UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

[BigFatCoward]

I love it when a new crackpot turns up. 

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, Safiya said:

 

This is due to boundary changes by the Tory party

Objectively false, there hasn’t been any boundary changes since before 2010 (the proposed boundary review was killed by the Lib Dem’s as revenge for the Tories breaking their promise to support reform of the House of Lords).

I’ll grant that the proposals in the current review can be considered Tory gerrymandering, but they haven’t yet been approved 

[Gaston de Foix]

14 hours ago, Safiya said:

3 years ago, and following the no confidence vote of June 2016 he was re-elected as Labour leader in September 2016, so as I said it was opportunism towards a newly elected leader who had only been in  the job for a matter of months. Under Jeremy Corbyn in the 2017 General Election Labour increased their share of the vote to 40%, resulting in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament.

Now the Tories only got 42.5% of the vote in 2017, but have 311 seats

While Labour got 40% and only have 247 seats

A difference of 64 seats for 2.5% of the vote!

This is due to boundary changes by the Tory party, and there are further boundary changes they are bringing in!

 

The UK has a first-past-the-post voting system rather than a proportional voting representation.  So although you are right to point to the disproportion as evidence that the cumulative will of British voters is not reflected in Parliamentary composition, this is a feature not a bug of our constitutional system. The major loser in this system are the smaller parties, such as the Lib Dems.  

Labour has previously been a beneficiary of this system.  In 2005, for example, 35.2% of the country voted Labour, 32.4% voted Tory.  Labour won 355 seats (55%) and the Tories won 198 seats (30.6%).  

I don't know whether the Tories are in fact carrying out boundary changes for party political purposes - you may be right about that.  But that's not the major reason for the gap. 

 

[Jen'ari]

14 hours ago, Safiya said:

3 years ago, and following the no confidence vote of June 2016 he was re-elected as Labour leader in September 2016, so as I said it was opportunism towards a newly elected leader who had only been in  the job for a matter of months. Under Jeremy Corbyn in the 2017 General Election Labour increased their share of the vote to 40%, resulting in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament.

Now the Tories only got 42.5% of the vote in 2017, but have 311 seats

While Labour got 40% and only have 247 seats

A difference of 64 seats for 2.5% of the vote!

This is due to boundary changes by the Tory party, and there are further boundary changes they are bringing in!

 

Both the Conservatives and Labour have gerrymandered while in office, it’s nothing new.

If that many people were so dissatisfied with the Tories and in such agreement with the direction which Jeremy Corbyn has taken the Labour Party he’d have won a landslide along the lines which Blair did in 1997 and 2001, he’s not moderate enough to appeal to centerist Tories or Liberal Democrat voters to get a majority imo.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 8/21/2019 at 9:20 PM, ants said:

Except of course there is a middle ground, which we've been discussing.  The idea you win or die with no in-between is for naive school children.  The middle ground is someone other than Corbyn as care-taker prime minister.  Especially someone who is a Tory.  In this situation, everyone gets to stop a no-deal Brexit.  However:

• Rebel Tories aren't committing as large a political suicide as they would be if Corbyn is Prime Minister.  Some who are in strong Remain areas may be able to run as independents or Lib Dems.  Hell, the Tory party might even let them run again if the likely alternative was losing the seat.  However, they know they are still doing HUGE damage to their 
• Corbyn gets to say he stopped Boris ruining the country, aligned with the intention of the referendum (i.e. go out with a deal) and most importantly from his point of view gets a general election.  One moreover where the Brexit Party may split the Tory's votes.  But, he doesn't get to be Prime Minister.  
• Lib Dems and SNP get to stop Brexit, but don't have their own representative in power.  And don't get a referendum on Brexit, which they would much prefer. 

That is a middle ground.  There is no reason for Corbyn not to do it.  The only reason is he believes that his "right" to be Prime Minister as representative of the biggest faction is more important than stopping no-deal, or he is that power hungry.  

