Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

[His Divine Shadow]

Whoopsie can't say that.

https://twitter.com/Hamza_a96/status/15 ... 7562062848

[Crazedwraith]

Well, it's official: Rishi Sunak, PM.

Possibly the least bad of the options?

[Bedlam]

Well, it's official: Rishi Sunak, PM.

Possibly the least bad of the options?

From a economic perspective maybe, although being good for the economy isn't the same as being good for the people.

[Lost Soal]

Well, it's official: Rishi Sunak, PM.

Possibly the least bad of the options?

From a economic perspective maybe, although being good for the economy isn't the same as being good for the people.

If you happen to be trans, poor, an immigrant or any kind of social activist then your screwed

[Crazedwraith]

I didn't say good. I said least bad, considering the other option was BoJo.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... ments-area

Suella Braverman has played a blinder. Unlikely as it seems, she’s the new Enoch Powell
When the home secretary uttered the word ‘invasion’ in the House of Commons, she saved her political career

Sean O'Grady

Whether she realised it or not (and it’s perfectly possible that she had no idea what she was doing) when Suella Braverman uttered the word “invasion” in the House of Commons she saved her political career. She played a blinder. I noticed she looked down at her notes as she was igniting the bombshell, as if activating a pre-meditated defensive line, but that may be fanciful.

It worked for her, though. She outraged the opposition, a substantial portion of her own party, some of her fellow ministers and of course decent people everywhere. Disaster? No. It has made her less – rather than more – liable to be sacked by Sunak.

She has cemented her reputation as the hard woman of the hard right, uniquely willing to speak the language of the voters; and to be speaking up for those deeply fearful of the arrival of so many asylum seekers by these irregular routes.

Braverman, despite everything, is now basically unsackable – whether we like it or not. It’s bad for a civilised society, and bad for desperate refugees looking for safety, but from that purely selfish point of view, she did very nicely out of her defiant, inflammatory, reckless afternoon performance in parliament. It would take incontrovertible evidence, probably from a Home Office whistleblower, that she explicitly lied to the Commons for her to be crowbarred out of her job.

Imagine if Sunak – who you can’t imagine using the word “invasion” – decided to ask her to leave and, say, put Robert Jenrick or even some other hard right figure in her place? Sunak, in the earliest, most crucial stage of his premiership, would have made his implacable enemies on the right even more suspicious.

Don’t forget that, pitiful as it was, some 18 MPs voted for Braverman in the leadership contest before last. On the backbenches, during her ordeal, she enjoyed some robust support from the likes of Sir John Redwood, Sir Edward Leigh and Lee Anderson; as well as the silent backing of her old email pen friend, Sir John Hayes. She also has some of her old comrades in the European Research Group who have her back.

They’re far from typical but the prime minister and chancellor Jeremy Hunt will need their support with the programme of “eye watering” tax hikes and cuts that form the base of their project to restore the public finances. What these dinosaurs think matters much more than Yvette Cooper or Ed Davey. There are enough of them in today’s fractious, undisciplined Tory party to strangle the Sunak administration at birth.

As their unofficial leader, I imagine Braverman would be only too happy to oblige, as we witnessed when she ran the ERG and caused trouble for Theresa May. She would be just as powerful, if not more, as the leader of an unofficial backbench bloc as she is as home secretary. She’d be running a party within a party larger than the Lib Dems. Sunak doesn’t want or need to living in fear.

More to the point would be the reaction of the Tory membership to the removal of Braverman. They matter more than ever, and they are very unhappy. They resent the fact that they never had a vote on Sunak becoming leader this time, having rejected him before. He’s not widely loved by them, after his “backstabbing” of Boris. They’re an unforgiving bunch.

These Tory members are the people, lest we forget, who foisted Liz Truss on unwilling MPs and an unenthusiastic nation with fantasy economics. They would still take Boris Johnson back in an instant, and Braverman is already their conference darling.

