UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[EastAnglianLefty]

Anticipating future disunity in the Conservative Party, how about Get Rish or Die Trying?

[EastAnglianLefty]

The Truss letter in that skit no doubt contains an error meaning the captain is advised to nuke London.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The weird thing is that even under Starmer I doubt many people outside the traditional hunting pool (the NS, the Mirror, the Guardian etc) in the lobby would ever consider working for Labour.

Not entirely true - Ed Miliband's Comms director was a former Times and Telegraph hack.

I suspect it's slightly less likely these days as the right-wing press has got much more ideological and the divide between comment and reportage has frayed, but even now there are journalists whose personal politics does not match their employer's.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Stan Greenberg worked for Blair in 2001 and apparently had a freakout we were going to lose Shepherd's Bush because he saw the morning turnout figures. We won it with a 10,000 majority and I suspect the only reason he'd been sent there was to keep him out of the way.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Thankfully there's absolutely no evidence of Starmer promising something only to reneg on it as soon as he's been elected.

Well you can always take that attitude, and indeed remain totally miserable as long as someone from your faction isn't leading the party. Alternatively, you can see this as a welcome "win" for the left, and now try to ensure that the next Labour government actually delivers on it.

I'm also not sure why Starmer would break a promise to get rid of a couple of hundred Tory peers appointed either for being schoolfriends of David Cameron or having given the party a sizeable donation.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I don't know why you'd reach for the Senate (created as a co-equal legislative body) for a comparison when the Bundesrat is right there.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I had assumed that as it was Aberdeen South (wealthy and with quite a high unionist floor, similar in some respects to posher bits of Edinburgh) Flynn was vulnerable. I hadn't quite grasped how badly Labour cratered there in 2019. It's still more likely to flip than North (where the basic demographics are much better for the SNP, even if the boundary changes aren't helpful) but I suspect the next election is more likely to be revolve around unionism trying to coalesce behind a viable challenger there.

[EastAnglianLefty]

What makes Mhairi Black ruffle feathers?

She's an outspoken trans inclusive lesbian feminist.

Presumably this suggests that Flynn is not actually on particularly good terms with Cherry?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Two in one day? For misconduct? When was the last time that happened?

They're not necessarily comparable - Labour's new policy is to suspend the whip when any complaint is made; the Conservative policy is only to suspend when their hand is forced (see also the several serious allegations floating around for people who are still in receipt of the whip.)

[EastAnglianLefty]

Two in one day? For misconduct? When was the last time that happened?

They're not necessarily comparable - Labour's new policy is to suspend the whip when any complaint is made; the Conservative policy is only to suspend when their hand is forced (see also the several serious allegations floating around for people who are still in receipt of the whip.)

And of course there are arguments that Labour's approach is too heavy handed (coupled, inevitably, with suspicion that factionalism is sometimes just below the surface) and the way too many of these cases seem to drag on interminably (the most infamous case maybe being Kelvin Hopkins in the last parliament - though that shows that this, as much else, didn't actually start with Starmer) really does not help matters. Having said that, it must be said that not *all* the names of suspended Labour MPs are a total surprise, shall we say - and lets just leave it at that in a public forum

And to be fair, whilst factionalism is never entirely absent from the party's processes, it's less evident here than anywhere else. Most of those suspended under this procedure are to a greater or lesser extent sympathetic to Starmer, whereas the most controversial suspension of the whip isn't part of this particular process at all.

[EastAnglianLefty]

In the context of reform having a small bump in coverage I’ve seen a lot of Conservative MPs claim the issue of small boats is the ‘no.1’ issue on the doorstep especially in the future marginals in the Midlands, South coast and so forth.

The polling doesn’t reflect this and I assume it’s the usual tyranny of the doorstep- I obviously don’t spend my time talking to Tories on the doorstep so I remain sceptical of how much anger there actually is on this issue?

I am aware politicians frequently lie or distort what they hear- so I guess Occams Razor applies?

I suspect there is a distinction between the issues exercising most people doorstepped, which usually leads to them telling the canvasser to  off, and the issues exercising most former voters who want to rant about something for ten minutes.

I also suspect that most Conservative doorstep activists are very pissed off about the issue, which doesn't necessarily mean most voters are bringing it up unprompted.

[EastAnglianLefty]

There were lots over time, though they mostly came before the 1987 GE which tells its own story.

An under-remembered one was her declaration that "the NHS is safe with us" at the 1982(?) party conference - some normally sympathetic think tankers and ideologues were far from happy at this.

Out of curiosity, did she ever compromise with any unions?