Perceptions are important.  Corbyn would be nominating ministers, and would have 5+ weeks where they are in charge.  Can they do a whole lot?  Likely no.  But perceptions are important, and for 5+ weeks the ministers and Prime Minister would be Corbyn.  And once the GE is set in motion, then the coalition partners have no leverage anyway.  So Labor would have a 3-5 week window where anything that can be done by ministerial fiat can be done with no consequences.  That may be limited, but it would only take one change to blow up in the media that the other parties had let Labor do this.  

All of which can be avoided by having Ken Clarke or similar in charge.  Then if a Labor minister pulls a swifty, he can be blamed.  And nobody has put in the evil monster Corbyn in power.... (sarcasm)

None of that is actually a middle ground. The Tory rebels get their initial demands met, plus the added benefit of being the caretaker PM. Being punished in an election for allowing Corbyn to be caretaker PM is only going to happen if Corbyn can do anything meaningful while in power to betray conservative values. Which can't happen because of the very short space of time. If he was going to be PM for a year that would be a potential problem. But he won't be PM for long enough to do anything, despite erroneous perceptions.

A middle path for Corbyn isn't just everything he'd get if he was PM except not being PM. That's Corbyn's lose condition. A middle path is instead of being PM he (and Labour) get something to compensate for his not being the PM. It's negotiation 101, if you are going to give away something important to you, you need to get something pretty decent as compensation. There's nothing on offer to compensate for the default condition in a coalition such as this of the Labour Leader being PM not being the case.

The Lib Dems and SNP are getting exactly what they could reasonably expect since they are in no particular position to make demands other than that Corbyn doesn't get to be PM.

So everyone except Labour and Corbyn get their realistic win condition, and Labour get's it's lose condition. That's a failed negotiation for Labour if that's the case.

Has anyone laid out any specifics of what a bunch of rabid left wing ministers can do within the space of a month? or is it just hot air to make people think something bad will happen? The perception that they could do some crazy stuff might exist, but it won't turn into anything. So it's not an important consideration unless you want to scaremonger as a negotiating tactic, which means negotiating in bad faith. And that's not an acceptable tactic when something this important is on the line.

[ants]

Come on @The Anti-Targ, that seems pretty ridiculous.  You're completing discounting the hit the Torries are taking, and writing off the benefits to Corbyn.  But I'll lay it out a bit more. 

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

None of that is actually a middle ground. The Tory rebels get their initial demands met, plus the added benefit of being the caretaker PM. Being punished in an election for allowing Corbyn to be caretaker PM is only going to happen if Corbyn can do anything meaningful while in power to betray conservative values. Which can't happen because of the very short space of time. If he was going to be PM for a year that would be a potential problem. But he won't be PM for long enough to do anything, despite erroneous perceptions.

The idea that Torries will only be punished in the election if Corbyn does something, seems pretty ridiculous.  This is the guy that the right-wing have been painting as the coming of Satan for four years.  It doesn't matter if the perceptions of what he can do are erroneous, you know very well how it will be painted in the right-wing press.  Any time chance of keeping pre-selection in those seats for the Tory party will be gone.  

And it doesn't matter if their initial demands, if they're reasonable and only possible grounds.  You are pretty much asking these guys to commit political suicide, for the greater good.  You're not mitigating the pain they get in anyway.  I don't get how you can look at how much these members will have to sacrifice and how much in many quarters they'll be reviled for what they would do, and then say you're not willing to mitigate that at all to get a no-deal Brexit stopped.  

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

A middle path for Corbyn isn't just everything he'd get if he was PM except not being PM. That's Corbyn's lose condition. A middle path is instead of being PM he (and Labour) get something to compensate for his not being the PM. It's negotiation 101, if you are going to give away something important to you, you need to get something pretty decent as compensation. There's nothing on offer to compensate for the default condition in a coalition such as this of the Labour Leader being PM not being the case.

...

So everyone except Labour and Corbyn get their realistic win condition, and Labour get's it's lose condition. That's a failed negotiation for Labour if that's the case.