They, or at least a very substantial body of them, agree with her that far too many people in Britain are on “Benefit Street”; they also believe that the country is being invaded; that there’s been a conspiracy of silence about immigration – and they share her dream of seeing a picture of a plane load of refugees taking off en route to Rwanda.

They trust her to move heaven and earth to deliver that Christmas present to them, and generally to look after their interests. They would not be overly upset to find out that she’d stopped migrants being relocated in hotels in “Tory areas”, as is the rumour.

Braverman is a modern-day Enoch Powell. This might be strange and ironic, seeing as Powell was campaigning against the (entirely legal) settlement in the UK of Asians expelled from Kenya and Uganda in the 1960s and 1970s, such as her own family.

Yet Braverman is born in Britain and is as much entitled to be a modern day Powell as anyone else, and her reception on the right of her own party confirms this. So does the fact that she’s Nigel Farage’s favourite Tory. Lose her, and Sunak loses his main defence on his right flank to the likes of Reform and abstention.

Like Braverman, Powell was an awkward colleague for successive leaders, and eventually, after some increasingly outspoken remarks and the “inflammatory” “Rivers of Blood” speech, with its “invasive” overtones, the-then leader, Edward Heath, threw Powell out of the shadow cabinet. (That was in 1968, by the way, around the time that Braverman’s family came to Britain from Kenya and Mauritius).

After that point, Powell become a hero of the Tory grassroots, and an even bigger nuisance for Heath at party conferences, in parliament and in the media. Funnily enough, it was Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, as it then was, where Powell caused the most serious difficulties for Heath and the party leadership, just like Braverman is now over the ECHR and visa policy.

Half a century ago, Powell and his small band of xenophobic rebel “anti-marketeers” were the equivalent of Braverman and the ERG today. Powell used Europe and migration to run a perpetual unacknowledged leadership campaign. So is Braverman. There is a slightly unhinged quality to them both. The parallels are surprisingly strong.

From what I have seen, so is Braverman – and will continue to be a powerful figure in that same way as Powell was in the party, and for the same reason: that she is an extremist, not in spite of that fact.

Postscript: eventually, Powell left the Conservatives in 1974 on the issue of Europe and advised people to vote Labour in the general election because they were promising a European referendum.

Heath lost. Powell thus wreaked his revenge on Heath for sacking him six years earlier by helping push Ted out of Downing Street, never to return. I wouldn’t put that sort of trick past Braverman. She’s just as dangerous.

To recap, Braverman has effectively positioned herself as the leader of the Tory party's hard right crazies. This is the faction that David Cameron tried to outmanoeuvre with the Brexit Referendum, and later became Bojo's power base within the party. Sunak dares not displease them, so he's stuck with her for the foreseeable future.

This will not make for party unity. Braverman has enough support to make Sunak's life miserable, but not enough to reliably get her way. I suppose it's a question of which is worse; a united Tory government, or a Tory government paralysed by infighting?

[Solauren]

I'd prefer them to be paralyzed by Infighting, then functioning (So, them functioning is worse).

Why?

First, they either look bad until and during the next election. That would affect the 'fence sitters', 'non-fanatic' supporters, and people that want to see the government be effective but usually don't vote.

Second, there is a (small) chance the smarter, non-crazy portion of the party might decide it's better to work with part of the opposition, and as a result actually make reasonable legislation that way.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well we've had the first half of the new budget and which taxes are going to go up as well as spending, but not the second half of the equation about expected cuts, which rather cleverly has been postponed until after the next election so when the conservatives lose, Labour has to deal with the resulting mess.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Apparently, Keir Starmer wants to get rid of the House of Lords should he be elected to PM.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Apparently, Keir Starmer wants to get rid of the House of Lords should he be elected to PM.

For a man who seems to be psychologically bound to the Westminster system, that was a real surprise.

I have mixed feelings about the Lords. On the one hand, it's oversized and full of party hacks and political cronies; and I understand the complaint about it being unelected. On the other, it does sometimes allow people with serious expertise to scrutinise legislation. These are the kinds of people who know a lot about very important subjects, yet may not be able or willing to stand for elected office. In the current climate, I don't fancy their chances anyway.

