Stop voting for fucking Tories

[_Os_]

A short profile on Nick Timothy and what he's currently getting up to.

Timothy was an advisor to Theresa May (special advisor to May when she was Home Office Minister 2010-2015, joint chief of staff to the PM 2016-2017). He's uniquely responsible for the policies cooked up by May, namely the hostile environment, as well as the consequences of those policies: the Windrush Scandal, "go home!" vans, historic record breaking immigration levels.

In other words Timothy is another incompetent Tory, that somehow manages to so badly fuck everything up that he simultaneously makes everything substantially worse, whilst not even fixing the original "problem" he himself defined. Everything just balloons more out of control.

He's now having another go at the immigration issue, authoring a long policy position here. Interestingly the Home Secretary Suella Braverman has contributed the foreword to this document. By doing this Braverman has put her name to an extensive policy document that isn't government policy whilst being in the cabinet, this is a sackable offence but it seems she's bomb proof.

I've skimmed the document (115 pages) and read some sections more closely. Timothy's method of "fixing" immigration:
1. Ignore the Windrush Scandal, which he doesn't say much about nor is his central role mentioned, basically says it was a one off accident and should not stop harsh measures (nowhere is it mentioned there were warnings in the early 2010s of what would happen and who would be impacted, which were all ignored by May's team because they decided it wouldn't harm many people and they wanted harsh measures regardless, it wasn't an accident and was instead entirely deliberate).
2. Indefinite detention for illegal immigrants under a guilty until proved innocent basis, to be housed in upgraded military bases (when the UK immigration system can/has arbitrarily turned law abiding legal immigrants into illegal immigrants, see 1).
3. Scrap the modern slavery act 2015 (his argument seems to be too many successful asylum claims are made under this basis, he doesn't say all overwhelmingly by trafficked women).
4. Scrap the Human rights Act and/or pull out of the ECHR (would conflict with/break the GFA, the same GFA the EU has spent years negotiating with the UK to uphold).
5. Selectively apply the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention.
6. Expand the Rwanda Scheme to more third countries.
7. A biometric identity database, where everyone legally resident in the UK including British citizens, will be required to have an ID card and comply with the system. Private entities (eg employers, landlords, banks) and public entities (eg schools, NHS, councils) will be compelled to share data. Timothy wants all data on each person pooled in a single location, from which access to resources will be controlled. (not hard to see where this evolves, given new Tory laws on protest)
8. Scrapping/ending GDPR to make the database envisioned in 7 possible (another potential conflict with the EU).

The cost of his latest plans on immigration, are easily into the tens of billions: a network of new detention centres, conflict with the EU, paying more third countries like Rwanda is paid, a new invasive UK national ID database.
Hilariously Timothy says all this represents a cost saving.

Even more hilariously none of this will actually lower immigration levels (as Timothy basically says himself). It'll just maybe end the boat people. All for the small cost of tens of billions and nuking rights from orbit.

[petej]

Labour offered to back the Government to face down these NIMBY fuckers, but once again they've chosen their party over the country.

Spineless bastards.

Awful - this country feels like its being run more and more only for home owning boomers at the expense of everyone else.

A young professional couple should be able to buy a home - but without external cash it's just impossible,

It is being run for home owning boomers at the expense of everyone else. Look at the cuts to services for the young and families over the last 10 years. We have been far too nice to our parents generation. If they are a professional couple late 20s early 30s they should look to move abroad. I'm sure some country will want them.

[Lobby]

A short profile on Nick Timothy and what he's currently getting up to.

Timothy was an advisor to Theresa May (special advisor to May when she was Home Office Minister 2010-2015, joint chief of staff to the PM 2016-2017). He's uniquely responsible for the policies cooked up by May, namely the hostile environment, as well as the consequences of those policies: the Windrush Scandal, "go home!" vans, historic record breaking immigration levels.

In other words Timothy is another incompetent Tory, that somehow manages to so badly fuck everything up that he simultaneously makes everything substantially worse, whilst not even fixing the original "problem" he himself defined. Everything just balloons more out of control.

