nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

General British politics discussion thread

ancapailldorcha

It was suggested that a new thread for non-Brexit political matters regarding the United Kingdom might be warranted so here we are.

Please bear the charter in mind when posting.

Thanks.

Threadbans:
hotmail.com

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Capt'n Midnight

From the Normandy coast, the Jersey whelk wars look like sabotage - the view from France.

Main points ,Jersey fishermen were at the protest too, France has local elections in 6 weeks, no hard feelings for the other channel islands as only Jersey which relies on banking shifted the goalposts for the foreign boats.

Only a cynical person would suggest it was staged for the benefit of the UK local elections.

Marc Delahaye, the director of the Normandy Regional Fisheries Committee, told the Observer: “These licences were not the result of a misunderstanding or a mistake as the Jersey government now says. They were a deliberate provocation, part of a long campaign by an extreme nationalist group in Jersey politics to sabotage centuries of cooperation between the islands and France.

fiveleavesleft

Labour are gas at the minute. They are all each at others throats. Starmer is in the doghouse with his wife, one MP has basically called Angela Rayner a tart & Mandy seems to be running the show. Mad stuff.

10000maniacs

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Frustratingly difficult to get figures as SamR says.

I took them from wiki (47.6% for SNP now, and 1.1% for Greens).
As always with wiki, they may or may not be reliable, either through maliciousness or error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Scottish_Parliament_election

Not all Scottish Labour or Tory voters are Unionists. But the same cannot be said of SNP voters. I think an independent Scotland is very close.

eire4

10000maniacs wrote: »

Not all Scottish Labour or Tory voters are Unionists. But the same cannot be said of SNP voters. I think an independent Scotland is very close.

I would tend to agree. The momentum seems to be heading in the direction of independence. I think the continued intransigence from London just helps the SNP's cause and when ( hopefully) we are within touching distance of being able to get back to life towards the end of this year and into 2022 the full negative effects of brexit will start to come to light which will again only further help the SNP.

BonnieSituation

10000maniacs wrote: »

Not all Scottish Labour or Tory voters are Unionists. But the same cannot be said of SNP voters. I think an independent Scotland is very close.

I'm sure there's one or two alright, but that's a seriously warped set of principles to want independence AND to vote Tory.

Tom Mann Centuria

Starmer had worst election results for a new leader for forty years. Losing voters from the left while not getting anything back from the right.

Sacked the chief whip who served under right, centre and left of his party.

Sacked a Shadow Chancellor with respect from "the city" and all parts of the party.

New Shadow Housing minister is a landlord.

New Shadow Child Poverty minister said in 2012 it was okay to smack kids as long as you don't mark them.

New Shadow Chancellor, a career politician who said Labour is not the party of people on benefits and would be tougher on benefits than the Tories, probably because she's further right than one nation Tories.

Unifying the party :pac:

ArmaniJeanss

10000maniacs wrote: »

Not all Scottish Labour or Tory voters are Unionists. But the same cannot be said of SNP voters. I think an independent Scotland is very close.

I'd say there's definitely a decent amount of pro-independence voters amongst the Labour and Liberal (not Tory) first preferences alright. But I think there'd be negligible votes amongst the Tories or SNP for 'the other side'.

On the other hand the Greens probably have quite a few Unionist voters who consider the green/climate issue to be more important so they vote Green but would also vote for keeping the Union.

There's also the group (and I have no idea what percentage it might be but they must exist) who wouldn't have bothered voting in something as bland as parliamentary elections, but would vote in a referendum. I guess these might favour the unionist side.

And another group (again I don't know their number) are those who didn't have the right to vote in this election, perhaps because of where they live, but would have the right to vote in IndyRef2. I'd guess these would be English based people, so might split on the union side.

And finally there's the people who will die over the next 18/24 months before the vote, and the current 14/15 year olds who will be enfranchised. These are probably a plus for independence.

It's tough to read too much into Thursday's vote and be confident either way.

PommieBast

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm sure there's one or two alright, but that's a seriously warped set of principles to want independence AND to vote Tory.

There is the double-leavers who hate the EU more than the UK, but yes not exactly a common combination..

breezy1985

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Starmer had worst election results for a new leader for forty years. Losing voters from the left while not getting anything back from the right.

Sacked the chief whip who served under right, centre and left of his party.

Sacked a Shadow Chancellor with respect from "the city" and all parts of the party.

New Shadow Housing minister is a landlord.

New Shadow Child Poverty minister said in 2012 it was okay to smack kids as long as you don't mark them.

New Shadow Chancellor, a career politician who said Labour is not the party of people on benefits and would be tougher on benefits than the Tories, probably because she's further right than one nation Tories.