I do like the idea of an appointed chamber of experts. I'm just not sure how to go about appointing it. To prevent the government from packing it with obedient hacks or cronies, it would have to be unelected and appointed by someone other than elected officials. But if they can't, who should it be?

[Crazedwraith]

Matt Hancock to stand down at next election

Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock has announced he will not be standing as an MP at the next general election.

He was suspended as a Conservative MP after taking part in the ITV reality show I'm A Celebrity.

In a letter to Rishi Sunak, Mr Hancock said he had "discovered a whole new world of possibilities which I am excited to explore".

He added that politicians need to find "new ways to reach people" outside Parliament.

He concluded his letter by saying it had been "an honour to serve in Parliament and represent the people of West Suffolk".

"I will play my part in the debate about the future of our country and engage with the public in new ways," he said.

Mr Hancock had been a minister in successive Conservative governments since 2013 and served as health secretary during the coronavirus pandemic.

In June 2021, he was forced to resign from the role after he breached social distancing guidelines by kissing a colleague.

Despite supporting Mr Sunak in the Conservative leadership campaign, Mr Hancock wasn't given a role in government when the prime minister entered Downing Street.

The MP subsequently joined the cast of I'm A Celebrity - a decision that attracted criticism from his fellow MPs and local Conservative association.

Announcing his decision to quit Parliament, Mr Hancock said: "There was a time when I thought the only way to influence the public debate was in Parliament, but I've realised there's far more to it than that.

"I have increasingly come to believe that for a healthy democracy we must find new ways of reaching people - especially those who are disengaged with politics.

"The revival of modern conservatism over the next decade will I suspect take place as much outside Parliament as in it."

Posted this one not just because of Hancock but because he's not the first and although he's indepedent there have been a lot of others including rising young Tory stars that have decided not contest the next election.

So... rats leaving a sinking ship? People deciding that it's best if fresh faces contest the next election rather than them with a dodgy record to hold them down?

As for Hancock himself well unless the whip was restored he was unlikely to win an election anyway. It's tough as an Independent.

[Crazedwraith]

Also Sunak is proposing anti-union laws, which is a minor thing I'm not quoting because I have great news judgement tyvm.

[Crazedwraith]

UK government to block Scottish gender bill

Interesting from both a trans rights perspective and a Scottish independence one.

[Zaune]

"Interesting" is not quite the word I would use.

[loomer]

Staggering that all it took to force Scottish independence was terfism.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

With a hefty dose of Brexit.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Rishi Sunak defends handling of Dominic Raab row amid calls for suspension of deputy PM

On Wednesday, Mr Raab sat alongside Mr Sunak at Prime Minister’s Questions as allegations about his conduct were raised by Sir Keir Starmer.

The deputy prime minister shook his head and muttered as the Labour leader questioned why Mr Raab had been appointed to his role.

Eight formal allegations have been levelled against Mr Raab and are being investigated by senior lawyer Adam Tolley KC.

ITV News understands at least 24 civil servants are involved in the claims, which focus on Mr Raab's time as secretary of state in the Foreign Office, Brexit department and now at the Ministry of Justice.

Sir Keir claimed Mr Sunak had ignored reports about the tax dispute involving the now-sacked Tory chairman Nadhim Zahawi when he appointed him and had done the same with the allegations around Mr Raab’s conduct.

"Is the prime minister… going to claim that he’s the only person completely unaware of serious allegations of bullying against the deputy prime minister before he appointed him?"

He highlighted reports suggesting "some of the complainants were physically sick, one says they were left suicidal".

He asked Mr Sunak: "How would he feel if one of his friends or relatives was being forced to work for a bully simply because the man at the top was too weak to do anything about it?"

The prime minister said: "When I was made aware of formal complaints I appointed a leading independent KC to conduct an investigation, because I take action when these things happen."

