UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[afleitch]

Conferences moving from seaside town ball rooms to city conference centres was the first sign of political rot.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though previous Tory Conferences have been held in Manchester without major incident, so maybe the prospect of a local economic boost might be enough to quiet the anti-tory sentiment.

The 2015 meeting there had some incidents, which were weaponised pretty much as described above.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Honestly there are only so many venues that are able to hold a major party conference these days. In recent years the only places Labour or the Tories have gone have been Birmingham, Brighton, Liverpool or Manchester. Birmingham is the only one of those the Tories don't get embarrassing results in and even so it's still clearly a Labour city.

The conference itself is locked down, so protestors will only be able to demonstrate outside the entrance to the security area. And there are protestors every year, wherever it is. The fact that Merseyside hates the Tories isn't really relevant when most of Merseyside can't get near the conference centre.

I feel like holding it London is logical, but the optics are horrible.

[Blair]

The optics are bad but the reality is that having it in Brighton is virtually just as expensive, harder for the rest of the country to get to and just as expensive to eat out/drink.

It beggars belief that they can have COP in Glasgow but it’s not good enough for Labour conference?

[Blair]

In Royal News Prince Andrew has been barred from attending some regal event because Charles and William didn’t want to walk with him on Camera.

No doubt it didn’t help that ‘friends’ of Andrew said he wants his honorary military titles back- you would ask if he actually that stupid, but well events prove so.

[brucejoel99]

In Royal News Prince Andrew has been barred from attending some regal event because Charles and William didn’t want to walk with him on Camera.

No doubt it didn’t help that ‘friends’ of Andrew said he wants his honorary military titles back- you would ask if he actually that stupid, but well events prove so.

Andrew is so f**ked, & not in the manner that he generally likes to be, when Charles becomes King.

[Torrain]

In Royal News Prince Andrew has been barred from attending some regal event because Charles and William didn’t want to walk with him on Camera.

No doubt it didn’t help that ‘friends’ of Andrew said he wants his honorary military titles back- you would ask if he actually that stupid, but well events prove so.

Andrew is so f**ked, & not in the manner that he generally likes to be, when Charles becomes King.

Aye. Say what you will about Charles, but the one area where he's more politically savvy than his mother seems to be his awareness of just how toxic, and politically dangerous Andrew is to the institution of the monarchy.

The country will be in a state of constitutional flux when QE2 goes, and Charles will face an uphill battle to maintain popular opinion and any measure of authority. Dragging Andrew through the mud allows him to redress a general sense of injustice, and win himself some plaudits in the process. After the funeral, I'd be quite surprised if Andrew is seen at a royal event again. No balconies, no titles, no Dukedom, and a slim allowance at best.

[Blair]

Yeah it's all part of a wider battle dating before the latest court action; Charles has rightly wanted to slim down the Monarchy & make it just about him & William (and in turn William's Children). This meant ditching Andrew and his children from the royal spotlight.

This presents a very helpful stick for Charles but it's also just well common sense- there is something rather macabre about begging your mother to make last minute changes when she's in the current health she is in.

[Blair]

For all the ink spilt about Corbyns takeover of Labour it’s remarkable how little coverage there has been about just how reactionary parts of 2019 intake are.

There’s a group of men in their 30s and 40s- some have no real experience in public life beyond being a councillor and others served as various bag carriers/SPADs, but all of whom hold views that were mainstream in UKIP back in 2015, seem to spend their time on stupid issues (defund the national trust etc) and so far have been kept out of ministerial office.

https://mobile.twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1536840268074426368?ref_src=tw...

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, this Rwanda business.

Already the government are backing down on last night's rhetoric - no they aren't actually going to do a purge of all the clergy in the HoL, and indeed withdrawal from the ECHR isn't happening soon.

(the cynic suggests this is because neither would pass even this supine Commons rather than any real outbreak of common sense, but we should take our little victories while we can)

[LabourJersey]

Sturgeon announced they're trying for a second Scottish Independence referendum, claiming it would happen in October 2023.