Very frequently - just about every time she wasn't sure she'd win before 1987. In 1981 the NUM got a massive pay rise, because she calculated it was better to spend more time preparing before she went to war with them.

After 1987, she got a lot more arrogant, but even then she backed down on occasion - the ambulance workers strike in 1989 being a relevant example there.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Don't know how this didn't come up earlier, but there's scandal brewing involving MP's taking foreign trips to countries with shoddy human rights records.

But there are huge discrepancies in the amount of time different MPs choose to dedicate to this type of overseas travel, with trips frequently taken while parliament is sitting as well as during recess periods.


Analysis by POLITICO found there are currently around 10 “super members” who have signed up for roles with 20 or more different “country APPGs.” Some have accepted dozens of free trips overseas during their time in parliament, paid for by foreign governments or businesses.

Collectively, this small group of backbench politicians have made overseas visits worth more than £453,000 since entering parliament, according to official records. The true figure is likely higher, since MPs were only obliged to start declaring the value of gifts and hospitality in 2009.


The data includes:

Seven trips by Conservative MP Martin Vickers on which he was accompanied by his wife, or by an unnamed member of staff.

Three trips by Labour’s John Spellar of six days or more, including a week-long visit to Singapore.


£70,800 worth of trips by Tory MP Mark Menzies since he entered parliament in 2010, including six different trips in the calendar year 2016 alone.

One trip to Hong Kong by the SNP’s Angus Brendan MacNeil worth £10,359 — the most expensive single trip.

20 trips in 17 years by Daniel Kawczynski, including visits to Morocco, Albania and Mauritania paid for by mining and chemical manufacturing companies.

Thirteen trips over the last seven years by the SNP’s Lisa Cameron, including two trips to New York in the space of three weeks.

Three trips to Sri Lanka and three to the Maldives by the DUP’s Ian Paisley Jr.

£84,680 worth of trips by Tory MP Mark Pritchard since he entered parliament in 2005. He made six foreign trips in 2015 and seven in 2016, and has visited Qatar three times in the last three years.


Sixteen trips to Gibraltar by Andrew Rosindell since he became an MP in 2001, sometimes more than once a year, as well as to a total of 29 other countries.

Ten trips by Conservative MP Sheryll Murray accompanied by an unnamed member of staff.

There is a wider pattern of these MPs traveling frequently to countries known as tax havens, petrochemical producers or luxury destinations — including the Channel Islands, Gulf States, San Marino, and the Norfolk Islands in the Pacific.

Apparently, this includes involvement in sex tourism and excessive drinking.

A number of British lawmakers have been using parliamentary trips abroad as an opportunity for the covert use of sex workers and for raucous, excessive drinking, according to MPs, peers, diplomatic and parliamentary officials who spoke to POLITICO. 

One former Conservative MP, now a member of the House of Lords, asked hosts for directions to the nearest brothel when he traveled to Southeast Asia on a visit with an all-party parliamentary group (APPG), according to another parliamentarian who was present.

Another Tory MP and former minister used to stay on after the MPs’ delegation had returned home in order to pursue his “interest in [local] women,” two former colleagues said.



“He showed an interest in pretty young girls,” said one. “He routinely stayed on after these visits and linked up with young women in the place in question.”

A senior Labour MP displayed a fondness for “Russian girls” during trips overseas, according to a foreign diplomat, who said local officials felt powerless to intervene because they worried about preserving their influence in Westminster.

All of this has drawn Sunak's attention, and he's not happy.

U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said accusations of drunken and sexual misbehavior by British MPs on overseas visits are “very concerning,” but declined to back reform of the little-known parliamentary groups organizing their trips.

An investigation by POLITICO revealed how parliamentary visits to foreign countries have been exploited by certain MPs and peers on All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) as an opportunity for the covert use of sex workers and for excessive drinking.

A Downing Street spokesman said Wednesday that U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was aware of the “concerning” reports, and urged lawmakers to focus on working for the public good.

“We’ve seen some of the reports over the Christmas period and just before, and some of the behavior reported is clearly very concerning,” the No. 10 spokesman said.


“The prime minister believes MPs should be working hard for the public, and the broad majority have focused on trying to solve our shared challenges, whether that be supporting the most vulnerable or working to make our schools better and our streets safer,” he added.

A lot of names there that are unsurprising in this context.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I think if you really want to target lack of maths skills, you need to look at the adult population: plenty of NEETS or "low skilled" workers out there that probably could have better maths results (whether GCSE or Advanced), but for whatever reason it's not really pushed even though you'd think that population would be more easily mobilised and would certainly be more motivated (and probably more financially viable as well).

