UK Politics - Matt's Handcock

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That’s his wife.

Who is clearly threatening to out him in her national newspaper column. 

Abbott is merely directing people towards that.

Is my reading of the situation. 

[polishgenius]

Which column are we talking about anyway? The 'not the master of the universe you purport to be' one? Coz I read it and there's absolutely nothing in it that even hints at Gove even being unfaithful, let alone threatening to out him. That he might not be very good at finding time for his family, yeah, you can read that implication, but the rest is only there if you're looking for it. 


In any case whether you think that's what Vine was saying or not (1) Abbott's post is far more explicit at hinting there's something to search for- whether it's just cheating or trying to out him - than the column is and (2) there's a big difference between a columnist who is his wife potentially complaining about being cheated on and an opposition MP getting up in his business for political points. 

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I'm with HoI on this one. Abbott's tweet is a pretty clear attempt to stir the shit to get him outed without actually doing the dirty herself, and it's appalling behaviour for an MP regardless of what we think of Gove.

There are many, many reasons not to want Michael Gove in a position of power but his living arrangements seem irrelevant (assuming of course he hasn't done a Hancock and broken some rules as a side-effect of that).

[Spockydog]

28 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

In any case whether you think that's what Vine was saying or not (1) Abbott's post is far more explicit at hinting there's something to search for- whether it's just cheating or trying to out him - than the column is and (2) there's a big difference between a columnist who is his wife potentially complaining about being cheated on and an opposition MP getting up in his business for political points. 

Yeah, Abbott should've stayed out of it (as should I, probably), but seeing as Johnson gave his lover public money and Hancock gave his lover public money, there is every reason to believe Gove gave his lover public money. And given that Gove's sexuality is amongst the biggest open secrets in Westminster, and Gove has already been proven to be corrupt, I choose to believe Abbot was leaning towards the potential corruption aspect. 

[Werthead]

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, Abbott should've stayed out of it (as should I, probably), but seeing as Johnson gave his lover public money and Hancock gave his lover public money, there is every reason to believe Gove gave his lover public money. And given that Gove's sexuality is amongst the biggest open secrets in Westminster, and Gove has already been proven to be corrupt, I choose to believe Abbot was leaning towards the potential corruption aspect. 

It's always been weird that he's tried to hide it. There's now 20 openly gay Conservative MPs (out of 45 MPs of all stripes, the Tories have the largest number). No one gives a fuck. As we've discussed before, one good thing about the modern Conservative Party is the degree to which it has not weaponised sexuality in the same way as the US (despite its recent flirtations with TERFdom) and is a key contributor to Britain's proud place as the gayest Parliament in the world (something I feel that should be celebrated more).

[dog-days]

Didn't realise that Michael Gove was in the closet (albeit not very far in as far as Westminster gossip goes). Initially I thought the stuff about him related to a heterosexual affair. Still can't abide him. He is sincere, grotesquely sincere in his convictions, but his real nationalism just complements BJ's nationalism of convenience. 

Since he arranged for £560 000 to go to friends of Dominic Cummings in marketing agency Public First, the possibility that he'd use his position to favour a lover doesn't seem that remote. OTOH, he's not an old Etonian or from one of the big public schools, so he may not feel he has the same level of carte blanche. His background is insecure, so political favours are there to advance his career with the more powerful, not to play at being a monarch from the pre-industrial age. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

51 minutes ago, dog-days said:

Didn't realise that Michael Gove was in the closet (albeit not very far in as far as Westminster gossip goes). Initially I thought the stuff about him related to a heterosexual affair. Still can't abide him. He is sincere, grotesquely sincere in his convictions, but his real nationalism just complements BJ's nationalism of convenience. 

Since he arranged for £560 000 to go to friends of Dominic Cummings in marketing agency Public First, the possibility that he'd use his position to favour a lover doesn't seem that remote. OTOH, he's not an old Etonian or from one of the big public schools, so he may not feel he has the same level of carte blanche. His background is insecure, so political favours are there to advance his career with the more powerful, not to play at being a monarch from the pre-industrial age. 

Insecure, as in there seems to be no real enthusiasm for him that I can tell. I suspect a lot of the Brexiteer Tories are still pissed that he sabotaged Johnson’s 2016 bid to be leader.

He seems to have Murdoch on his side, but even that media empire’s going to have its work cut out for it getting a british people to warm to Gove

[mormont]

re: Hancock, let's not pretend that the only reason he resigned was breaking COVID rules. It's the combination of an affair, breaking COVID rules and the corruption that did for him. He could probably have survived any two out of those three.

