The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[HanoiVillan]

Another example of real dishonesty on a more niche topic in this article by Chloe Smith MP:

Your vote matters, wherever it is cast in the UK

'Last week, MPs voted on government legislation virtually for the first time in our Parliament’s history. For me, and many other MPs, it was a significant moment. Coronavirus has affected every aspect of our lives. But the British people, public services and businesses have risen to the challenge. So too has our democracy.

Today I will be introducing the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill to the UK Parliament, which will rightfully receive scrutiny from MPs. Some may question why such legislation is necessary at this time, when the country and world feels like it’s at a standstill.

The answer to this is simple. Keeping the British people safe is clearly our top priority. But an effective government still has a responsibility to plan for the future and ensure that time-critical parliamentary business continues.

If this legislation is not brought forward now and approved, the Government will be legally obliged to implement an old recommendation to reduce the number of parliamentary constituencies (and MPs) down from 650 to 600.

That is no longer in the best interests of the British public. Since the previous policy was established under the Coalition Agreement, the UK has left the European Union and lawmaking has come back to the UK Parliament. We have taken back control, are regaining our economic independence and we no longer have MEPs.'

(from: https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/your-vote-matters-wherever-it-is-cast-in-the-uk) (bold added by me)

Now, to be clear, I agree with the government's decision on this, and wanted to stay at 650 MP's all along, so I don't actually care, but the idea that the reduction to 600 is 'no longer in the best interests of the British public' is a deep misdirection, and the clue is that she cannot explain why at all. The next sentence suggests it was solved by Brexit (it wasn't, that has nothing to do with anything) and that the problem is that we had too many politicians because of our MEP's (so why do the Tories keep putting hundreds of people in the House of Lords every year?).

The very obvious reality is that they now, somewhat surprisingly, actually hold a large proportion of the seats that would be eliminated by a move to 600, and now don't want to face a backbench rebellion from their new members. And that's fine, it works out for the best anyway, but the lies told to get to the decision are telling.

Edited May 19, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The very obvious reality is that they now, somewhat surprisingly, actually hold a large proportion of the seats that would be eliminated by a move to 600, and now don't want to face a backbench rebellion from their new members. And that's fine, it works out for the best anyway, but the lies told to get to the decision are telling.

I agree with all of your post, except the bit highlighted.

I think there are too many in the Lords, as you say, but also too many in the HoC. A reduction, done properly, would be a good thing. When originally proposed the tories did shenanigans to target Labour seats, which as you also say are now tory seats, hence the call it off plan. But were it to be done properly, the whole thing needs an overhaul, and that includes the voting system.

 

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

I agree with all of your post, except the bit highlighted.

I think there are too many in the Lords, as you say, but also too many in the HoC. A reduction, done properly, would be a good thing. When originally proposed the tories did shenanigans to target Labour seats, which as you also say are now tory seats, hence the call it off plan. But were it to be done properly, the whole thing needs an overhaul, and that includes the voting system.

Why do you think there are too many MPs?

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Why do you think there are too many MPs?

It's entirely subjective, I suppose. I think that with the devolution of power to first Scotland, then NI & Wales, then to City mayors that part of the workload and jobs have essentially been seconded out. I think that this will only increase over time.

Next, looking at the perhaps 3 different main roles of an MP - to represent their constituents - well as above, quite a number of constituencies are now to large extent represented by MSPs NIA members, Welsh parliament members. etc.

Second part is to be part of parliaments role, and many here are just lobby fodder - do what the whip say. Many many of them contribute little or nothing in that regard.

Lastly, their party role - "your job and duty is to support the leader of the party..." This can go eff itself, from my perspective.

Why do you think 650 is exactly the right amount? "Because that's the number we'e always had?" is about the only reason I can think - I'm sure you have better?

[HanoiVillan]

Thanks for your reply blandy. To take the last point first:

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

Why do you think 650 is exactly the right amount? "Because that's the number we'e always had?" is about the only reason I can think - I'm sure you have better?

I don't have any attachment at all to 650, and it is essentially arbitrary (except in as much as humans seem to prefer round numbers I suppose). My guiding principle is instead that since the population of the UK is rising, that any reduction in the number of MP's is necessarily a dilution of representation, which should only occur with extremely good justification from my perspective. In other words, it's not the number of MP's I'm interested in, but the direction of travel. If anything, I would prefer to anchor the number of MP's to a proportion of MP:electorate (1:70,000 or 75,000 seems reasonable enough).