There is a broader political (and especially elite media) hostility towards adult education - look at all the criticisms of so many apprenticeships being taken by people aged over 25, when all that shows is the fairly obvious point that there are many people over that age who want to retrain into a different profession or to improve their skills.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Judging by his recent media appearances, Gullis clearly isn't keen on going back to teaching if he loses his seat.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I did wonder how many other issues were like this- broadly iirc there’s support in polls for the policy, there was once a broad political consensus on it but a number of activists across party political lines (broadly!) managed to really whip up the opposition and would have support from the broadsheets and tabloids.

I know gay marriage was one where MPs had hundreds of letters against it which weren’t really representative of political opinion!

I’ve generally ignored the gender reform debate given how poisonous it is, but I’m pretty sure there’s been Scottish polls showing opposition to it/large parts of it (how accurate and unbiased I don’t know). From polling more generally I think politicians have found themselves ahead of the public on transgender rights (the opposite of gay marriage). It’s very much a niche issue that the public don’t really care about (as you say, it’s mostly a few activists and newspapers), but insofar as they do they tend to oppose self-ID and some of the more ‘radical’ proposals, while backing the general ethos of be nice to transgender people and let ‘genuine’ transgender people get on with their lives in their gender identity.

What limited polling there is is also consistent with the theory that people frequently don't understand exactly what they're being asked about and are somewhat guessing in their responses.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Isn't it extremely unusual(to the point of being unheard off) for a minister to be fired before they've been offered a chance to resign ?

Yes, but Zahawi has had plenty of opportunities to resign for the good of the party and made it clear at every turn he wasn't going to do that - and judging from his letter to Sunak, Magnus's judgement did nothing to change his mind on that point.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The polling in the runup to 1997 should be treated with caution. The way they designed polls back then lead to a huge labor bias.

Can't really compare them to modern polling that has a much better track record.

Why did it lead to be a big Labour bias?

You had a phenomenon of "shy Tories", voters who would tell the pollsters they were undecided but in fact planned to vote Tory.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Why on earth would it be surprising that John Rentoul had an extremely stupid opinion?

[EastAnglianLefty]

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-5-february-2023/

If you look at the cross-tabs here, Labour were actually ahead of the SNP. When was the last time that happened?

I'm fairly sure it's happened before. They're not politically weighted, so you often get weird results in them.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's not big in the country (where the predominant reaction is tolerant indifference); it's big in the media.

A certain amount of it seems to have emerged from the particular kind of feminism dominant in those circles in the UK - very much not intersectional; uninterested in class or racial diversity; tending to view women as an oppressed category regardless of other circumstances; and with occasional forays into straightforward misandry at the more extreme end of the spectrum. That said, it's spread well beyond those circles by this point and there's been a lot of self-radicalisation.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Forbes would also be the more conservative candidate economically. Which will win plaudits in some quarters but creates difficulties in others.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The argument that Scottish Labour lost because it was insufficiently leftist is undermined by the fact that the SNP isn't either. Scottish Labour lost in 2011 because it was hideously, hilariously incompetent, it lost in 2015 because it was incompetent and unpopular and it's still losing because it's still not viewed as competent, even when the point of comparison is the SNP.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Though the suspicion remains that Wendy Alexander had to, fatefully, end her brief tenure as Scottish leader because the then PM declined to give her his public support. And some have inevitably drawn the conclusion that was because he wanted somebody more "controllable" in her place.

I do wonder whether we'll ever find out quite what happened there, but, of course, if those particular suspicions are true the critical point would be that the PM in question was a Scottish Labour figure himself.

Yes, there's distinction between the period prior to 2010, when Parliament was full of senior Scottish Labour figures, and after 2010, when those who were around were clearly standing down in 2015. That itself had a consequence on the health of the party (especially since it's extremely rare for non-Scots to get selected for Scottish seats, which means you can't deal with occasional shallowness in the talent pool by redistributing people from other regions who then establish local credentials.) It's often said that the problem is that Scottish Labour sent the B-team to Holyrood. It's not entirely untrue, even if it is somewhat harsh to B-teams, but in the 2010-2015 era the A-team was also underwhelming.

[EastAnglianLefty]

YouGov have released a Scottish poll (for Westminster) which was conducted just before Sturgeon stood down:

SNP 38 (-7)
Lab 35 (+17)
Con 16 (-9)
LD 5 (-4)
Green 3 (+2)

Changes are since 2019. Usual caveats that you should be sceptical because it's just one poll and even more sceptical because it's one poll showing a big shift, but if those numbers were borne out in reality then most of the Central Belt would flip and Labour and the SNP would be approximately equal in terms of seats.

As I say, I'm sceptical, but I imagine that this is going to have some impact in the discourse.