He's now having another go at the immigration issue, authoring a long policy position here. Interestingly the Home Secretary Suella Braverman has contributed the foreword to this document. By doing this Braverman has put her name to an extensive policy document that isn't government policy whilst being in the cabinet, this is a sackable offence but it seems she's bomb proof.

I've skimmed the document (115 pages) and read some sections more closely. Timothy's method of "fixing" immigration:
1. Ignore the Windrush Scandal, which he doesn't say much about nor is his central role mentioned, basically says it was a one off accident and should not stop harsh measures (nowhere is it mentioned there were warnings in the early 2010s of what would happen and who would be impacted, which were all ignored by May's team because they decided it wouldn't harm many people and they wanted harsh measures regardless, it wasn't an accident and was instead entirely deliberate).
2. Indefinite detention for illegal immigrants under a guilty until proved innocent basis, to be housed in upgraded military bases (when the UK immigration system can/has arbitrarily turned law abiding legal immigrants into illegal immigrants, see 1).
3. Scrap the modern slavery act 2015 (his argument seems to be too many successful asylum claims are made under this basis, he doesn't say all overwhelmingly by trafficked women).
4. Scrap the Human rights Act and/or pull out of the ECHR (would conflict with/break the GFA, the same GFA the EU has spent years negotiating with the UK to uphold).
5. Selectively apply the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention.
6. Expand the Rwanda Scheme to more third countries.
7. A biometric identity database, where everyone legally resident in the UK including British citizens, will be required to have an ID card and comply with the system. Private entities (eg employers, landlords, banks) and public entities (eg schools, NHS, councils) will be compelled to share data. Timothy wants all data on each person pooled in a single location, from which access to resources will be controlled. (not hard to see where this evolves, given new Tory laws on protest)
8. Scrapping/ending GDPR to make the database envisioned in 7 possible (another potential conflict with the EU).

The cost of his latest plans on immigration, are easily into the tens of billions: a network of new detention centres, conflict with the EU, paying more third countries like Rwanda is paid, a new invasive UK national ID database.
Hilariously Timothy says all this represents a cost saving.

Even more hilariously none of this will actually lower immigration levels (as Timothy basically says himself). It'll just maybe end the boat people. All for the small cost of tens of billions and nuking rights from orbit.

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the Home Office's complete and utter failure to deal with asylum claims in an efficient and timely manner. The best way to fix this is not to introduce yet more draconian, inhumane and almost certainly illegal measures to demonise all immigrants, but to instead spend all of that money on providing enough staff to assess asylum claims properly and efficiently.

If you can quickly distinguish between valid and invalid claims, allow valid claimants to stay and deport those with invalid claims, you remove one of the major incentives for illegal immigration (once here it takes so many years to consider claims that by the time a claim has been determined to be invalid, it is often impossible to deport the claimant because they have already made a life here).

[_Os_]

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the Home Office's complete and utter failure to deal with asylum claims in an efficient and timely manner. The best way to fix this is not to introduce yet more draconian, inhumane and almost certainly illegal measures to demonise all immigrants, but to instead spend all of that money on providing enough staff to assess asylum claims properly and efficiently.

If you can quickly distinguish between valid and invalid claims, allow valid claimants to stay and deport those with invalid claims, you remove one of the major incentives for illegal immigration (once here it takes so many years to consider claims that by the time a claim has been determined to be invalid, it is often impossible to deport the claimant because they have already made a life here).

All much more sensible than what I read in the Timothy document. To be fair to Timothy (I regard him as one of the worst in UK politics so this difficult, he has no business being taken seriously especially on this issue), he does state the system is underfunded but it's a minor part of his analysis.

On this issue the problem is the motivations of the Tories/UK government (Labour weren't as bad, but weren't entirely straight dealing when they were last in power either), there's a publicly stated explicit intention but then when you get into the weeds it quickly becomes obvious there's an unstated implicit intention. All the laws/rules add up to something that always seems to go much further than what is necessary for the stated goal.

