General British politics discussion thread

They must have been really rattled by the reaction to do such a screeching u-turn. I hope the electorate won't let them off the hook. The next opinion polls will be interesting.

I note with interest that it the Daily Mail was bitter in its front page condemnation of the goverment, and one can speculate that it was a big factor in Boris engaging the reverse-ferret maneuver.

Not the first time the Mail has had a go at Boris, since the change of editorship.

Well, no, he hasn't got it yet.

He still intends to seek it, but the mechanism by which he hopes to get it is a parliamentary committee, and the opposition parties are still saying they won't participate. On the numbers, if the Tory parliamentary party is sufficiently cowed, he could still whip them all to vote for a one-party committee, then whip them again to vote for the report of the committee to be implemented as the new appeal system. But the political cost of doing that would be huge, given the corner he has painted himself into; the resultant appeal system would lack all credibility or legitimacy; and the Tory party's reputation as the party of sleaze would be strongly reinforced.

It's not clear, to put it no higher, that this would be "exactly what he wanted". It's also at least possible that being required to swallow and support all this would be a step too far even for the current Tory parliamentary part. There must be a degree of humiliattion that even they will revolt at. So it's not just that it would be unwise for Johnson to do this; it might actually be impossible for him to do it.

More likely, the Tories are keeping the possibility open because (a) they are trying to save a bit of face, and intend to bury it more quietly in due course, or (b) they intend to talk to the opposition and try and modify the proposal so that the opposition will play ball - meaning that Johnson ends up with an appeal system on terms acceptable to the opposition, which is not "exactly what he wanted".

Wow well that's all of us put back in our boxes

I definitely would be in broad agreement with you there. But one point I would make is that if you go back to those brexit wars, I think you can point to some obvious tactical gains behind their strategy: played to their hardcore brexit supporting base while simultaneously undermining some troublesome remainer tory mps etc. Similar with the whole prorogueing episode. As sleazy as it was, you can at least see the plan, the method to Cummings seeming madness. I don't see any of that here, and the same with the school dinners debacle last year. They are just mindlessly stupid decisions with no rhyme or reason to them and, yes, it's impossible to say it'll lead to a tipping point anytime soon but I still wouldn't go as far as saying they'll have gotten away with it either. I think it's all wreaking damage but the opposition has to work out how to make profit off the back of it. Data breaches and getting bogged down in needless internal purges is not the way forward imho.

Also Martin McGunness. The UK parliament would rather invent these procedures over reworking the laws and rules surrounding MPs... it is bizarre in the 21st century

Kuennsberg and Peston, two of a kind, no government "source" they won't go toadying to just to be able to put up some mind bogglingly inane tweet. "Courtiers," to use the phrase coined by George Monbiot iirc. Quitting as bbc politics editor it was recently announced, moving to radio 4 breakfast i think.

However long Cummings was using her as his primary source, whatever purpose it served for Kuennsberg, it wasn't the purpose of cutting or incisive journalism anyway. It did, of course, net her an exclusive interview and hour long tv show so she got her "payback." Whether it was actually Monbiot or not, I'm not even sure but not at all surprised you can't stand him, courtier rather than journalist is right on the money.

I don't need to back them up. Cummings himself revealed that Kuennsberg was his chosen media outlet so it simply defies all reason to see many of her "government sources" exclusives as anything other than so blurring the line between journalist and unofficial no.10 mouthpiece as to be virtually meaningless. It's a heck of a deal more solid than your rather intemperate rant against George Monbiot anyway.

Ha, Cummings a beacon of truth, said literally no one ever. Look, everybody knew of his and Kuennsbergs cosy little relationship anyway, it was westminsters worst kept secret. Its insulting peoples intelligence to even try and dispute that. But the real issue with Kuennsberg goes beyond anything to do with sources and to the crucial issue of trust and judgement. When a source gets in touch to inform you a tory official has been punched by a labour activist and you rush to spew that "news" out to your followers without conducting even the faintest trace of due diligence, im afraid you risk facing stern questions about your judgement and reliability. And that wasn't by any means an isolated incident, there has been a clear pattern of this with Laura Kuennsberg.