(Incidentally I'd be willing to believe that government ministers and officials are regularly lax about social distancing in private - probably other MPs too.)

Which brings us to Gove. Context is important and while we'd all like to stick to the principle that people's private lives are private, when you look at how the top echelons of the Tory party quite habitually mix their private lives with their political and government roles, that makes things more complicated. To some extent it's in the nature of politics: if you've known any politicians, you realise that like other professions, it's a lifestyle that can make it hard to maintain relationships with someone outside the bubble. But when you have the PM's wife more or less openly interfering with political appointments, the health secretary appointing a lover/friend to public roles, and so on, it does blur the lines we'd all like to stick to about privacy.

Whether Gove is or has been having affairs might be of public interest, therefore, and it may even be of public interest if he is in the closet under certain specific circumstances. I'm thinking that if Gove, rightly or wrongly, believes that an openly gay or bisexual leader of the party is a step too far for some and so has remained in the closet out of personal ambition: and if people have then used this to put pressure on him, then maybe it's a matter of public interest. But to date there is no particular evidence for that, so I'm more inclined to say it's none of our business.

All of which is to say, let's wait and see if there's a public interest in Gove's case. I'd like to hope that Diane Abbott knows something about that, rather than that she's just being mean. But it might be the latter, unfortunately.

Going back, I realise the conversation has moved on but just wanted to come back to Hereward on the point about voters being happy with the Tories as opposed to backing them out of lack of an alternative: my reading of the latter situation is that, if that were the case, Conservative voters would show low approval ratings of the PM and cabinet performance, as happened with Theresa May. But in fact, the figures for Johnson and his team are very high among Conservative voters, including among voters who only recently switched. In general, Tory voters seem happy with what they're getting and the assumption that the sleaze etc. are 'priced in' appears to be holding.

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Reckon he's a proper shagger though. Few grams of gak, Kasabian on the stereo, gallons of lube. You'd be walking like a broken thing for days. 

 I thought the rumours were that he was a swinger.

Dougie Smith imposed one very stringent rule at his parties.  F/F was entirely acceptable.  M/M was not.

[Spockydog]

You seem to know an awful lot about these parties. 

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

You seem to know an awful lot about these parties. 

A friend of mine (really!) liked to attend them.

[ants]

On 6/10/2021 at 3:35 AM, Heartofice said:

As I’ve said, I don’t like the booing. My point is the message is poor, so stop blaming the audience and think about the message and why it doesn’t work.

I think the booing showed it does work.

On 6/26/2021 at 5:47 PM, Heartofice said:

Yeah agree that the two sides often don’t have good faith arguments. Whether to leave the EU or not was never clear cut and there are good arguments on both sides. 

And while it’s possible to be pro remain without being anti British , there are are lot of reasons why the two positions tended to intersect and it was hard to see in many cases how they weren’t one and the same.

At a fundamental level Brexit is about Britain’s ability to be independent, to have its own identity and be in control of its own laws and future. That is a positive, optimistic view of Britain that displays a level of self confidence and pride that chimed with a lot of people. The opposite position is that Britain is a weak, useless country that needs to be in the EU to have any hope of survival. That was literally the thinking of a lot of remainers, I’ve seen it many times.  No wonder that position  was unpopular, and it’s become clear they position was untrue since.

That also ties in with the deification of the EU, seeing it as all that is good in the world and rarely accepting it might be flawed. The position was generally ‘Britain is some right wing nazi hell hole wanting to enslave the poor and we need the good EU to fight back and create our socialist paradise’. Again you wonder why that is unpopular with people.

I find it quite funny for you to open that long post by talking about bad faith arguments, and then you proceed to make ... bad faith arguments. Or at least portraying both sides' arguments from the perspective of the far right.

Whether someone believes the UK is a strong or weak performer doesn't matter. If you believe that economically being in the EU is a leg up, and outside is a handicap, then whether or not you're weak or strong is irrelevant. What matters is you were making yourself weaker than the alternative. Having a view on whether or not the UK was weak or strong was always a furphy of the right to ignore the benefits of being in the EU that would be lost.

Another right-wing snap take was that those who were for being part of the EU thought it was perfect. You didn't need to think it was perfect, just that being inside was better. 

The failure of the Leavers to put good-faith arguments for leaving that made any sense was a significant part of the reason there were doubts about what they were trying to achieve. 

On 6/26/2021 at 5:47 PM, Heartofice said:

Then during Brexit it was clear that many remainers and the entire Labour Party didn’t accept the referendum result, and tried at every opportunity to thwart it, to turn the whole thing into chaos so that we’d all become tired, go for a second vote and try again. That was also the hope of the EU and they said they supported a second vote and that Britain should think again. So pretty much all through the process the EU and remain and Labour were in lock step, tending to agree with each other.