The real goal is often ending immigration, whilst also having systems which facilitate immigration (any immigration system has to have rules on how to immigrate after all). My experience as a sausage in the sausage factory has been of a system at war with itself. Contradictory advice becomes threats then acting on that advice/threat turns out to be wrong and further threats are activated, and then when no one pretends to understand the labyrinth anymore suddenly the Home Office loses interest and disappears. This quote from the Master of the Rolls in a 2011 Court of Appeal case sums it up:
"I regret that that this area of immigration law has now become an impenetrable jungle of intertwined statutory provisions and judicial decisions, with the result that reasonable differences of opinion … are now perfectly possible. There is an acute need for simplification so that both immigrants and immigration officers may have a clearer understanding of their responsibilities and rights."
In other words in some cases two people with the exact same documents can get as divergent outcomes as deportation or UK citizenship/passport. Even judges sometimes struggle to understand what is going on.

The Timothy document makes it clear enough his intention is to create a climate of fear so that any asylum seeker dreads ever attempting to come to the UK, and to do that he's willing to reduce the rights of everyone legally in the UK including citizens (in a sense everyone becomes guilty of being an illegal immigrant until proven not to be). What he's really talking about isn't geared towards a more effective asylum system, the predictable outcome as with Timothy's past immigration intervention is that everything gets worse. Braverman supports this agenda.

[fishfoodie]

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the Home Office's complete and utter failure to deal with asylum claims in an efficient and timely manner. The best way to fix this is not to introduce yet more draconian, inhumane and almost certainly illegal measures to demonise all immigrants, but to instead spend all of that money on providing enough staff to assess asylum claims properly and efficiently.

If you can quickly distinguish between valid and invalid claims, allow valid claimants to stay and deport those with invalid claims, you remove one of the major incentives for illegal immigration (once here it takes so many years to consider claims that by the time a claim has been determined to be invalid, it is often impossible to deport the claimant because they have already made a life here).

All much more sensible than what I read in the Timothy document. To be fair to Timothy (I regard him as one of the worst in UK politics so this difficult, he has no business being taken seriously especially on this issue), he does state the system is underfunded but it's a minor part of his analysis.

He's Gaslighting, to avoid scrutiny of yet another impact of a long period of Tory fascists in power.

What has marked the last 12 years of Tory occupancy of the Home Office ?

They've put a succession of the vilest cunts in their party, into one of the great offices; & they've delivered on their vilest policies. Now; not only have all of these Ministers & Policies completely failed to deliver at any level; May couldn't even fucking tell Parliament the numbers of Immigrants !!!!, but they've also managed to create an impossibly toxic environment inside the Ministry !

We've had a finding that, vacant, was guilty of bullying, (and nothing happened), we're now hearing of how the dip shit, Raab, was just as bad, & probably still won't be sanctioned; & Sue-Ellen Braindead dreams of persecuting refugees !!!; though out it all, there has been information, that decent Civil Servants inside the Ministry were getting fed up & leaving.

So it was never just about money; it was often about the Minister & the Policy being vile, & the people who had to do the day to day work, either couldn't stomach the policy (& who can blame them), or they couldn't deal with the entitled, bullying, cunt(s) running the Ministry ?

[Paddington Bear]

A short profile on Nick Timothy and what he's currently getting up to.

Timothy was an advisor to Theresa May (special advisor to May when she was Home Office Minister 2010-2015, joint chief of staff to the PM 2016-2017). He's uniquely responsible for the policies cooked up by May, namely the hostile environment, as well as the consequences of those policies: the Windrush Scandal, "go home!" vans, historic record breaking immigration levels.

In other words Timothy is another incompetent Tory, that somehow manages to so badly fuck everything up that he simultaneously makes everything substantially worse, whilst not even fixing the original "problem" he himself defined. Everything just balloons more out of control.

