British Politics Guide

[Frislander]

The thing which is most depressing to me is when the BBC goes and does vox pop and of course there's so many ignorant pro-Brexit views, because few people actually pay attention to what's going on in politics at the time, and many of those who pay attention to the news get it through the rampantly pro-brexit rags who have a vested interest in keeping the piblic ignorant. There was one person they interviewed today who said that no Brexit would mean that "democracy had died", completely ignorant of the frankly almost autocratic behavior of the government, and then contradicting herself by saying she wouldn't even consider a second referendum. It's things like this which show quite plainly the stranglehold the right-wing gutter press has on a significant section of the British public, and I can't see a way to truly heal our divided country which doesn't involve completely dissolving it, which would itself be exceedingly difficult if not impossible.

[Salmoneus]

Hey, she didn't purposely withdraw aid to a famine ravished area that the UK is directly responsible for (Churchill and the Raj)

You haven't been following the news. Priti Patel (the zionist minister sacked for carrying on secret private negotiations with the Israelis when international development minister) has in fact suggested that we punish Ireland by withholding food from them (most trade with ireland comes via the uk).
The Irish of course responded by pointing out that their agriculture sector has actually done quite well since the Hunger, and that currently 43% of food consumed in the UK comes from Ireland, so let's not start talking about food embargos yet, shall we?

In answer to your point, though: better a prime minister who governs well but has some bad policies than a prime minister who cannot even enact her own bad policies...

And yes, May is rapidly plummeting down the rankings, and she wasn't high up on them to start with. Even Chamberlain, Baldwin and MacDonald have undergone some PR-resuscitation in recent years...

Campbell-Bannerman, for instance, may only have lasted three years before dying, but he introduced free school meals, union-protection legislation and local government land purchases (paving the way for infrastructure and social housing development), so...

[the actual title-holder for 'worst PM in the last century' is usually considered to be Anthony Eden]

UK's current situation is one of the reasons I like the executive branch being separate from the legislative branch in the US - the two branches are forced to develop ways of functioning without relying too heavily on the other.

What generally happens in practice is that the 'way of functioning' ends up being a coup d'etat. In the UK, a stalemat like this is freakish, bizarre, and can't last long. In the US, it can last indefinitely...

------------


Anyway, now people are actually yelling in the Commons. Someone tried to take the Mace. The Guardian's editorial goes with "Theresa May continues to treat parliament with contempt, as her authority drains away... Mrs May is not saving her leadership, she is devaluing it to the point of worthlessness."

Fair enough, they're left wing. But the FT goes with "May’s Brexit retreat exposes a zombie premiership". And the Telegraph, so closely tied to her party it's often referred to as "the Torygraph", is running a column with the headline "I have never felt more ashamed to be a Conservative" and the quote "What kind of person is it who can do the most humiliating thing yet manage to show not one iota of humility?"

Tomorrow we'll be having an emergency debate about the decision not to have a vote. It won't accomplish anything but there'll be a lot of shouting.

[chris_notts]

[the actual title-holder for 'worst PM in the last century' is usually considered to be Anthony Eden]

The failure of Suez only put oil supplies at risk. May is currently working hard to put our food supplies at risk... Food beats oil in my book.

[mèþru]

Sal, that was no mere "bad policy". That was genocide.

[Salmoneus]

I'd have hoped we could all agree that genocide was a bad policy.

[It's also very unlikely that the bengal famine was genocidal. It's true that the government in london failed to rush food to the region (across an ocean where shipping was being devastated by u-boat attacks) - instead, it was concentrating its resources on D-Day. It also was underinformed about the extent of the famine, by local military and political governors who failed to convey adequate urgency - notably, when the commander in the region was replaced, his replacement was able to secure substantial relief aid from London in only a few weeks, undermining the theory that the famine was a deliberate action from Churchill. More significantly, however, there was no actual substantial food shortage in Bengal: there was an economic crisis of malapportionment, founded upon war profiteering and speculative hoarding, facilitated by an inept and probably corrupt local government, and the supply of more food would have been unlikely to change anything - the market was broken, and there wasn't the infrastructure even in peacetime, let alone in wartime, to adequately distribute food directly throughout rural areas in Bengal. It's certainly true that Britain bore some moral responsibility for what happened - it had failed to ensure that local economic and political structures (both Indian and British) were adequate for the task of crisis management, and it could have reacted with more urgency, and perhaps resolved the crisis sooner (although London was not exactly expert at economic intervention; nobody was at that time). Were these failures probably exacerbated by a racial and/or ethnocentric mindset on the part of many politicians and administrators, including Churchill? Probably, yes. But to suggest that the failures were intentional, born of a desire to destroy the Indian race, is beyond speculative and into an outright conspiracy theory. And again, of course, it bears stressing that decisions at this point were being made under the fog of war in the middle of an existential military struggle for survival against Nazism, conditions under which at best difficult and controversial, and at worst outright wrong, decisions were frequently made.
By all means criticise the policies. But the empty sloganeering just demeans the cases of genuine genocide, including by the British (including at least intended genocide by Churchill himself in other areas).]