There are three arguments I can see against this. The first is cost, which is obviously a misdirection: the cost of an MP is trivial all told, and if we truly cared about cost we could axe 500+ members of the House of Lords without even noticing they were gone. The second is that they couldn't fit into the Houses of Parliament, which is true, but then again they can't all fit now either and that's really just an argument for a parliament building that is fit for purpose and not a death trap. The third is that it wouldn't be popular, which is probably true (but doesn't mean it isn't the best idea). Maybe people have other objections?

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think that with the devolution of power to first Scotland, then NI & Wales, then to City mayors that part of the workload and jobs have essentially been seconded out. I think that this will only increase over time.

Next, looking at the perhaps 3 different main roles of an MP - to represent their constituents - well as above, quite a number of constituencies are now to large extent represented by MSPs NIA members, Welsh parliament members. etc.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined account for only 18% of MPs, though, and mayors have very limited powers. If there were to be an English Parliament, which I don't want, then I think this argument would be stronger, but for the 82% of seats in England, the vast majority of their representation occurs at Westminster (even more so now we've left the EU of course).

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Second part is to be part of parliaments role, and many here are just lobby fodder - do what the whip say. Many many of them contribute little or nothing in that regard.

Lastly, their party role - "your job and duty is to support the leader of the party..." This can go eff itself, from my perspective.

I think the role of a backbench MP is more complex than that implies. Of course, backbenchers are more likely to rebel than frontbenchers overall, so while they may exist as 'lobby fodder' much of the time, they don't always. Backbenchers can add value in several different ways, but the two most important are firstly staffing select committees, which need to be populated by people not on the frontbench in order to perform their scrutiny role. Secondly, they perform a role providing feedback from the party base to the party leadership. This 'conscience' role is often ineffective, but nevertheless needs to exist as a kind of safety valve of representation. For one example, consider the role of backbench Labour MP's opposing the war in Iraq, which did not stop the war but did demonstrate both to the public and to parliament that division existed in the country, which frankly could not really have been detected by frontbenchers or through the media; another less politically palatable example to you and me perhaps is the role of the European Research Group in representing the views of the (ultimately very large) part of the electorate which had become disillusioned with Europe.

I don't really expect that will persuade anyone who doesn't really agree anyway at the start, but that's how I see it.

[chrisp65]

Interesting that you don’t want an english parliament there @HanoiVillan whereas I think I do.

I’m not sure Cornwall would feel anymore represented than at present, but perhaps 3 or 4 regional assemblies could work better and make things more accountable.

Then radically reduce Westminster. Properly halve the size of it as a starting point.

. 

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Interesting that you don’t want an english parliament there @HanoiVillan whereas I think I do.

I’m not sure Cornwall would feel anymore represented than at present, but perhaps 3 or 4 regional assemblies could work better and make things more accountable.

Then radically reduce Westminster. Properly halve the size of it as a starting point.

. 

To lay my cards on the table here - and I don't expect you to agree with me on this - I don't want an English Parliament because I think it would be the inevitable start of the end of the United Kingdom as a meaningful political entity, and I don't want that.

I don't have an 'answer' to the push-pull dynamic of increasing Scottish and Welsh nationalism on the one hand, and Conservative Party English revanchism on the other, but the dynamic clearly exists, is increasing, and appears to be self-reinforcing.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

To lay my cards on the table here - and I don't expect you to agree with me on this - I don't want an English Parliament because I think it would be the inevitable start of the end of the United Kingdom as a meaningful political entity, and I don't want that.

I don't have an 'answer' to the push-pull dynamic of increasing Scottish and Welsh nationalism on the one hand, and Conservative Party English revanchism on the other, but the dynamic clearly exists, is increasing, and appears to be self-reinforcing.

I think a lot of the problem, is that from the other side of the fence, there very much already is an english parliament and a lot of people are fed up with British nationalism being good, any other nationalism being bad. When over 80% of MP’s in parliament represent 1 of 4 nations ‘equally’, there are going to be issues. Just as there would rightly be issues if the population of Northern Ireland had an equal say with the 57,000,000 residing in England. We’ve built in inequality for someone somewhere.

I suspect a good portion of Scots don’t necessarily want to be Scots nationalists, they just don’t want to be England by default under the token title of Britain. There’s no dislike of England. Much of what is described in Westminster as rising nationalism absolutely isn’t. It’s resistance to being peripheral in your own life, by attaching to the less bad political alternative.

By actually stripping that dynamic out, making English regions stand alone, you might get less friction in the other 3 nations and get the main political parties and media to understand the difference between Britain and England. The absolute refusal of the BBC through all of this to accept regional or national difference has been stark, worrying and comedic in equal measure. Labour are also very much part of the problem here with their attitude that only the party central command structure and Westminster can be right and can have the talent to decide things. It’s less blatant than tories actively undermining democracy, which they are doing now, knowingly and deliberately. But it is equally damaging in the longer term when those in charge in Labour lack confidence in themselves to do anything but take instruction from SW1.

