Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Boris Johnson wins a confidence vote by Tory MPs 211 to 148.

It means he will stay in his job as prime minister.

The result was announced by chairman of the 1922 Committee Sir Graham Brady.

Fuck.

Best result I could've hoped for. Now he gets to spend at least a few more months, probably a couple of years being the shambles that he is and corroding the Tories further from within. 40% of his own party doesn't trust him to lead anymore, yet on he will stagger, bliffing and fimbling and galumphing along until the next general election. All Labour has to do is not catastrophically implode again and they'll crush him.

Then we see how much they'll fuck things up in their own way.

Well they're not led by Corbyn anymore so that's a plus- losing two consecutive elections confirmed that he really was unelectable after all.

[His Divine Shadow]

Can't wait for a Liz Truss premiership. Or maybe it'll go to one of the sons of Dagon (Gove)?

Labour can just fuck the fuck off tho. Burn.

[Gandalf]

I had my money on Patel to emerge as the post BoJo leader, under a promise to have the face of a modern conservative party, with the cruelty of an old fashioned one.

[His Divine Shadow]

[Tribble]

Fuck.

Best result I could've hoped for. Now he gets to spend at least a few more months, probably a couple of years being the shambles that he is and corroding the Tories further from within. 40% of his own party doesn't trust him to lead anymore, yet on he will stagger, bliffing and fimbling and galumphing along until the next general election. All Labour has to do is not catastrophically implode again and they'll crush him.

Then we see how much they'll fuck things up in their own way.

Well they're not led by Corbyn anymore so that's a plus- losing two consecutive elections confirmed that he really was unelectable after all.

Rather difficult for Corbyn to win an election when the media and his own party were both openly conspiring to ensure his defeat. Labour leadership are quite content with Boris Johnson at the helm as that’s exactly what they wanted and fought for.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I had my money on Patel to emerge as the post BoJo leader, under a promise to have the face of a modern conservative party, with the cruelty of an old fashioned one.

That certainly sounds like her- her only virtue is that she's beautiful Everything else about her is toxic

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Best result I could've hoped for. Now he gets to spend at least a few more months, probably a couple of years being the shambles that he is and corroding the Tories further from within. 40% of his own party doesn't trust him to lead anymore, yet on he will stagger, bliffing and fimbling and galumphing along until the next general election. All Labour has to do is not catastrophically implode again and they'll crush him.

Then we see how much they'll fuck things up in their own way.

Well they're not led by Corbyn anymore so that's a plus- losing two consecutive elections confirmed that he really was unelectable after all.

Rather difficult for Corbyn to win an election when the media and his own party were both openly conspiring to ensure his defeat. Labour leadership are quite content with Boris Johnson at the helm as that’s exactly what they wanted and fought for.

Corbyn, having spent the entirety of his leadership making repeated attempts to include and co-operate with opposing factions and individuals within his party, was faced with an increasingly mutinous parliamentary party that had never liked him to begin with, had already tried to oust him once, and was now at daggers drawn. Likewise, while Corbyn made disastrous campaigning decisions(such as refusing to answer whether he would use the UK's Nuclear Deterrent and failing to say how he would vote in a second Brexit referendum) a number of the tabloids and some of the broadsheets did carry out an extensive disinformation campaign (though it was not as universal as was claimed). He was also, by comparison with the energetic, optimistic, and charismatic Boris, an ineffective campaigner.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

One other factor worth noting was the vote itself.

Bojo's vote only went up by 1.2 percentage points, while Corbyn's fell by 7.9. Yet that translated into a loss of 60 seats for Labour; of which the Tories got 48 and the SNP got the rest (along with 1 Lib-Dem seat). The Lib-Dem vote share went up by 4.2, yet they lost 1 seat.

As for demographics, Ipsos-Mori put the Tories ahead among over-45s, and across all social classes with the exception of women of class DE (the lowest). Social and private renters, degree-holders, and non-whites also favoured Labour.

Comparison with the 2017 vote is telling. The Tories kept 88% of their vote, while the largest defection was 6% to the Lib-Dems. Labour kept 80%, but lost 8% to the Tories and 8% to the Lib-Dems, and the Lib-Dems kept 63% while losing 11% to the Tories and 19% to Labour.