What they also never really clocked onto was that once the vote had happened, we had left the EU, and at that point we needed to set a strong position in negotiations with the EU to create the best outcome. Every thing the remain side ( not just Labour here because a lot of Tories were just as culpable) did to frustrate our negotiations and keep us in some sort of dreadful ‘soft Brexit’ half way house ( that is worse than all other options) was really just playing into the EUs hands and so it’s hard to see how they don’t appear to be anti British in that scenario. Especially when during negotiations there were stories flying around at every stage and you’d see the same people taking the EUs version of events as gospel, never questioning them. 

Then Boris comes along, after Mays botch of the situation, takes a hard line with the EU, has a clear and yet positive view of what Brexit is ( it’s a trading relationship) compared to the muddy one that was previously proposed, manages to make Brexit actually happen in quick time and it’s no wonder he’s getting that Brexit bounce and looks like he’s actually doing something ( how long that can last is another matter)
 

So when you tie all that together with all the other things that the left seem to espouse, doing down Britain at every stage, it becomes more and more obvious why voters are dividing up the way they are

Of course the referendum was illegitimate, in the way the right-wing wanted to portray it (there were also plenty of reasons why it may have been illegitimate full stop). The referendum established that there was a preference for Brexit. Nothing more. Because of how loosely the referendum was worded. 

However, the right then proceeded to effectively use the referendum results to disenfranchise anyone who was against Brexit out of the debate on approach, and argue only for their vision of Brexit. Your point above is a great example, stating that there was unity required to create the best outcome. Nobody ever got a say beyond the Torries on what the best outcome was. You describe a soft Brexit as "dreaful", ignoring plenty of British wanted that.

Having had the initial referendum, a second should always have occurred to identify what the total UK consensus was on the best style. That remainers didn't want Brexit did not, and should not, disqualify them from having a vote in this and pushing for a soft Brexit. Instead, the Torries refused to take any view but their one, and then blamed anyone who didn't accept that as being disloyal. They effectively disenfranchised a significant part of the UK from the discussion, and even those who voted for Brexit but envisaged a softer version got the shaft. 

It is entirely reasonable to believe that if the UK electorate had had the choice initially to vote for this Brexit versus Remain, it would have lost. Hence why the referendum was fundamentally illegitimate. 

Yes, Borris got the bounce. That's because a good chunk of the community were tired of the discussion. Boris could have put a soft or tough Brexit through and he'd initially have got a bounce. 

[ants]

On 6/27/2021 at 12:10 AM, Liffguard said:

I don't think Labour's problems can be narrowed down to a single issue. It's a complex, long-term problem with multiple facets.

I still think at least part of the problem is demographic. Age is one of the strongest predictors of voting behaviour at the moment. If only under 25s could vote, there would be basically zero conservative MPs. Similarly, if only over 60s could vote, Labour would be almost entirely wiped out. Young people (almost) entirely vote Labour, and older people (almost) entirely vote Conservative. And the current demographic trends are putting the youth vote into more geographically concentrated areas.

I also think that Labour's potential support-base is fractured in a way that the Conservatives' isn't. Young, precariously employed renters and retired homeowners have fundamentally different material interests that are difficult to reconcile. Labour predominantly has the support of the former, but under the current electoral map it needs more of the latter, but needs to gain this support without simultaneously losing that of the former. That's a tricky needle to thread.

I also want to push back against the narrative that Labour have betrayed (or turned away from) the "working class." Which usually takes the form that all the middle-class, educated, woke snowflakes in Labour have repelled the gruff, salt-of-the-Earth, patriotic, call-a-spade-a-spade "real" working class that lives in the north, wears flat caps and works in factories (and also just so happens to be white).

Firstly, "the working class" also comprises young, socially-liberal urban workers. Socially liberal values are far more closely linked to age than class, and university-educated but precariously-employed twenty-something bartenders and cleaners in Hackney are just as much "working class" as a middle-aged reactionary who happens to be from a post-industrial northern town.

Secondly, I think it's doing a pretty major disservice to the residents of post-industrial midlands and northern towns to assume that they actually are automatically all reactionary. Whilst the press tends to push a pretty consistently right-wing view, I think polling frequently shows that the population's views are significantly more diverse.

Lastly, I think it's true that Labour has turned away from the working class, at least to an extent. But it's not because of their socially-progressive younger supporters, it's because of the professional "moderates" in the party HQ who've decided that any attempt to materially improve people's lives is a fool's errand, and seem to have fully decided that they need to spend significantly more energy fighting the left wing of their own party than the Tory government.