Anyway, time for a coffee, somebody else needs this soapbox.

 

 

 

 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think the role of a backbench MP is more complex than that implies. Of course, backbenchers are more likely to rebel than frontbenchers overall, so while they may exist as 'lobby fodder' much of the time, they don't always. Backbenchers can add value in several different ways, but the two most important are firstly staffing select committees, which need to be populated by people not on the frontbench in order to perform their scrutiny role. Secondly, they perform a role providing feedback from the party base to the party leadership. This 'conscience' role is often ineffective, but nevertheless needs to exist as a kind of safety valve of representation. For one example, consider the role of backbench Labour MP's opposing the war in Iraq, which did not stop the war but did demonstrate both to the public and to parliament that division existed in the country, which frankly could not really have been detected by frontbenchers or through the media; another less politically palatable example to you and me perhaps is the role of the European Research Group in representing the views of the (ultimately very large) part of the electorate which had become disillusioned with Europe.

It's all good stuff, or at least I accept it as valid. But it remains as valid with (say) 500 MPs as with 650. All of it, IMO.

18% of the MPs is 117. I dunno if that's how many Scots, welsh, Irish MPs there are, but the MSPs etc are by and large doing stuff those MPs used to be responsible for. Brexit and this virus are further separating the 4 parts of the UK. I'm more with Chris to be honest. I think the UK needs to be run less, much less, by Westminster centralisation and much more by regional government. Of course, population-wise England is by far the largest chunk compared to Scotland etc. and there are arguments from each quarter that they're hard done to, compared to the next quarter - the English claim they pay for the Scots, or the Welsh say they're told what to do by people miles away who have no understanding, or whatever...

Some stuff needs to be done "for" all parts - defence is an example, or national infrastructure or international trade or energy capacity, maybe, but the majority of stuff, I'm far from sure can't be devolved to the regions/nations.

The tories love central control of everything, keep the power away from nasty Northerners, or Welshers or Scottishists who don't share their (far from) "ideals" and might want to do socialist community stuff like helping people or not being utter bastards.

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

To lay my cards on the table here - and I don't expect you to agree with me on this - I don't want an English Parliament because I think it would be the inevitable start of the end of the United Kingdom as a meaningful political entity, and I don't want that.

 

I don’t understand that logic. Having an overarching ‘federal’ government looking after international issues and then independent ‘state’ governments looking after domestic issues has not led to the end of the USA, Australia, Germany etc etc as political entities. 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

independent ‘state’ governments looking after domestic issues has not led to the end of the USA, Australia, Germany etc etc as political entities. 

They chose to join together from separately run, whereas we'd be choosing to seperate from jointly run. Reverse process.

[LondonLax]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

They chose to join together from separately run, whereas we'd be choosing to seperate from jointly run. Reverse process.

Yes I suppose there is a risk of Balkanisation but it doesn’t have to go that way. It’s entirely down to how people want their country to operate. 

[Davkaus]

PMQs will hopefully be a nice reminder tomorrow that we have a Prime Minister. Seriously, where the **** is he? If this is him raring to go and not taking paternity leave, I bet he can't wait for his time off.

We've had some shit PMs over the years, but I can't remember having a part time one before.

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

PMQs will hopefully be a nice reminder tomorrow that we have a Prime Minister. Seriously, where the **** is he? If this is him raring to go and not taking paternity leave, I bet he can't wait for his time off.

We've had some shit PMs over the years, but I can't remember having a part time one before.

No word of a lie, we were watching the daily briefing yesterday and my 9 year old son said “why doesn’t Boris Johnson do many of these?”. 
 

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

No word of a lie, we were watching the daily briefing yesterday and my 9 year old son said “why doesn’t Boris Johnson do many of these?”. 
 

I'd put my month's wages on the next one he does being announcing a further relaxation of restrictions. Probably recorded. With no questions. 

[choffer]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

PMQs will hopefully be a nice reminder tomorrow that we have a Prime Minister. Seriously, where the **** is he? If this is him raring to go and not taking paternity leave, I bet he can't wait for his time off.

We've had some shit PMs over the years, but I can't remember having a part time one before.

Has anyone checked the fridge?

[chrisp65]

 

Just imagine if we’d voted for chaos.

[Dodgyknees]

If you can donate to a local homelessness charity - do it. 

Government are words removed. Can't say much more sadly. 

Just donate if you can. 