Um, have you looked at the logic of this statement?  You say the middle path is him getting something for compensating him to be PM.  He's getting loads.  He's getting a major win.  Such as:

• He gets a general election, which is the main thing he's been chasing for over 12 months.  You could argue its the only thing he's been chasing.  This is his win condition, and its being handed to him. 
• A whole bunch of Torries breaking from Boris.  If he can't play that up to show how weak and ineffectual Boris is during the campaign, he should get another job.  Having Boris's own party members break away to stop this is mana from heaven.
• He gets to have that general election with Brexit still hanging over the country, which means the Tory party vote may be split.  
• He gets to assure any Labor remainers that he's "stopped no-deal Brexit", shoring up his support amongst the Brexit crowd.  But he can campaign on getting a new deal for Brexit.  He may be able to keep his middle of the road approach.  It certainly can't hurt his Remain credentials to have stopped no-deal.
• He gets to appear as if he was willing to compromise.  Which given that's one of his greatest criticism's, would be great to neuter in the general election. 
• Even if not PM, his party gets access to all the ministerial documents and department information.  They get to control what is released to the public, and if the Torry's have been sitting on any damaging information, or anything embarrassing, they get a 2 month window to find it, release it, and make the Tory's look bad.  You don't think that's valuable???

Corbyn gets all the above.  The only thing he doesn't get is actually being Prime Minsiter.  Which according to you, is meaningless since he can't do anything anyway.  So what is the case - the Prime Ministership is important and Corbyn the Tory rebels are being screwed, or its meaningless and Corbyn is holding everything up over nothing? 

You say his "lose" position is simply not getting to be PM.  That's rubbish.  He has way more to lose than that, and its mostly associated with no deal going through.  If he doesn't do this, then the odds are that no-deal goes through.  What happens then?  Well, a heap of Labor Remainers will hate his guts.  Boris will probably call a snap election before things can get too bad, and know that the Brexit and UKIP parties are probably defanged.  And the stereotyping of Corbyn as intransigent will continue.  He also has to run that election without any inside knowledge of what the Tory's are sitting on in each department.  Effectively his lose position is running an election where the right-wing's support probably falls in line behind a single party, while he will likely shed votes to the left remainers who will hate him for letting no-deal happen.  

The idea that Labor "lose" by doing this deal when the only thing they're giving up is the PM, is pretty ridiculous. 

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The Lib Dems and SNP are getting exactly what they could reasonably expect since they are in no particular position to make demands other than that Corbyn doesn't get to be PM.

So everyone except Labour and Corbyn get their realistic win condition, and Labour get's it's lose condition. That's a failed negotiation for Labour if that's the case.

The Lib Dems and SNP have clearly been the main proponents for Remain since the start.  This deal hurts them regardless of who is PM since it allows Labor to better position themselves with Remain voters.  They also get the inside information Labor get from being in government, but make their life a little harder in any competition with Labor for those voters.  

I think they might be able to swallow Corbyn as leader, to stop no-deal.  If this was the only component, I think they should bite their tongues and accept Corbyn.  But they're quite aware that this is possibly a non-starter for the Tory rebels.  

The above also ignores that given what this care taker government is for, and given Labor's position on Brexit, and that these parties have led the fight against Brexit, morally it should probably be one of them whose leader is PM. 

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Has anyone laid out any specifics of what a bunch of rabid left wing ministers can do within the space of a month? or is it just hot air to make people think something bad will happen? The perception that they could do some crazy stuff might exist, but it won't turn into anything. So it's not an important consideration unless you want to scaremonger as a negotiating tactic, which means negotiating in bad faith. And that's not an acceptable tactic when something this important is on the line.