I don't understand how they expect that to happen--Westminster is not going to assent to a Section 30 order? And I don't really see that changing short of some snap election where Labour suddenly need to do the SNP's bidding to get into government (agreeing to IndyRef2 is also a very dumb idea for Labour, but that's besides the point). Or are they going to plow ahead Catalonia style?

Does make you wonder what would happen if the "NO" vote wins again in 2023--Perhaps that could "end" discussion on this for a while, or it could just keep the nation somewhat polarized on pro- and anti-independence matters

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...and indeed withdrawal from the ECHR isn't happening soon.

Participation in the whole ECHR framework is a critical part of the Good Friday Agreement so... er...

[Oryxslayer]

Sturgeon announced they're trying for a second Scottish Independence referendum, claiming it would happen in October 2023.

I don't understand how they expect that to happen--Westminster is not going to assent to a Section 30 order? And I don't really see that changing short of some snap election where Labour suddenly need to do the SNP's bidding to get into government (agreeing to IndyRef2 is also a very dumb idea for Labour, but that's besides the point). Or are they going to plow ahead Catalonia style?

Does make you wonder what would happen if the "NO" vote wins again in 2023--Perhaps that could "end" discussion on this for a while, or it could just keep the nation somewhat polarized on pro- and anti-independence matters

Yes it really seems futile. Boris - or whoever has control of the Tories then - will say no. Then the ball is then back in Sturgeon's court and no move is beneficial. She could confront the government, calling for protests and demonstrations. That won't win her any favors with the marginal Scottish voters, and it may prompt a reaction from Westminster to try and generate some rally-around-the-flag sympathy and play their cards like Madrid did. She could plow ahead and hold an unrecognized referendum like Catalonia - which will likely be won by the separatists thanks to unionist abstention -  but then the SNP are in the position of the Catalans where they threw away national and international goodwill for little benefit. Then there is the option of accepting Westminster's No, but Sturgeon can't so that politically.

[LabourJersey]

Sturgeon announced they're trying for a second Scottish Independence referendum, claiming it would happen in October 2023.

I don't understand how they expect that to happen--Westminster is not going to assent to a Section 30 order? And I don't really see that changing short of some snap election where Labour suddenly need to do the SNP's bidding to get into government (agreeing to IndyRef2 is also a very dumb idea for Labour, but that's besides the point). Or are they going to plow ahead Catalonia style?

Does make you wonder what would happen if the "NO" vote wins again in 2023--Perhaps that could "end" discussion on this for a while, or it could just keep the nation somewhat polarized on pro- and anti-independence matters

Yes it really seems futile. Boris - or whoever has control of the Tories then - will say no. Then the ball is then back in Sturgeon's court and no move is beneficial. She could confront the government, calling for protests and demonstrations. That won't win her any favors with the marginal Scottish voters, and it may prompt a reaction from Westminster to try and generate some rally-around-the-flag sympathy and play their cards like Madrid did. She could plow ahead and hold an unrecognized referendum like Catalonia - which will likely be won by the separatists thanks to unionist abstention -  but then the SNP are in the position of the Catalans where they threw away national and international goodwill for little benefit. Then there is the option of accepting Westminster's No, but Sturgeon can't so that politically.

Yeah I think she's in a weird place politically. Sturgeon clearly interprets the SNP's continued majorities in Holyrood as proof that the Scots support the SNP's mission for independence (a conclusion I don't agree with). But Westminster is going to say No. Does she just give in? That would make her look weak or cowardly. Does she go full Catalonia? That will just make the Scots look extreme.

I think it could also look worse for her if the economy sours between now and next year. Sarwar, the Labour leader in Scotland, gave a fairly convincing argument: there's a lot of economic crises in Scotland that the Holyrood gov't out to focus on outside of independence.