[and incidentally something broadly similar could be said about the famine closer to my own family history, the great hunger in Ireland.]

But please, take it to another thread.

[zompist]

Nice surrealistic quote from Anand Menon on Brexit:

We might have an election. We might have a referendum. We might have no deal. The prime minister’s deal might be accepted. They’re all massively implausible, okay? But what we know is that one of them is going to happen.

It seems that May is playing chicken. As she runs out the clock, she's betting that her deal starts to look better.

On the other hand, it will be tricky for a hundred MPs to say "Er, um, upon review it seems that this terrible deal is actually acceptable." The likely outcome seems to be everyone waiting for a solution they can't or won't outline or work for, and stumbling into disaster.

[Moose-tache]

But please, take it to another thread.

"Two and two make five!"
"No they don't. They make four."
"Can you please not derail the thread?"
"But you started it."
"I think you'll find the first person who mentioned all this "four" business was you!"
"This thread was about turnip recipes."
"Exactly; here you go bringing up the number four in a thread about turnips."
"But I only did it because you-"
"So you admit it? For shame, sir. For shame."

[alice]

The thing which is most depressing to me is when the BBC goes and does vox pop and of course there's so many ignorant pro-Brexit views, because few people actually pay attention to what's going on in politics at the time, and many of those who pay attention to the news get it through the rampantly pro-brexit rags who have a vested interest in keeping the piblic ignorant.

Five minutes reading the comments on one of the Brexit-related Have Your Says on the BBC website will depress you many, many times more.

[Raphael]

As some wise person once said, "Welcome to the Internet! Don't read the comments."

[Raphael]

Ok, I just saw a claim on Twitter that an SNP MP has said that if Corbyn doesn't introduce a motion of no confidence until the end of today, "other parties" will. That takes the whole thing to the next level, I guess.

[Frislander]

Ok, I just saw a claim on Twitter that an SNP MP has said that if Corbyn doesn't introduce a motion of no confidence until the end of today, "other parties" will. That takes the whole thing to the next level, I guess.

People aren't going to like that - one of the rhetorical devices of the 2015 election was the claim that Labour would let the SNP in by the back door, because much of the English public is terrified of them, probably because of the referendum.

[mèþru]

If there's so much disagreement between the English and Scots, why don't the English see it as both sides being better off without having to compromise all the time with the other?

[KathTheDragon]

This is relevant and also hilarious

[chris_notts]

This is relevant and also hilarious

And this

[Salmoneus]

Theresa May, the Prime Minister, was in some difficulty today (quelle suprise).

She arrived in Berlin to discuss Brexit personally with Chancellor Merkel, but soon discovered that in fact no orderly and graceful exit was possible - that, in fact, she was locked in for an indefinite period and could not leave without outside assistance.

...yes, I'm being literal. Her car drove up at Merkel's door, Merkel strode out to greet her... and waited. And waited. The Prime Minister, you see, was unable to leave the car. Somebody tried opening the door from outside, but could not, apparently because it was locked. It could not be opened from the inside, because that would require the Prime Minister unlocking the door, and she had not been briefed on this turn of events, and hence was unable to act. Fortunately, the driver showed some initiative, and after a tricky manoeuvre leaning back inside the car to the back seat to unlock the door himself as the prime minister sat there, the door was freed, and the Prime Minister was finally able to leave the vehicle, while Merkel looked on trying not to laugh at her.