Unifying the party :pac:

So Rayner is now the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I dont have a clue what this is or does or how its a promotion

Peregrinus

breezy1985 wrote: »

So Rayner is now the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I dont have a clue what this is or does or how its a promotion

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a UK political office whose core duties (administering the estates and rents of the Duchy of Lancaster, a portfolio of land properties and assets belonging to the crown) are actually performed by permanent officials, which means the Chancellor has plenty of time on his hands, and can be given other tasks. The office is used to make a cabinet-level appointment with a flexible role - one whose duties and responsibilities are not confined to one department.

The current Chancellor is Michael Gove. He has been given responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on policy development and implementation, particularly around Brexit. In other words, his job is to develop overall policy for how to implement Brexit, and co-ordinate the efforts of various government departments to implement Brexit. He works out of the Cabinet Office

Rayner has been appointed to shadow him in that role. It’s a potentially sensitive role, given that Labour’s Brexit policy has always been incoherent, and the current strategy of trying to pretend Brexit is history now and so We Don’t Need To Talk About It Any More has not paid dividends. I think Rayner’s role may be to work out how Labour should hold the government to account over Brexit in a way that won’t piss off Brexity Labour supporters or Remainy Labour supporters. (Or, at any rate, that won’t piss them off any more than they are already pissed off, and hopefully a bit less.)

That could be a poisoned chalice for her, obviously. On the other hand, if she can make a go of it, her stock in the party will rise considerably, since she will have achieved something that nobody else has managed to achieve, and that the party badly needs to achieve. Whether this is a promotion or a hospital pass is a judgment I leave to others.

O'Neill

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Starmer had worst election results for a new leader for forty years. Losing voters from the left while not getting anything back from the right.

Sacked the chief whip who served under right, centre and left of his party.

Sacked a Shadow Chancellor with respect from "the city" and all parts of the party.

New Shadow Housing minister is a landlord.

New Shadow Child Poverty minister said in 2012 it was okay to smack kids as long as you don't mark them.

New Shadow Chancellor, a career politician who said Labour is not the party of people on benefits and would be tougher on benefits than the Tories, probably because she's further right than one nation Tories.

Unifying the party :pac:

Utter Shambles. Apparently Peter Mandelson is back and people are suggesting he's advising Starmer. :rolleyes:

Joe_ Public

It seems very likely that Rayner negotiated this position for herself in discussions with the leadership so hard to say it's a demotion or promotion one way or another. Nothing alters the fact that the entire thing was an unnecessary pr omnishambles from the beginning and the reshuffle has the distinct feel of rearranging deck chairs about it.

rock22

Peregrinus wrote: »

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a UK political office .... The office is used to make a cabinet-level appointment with a flexible role - one whose duties and responsibilities are not confined to one department.

The current Chancellor is Michael Gove. He has been given responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on policy development and implementation, particularly around Brexit. In other words, his job is to develop overall policy for how to implement Brexit, and co-ordinate the efforts of various government departments to implement Brexit. He works out of the Cabinet Office

Rayner has been appointed to shadow him in that role. .... I think Rayner’s role may be to work out how Labour should hold the government to account over Brexit ..

... Whether this is a promotion or a hospital pass is a judgment I leave to others.

Does this indicate a change in Labour policy regarding Brexit, i.e. to take a more critical role on the government handling?

The appointment to shadow cabinet minister seems to have only come after a lot of negotiations and a backdown by Starmer.

Peregrinus

rock22 wrote: »

Does this indicate a change in Labour policy regarding Brexit, i.e. to take a more critical role on the government handling?

I don't know. But Labour should at least consider it. The government's Brexit handling has been extremely poor. There are a lot of aggrieved groups out there - fishermen, for example - and there will probably be more as implementation proceeds. So there should be some anti-government sentiment that Labour can tap into, and if they can do this effectively for enough diverse groups they may be able to build public awareness of a generally mismanaged Brexit, and promote Labour as the party with a programme for a Brexit that works (i.e. a Brexit in which the UK is a lot closer to the EU).

This will be a slow-burning thing, partly because many of the effects of Brexit have yet to be felt, and partly because it can't really work until the feelgood factor of being ahead of other countries has passed.

pixelburp

Watching Labour implode into potential irrelevance is fascinating, if not a little depressing. By all accounts, if I were a resident, of the three big parties I'd vote Labour (mostly because of FPTP; here in Ireland I happily vote my actual choice) but that hypothetical has become increasingly unsure as the party lurched further into the ideological abstraction is currently finds itself in now. I'd be the first to say I'm not expert enough in UK politics to speculate with any confidence, but is there a suggestion New Labour and the Blair era has ultimately caused this slow-drip towards erosion?