There are two major elements:

1. In control of government they get access to all the departments.  That means they have a 2 month window to find any dirty laundry or embarrassing laundry the Tory's have got and put it out there for the election.  So if there are any draft reports or statistics on the NHS, Brexit, Police, or anything else controversial that the Tory's didn't have to release (especially since they were "draft"), that's a goldmine.  Find enough, and you could spend the weeks of the campaign releasing damaging information after damaging information, making the Tory's look terrible at managing the government.
2. There are perceptions.  The right-wing press will make hay on Corbyn if he is PM regardless of whether or not he can or does do anything.  That hurts the Tory Rebels, who are the ones giving up the most.  Of course if the Corbyn government does do anything, they'll scream even louder.  But they'll scream pretty high regardless. 
3. I assume that the UK government is similar to the US and Australian governments, and an awful lot of rules are set at department level after being designated powers from Acts of parliament.  I don't know the UK system well enough to know exactly what is there.  One that jumps out at me is that wage negotiations usually aren't legislative acts.  So could Corbyn quickly do a deal with unions (teacher, nursing, etc.) to up their pay?  Would that require an act of law?  Normally those negotiations takes months to years, but if you're just giving them their current deal + extra salary, I bet the unions would do the deal in a heart beat.  

So, I've had a number of goes at this.  Corbyn can't do this alone.  He needs every major opposition party PLUS Tory rebels to get no-deal done and reap the benefits I mentioned above.  You keep saying being PM is powerless.  

I'd really like you to explain to me how when Corbyn has been pushing for a general election for 12 months, which if his votes of no confidence had been successful would have resulted in him not being care-taker PM, somehow getting his wish but still not being care-taker PM (but getting access to the government departments) is somehow a "lose".  

[Which Tyler]

I see that Boris has cancelled interviews booked with C4 2 days after C4 says that they should call out lies made by politicians. But I'm sure those 2 event are entirely unrelated.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/25/boris-johnson-interview-criticism-head-of-news-channel-4

 

In other entirely unrelated news, Boris tells some porkie pies about pork pies, gets busted, and tells some more porkie pies about it, and gets busted again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49470831

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Pfeffel is French for Piffle, just in case you didn't know that - and what I had in mind for the next UK politics thread title. You dodged a bullet there. And you are welcome.

[The Anti-Targ]

Johnson says Britain is highly unlikely to experience food shortages with a no deal Brexit. I think people should worry, because if an apparently hard nosed no-deal Brexiter isn't willing to offer a cast iron guarantee that there won't be food shortages it likely means the prospect of food shortages can't simply be ignored.

11 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

 

In other entirely unrelated news, Boris tells some porkie pies about pork pies, gets busted, and tells some more porkie pies about it, and gets busted again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49470831

There isn't a pork pie tariff code, but it's in the last 2 years Britain has exported GBP32-38,000 in the category that covers pork pies (but a bunch of other pork products as well) for the last 2 years to Iceland Nothing at all in that category to Thailand in the last 5 years. The UK exports quite a lot in that category to Ireland, so maybe Johnson got one letter wrong when talking about pork pie exports. Of course exporting a lot of pork pies to Ireland might be a little bit more difficult post no-deal.What's curious is that the UAE is a bigger market for this pork specific tariff code than Iceland. Indeed the UAE is the #1 market outside the EU.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The UK exports quite a lot in that category to Ireland, so maybe Johnson got one letter wrong when talking about pork pie exports.

Guaranteed he read a report talking about exporting to Ireland but switched it subconsciously because he doesn't think of Ireland as being a separate country.

[Werthead]

The government is trying to suspend Parliament, as some feared. The Speaker and representatives of most Parliamentary parties (including Tories) have condemned the move.

This makes a vote of no confidence as soon as Parliament resumes a near-certainty, and indeed this may have been Johnson's plan.

Sterling falling in response.

[Which Tyler]

I THINK his maths is that his opponents desided to go with legislation first, VONC second - he's nullified his opponents' preferred option.

Hopefully her maj will have him thrown in the tower when he turns up... (obviously, she has no choice, she has to smile and do what she's told - or abdicate)

Nothing says "take back control" "regain democracy" or "Parliamentary sovereignty" quite like closing parliament and refusing democratic process.