[Torrain]

To be frank, I’m exhausted by the thought of another referendum, and a fresh round of constitutional infighting. Anas Sarwar’s comments (cited by LabourJersey) pretty much sum up my feelings on the matter.

I’m planning to stay out of the discussion on this, unless things get really crazy. The 2014 referendum was a formative political experience for me, but also a source of significant anxiety that sometimes still catches me off guard.

The only comment I’ll make, is that the reason this is happening now, is that it’s the only clear opportune time:

• Labour are favoured to make significant gains in the next General Election, which is still expected to be in 2024, and if 2017 is any metric, that could be very bad for the SNP at Westminster. Scotland is, before anything else, a country full of marginal seats.
• As for a referendum itself, it’s far easier for the SNP to use a direly unpopular Tory government as the backdrop to a hypothetical referendum, than a Labour government (whether majority, minority, or in coalition).
• Additionally, Sturgeon is likely to go after a decade, and that will leave the party without an effective figurehead in office.

The 2020s might be a good decade for the SNP, but the future is an undiscovered country, and this is the clearest moment to pull the trigger. I don’t agree with their logic, but I understand why they think now is the time. To be clear, there are a lot of reasons now is a bad time to do it. Some have already been posted above. I could go for more, but I’m not in the mood for that.

[Silent Hunter]

There is the distinct possibility that a second referendum would lead to a No vote.

[Torrain]

Johnson’s ethics advisor, Lord Geidt has resigned. His predecessor stood down in 2020 over the Priti Patel bullying scandal. His resignation follows his appearance before a panel of MPs, where he said that allegations Johnson broke the code were “reasonable”.

Geidt had previously refused to say whether Johnson had broken the code, because he thought the PM would ignore his advice, which would force Geidt to resign. Which he ended up doing anyway. It’s all a bit of a mess.

The key takeaways seem to be:
  a) Johnson has the Herculean task of finding a credible replacement
  b) Johnson’s attempts to drown partygate out with a policy week hasn’t gone to plan.

[Blair]

The Conservatives changed the business in the House of Commons yesterday to get a debate in about the strikes.

They’re clearly very happy, but I’m not sure it’s as much of a goldmine as they think. People will be angry and frustrated on the day, but surely they’ll just blame the RMT or the Government.

It is also depressing- we have the strictest anti trade union laws in Western Europe. I’m surprised they haven’t banned TUs from making political donations at this rate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1537111414875250689

[Torrain]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1537384811190439936?s=20&t=C5OyI...

[EastAnglianLefty]

Apparently it's about government plans to support the steel industry that may conflict with WTO principles.

And if you believe that, can I interest you in buying the Tees Transporter Bridge?

[Torrain]

Apparently it's about government plans to support the steel industry that may conflict with WTO principles.

And if you believe that, can I interest you in buying the Tees Transporter Bridge?

From what I can gather, either this is a blatant lie from Johnson, and this latest story was just the straw that broke the camels back. Or…  there’s a hidden part of the new trade policy that in itself constitutes a known and deliberate breach of the ministerial code.

Downing Street says that the relevant decision hasn’t been finalised, and will be public at some unspecified time in the near future. Lib Dems are pushing for some clarity, but it’s a fresh mess from the look of things.

[YL]

There's something we're not being told here.

[CumbrianLefty]

At least the Tories have moved on from the original claim that they were "Labour's Strikes". Given the undeniable fact that the RMT are not affiliated to the party, I actually wonder if lawyers had a word.

[Conservatopia]

At least the Tories have moved on from the original claim that they were "Labour's Strikes". Given the undeniable fact that the RMT are not affiliated to the party, I actually wonder if lawyers had a word.

Literally 10 seconds ago I received an email from the party saying that they needed help to "stop Labour's strikes" with a mockup of a gormless looking Starmer gesticulating at a train station.

The solution was of course to give the party money.

[CumbrianLefty]

The solution was of course to give the party money.

And did you?