Equally, I say "depressing" because the idea of the FPTP system with no meaningful, strident opposition or alternative to the current crop of Tories is not exactly a healthy situation for any democracy. I don't denigrate anyone who supports Tory policy - I don't like right-leaning politics but I respect the choice to do so - however, I do denigrate anyone who thinks unopposed ideological dominance is a Good Thing.

Peregrinus

pixelburp wrote: »

Watching Labour implode into potential irrelevance is fascinating, if not a little depressing. By all accounts, if I were a resident, of the three big parties I'd vote Labour (mostly because of FPTP; here in Ireland I happily vote my actual choice) but that hypothetical has become increasingly unsure as the party lurched further into the ideological abstraction is currently finds itself in now. I'd be the first to say I'm not expert enough in UK politics to speculate with any confidence, but is there a suggestion New Labour and the Blair era has ultimately caused this slow-drip towards erosion?

Equally, I say "depressing" because the idea of the FPTP system with no meaningful, strident opposition or alternative to the current crop of Tories is not exactly a healthy situation for any democracy. I don't denigrate anyone who supports Tory policy - I don't like right-leaning politics but I respect the choice to do so - however, I do denigrate anyone who thinks unopposed ideological dominance is a Good Thing.

I don't think Labour has "lurched into ideological abstraction" any more than the Tories have — which is to say that they both have, quite a bit. It's not that long since the Tories were ruthlessly tearing themselves apart, purging their own party and shedding votes to rival parties of the right, over largely unmoored-from-reality rival positions on Brexit.

We are where we are because the present Tory junta has basically won the war for the right-wing vote - UKIP, the Reform Party, etc are to all intents and purposes no more, and the Tory party itself has been successfully purged of anyone with a spine, a brain and a sense of self-respect, leaving a cadre of biddable opportunists. But the battle is continuing on the left/progressive side of politics, both within and outwith the Labour party. And the first past the post system delivers a huge bonus to the Tories in these circumstances.

Professor John Curtice, the noted election boffin from Strathclyde University, has been crunching the numbers, measuring the swing disclosed in all the various elections held last week and projecting how that would work out, if the swing were to be replicated nationwide in a general election. His conclusion is that the Tories would get 36% in a general election (Labour 29%, Lib Dems 17%, everyone else 18%).

Obviously on those figures the Tories could still win a majority (though in fact I think Curtice's projection is that they wouldn't - they would be the largest party, but they could only form a minority government). But that doesn't immediately matter, since there isn't going to be a general election tomorrow.
I think the main takeaway here is that the Tories' position is anything but unassailable. The UK's bizarre electoral system may make it look superficially crushing, but 36% of the vote is a long way from assured electoral dominance. The Tories are very vulnerable if there's a victor in the war on the left in much the way that they won the war on the right; they are vulnerable if the left-of-centre parties can form a meaningful electoral alliance (and, for once, the FPTP system strongly incentivises this); and of course they are vulnerable when the feelgood factor of being vaccinated when most other countries are not begins to fade (which it inevitably will, when most other countries are vaccinated).

rock22

I am not too sure that the difference performances between the Tories and Labour are down to ideology.

This link was posted in the Brexit discussion . essentially two voters list all the failures of the recent past , while the Conservatives were in government and gave that as a reason for not voting Labour!
This comes down to voter education and it is up to the parties ( i.e. Labour) to get their message across that the cutbacks of the past few years, the mess of a trade deal post Brexit, the mess in NI, are all down to the incumbent government. And the Labour party has failed in that very basic political task.
John McDonald, previous deputy leader, summed it up. Labour sent candidates out with no clear message and no clear set of policies they could point to.
Starmer has tried to close the door on Brexit 'dissent' when he should have been highlighting the disastrous deal the Tories were demanding from the EU. Perhaps Angela Rayner, in her new role ( whatever that might be ) can be more successful attacking the Tory failures.
Again , with Scottish independence possibly looming the Labour party has no clear policy or position other than a support for the Conservative government. Which leads to many voters thinking that it makes more sense to vote for the Tories directly rather than voting for Labour who will then support the government line.
Finally, the reaction of the Labour leadership, before most results were even in, suggests a headquarters which is floundering and just looking to deflect criticism. Not the most attractive qualities in a leader.

Sam Russell

Blair was a success because he enunciated a clear message, and then got all of the Labour Party to stay on message. Harold Wilson had the mantra of 'thirteen years of Tory mis-rule'.