Boris, you can fuck right off with this, we're a democracy, not a dictatorship!

#StopBrexit #StopDictators #FuckBoris (with a rusty pitchfork)

Parliamentary petition to prevent
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

Do not prorogue Parliament

Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.

[Werthead]

The Queen could (but is highly unlikely to) say no, which really would create a constitutional crisis and would cause total mayhem. Perhaps Charles or William would, but E2 is less likely to rock that boat (fun but bonkers idea: E2 says, "Peace out, bitches," and abdicates immediately, leaving Charles to come in and refuse the suspension, leading to him abdicating after it's all sorted out and William comes in afterwards).

Bercow and Parliament could simply refuse to be suspended, but the government has the legal right to suspend Parliament ahead of a new Queen's Speech, so that would also create a constitutional crisis: if the government and presumably more than half of the Conservative Party refused to sit in Parliament and ignored any legislation passed in that period by the majority of the Commons and Lords, that would also create a crisis.

My guess is that Johnson has calculated on a vote of no confidence either failing because of the lack of enthusiasm to rally around Corbyn; the opposition passing a vote but failing to form a coalition in the meantime; or winning a general election, taking advantage of the divided nature of the opposition. There is considerable danger in this last move though, with the Liberal Democrats poised to take as many as 50 new seats, most from the Conservatives. If Labour and the SNP manage to hold most of their current seats (and the SNP could increase their number, reversing the gains from the Scottish Tories), that creates the possibility of a LibDem-Labour-SNP-Green pact which could command a majority. Again, the issue there would be Corbyn as PM; either the LibDems have to swallow it up or they have to all agree on a compromise candidate, which they've failed to do so far.

[Werthead]

A Number 10 source has now told ITV News that if a vote of no confidence is passed, they will simply ignore procedure and call a general election for 1-5 November, which is extraordinary.

[The Anti-Targ]

55 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The Queen could (but is highly unlikely to) say no, which really would create a constitutional crisis and would cause total mayhem. Perhaps Charles or William would, but E2 is less likely to rock that boat (fun but bonkers idea: E2 says, "Peace out, bitches," and abdicates immediately, leaving Charles to come in and refuse the suspension, leading to him abdicating after it's all sorted out and William comes in afterwards).

Bercow and Parliament could simply refuse to be suspended, but the government has the legal right to suspend Parliament ahead of a new Queen's Speech, so that would also create a constitutional crisis: if the government and presumably more than half of the Conservative Party refused to sit in Parliament and ignored any legislation passed in that period by the majority of the Commons and Lords, that would also create a crisis.

My guess is that Johnson has calculated on a vote of no confidence either failing because of the lack of enthusiasm to rally around Corbyn; the opposition passing a vote but failing to form a coalition in the meantime; or winning a general election, taking advantage of the divided nature of the opposition. There is considerable danger in this last move though, with the Liberal Democrats poised to take as many as 50 new seats, most from the Conservatives. If Labour and the SNP manage to hold most of their current seats (and the SNP could increase their number, reversing the gains from the Scottish Tories), that creates the possibility of a LibDem-Tory-SNP-Green pact which could command a majority. Again, the issue there would be Corbyn as PM; either the LibDems have to swallow it up or they have to all agree on a compromise candidate, which they've failed to do so far.

You mean Labour, right?

I guess one way to avoid the Prorogue is for Liz to go visit her good friend the Emperor of Japan for a couple of months. If she's not there she can't sign off on the prorogue.

Can the LibDems just let Labour-SNP-Greens be a minority govt, and vote for them on confidence and supply? They don't get any ministers, but they get to wield a shit load of influence on every piece of legislation in the House.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

I THINK his maths is that his opponents desided to go with legislation first, VONC second - he's nullified his opponents' preferred option.