I think that a Labour party that pushes materially transformative policies alongside socially-liberal policies, combined with consistent message discipline emphasising especially in regards to the former, could potentially be a vote winner.

I think Labour also has a similar problem to Labour in Australia. And that is that there are bunch of people who are loudly progressive in life, but vote financially at the ballot box. And the socially progressive is mixed up with the economically progressive.

There were a host of Sydney suburbs who when the results of the plebiscite on same sex marriage came out were deliriously happy. You would get common statements how this was the best day ever. Many of those suburbs voted for the conservative party that restricted gay rights. Because they might be progressive socially, but not if it would impact their financial position. So you have these groups who are pushing pushing for progressive positions, and you're aligning with, but who don't then actually support you at the ballot box.

And in Australia, they could easily vote third party and then conservative without hurting their vote on a two-party basis to send a message. They didn't and don't. 

[The Anti-Targ]

I think the socially progressive, financially selfish look at the course of the last 30 years and realise social progression happens regardless of the colour of the party in power. So why vote based on social issues? Just vote on economic ones that benefit you personally, and the social issues will take care of themselves.

The left is hamstrung by the myth that in order to effect their economic vision they need to increase taxes in order to spend on the things they need to help the poorest 50%. This this myth pits the barely affluent against the not affluent and puts the left in a no-win scenario. When Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter he was right, but for the wrong reason.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, ants said:

I think the booing showed it does work.

I find it quite funny for you to open that long post by talking about bad faith arguments, and then you proceed to make ... bad faith arguments. Or at least portraying both sides' arguments from the perspective of the far right.

Whether someone believes the UK is a strong or weak performer doesn't matter. If you believe that economically being in the EU is a leg up, and outside is a handicap, then whether or not you're weak or strong is irrelevant. What matters is you were making yourself weaker than the alternative. Having a view on whether or not the UK was weak or strong was always a furphy of the right to ignore the benefits of being in the EU that would be lost.

Another right-wing snap take was that those who were for being part of the EU thought it was perfect. You didn't need to think it was perfect, just that being inside was better. 

The failure of the Leavers to put good-faith arguments for leaving that made any sense was a significant part of the reason there were doubts about what they were trying to achieve. 

Of course the referendum was illegitimate, in the way the right-wing wanted to portray it (there were also plenty of reasons why it may have been illegitimate full stop). The referendum established that there was a preference for Brexit. Nothing more. Because of how loosely the referendum was worded. 

However, the right then proceeded to effectively use the referendum results to disenfranchise anyone who was against Brexit out of the debate on approach, and argue only for their vision of Brexit. Your point above is a great example, stating that there was unity required to create the best outcome. Nobody ever got a say beyond the Torries on what the best outcome was. You describe a soft Brexit as "dreaful", ignoring plenty of British wanted that.

Having had the initial referendum, a second should always have occurred to identify what the total UK consensus was on the best style. That remainers didn't want Brexit did not, and should not, disqualify them from having a vote in this and pushing for a soft Brexit. Instead, the Torries refused to take any view but their one, and then blamed anyone who didn't accept that as being disloyal. They effectively disenfranchised a significant part of the UK from the discussion, and even those who voted for Brexit but envisaged a softer version got the shaft. 

It is entirely reasonable to believe that if the UK electorate had had the choice initially to vote for this Brexit versus Remain, it would have lost. Hence why the referendum was fundamentally illegitimate. 

Yes, Borris got the bounce. That's because a good chunk of the community were tired of the discussion. Boris could have put a soft or tough Brexit through and he'd initially have got a bounce. 

A two-stage referendum would have given Leave a free hit in round 1.  The EU was never popular in this country (except for a brief period in the Seventies) and if people thought they could vote Yes, while changing their minds at a later stage, the result would have been a landslide for Leave.  In practice, that would have created unstoppable momentum to leave.

[mormont]

If we're playing fantasy what-should-have-happened politics, what should have happened is that Cameron should have commissioned a white paper (however rough) on what Brexit would mean and what it would look like before the referendum. As any remotely competent, responsible government not inclined to play roulette with the entire country's fate for the sake of internal party bickering would have done.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The left is hamstrung by the myth that in order to effect their economic vision they need to increase taxes in order to spend on the things they need to help the poorest 50%. This this myth pits the barely affluent against the not affluent and puts the left in a no-win scenario.