[HanoiVillan]

Good and appropriately angry piece IMO:

The bailout of London's transport network shows we are not all in this together

'Last Thursday evening, Transport for London came within hours of running out of money. What would have happened to the tube, the buses, the Overground and everything else TfL is responsible for if it had is unclear: I don’t think it would have meant bailiffs walking off with DLR carriages, but who can say?

Anyway, it didn’t happen: at the last minute the office of the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, agreed a £1.6bn bailout package with national government. In return, it had to accept two government officials on the TfL board, plus the inevitable public statements about how this proved the mayor couldn’t be trusted with money.

In truth, it proves nothing of the sort: to hold Khan responsible you’d need to be politically motivated, innumerate or both. And while this may look like a little local difficulty of no interest to those outside the capital, the affair highlights the Tory party’s chronic inability to comprehend the difference between public services and private goods, and sends worrying signals for how the government might approach the question of public sector deficits across the country in months to come.

To explain how we got here, you need to dig back into recent history. In 2015, the then chancellor and the then mayor of London agreed a new financial settlement for TfL. No longer would it receive £700m a year from the Treasury to keep its transport services running: instead, although it would be allowed to keep a decent sum from devolved business rates, it would be expected to pay its own way.

[...]

It is telling that few major western cities have copied the UK capital’s unusual transport funding model: the closest seem to be Manchester and Toronto, both of which are also in trouble, and neither of which are nearly so dependent on their metros as London. By agreeing that deal in 2015, the men who signed it showed that they don’t understand what public transport is for.

[...]

An editorial in the Evening Standard on Friday claimed that Khan “has a bad habit of blaming others when things don’t work out”. It modestly neglects to mention that the editor of that paper, George Osborne, is the very chancellor who imposed this financial settlement on TfL in the first place. The mayor who signed it off, incidentally, was called Boris Johnson.'

(more on link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/19/bailout-london-transport-network-tories-tfl-coronavirus-pandemic?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)

[HanoiVillan]

A useful demonstration of what I'm talking about, when I call the House of Lords an utterly corrupt institution that embarrasses our democracy:

EDIT: Might as well add this for context I guess:

Cash-for-Honours scandal

'The 2006–2007 Life Peerages scandal (also known as Cash for Honours, Cash for Peerages, Loans for Lordships, Loans for Honours or Loans for Peerages) was a political scandal in the United Kingdom in 2006 and 2007 concerning the connection between political donations and the award of life peerages. A loophole in electoral law in the United Kingdom means that although anyone donating even small sums of money to a political party has to declare this as a matter of public record, those loaning money at commercial rates of interest did not have to make a public declaration.

In March 2006, several men nominated for life peerages by then Prime Minister Tony Blair[1] were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was later revealed they had loaned large amounts of money to the governing Labour Party,[2] at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy. Suspicion was aroused by some that the peerages were a quid pro quo for the loans. This resulted in three complaints[3] to the Metropolitan Police by Scottish National Party MP Angus MacNeil, Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd, and a third individual who continues to remain unidentified, as a breach of the law against selling honours.[4] The investigation was headed by Assistant Commissioner John Yates who later resigned over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. During the investigation various members of the Labour Party (including Blair), the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were questioned, and Labour's Lord Levy was arrested and later released on bail.[5] The investigation continued to have political impact throughout, as a range of stories continued to leak from the police investigation and damaged the government and Labour Party.[6]

Following the unveiling of the scandal the Labour Party had to repay the loans and was said to be in financial difficulty.[7] The police investigation was long and involved. It expanded to encompass potential charges of perverting the course of justice, apparently relating to suspected attempts to present evidence to the police in a particular way. At one point the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, obtained an injunction against the BBC, preventing them from reporting a story they claimed was in the public interest while he argued that the story was sub judice. This raised the possibility of a conflict of interest, the Attorney General being a political appointee. Tony Blair was interviewed three times as Prime Minister, though only as a witness and not under caution.

After a long review of the police file, it was reported on 20 July 2007 that the Crown Prosecution Service would not bring any charges against any of the individuals involved. Their decision stated that while peerages may have been given in exchange for loans, it could not find direct evidence that that had been agreed in advance; this would have been required for a successful prosecution.[8] Notwithstanding the lack of any charges, some[who?] considered that the investigation had severely undermined Tony Blair's position, and possibly hastened his resignation as Prime Minister.[9]'

(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-for-Honours_scandal)

Doubtless the rich people complaining about how their apparent attempted bribes of Boris Johnson have not (yet?) been rewarded will not suffer any consequences, and I bet we never hear anything about this story that the Financial Times' lobby correspondent just tweeted out ever again.

Edited May 20, 2020 by HanoiVillan