So on the whole, the Tory vote was old, white, home-owning, and not university-educated. What seems to have damaged Labour wasn't some large-scale defection to the Tories, but relatively small defections to the Tories and the Lib-Dems at the same time, with a lot quite possibly just not voting. The fact that at least some of the losses were to the old Labour base is what gave rise to the 'Workington Man' narrative, though the press distorted this into said Workington man going Tory when in reality he seems to have stayed home.

On top of that, this relatively small shift gave results utterly disproportionate to its numbers. In a proportional system, the Tories would still be the largest party, but a minority fighting off challenges from a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance.

So while Corbyn does seem to have alienated older, socially-conservative white voters in some areas, he was as much a victim of the voting system as anything else.

[His Divine Shadow]

The real damage was done in 2017 really, if not for the constant sabotaging then, Labour might've won, they where within a hairs breadth. The article I linked earlier also shows how the seeds for labours defeat in 2019 was laid by Corybns enemies as well as allies who pushed him into a 2nd referendum against his wishes. That allowed the tories to use brexit in their campaign and get brexit done etc. Calling brexit into question at that time was suicide.

If only Corbyn had been the purging stalinist his detractors claimed from the start, then 2017 would've looked different. Alas he was too kind for high politics, but nobody since has motivated the youth like he managed.

[ray245]

The real damage was done in 2017 really, if not for the constant sabotaging then, Labour might've won, they where within a hairs breadth. The article I linked earlier also shows how the seeds for labours defeat in 2019 was laid by Corybns enemies as well as allies who pushed him into a 2nd referendum against his wishes. That allowed the tories to use brexit in their campaign and get brexit done etc. Calling brexit into question at that time was suicide.

If only Corbyn had been the purging stalinist his detractors claimed from the start, then 2017 would've looked different. Alas he was too kind for high politics, but nobody since has motivated the youth like he managed.

A party leader that can't manage party discipline is no leader in the end.

[His Divine Shadow]

Who is to say he could not manage it? He chose to be inclusive, to try and build bridges with the right of the party, and they betrayed him. That was a mistake in policy but there's nothing in there to say he is incapable of alternative actions, it was just not the one he chose. Otherwise what you are really saying is that anyone who makes a misstake is no leader, and someone who isn't powerful enough to rule on his own without allies, is no leader.

I mean it really just seems like you're looking for excuses to shit on corbyn because you dont like him.

[ray245]

Who is to say he could not manage it? He chose to be inclusive, to try and build bridges with the right of the party, and they betrayed him. That was a mistake in policy but there's nothing in there to say he is incapable of alternative actions, it was just not the one he chose. Otherwise what you are really saying is that anyone who makes a misstake is no leader, and someone who isn't powerful enough to rule on his own without allies, is no leader.

I mean it really just seems like you're looking for excuses to shit on corbyn because you dont like him.

And you're shifting any blame away from Corbyn. That man has sound policy ideas, but being good at formulating policies doesn't necessarily makes you a good politician.

Having sound ideas and being effective in leading something is entirely different. A good politician have the qualities of both.

Corbyn only has one of those part.

Some mistakes pay more than others. BoJo's partygate is also a mistake that will cost him more than other mistakes.

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't see it so. Corbyn comitted several mistakes sure, but it's easy to say in hindsight they where bad choices, it was not as obvious in 2015 or even 2017. And some of those choices where no choice at all, such as the 2nd referendum, that was not up to Corbyn to decide, the party decided it and even many of Corbyns backers wanted a 2nd referendum, so we can't pin that on him, that's how the party works, through democracy.

No leader is omniscient about what his supposed allies are doing behind his back. A good leader can fail.

[ray245]

I don't see it so. Corbyn comitted several mistakes sure, but it's easy to say in hindsight they where bad choices, it was not as obvious in 2015 or even 2017. And some of those choices where no choice at all, such as the 2nd referendum, that was not up to Corbyn to decide, the party decided it and even many of Corbyns backers wanted a 2nd referendum, so we can't pin that on him, that's how the party works, through democracy.

No leader is omniscient about what his supposed allies are doing behind his back. A good leader can fail.

Politics is not a fair game. Politics is about taking advantage of an unfair game.

BoJo became the prime minister not because he was good at anything else but playing the political game and exploiting every advantage he has. He knows he has to be a politician first above all else. And by and large until recently he has managed to ensure party discipline within the Tories.