He compared his actions to the Labour leader’s handling of the row over MP Rosie Duffield’s stance on trans issues, which led her to compare being in the party to an "abusive relationship".

The questions over Mr Sunak’s handling of Mr Raab’s position came after Downing Street would not be drawn on whether he was told about informal complaints made about the justice secretary during his ministerial career.

Meanwhile, Oliver Dowden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was questioned when he appeared on ITV's Peston on Wednesday night.

When asked if he agreed with fellow Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg that the bullying allegations against Mr Raab had been overblown, he said: "No, I think if a formal complaint is made it is something that should be taken seriously, and that's exactly what's happened in these circumstances.

"I would say though that it is important and the public would expect ministers to drive officials hard to get results for them.

"But that should not extend to bullying, and that's why it's appropriate that there's an investigation into that," he added.

Dave Penman, leader of the FDA union, which represents senior officials, said Mr Raab should be suspended to protect other members of staff while the investigation is conducted.

"Dominic Raab is now facing investigations around eight separate complaints involving what we understand is dozens of civil servants in three separate government departments over a period of four years," he said.

"If that was any other employee, if that was a permanent secretary in the civil service, they would in all likelihood be suspended from their job while the investigation took place."

Former Foreign Office mandarin Lord Simon McDonald, Antonia Romeo, the current permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice, and Philip Rycroft, who ran the Brexit department while Mr Raab was there, are thought to have given evidence as witnesses to the inquiry.

Mr Raab has previously said he is "confident" he has "behaved professionally" throughout his time in government, insisting Whitehall has a "zero-tolerance approach to bullying".

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "The investigation by Adam Tolley KC is ongoing so it would be inappropriate to comment further whilst that process takes place."

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Here we go again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 76526.html

Rishi Sunak accused of ‘willy waving’ over threat to pull UK out of ECHR
Tory MP claims cutting ties with Strasbourg will do ‘zilch’ to tackle small boats

Matt Mathers, Adam Forrest

Rishi Sunak has been accused of “willy waving” over reported plans to remove the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (EHRC) in an attempted crackdown on illegal migration.

Former Tory justice secretary Sir Robert Buckland and other senior Tories have spoken out against the mooted withdrawal – warning it would put Britain in the same camp as Russia.

Jackie Doyle-Price, Tory MP for Thurrock, also said that cutting ties with the Strasbourg court “will do zilch” following a report that the PM was willing to take the UK out of the ECHR if it interfered with domestic law.

She had been responding to her colleague Jonathan Gullis, Stroke-on-Trent North MP, who is supportive of withdrawal and posted a link to a story about reported plans on a Whatsapp group of Tory MPs.

“I have been a member of the Conservative Party for 36 years,” Ms Doyle-Price went on in the messages seen by the Politico website. “This group leaves me cold.

“Upholding the law should never be a matter for debate for a Conservative. Our Home Office is crap. If the government wants to have a phone[y] war over the ECHR instead of sorting itself out it can do it without me.”

She was backed by Tory MP David Simmonds who reportedly posted in the group: “The ECHR is not the issue here. By pretending it is, we are setting ourselves up for a fall as a UK court will take the same line.”

Alicia Kearns, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, also weighed in, saying that the proposed withdrawal from ECHR was not the right target: “We cannot tackle asylum claims when we haven’t given ourselves the legal grounding on coming here illegally.”

Sir Robert said it would be wrong to leave the convention, overseen by the Council of Europe. “It would be an undesirable state of affairs if the UK was to follow Russia out of the Council of Europe,” Mr Buckland told the Financial Times.

Sir Bob Neill also told the newspaper many Tories would treat the matter as a “red line,” saying: “If Conservatives don’t believe in the rule of law, what do we believe in? Are we going to put ourselves in the same company as Russia and Belarus? It would be unbelievable for a Conservative government to leave it.”

The government is said to be considering two options aimed at cutting the number of people making the treacherous journey across the Channel in small boats.