-----------

Back home, it seems she may be being set up to lose in two different ways.

Labour, as you may know, have refused to call a parliamentary VONC against her, on the grounds they might win, and that would be a disaster for their electoral strategy (which is currently "we're not in power! none of this is our fault!"). However, the SNP have now said that if Labour don't call a VONC tomorrow, they will. Presumably Labour would have to support it - so they're rallying to the PM's defence to prevent it. They've argued that they're the Opposition, so only they are allowed to express a lack of confidence in the PM. Whether this will work is unknown.

More seriously, Graham Brady, Chairman of the 1922 Committee has, it's been fairly reliably reported, asked to have A Talk with the PM immediately after PMQs tomorrow. Multiple sources, including a cabinet minister, say they're confident The Letters have now been sent in, and Brady will be discussing the timeline for a party VONC against the PM.

But who knows.

[Salmoneus]

Footnote: the Party Chairman and the Chief Whip have been sequestered in No. 10 until 11pm. If today isn't the day, I think the hierarchy at least thinks it is...

[chris_notts]

Footnote: the Party Chairman and the Chief Whip have been sequestered in No. 10 until 11pm. If today isn't the day, I think the hierarchy at least thinks it is...

Unfortunately, I think she's likely to survive the vote. Fear will prevent most from deposing her, the same way Labour clung on to Brown in the dying days of the Labour government but with the added pressure of Brexit. I'd bet that only 60 - 70 actually vote against her when it comes to it. And even if 100 or 120 or 157 vote against her, we know that there's no shame or pressure that can force her out, otherwise she would have quit already.

[chris_notts]

Our only hope is the government as a whole losing a VONC if TM manages to annoy the DUP a bit more.

[Salmoneus]

Footnote: the Party Chairman and the Chief Whip have been sequestered in No. 10 until 11pm. If today isn't the day, I think the hierarchy at least thinks it is...

Unfortunately, I think she's likely to survive the vote. Fear will prevent most from deposing her, the same way Labour clung on to Brown in the dying days of the Labour government but with the added pressure of Brexit. I'd bet that only 60 - 70 actually vote against her when it comes to it. And even if 100 or 120 or 157 vote against her, we know that there's no shame or pressure that can force her out, otherwise she would have quit already.

I think the rules saying one VONC per year may be an issue here. The party don't want May as their leader at the next election. But if she wins the VONC, they're stuck with her for twelve months. So come, say, August, they may be in a general election campaign under May... who by then will have endured an internal revolt, a no deal brexit and a disasterous round of local elections. And when they lose those elections, they're then STILL stuck with May all the way through until December!

I think there may be a lot of MPs who would have prefered to wait before getting rid of May after Brexit, but who may now feel it's now or never. But we'll see. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if she wins. But I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't.

[chris_notts]

I think the rules saying one VONC per year may be an issue here. The party don't want May as their leader at the next election. But if she wins the VONC, they're stuck with her for twelve months. So come, say, August, they may be in a general election campaign under May... who by then will have endured an internal revolt, a no deal brexit and a disasterous round of local elections. And when they lose those elections, they're then STILL stuck with May all the way through until December!

I think there may be a lot of MPs who would have prefered to wait before getting rid of May after Brexit, but who may now feel it's now or never. But we'll see. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if she wins. But I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't.

I don't know about Conservative Party procedures for rule changes, but it strikes me that rules are changeable, and probably more changeable in a private organisation than the actual laws governing Parliament. If the party were facing a disaster by following the rules and giving May until December, or either (a) changing the rules, or (b) just making her position so completely impossible that even she'd go then I'm sure a way would be found. If the entire party wants her gone, then the threat of censure for e.g. telling everyone during your election campaign that she's gone come December goes away. Surely even May couldn't withstand a party unified against her and campaigning against her, whatever the rules say.

Political parties are a bit like international treaties: you can dress them up in as much legalese as you want, but ultimately it's about politics not law. It only looks like a system of rules as long as all sides actually believe in them. It's the same with the withdrawal agreement: the consequences of the UK breaking it wouldn't ultimately be that any court forced us to comply, since there's no court which could physically force compliance, it'd be (a) the EU would do nasty things to us, and (b) our reputation would take a hit with anyone else we might want to make a deal with.