Corbyn never understood that. A politician ultimately needs to be ruthless at ensuring party discipline. Poor party discipline ultimately cost Corbyn his job.

Keir Starmer is absolutely ruthless in regards to party discipline. It's why he's still the party leader and there's no credible challenge to him in Labour. Because he got rid of his opponents.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

If I was a tin foil kinda guy I'd start to think Starmer was a plant from the tories. Even fucking stanley jonhson backs the alpaca, starmer is such a fucking good example of just the kind of empty suit stereotype politician everyone loathes.

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/20 ... -slaughter

Somebody else said this, but, if anyone has seen the movie Posessor, where asassins upload their minds into innocent people to comitt crimes with their bodies, well Starmer is like that but they accidentially uploaded a screensaver.

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't see it so. Corbyn comitted several mistakes sure, but it's easy to say in hindsight they where bad choices, it was not as obvious in 2015 or even 2017. And some of those choices where no choice at all, such as the 2nd referendum, that was not up to Corbyn to decide, the party decided it and even many of Corbyns backers wanted a 2nd referendum, so we can't pin that on him, that's how the party works, through democracy.

No leader is omniscient about what his supposed allies are doing behind his back. A good leader can fail.

Politics is not a fair game. Politics is about taking advantage of an unfair game.

BoJo became the prime minister not because he was good at anything else but playing the political game and exploiting every advantage he has. He knows he has to be a politician first above all else. And by and large until recently he has managed to ensure party discipline within the Tories.

Corbyn never understood that. A politician ultimately needs to be ruthless at ensuring party discipline. Poor party discipline ultimately cost Corbyn his job.

Keir Starmer is absolutely ruthless in regards to party discipline. It's why he's still the party leader and there's no credible challenge to him in Labour. Because he got rid of his opponents.

Yet, Keir's still a bad leader, one of the worst in a long time. All he's good at is clambering onto power, but he delivers nothing else for anyone. He is nothing. Even Boris Johnson is a better leader, at least he offers something, bad though it is. Corbyn at least delivered improvements to Labour, Keir has ruined all those and is putting labour on the road to oblivion. But frankly at this stage that's just good riddance.

[ray245]

I don't see it so. Corbyn comitted several mistakes sure, but it's easy to say in hindsight they where bad choices, it was not as obvious in 2015 or even 2017. And some of those choices where no choice at all, such as the 2nd referendum, that was not up to Corbyn to decide, the party decided it and even many of Corbyns backers wanted a 2nd referendum, so we can't pin that on him, that's how the party works, through democracy.

No leader is omniscient about what his supposed allies are doing behind his back. A good leader can fail.

Politics is not a fair game. Politics is about taking advantage of an unfair game.

BoJo became the prime minister not because he was good at anything else but playing the political game and exploiting every advantage he has. He knows he has to be a politician first above all else. And by and large until recently he has managed to ensure party discipline within the Tories.

Corbyn never understood that. A politician ultimately needs to be ruthless at ensuring party discipline. Poor party discipline ultimately cost Corbyn his job.

Keir Starmer is absolutely ruthless in regards to party discipline. It's why he's still the party leader and there's no credible challenge to him in Labour. Because he got rid of his opponents.

Yet, Keir's still a bad leader, one of the worst in a long time. All he's good at is clambering onto power, but he delivers nothing else for anyone. He is nothing. Even Boris Johnson is a better leader, at least he offers something, bad though it is. Corbyn at least delivered improvements to Labour, Keir has ruined all those and is putting labour on the road to oblivion. But frankly at this stage that's just good riddance.

Like I said, you need both to actually be the prime minister. But BoJo also understood the need to secure his support and he did that by purging and nullifying any challenge left within his own party.

It's how he stays onto power, because there are no credible alternative challengers left.

Corbyn is never ruthless enough to do one of that basic task as a party leader. He made one of the biggest mistake in British party system, which is not enforcing party discipline. It's the lack of ability to do that in British politics that usually cost the leader of the party their position, alongside losing an general election.

Corbyn failed because he's not good at politicking. It's how he end up being kicked by his own party.

[Vendetta]

I had my money on Patel to emerge as the post BoJo leader, under a promise to have the face of a modern conservative party, with the cruelty of an old fashioned one.