Building on this I'd say that:
- People don't understand progressive taxation.
- People don't know that in most Western countries, taxation is really regressive (i.e., the more you earn, the lower your tax rate).
- People underestimate just how concentrated wealth has become (and just how worse it's getting).
- People tend to sympathize with higher tax brackets, i.e. middle-class folks think of themselves as millionaires, and actual millionaires think of themselves as billionaires.
- People's sense of value is completely out of whack. Not so long ago everyone saw work (labor) as the primary source of value. It's not so clear anymore.
- People think discussing (and addressing) any of the above is "far-left" or anti-capitalist. Actually it's pretty neutral, and -contrary to what is often believed- taxation and redistribution stimulate the economy and don't threaten capitalism (done right, they even reinforce it).

Or, to simplify, about 50 years of propaganda have destroyed people's understanding of basic economics and obliterated class consciousness.
My 70+year old mother-in-law with her 1000€-pension regularly speaks as if she was upper middle-class and the left was a threat to her. And no, it's not about age: when my grandmother was in her 70s, about 15 years ago, she still understood that the right was more of a threat to her small pension and her kids than the left ever could be. Something changed in the way people talk about politics and economics - because something changed in the way they are taught.
Now we're all magically "middle-class" with only a very small percentage of people having the audacity to admit they are poor or wealthy. Never mind that "middle-class" seems to include both people with 200,000€ homes and people with 2,000,000€ homes, people whose income comes from rent and people whose income comes from labor... etc.
It's just sad.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Building on this I'd say that:
- People don't understand progressive taxation.
- People don't know that in most Western countries, taxation is really regressive (i.e., the more you earn, the lower your tax rate).
- People underestimate just how concentrated wealth has become (and just how worse it's getting).
- People tend to sympathize with higher tax brackets, i.e. middle-class folks think of themselves as millionaires, and actual millionaires think of themselves as billionaires.
- People's sense of value is completely out of whack. Not so long ago everyone saw work (labor) as the primary source of value. It's not so clear anymore.
- People think discussing (and addressing) any of the above is "far-left" or anti-capitalist. Actually it's pretty neutral, and -contrary to what is often believed- taxation and redistribution stimulate the economy and don't threaten capitalism (done right, they even reinforce it).

Or, to simplify, about 50 years of propaganda have destroyed people's understanding of basic economics and obliterated class consciousness.
My 70+year old mother-in-law with her 1000€-pension regularly speaks as if she was upper middle-class and the left was a threat to her. And no, it's not about age: when my grandmother was in her 70s, about 15 years ago, she still understood that the right was more of a threat to her small pension and her kids than the left ever could be. Something changed in the way people talk about politics and economics - because something changed in the way they are taught.
Now we're all magically "middle-class" with only a very small percentage of people having the audacity to admit they are poor or wealthy. Never mind that "middle-class" seems to include both people with 200,000€ homes and people with 2,000,000€ homes, people whose income comes from rent and people whose income comes from labor... etc.
It's just sad.

It is even more fundamental than that. People don't understand the concept of money and where it comes from.

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Or, to simplify, about 50 years of propaganda have destroyed people's understanding of basic economics and obliterated class consciousness.
My 70+year old mother-in-law with her 1000€-pension regularly speaks as if she was upper middle-class and the left was a threat to her. And no, it's not about age: when my grandmother was in her 70s, about 15 years ago, she still understood that the right was more of a threat to her small pension and her kids than the left ever could be. Something changed in the way people talk about politics and economics - because something changed in the way they are taught.
Now we're all magically "middle-class" with only a very small percentage of people having the audacity to admit they are poor or wealthy. Never mind that "middle-class" seems to include both people with 200,000€ homes and people with 2,000,000€ homes, people whose income comes from rent and people whose income comes from labor... etc.
It's just sad.

So much this.

Another anecdotal example: my Telegraph reading aunt is constantly on about the evils of inheritance tax and about how the government is going to steal the money she wants to leave to her children. We have repeatedly said to her that her estate is not going to be big enough to incur any inheritance tax at all, but that just bounces off. Indeed it was only with great difficulty that we managed to keep her out of the clutches of a conman with a "inheritance tax avoidance trust scheme" a few years back.

When provoked, we have occasionally pointed out that old age care at the sort of level she expects (now that the UK welfare state has been eviscerated) is likely to soak up the whole of her estate anyway, and probably her children will actually end up paying for some of it. But her ideas are fixed.

[Hereward]

9 hours ago, mormonte said:

If we're playing fantasy what-should-have-happened politics, what should have happened is that Cameron should have commissioned a white paper (however rough) on what Brexit would mean and what it would look like before the referendum. As any remotely competent, responsible government not inclined to play roulette with the entire country's fate for the sake of internal party bickering would have done.

Does that apply to the SNP too?