Hopefully her maj will have him thrown in the tower when he turns up... (obviously, she has no choice, she has to smile and do what she's told - or abdicate)

Nothing says "take back control" "regain democracy" or "Parliamentary sovereignty" quite like closing parliament and refusing democratic process.

Boris, you can fuck right off with this, we're a democracy, not a dictatorship!

#StopBrexit #StopDictators #FuckBoris (with a rusty pitchfork)

Parliamentary petition to prevent
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

 

signed,  but unfortunately I believe this will only be debated after the Queen's speech.

[davos]

Quote

Boris, you can fuck right off with this, we're a democracy, not a dictatorship

Are you sure about that not a dictatorship part?  Because the authoritarian asshole appointed by less than 1% of the population suspending the elected national legislature to force through his agenda sure seems like a dictatorship.  Let's just call an apple an apple.  Maybe more people will respond forcefully if they deal with the reality that this is a coup.  

[Which Tyler]

Boris actively wants a GE doesn't he?
He wants one after halloween, so that Brexit is done and dusted (and there's no point voting for the BnP or UKIP) but as soon after, before the shit has fully hit the fan.
Fixed term parliament act means he can't just call one himself, and besides, he'd rather blame other people; so VONC is his best bet of getting it. He runs the risk that a GNU is put together, taking the timetables out of his hands; but that seems... very delicate, and even more so whilst everyone's throwing their hands up crying bloody murder, rather than sitting around and negotiating. This prodding for a VONC, and proroguing of parliament also pulls the teeth for any tactic beyond VONC.

So what would he prefer? A lost VONC (which he could very easily orchestrate is one is tabled) to force a GE, with himself in charge of the timetable; or to pull that trigger himself, trying to put together a 2/3 majoirty in parliament, with himself in charge of the timetable. I think, today, he has come down on the side of VONC - hence he's doing his best to provoke it.

[Maithanet]

I've read a bit about this, but I still don't really understand what is happening.  Why does the PM have the power to suspend Parliament for over a month?  What is the situation where that would be a good thing?  Because it seems like a great way for a power hungry PM to put off a meddling Parliament for a month, but I don't really see what else it could be used for. 

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess one way to avoid the Prorogue is for Liz to go visit her good friend the Emperor of Japan for a couple of months. If she's not there she can't sign off on the prorogue.

I feel like this suggestion is meant in jest, but I can't help but wonder if it might have potential.  The Queen doesn't have any power over what is done, but it doesn't mean she has to go along and rubber stamp something that seems clearly undemocratic.  If the PM wants to involve the Queen in his power grab, I don't why she is obliged to make it easy for him. 

[Werthead]

The Queen has approved the request to suspend Parliament, so that's happening.

40 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've read a bit about this, but I still don't really understand what is happening.  Why does the PM have the power to suspend Parliament for over a month?  What is the situation where that would be a good thing?  Because it seems like a great way for a power hungry PM to put off a meddling Parliament for a month, but I don't really see what else it could be used for. 

So Parliament sits under "a session," which begins with the Queen's Speech and has the Prime Minister and government outlining their legislative programme for the coming session. By tradition (but not law) each session lasts one year. It allows the government to break down what part of their manifesto (their promise to the people which they are elected on) they are going to deliver in that period (which is one-quarter to one-fifth of any government's total time in office before the next general election).

When a session ends, Parliament is prorogued (usually for no more than a couple of weeks) and a new Parliament is called.

Under extraordinary circumstances, sessions can last much longer than a year, such as during the financial crisis, WWII and during the current Brexit situation. The government can prorogue Parliament at any time and open and close a session at will. Usually it's an administrative or bureaucratic process rather than a weapon to be used as a run-around Parliamentary procedure, which is what it is being used for here. It may be that although that is against the spirit of the law, it is not against the letter. Bercow is looking at that right now.

There is also a current legal requirement for the government to report to Parliament once per week on the efforts to return local governance to Northern Ireland until the end of the year. The courts (in Scotland, as they are still in session) are currently debating whether this requirement makes prorogation for anything less than one week illegal.