One proposal was to withdraw people’s right to appeal against their automatic exclusion from the asylum system. The second was to change the law so that people who arrive to the UK in small boats would only be allowed to lodge an appeal after they had already been deported.

Sources close to Mr Sunak told the Sunday Times that if Strasbourg holds up legislation that has been put onto the UK’s statute books then he would consider whether remaining in the ECHR is in the UK’s “long-term interests”.

No 10 said on Monday there were “no plans” to withdraw. “We will of course comply with all our international obligations, and we are confident the measures being worked through will tackle the problem while being compliant with the ECHR.”

However, Mr Sunak’s official spokesman did not rule out the possibility of a withdrawal in future. Asked whether a “plan B” of leaving the ECHR was under consideration, the spokesman replied: “I wouldn’t get into future speculation.

Mr Sunak, who marked 100 days in office last week, has made cutting illegal immigration one of his key priorities for 2023, along with halving inflation, growing the economy, reducing debt, and bringing down NHS waiting lists.

Mr Sunak, in a speech on 4 January, promised voters that he would pass new laws to “stop small boats” and make sure that if “you come to this country illegally, you are swiftly removed.”

Polls show that reducing immigration is among voters’ top concerns, particularly in the ‘red wall’ seats in the North of England that analysts say is key to Mr Sunak’s fortunes at the next general election.

Official estimates suggested that 65,000 migrants were expected to arrive in the UK this year - compared to the 45,000 who claimed asylum in 2022.

Although judges ruled in December 2022 that the government’s Rwanda plan was legal, the policy been beset by challenges and appeals by migrants on human rights grounds. No asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda yet.

Tom Hunt, the MP for Ipswich who has been vocal in his support for the government’s immigration plans, indicated he would support removing the UK from the ECHR.

A government aide told Playbook: “The British people expect us to stop the boats and that’s what our legislation must do ... We will still meet our international obligations and stay within the ECHR, but we have to overcome this problem or face electoral Armageddon.”

This should be worrying; and it is. But I've heard it so many times before it's hard to take it seriously. This most likely translates as a desperate attempt by Rishi to save his premiership; vis-a-vis the local elections coming up in May. If the Tories take a hammering, he'll like as not be forced out.

[Crazedwraith]

Nicola Sturgeon says time is right to resign as Scotland's first minister

Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed that she is resigning as Scotland's first minister after more than eight years in the role.

The Scottish National Party leader said that she knew "in my head and in my heart" that this was the right time to step down.

She made the announcement at a hastily-arranged news conference in Edinburgh.

The first minister said she would remain in office until her successor was elected.

Ms Sturgeon is the longest-serving first minister and the first woman to hold the position.

She said serving in the role had been "a privilege beyond measure".

But she added: "Since the very first moment in the job, I have believed that part of serving well would be to know, almost instinctively, when the time is right to make way for someone else.

"And when that time came, to have the courage to do so, even if to many across the country, and in my party, might feel it too soon.

"In my head and in my heart I know that time is now. That it is right for me, for my party and for the country.

"And so today I am announcing my intention to step down as first minister and leader of my party."

Ms Sturgeon said her decision was not a reaction to short-term pressures, but came from "a deeper and longer-term assessment".

The first minister said she had been wrestling with the decision for some weeks.

She said there were two questions - whether carrying on was right for her, and whether it was right for country, her party and the cause of independence.

Ms Sturgeon said the answer to both questions was no.

"Given the nature and scale of the challenges the country faces, I feel that duty, first and foremost, to our country - to ensure that it does have the energy of leadership it needs, not just today, but through the years that remain of this parliamentary term," she said.

"We are at a critical moment. The blocking of a referendum as the accepted, constitutional route to independence is a democratic outrage.

"But it puts the onus on us to decide how Scottish democracy will be protected and to ensure that the will of the Scottish people prevails."

She said that support for independence needed to be "solidified" and to grow further.