I think this underestimates just how toxic and stupid Priti Vacant is. When campaigns are on they absolutely do not let her out of her box because every time she opens her mouth she makes herself and the party look bad.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I had my money on Patel to emerge as the post BoJo leader, under a promise to have the face of a modern conservative party, with the cruelty of an old fashioned one.

I think this underestimates just how toxic and stupid Priti Vacant is. When campaigns are on they absolutely do not let her out of her box because every time she opens her mouth she makes herself and the party look bad.

She's a prime example of being Kicked Upstairs, having been promoted despite her clear incompetence at her previous post. In the her official portrait she looks incredibly smug.

[Vendetta]

It's more like she got the job because she's a hardcore Brexiteer, super racist against Muslims which is useful in the upper echelons of the Tory party, and because she's so obviously thick and inappropriate for real leadership she's absolutely no challenge to Boris.

That's the Boris way, surround himself with people who are more unpopular so they can't possibly challenge him and screw them over if it looks like they might (See: Rishi Sunak).

[Coop D'etat]

Stop fetishizing failure. Corbyn had two opportunities to win the voters of the UK over to supporting him as Prime Minister. He failed dismally twice. His job as a leader of a political party is to win current and potential internal supporters to support him. He alienated half the existing party.

He had plenty of opportunity, he just wasn't up for the actual job as leader of a major political party. This is politics. Nobody is owed a fair chance at anything. You succeed at being a political asset or you don't, there is no try. He's as much of a failure as the post-Blair Labour leaders that lost to Cameron that nobody cares about.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -published

UK risks EU trade war as Northern Ireland protocol bill is published
Liz Truss says bill will fix post-Brexit trade problems but legal experts and some Tory MPs say move breaches international law

Rowena Mason Deputy political editor

Mon 13 Jun 2022 17.57 BST

Liz Truss has risked a trade war with the EU and accusations of lawbreaking as she published legislation that would allow exports from Britain to Northern Ireland to follow either UK or EU standards and checks.

Publishing the Northern Ireland protocol bill, Truss said it would fix issues with the post-Brexit protocol by easing checks for firms selling goods from Britain destined for Northern Ireland rather than the EU. It would also remove the European court of justice as the arbiter of trade disputes and move to an independent mechanism.

The government published a summary of the legal basis for its actions, relying on a principle called the “doctrine of necessity” on the basis that the protocol is causing “peril” in Northern Ireland.

However, the EU, legal experts and even some Conservative MPs have said the move breaches international law as it gives ministers the powers to disapply parts of the protocol unilaterally, without the agreement of Brussels.

Maroš Šefčovič, the EU’s Brexit commissioner, hit out at the “damaging” move and he threatened to take ministers to court.

He said: “As the first step the commission will consider continuing the infringement procedure launched against the UK government in March 2021. We had put this legal action on hold in September 2021 in spirit of constructive cooperation to create the space to look for joint solutions. The UK as unilateral action goes directly against the spirit.”

One of the biggest changes would be the introduction of a choice for British firms exporting to Northern Ireland between meeting EU or UK standards on regulation, which are expected to increasingly diverge. It would also allow the creation of a green lane allowing fewer customs checks for goods destined for Northern Ireland and a red lane with existing checks for goods destined for EU countries.

Further measures include bringing Northern Ireland’s tax break and spending policies into line with the rest of the UK, and changing oversight of trade disputes so that they are resolved by independent arbitration rather than the European court of justice.

The legislation will encounter serious opposition in the House of Commons and in the Lords, with doubts over whether Boris Johnson has support for it to pass. The bill has some critics on the Eurosceptic right, including Northern Ireland’s DUP, as well as some on the one nation centrist wing of the Tories.

Government sources said a vote on the bill would hopefully take place before parliament breaks up for summer recess, but ministers would want to see some progress towards power-sharing returning in Northern Ireland first, which the DUP has been blocking.

A majority of members of the Northern Ireland assembly – from Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance parties – wrote to Johnson on Monday saying they could not support the move, warning that it “flies in the face of the expressed wishes of not just most businesses but most people in Northern Ireland”.

The assembly is due to vote on whether it gives it consent for the operation of the protocol in 2024, four years after it came into force.