The funny thing is, i wondered whether I hadn't overstepped the mark a little when i said earlier you couldn't stand George Monbiot. Needn't have worried, i underestimated you. From your ad hominem it's clear you not just can't stand him, you viscerally loathe him. He really boils your blood.

Well, that's a relief. For a while, i was thinking to myself, god this man must have done something bad to you, made a pass at your girlfriend one night, tried to nick your pint. But no, you don't actually care a hoot about him one bit. That's good to know.

The thing is, when i initially mentioned Monbiot, I did say "iirc" and I don't think I did, at least i checked and can't find any link to him and Laura Kuennsberg so it must have been someone else who came up with it. So if you're reading George, I owe you a massive apology, you don't belong in this conversation at all!

What you say about Kuennsberg and opinions i don't fully agree with. A big part of her brief is weighing up events and analysing, i think it would be silly to expect this to come without some latitude to offer an opinion. Again, what it boils down to is judgement and a bit of skill and savvy in skirting that line you will always be dancing around. Kuennsberg fails that test too many times for my liking, i think her judgement is poor and lacking. That's my opinion anyway.

Leaving Monbiot out of it (again, sorry man), the comparison i would make is with Beth Rigby, who if I'm not mistaken, is her direct counterpart on sky, just without the public brief. As long as I've watched rigby, i honestly could not hazard even the remotest guess as to what way she swings politically. She could be a rabid right winger, have her bedroom decked out in farage and Johnson posters for all I know, but she comes across as scrupulously fair and incisive in her work and that's all i ever ask for someone in that position.

Couple of by-elections on the way, nothing too competitive but there's still usually some information in the swings.

First up is the wonderfully named 'Old Bexley and Sidcup' on the 2nd December. One of those constituencies that merit nothing more than 'Conservative hold' at the bottom of the screen on GE night. The late James Brokenshire won with 65% in 2019. Doubtless another Conservative win, but the percentage will be the tell.

2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election - Wikipedia

After that there will need to be by-elections early next year for the Sir David Amees & Owen Paterson constituencies. The later looks the more interesting, whilst again it's a safe seat (60%+ for Paterson) that has been Tory since it's creation, Labour did come close in 1997.

You may be right, but it may also indicate a movement from some (particularly younger) voters from the Conservatives to the Greens. After all, a similar thing is happening in Ireland where one of the threats to Fine Gael is also the Green party.

Now whether these younger people actually vote (and I see that Barack Obama is at COP trying to encourage them), is another matter. But if they do, it may hive off enough Tory votes to let Labour win in some constituencies.

I really can't imagine that there is any sort of swing vote between Tories and Greens.

More likely some Labour has gone Green but balanced by similar numbers of Tories going Labour

I think this was long mooted as a possibility, that even with his huge majority, they wouldn't be slow to ditch Johnson as soon as the veneer of his populism wore off and he was deemed an electoral liability. Thatcher, remember, delivered an even bigger majority in '87 and was gone 3 years later so the numbers are no guarantee of impregnability. We were reminded last week too of the power and influence the telegraph retains over Johnson, if they were to turn on him for any reason, that could easily spell the beginning of the end for him.

Very noticeable that a lot of the internal anger was being driven by the newer intake of mps, a generally younger set who aren't as steeped in the arrogance and entitlement of the older crew and were simply appalled at what they witnessed, albeit hardly saying much for their sense of judgement if they were that shocked by it! And, of course, given all the stuff swirling around randox and testing contracts, phones going missing, messages being wiped etc, they must be terrified at more stuff emerging that will make all this, the absurd Geoffrey Cox included, look like chicken feed.

I think it's not merely the whiff of scandal, but more the lack of judgement and jarring complacency that is alarming tories. Taking that risk for Paterson, for whatever reason, was simply reckless and stupid. If they'd jettisoned him, and latterly Cox too, there's every chance they'd have got through this and also further limited the damage by dragging opposition politicians into the murk and broadening the public disdain. It's that complacency will be his undoing, if not now then sooner rather than later and quite noticeable, sunak keeping his powder dry this past week, though did see him on one of the channels a while back.