"To achieve that we need to reach across the divide in Scottish politics, and my judgement now is that this needs a new leader," she said.

Ms Sturgeon said she was "not leaving politics" and would continue to fight for Scottish independence.

Former SNP MP Stephen Gethins said Ms Sturgeon had "led with distinction" and that he was "surprised... and disappointed" by the news.

SNP MP Stewart McDonald described the first minister as "the finest public servant of the devolution age".

Ms Sturgeon has been a member of the Scottish Parliament since 1999, and became the deputy leader of the SNP in 2004.

She has been first minister since November 2014, when she took over from Alex Salmond after the defeat in the independence referendum.

Ms Sturgeon has led the SNP to a series of election victories at UK, Scottish and local level.

Last year the UK Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood did not have the power to stage another independence referendum - a move which has been blocked by the UK government

Ms Sturgeon wants the SNP to fight the next general election as a de facto referendum, but there has been some opposition to the plan within the SNP.

In addition, recent months have seen controversies over gender reforms, which have been blocked by the UK government.

She's apparently been considering this for a while but the actual announcement seems to have been organised in a hurry, all of which is very odd to me.

[Bedlam]

I don't know how much has been reported in England but the fall out from her flagship Gender Reform bill has been rattling about for the last few weeks and it's very much been seen as her bill so that's he likely cause of things going down today.

[madd0c0t0r2]

I don't know how much has been reported in England but the fall out from her flagship Gender Reform bill has been rattling about for the last few weeks and it's very much been seen as her bill so that's he likely cause of things going down today.

Very little reported on it in Wales. What was the fallout?

[Crazedwraith]

I don't know how much has been reported in England but the fall out from her flagship Gender Reform bill has been rattling about for the last few weeks and it's very much been seen as her bill so that's he likely cause of things going down today.

I think they've official denied that was the reason.

Quote Jim Hacker: I never believe anything until it's been officially denied

[Bedlam]

I don't know how much has been reported in England but the fall out from her flagship Gender Reform bill has been rattling about for the last few weeks and it's very much been seen as her bill so that's he likely cause of things going down today.

Very little reported on it in Wales. What was the fallout?

Well despite passing with cross party support it has always been very controversial. Although Sturgeon has always been very hot on the topic it was also fairly obvious that it was at least partially put through when it was known that it was going to contradict UK legislation and probably be blocked by Westminster so that she could then turn around and say 'look how were being oppressed! Independence!'

More recently the case of Isla Bryson has come up, she is a multiple rapist who now identifies as female and as such was due to be imprisoned in a woman's prison which is just the sort of situation which was raised by those in opposition to the bill after some furor about that Ms Sturgeon had to semi U-turn and move her to a male prison which of course has it's own potential problems with there being no perfect solution.

There have been a number of other lesser issues / scandals relating to her husband lending money to her party, every growing costs for various projects, an upcoming bottle return scheme which seems to be completely unorganized, etc so more or less the usual.

I'm probably not the most objective person, although I agree with a lot of the SNP's policies I'm against independence, but I've always felt that the SNP spend to much energy on indpendence to the detriment of actually running the country.

[His Divine Shadow]

Probably tired of the whole shit where someone accused by ten different women of sexual assault gets to say stuff like this:
https://twitter.com/wizbates/status/1625840211514081280

UK is turning into terf island.

[Dominus Atheos]

From another thread:

Can the IRA really be sabotaged that easily though even if trump gets back in? It took a lot to pass and it will probably have time yet to generate a lot of money for people and corporations so I would imagine it's gonna be quite difficult to get rid of.

Okay, mildly off-topic here but wow does that read differently when you're British...

Especially as the New IRA are suspected of being behind the recent shooting of the off-duty cop John Caldwell (who barely survived) in Northern Ireland.

I swear I don't agree with the ira's terrorism, but your country signed a peace treaty (good friday agreement) with the terrorists and then broke it. It's like suing someone after breaking into their house and their dog bites you in the ass.