Keir Starmer, if he wants to continue as leader, needs to think of a message - one that successful puts the Tories on the back foot, and proclaim it through every Labour voice.

"Where is the Brexit benefit" or "Where is the £350 million a week for the NHS?" for example.

breezy1985

Peregrinus wrote: »

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a UK political office whose core duties (administering the estates and rents of the Duchy of Lancaster, a portfolio of land properties and assets belonging to the crown) are actually performed by permanent officials, which means the Chancellor has plenty of time on his hands, and can be given other tasks. The office is used to make a cabinet-level appointment with a flexible role - one whose duties and responsibilities are not confined to one department.

The current Chancellor is Michael Gove. He has been given responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on policy development and implementation, particularly around Brexit. In other words, his job is to develop overall policy for how to implement Brexit, and co-ordinate the efforts of various government departments to implement Brexit. He works out of the Cabinet Office

Still sounds like a made up Mickey Mouse ministerial role to me. The kinda job for the likes of Willie O'Dea who was only too happy to be Defence Minister

Joe_ Public

Instead of trying to come up with catchy slogans, they could alternatively look at the places where they did well in these mayoral and council elections and ask what lessons they can learn from them. Why are some red wall constituencies more solid than others? Why have they been able to make gains, or maintain their vote share in some areas, yet lose control of the council in Bristol which should be a labour stronghold? Rsther than getting bogged down in this or that ideology, or pinning blame on this or that wing of the party, they should be studying why people like Andy Burnham and Paul Dennett can cut through all the bull and get through to people.

BonnieSituation

Another day, another investigation...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/boris-johnson-under-investigation-caribbean-holiday?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Surely one of these will eventually stick?

fiveleavesleft

O'Neill wrote: »

Utter Shambles. Apparently Peter Mandelson is back and people are suggesting he's advising Starmer. :rolleyes:

Worse than that. Mandelson is the one running this mess. Blair is the one advising Starmer. All they need now is Campbell to really finish it off.

10000maniacs

rock22 wrote: »

I am not too sure that the difference performances between the Tories and Labour are down to ideology.

This link was posted in the Brexit discussion . essentially two voters list all the failures of the recent past , while the Conservatives were in government and gave that as a reason for not voting Labour!
This comes down to voter education and it is up to the parties ( i.e. Labour) to get their message across that the cutbacks of the past few years, the mess of a trade deal post Brexit, the mess in NI, are all down to the incumbent government. And the Labour party has failed in that very basic political task.
John McDonald, previous deputy leader, summed it up. Labour sent candidates out with no clear message and no clear set of policies they could point to.
Starmer has tried to close the door on Brexit 'dissent' when he should have been highlighting the disastrous deal the Tories were demanding from the EU. Perhaps Angela Rayner, in her new role ( whatever that might be ) can be more successful attacking the Tory failures.
Again , with Scottish independence possibly looming the Labour party has no clear policy or position other than a support for the Conservative government. Which leads to many voters thinking that it makes more sense to vote for the Tories directly rather than voting for Labour who will then support the government line.
Finally, the reaction of the Labour leadership, before most results were even in, suggests a headquarters which is floundering and just looking to deflect criticism. Not the most attractive qualities in a leader.

It's a no win situation for Labour when most of the electorate think that David Cameron and Theresa May were Labour prime ministers.

What can Starmer actually do to turn this around?
I personally don't think people are that stupid and it is all hyperbole to disguise the real reason they voted for the Tories. The Tories and UKIP put the Nationalist and "Bloody foreigner" thing out there since 2016 and white English working class people bought into it, but will never admit to it in an interview. Like the guy in the above video.

breezy1985

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Instead of trying to come up with catchy slogans, they could alternatively look at the places where they did well in these mayoral and council elections and ask what lessons they can learn from them. Why are some red wall constituencies more solid than others? Why have they been able to make gains, or maintain their vote share in some areas, yet lose control of the council in Bristol which should be a labour stronghold? Rather than getting bogged down in this or that ideology, or pinning blame on this or that wing of the party, they should be studying why people like Andy Burnham and Paul Dennett can cut through all the bull and get through to people.

I assume they lost Bristol because the people who supported Corbyn have switched and given the Greens 60+ new council seats across England.
I really think chasing those old red wall towns is a disaster they are gone and the people there are not going to fit back into Labour no matter what you try

breezy1985

10000maniacs wrote: »

It's a no win situation for Labour when most of the electorate think that David Cameron and Theresa May were Labour prime ministers.
What can Starmer actually do to turn this around?
I personally don't think people are that stupid and it is all hyperbole to disguise the real reason they voted for the Tories. The Tories and UKIP put the Nationalist and "Bloody foreigner" thing out there since 2016 and white English working class people bought into it, but will never admit to it in an interview. Like the guy in the above video.

