why the "rebels" would want to remove May now. If I was a British Tory MP with the ambition to be Prime Minister some day, I still wouldn't want to be PM right now - I would want to ensure that someone else than me has to preside over Brexit.

[chris_notts]

Re the palace intrigues reported by Salmoneus: I don't understand why the "rebels" would want to remove May now. If I was a British Tory MP with the ambition to be Prime Minister some day, I still wouldn't want to be PM right now - I would want to ensure that someone else than me has to preside over Brexit.

I'm an outsider to the Conservative party, but I think this goes back to the revolutionary zeal thing. There's a good talk by Ivan Rogers about this:

https://share.trin.cam.ac.uk/sites/publ ... lution.pdf

For a lot of the Conservative advocates of Brexit, freeing ourselves from the EU is something akin to a religion. They dream of the UK becoming some kind of European Hong Kong, low regulation, and/or to realign the UK with another power block they feel is more in tune with their views (i.e. the US). The idea that May would sign a treaty binding the UK, or any part of it, to the EU in perpetuity is the kind of blasphemy that demands a good old fashioned burning.

The fact that this would land one of them as the leader / sacrifice to public anger post-Brexit is less important that purging the heretics and preventing an agreement it would be very hard to back out of.

[zompist]

What is so nice about this particular chalice that people want it when it's full of poison?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone, including May, wants to be PM in March. There's no magic deal to be had, so it's just presiding over chaos till you're kicked out. Surely the smart move is to be the white knight charging in afterward.

[chris_notts]

What is so nice about this particular chalice that people want it when it's full of poison?

I mean, I don't understand why anyone, including May, wants to be PM in March. There's no magic deal to be had, so it's just presiding over chaos till you're kicked out. Surely the smart move is to be the white knight charging in afterward.

I agree if you want to be leader for long. But the reason why people want to be rid of May may not line up with the ideal timings for any would-be leader.

What they need is a useful idiot more in-line with their views as an interim leader after the coup, who can then be replaced later. Luckily, such a useful idiot is available.

[KathTheDragon]

I'd honestly say that revoking article 50 is flat-out impossible. Even if a majority of the population realises that staying in the EU is the only way to actually have a stable (and united) UK, and even if a majority of MPs realise the same thing, I can't see Brussels allowing it.

[chris_notts]

I'd honestly say that revoking article 50 is flat-out impossible. Even if a majority of the population realises that staying in the EU is the only way to actually have a stable (and united) UK, and even if a majority of MPs realise the same thing, I can't see Brussels allowing it.

I agree it's very unlikely, but as I said it's not clear that Brussels has to allow it. Ultimately, the ECJ would have to rule on whether a member can unilaterally withdraw notification. The ECJ doesn't always rule in the way that the member countries might want, and even if it did then bribery is normally effective in politics. If the UK were willing to swallow enough humiliation I think there would be a way to cancel the whole thing.

Having said all that, I think the chances are either that we won't try, or if we do try there'll be no consensus for paying the price in money and humiliating loss of the current special terms and conditions of our membership.

[Raphael]

I'd honestly say that revoking article 50 is flat-out impossible. Even if a majority of the population realises that staying in the EU is the only way to actually have a stable (and united) UK, and even if a majority of MPs realise the same thing, I can't see Brussels allowing it.

Good point. On the one hand, "mainstream" EU leaders are probably already looking forward to never having to deal with the UK again (or at least not that much). On the other hand, there's the increasing influence of those member state governments that are fully or partly hard right, who hate the EU and would love to leave it if only they could do so without destroying their own countries' economies and leaving many of their own citizens "stranded". These people tend to be friends with British Brexiteers and would probably do everything in their power to prevent Britain from staying in the EU.