With opposition mounting, there are some doubts among MPs that the legislation will get anywhere. The government has been insisting it would still rather find a negotiated solution to fix problems with the protocol. But Ireland said on Monday that Truss had not engaged in negotiations with the protocol in a meaningful way since February.

A phone call on Monday morning between Truss and Simon Coveney, Dublin’s foreign affairs minister, lasted just 12 minutes. A spokesperson for Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs said: “Mr Coveney said publishing legislation that would breach the UK’s commitments under international law, the Brexit withdrawal agreement and Northern Ireland protocol is deeply damaging to relationships on these islands and between the UK and EU.”

David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, said it was a “desperate attempt by Boris Johnson to distract from the drama of his leadership crisis” and called on the government to publish its legal advice in full.

“It risks creating new trade barriers in a cost of living crisis and will only bring more uncertainty for the people of Northern Ireland who are trying to make the protocol work,” he said. “Britain should be a country that keeps its word. By tearing up the protocol it negotiated just a couple of years ago, the government will damage Britain’s reputation and make finding a lasting solution more difficult.”

Here we go again.

[Straha]

Stop fetishizing failure. Corbyn had two opportunities to win the voters of the UK over to supporting him as Prime Minister. He failed dismally twice. His job as a leader of a political party is to win current and potential internal supporters to support him. He alienated half the existing party.

He had plenty of opportunity, he just wasn't up for the actual job as leader of a major political party. This is politics. Nobody is owed a fair chance at anything. You succeed at being a political asset or you don't, there is no try. He's as much of a failure as the post-Blair Labour leaders that lost to Cameron that nobody cares about.

Somewhere out there Ed MIliband sheds a single tear and wonders why.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So much for Boris' 'Oven-ready deal'.

[Crazedwraith]

linka

A last-minute legal battle is under way over the UK government's first flight transporting asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) says it has blocked the removal of one of seven passengers due to depart on Tuesday night.

An out-of-hours judge is currently examining the remaining half dozen cases and it is not clear whether the court will block the entire flight.

The UK usually follows emergency court rulings not to remove people.

In a statement hours before the flight's planned departure, the ECtHR said it had granted an "urgent interim measure" in the case of an Iraqi man, known only as "KN".

The man, who is in his fifties, left Iraq earlier this year and crossed the English Channel to reach the UK, rather than claiming asylum in another European country. Doctors have since said he may have been a victim of torture.

KN's lawyers petitioned the ECtHR on Monday after a judge in London refused to stop his inclusion on the flight.

The European court has indicated KN should not be removed to Rwanda until three weeks after the final decision over the policy is made in the UK courts.

The ECtHR said that requests such as these were only granted on an "exceptional basis, when the applicants would otherwise face a real risk of irreversible harm".

That decision contradicts a ruling by judges in London, who had found no immediate risk to anyone sent to Rwanda.

A High Court judge ruled last Friday that there should be a full review of the Rwanda removals policy - but that the Home Secretary Priti Patel would be acting lawfully if in the meantime she sent some asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Should the policy be found to be unlawful some people could be returned to the UK from Rwanda.

The ECtHR, based in Strasbourg, said that its decision had been influenced by concerns raised by the UN's refugee agency that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may not be able to get a fair hearing or would be left in unsafe conditions.

The European Court of Human Rights oversees a range of human rights laws to which the UK is a signatory, along with other nations. It is entirely separate to the European Union.

On Monday the UK highest court, the Court of Appeal, ruled that the first flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda could go ahead, backing the decision of the High Court that it was in the "public interest" for the government to carry out its policies.

Earlier on Tuesday, four of the men due to be on the flight saw individual appeals to the High Court rejected.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss insisted the flight would take off on Tuesday, but later a Downing Street spokesman said given the legal challenges he could not be definitive of whether the flight would take place that day.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson also defended the scheme and said the government may "very well" need to change the law to help.

The policy has been criticised by human rights organisations, charities and the Church of England, with concerns being raised about Rwanda's human rights record.

But ahead of the first plane's arrival, Rwanda's government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said the plan was neither immoral nor a punishment and needed to be given a chance as Africa was not just a place of problems but also "a place of solutions".

The whole policy strikes me as so self-contradictory. If Rwandais such a safe great place that will have such great opportunity, sending people there isn't going to discourage immigration at all. On the other hand is Rwanda isn't a safe place to send them, well it's immoral to send them there isn't it?