Again wrong plenty of the working class are still voting Labour its really only in one area. This obsession with the working class and the complete overplaying of Workington man is disguising that it is the middle and upper class in the UK who have been the ultra nationalists and flag waving royalty loving CofE obsessed. All that has happened is portions of the working class have joined them

fiveleavesleft

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Instead of trying to come up with catchy slogans, they could alternatively look at the places where they did well in these mayoral and council elections and ask what lessons they can learn from them. Why are some red wall constituencies more solid than others? Why have they been able to make gains, or maintain their vote share in some areas, yet lose control of the council in Bristol which should be a labour stronghold? Rsther than getting bogged down in this or that ideology, or pinning blame on this or that wing of the party, they should be studying why people like Andy Burnham and Paul Dennett can cut through all the bull and get through to people.

They won't. Starmer hasn't even bothered to congratulate those areas that had a good night for Labour. The reason for those successes is largely down Corbynism & HQ have said they are going to go even harder rooting that stuff out.

Joe_ Public

breezy1985 wrote: »

I assume they lost Bristol because the people who supported Corbyn have switched and given the Greens 60+ new council seats across England.
I really think chasing those old red wall towns is a disaster they are gone and the people there are not going to fit back into Labour no matter what you try

Maybe the labour leadership taking the side of the establishment and law and order during the statue protests in bristol last year had something to do with it? The anger towards them was palpable at the time so i dont believe this is a surprise. I'm ok with the greens so dont see this as a bad outcome.

As for the red wall, what about places like Preston? A leave constituency where they still got over 60% of the vote in 2019 and which returned every labour councillor last week. What are they doing in Preston that they seem to be failing to do elsewhere?

Leroy42

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Instead of trying to come up with catchy slogans, they could alternatively look at the places where they did well in these mayoral and council elections and ask what lessons they can learn from them. Why are some red wall constituencies more solid than others? Why have they been able to make gains, or maintain their vote share in some areas, yet lose control of the council in Bristol which should be a labour stronghold? Rsther than getting bogged down in this or that ideology, or pinning blame on this or that wing of the party, they should be studying why people like Andy Burnham and Paul Dennett can cut through all the bull and get through to people.

They need to do both.

The reaction to the election results is telling. If the results had been times the opposite way (Manchester and London Mayoral results, Scotland etc) it would possibly be the Tories slightly on the defensive. Instead the Tories got to reveal in the Hartlepool result with little of no pushback on the other areas Labour did reasonably well in.

Starmer didn't help by appearing to panic.

What Labour need is ground work to expose the local cuts as Tory lead, to place the responsibility on the govt. THey alway need a better national communication strategy, or a strategy to being with, that hammers home a simple message.

ArmaniJeanss

breezy1985 wrote: »

I assume they lost Bristol because the people who supported Corbyn have switched and given the Greens 60+ new council seats across England.
I really think chasing those old red wall towns is a disaster they are gone and the people there are not going to fit back into Labour no matter what you try

Where do you suggest they chase though?
Winning more votes in seats they already hold makes no sense (I know you haven't suggested it, but it is the likely result of some of the things people suggest).
They have a reasonably strong majority of the seats in big urban areas like London, Liverpool, Manchester and the North East, but it keeps them ~100 seats from an overall majority.

Which leaves (not an exhaustive list by any means) these sort of areas.
a) The aforementioned red wall towns, recently lost, which you don't think they should bother with.
b) Scotland which used to be reliable for 30/40 seats but now seems gone.
c) Some remaining urban areas in the Midlands (Birmingham, Leicester, Notts) etc
d) Wales - not a lot of seats but probably scope to win back half a dozen.
e) the Vicar of Dibley type constituencies in the 'home counties' which have voted Tory since King Arthur times.

Where would you target?

BonnieSituation

It's not that hard to come up with something:

"Are you better off after a decade of Tory rule?"

That's it. Just keep hammering that question. Frame everything that way.
A simple message.

Of course, some are, but you weren't getting those votes anyway.

And for those that will continue to vote Tory even after highlighting this to them, that's fine, they get to own their choices.

There's a lot of hand wringing that goes on in British politics when things don't go their way.

In this case the electorate of vast swathes of the country have voted against their own interests. That's fine. Now point that out to them with a simple message.

None of this belittling or intellectual shaming that goes on will work.

Just ask the question and if they still vote Tory then what harm. Just keep asking the question.

There needs to be different strategies for different areas. They seem to be caught in this nerve ending cycle of "one size fits all".