He's now having another go at the immigration issue, authoring a long policy position here. Interestingly the Home Secretary Suella Braverman has contributed the foreword to this document. By doing this Braverman has put her name to an extensive policy document that isn't government policy whilst being in the cabinet, this is a sackable offence but it seems she's bomb proof.

I've skimmed the document (115 pages) and read some sections more closely. Timothy's method of "fixing" immigration:
1. Ignore the Windrush Scandal, which he doesn't say much about nor is his central role mentioned, basically says it was a one off accident and should not stop harsh measures (nowhere is it mentioned there were warnings in the early 2010s of what would happen and who would be impacted, which were all ignored by May's team because they decided it wouldn't harm many people and they wanted harsh measures regardless, it wasn't an accident and was instead entirely deliberate).
2. Indefinite detention for illegal immigrants under a guilty until proved innocent basis, to be housed in upgraded military bases (when the UK immigration system can/has arbitrarily turned law abiding legal immigrants into illegal immigrants, see 1).
3. Scrap the modern slavery act 2015 (his argument seems to be too many successful asylum claims are made under this basis, he doesn't say all overwhelmingly by trafficked women).
4. Scrap the Human rights Act and/or pull out of the ECHR (would conflict with/break the GFA, the same GFA the EU has spent years negotiating with the UK to uphold).
5. Selectively apply the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention.
6. Expand the Rwanda Scheme to more third countries.
7. A biometric identity database, where everyone legally resident in the UK including British citizens, will be required to have an ID card and comply with the system. Private entities (eg employers, landlords, banks) and public entities (eg schools, NHS, councils) will be compelled to share data. Timothy wants all data on each person pooled in a single location, from which access to resources will be controlled. (not hard to see where this evolves, given new Tory laws on protest)
8. Scrapping/ending GDPR to make the database envisioned in 7 possible (another potential conflict with the EU).

The cost of his latest plans on immigration, are easily into the tens of billions: a network of new detention centres, conflict with the EU, paying more third countries like Rwanda is paid, a new invasive UK national ID database.
Hilariously Timothy says all this represents a cost saving.

Even more hilariously none of this will actually lower immigration levels (as Timothy basically says himself). It'll just maybe end the boat people. All for the small cost of tens of billions and nuking rights from orbit.

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the Home Office's complete and utter failure to deal with asylum claims in an efficient and timely manner. The best way to fix this is not to introduce yet more draconian, inhumane and almost certainly illegal measures to demonise all immigrants, but to instead spend all of that money on providing enough staff to assess asylum claims properly and efficiently.

If you can quickly distinguish between valid and invalid claims, allow valid claimants to stay and deport those with invalid claims, you remove one of the major incentives for illegal immigration (once here it takes so many years to consider claims that by the time a claim has been determined to be invalid, it is often impossible to deport the claimant because they have already made a life here).

One of the quickest ways to do this would be to follow the German example and not treat Albania as a country where you need asylum from.

[Lobby]

A short profile on Nick Timothy and what he's currently getting up to.

Timothy was an advisor to Theresa May (special advisor to May when she was Home Office Minister 2010-2015, joint chief of staff to the PM 2016-2017). He's uniquely responsible for the policies cooked up by May, namely the hostile environment, as well as the consequences of those policies: the Windrush Scandal, "go home!" vans, historic record breaking immigration levels.

In other words Timothy is another incompetent Tory, that somehow manages to so badly fuck everything up that he simultaneously makes everything substantially worse, whilst not even fixing the original "problem" he himself defined. Everything just balloons more out of control.

He's now having another go at the immigration issue, authoring a long policy position here. Interestingly the Home Secretary Suella Braverman has contributed the foreword to this document. By doing this Braverman has put her name to an extensive policy document that isn't government policy whilst being in the cabinet, this is a sackable offence but it seems she's bomb proof.

I've skimmed the document (115 pages) and read some sections more closely. Timothy's method of "fixing" immigration:
1. Ignore the Windrush Scandal, which he doesn't say much about nor is his central role mentioned, basically says it was a one off accident and should not stop harsh measures (nowhere is it mentioned there were warnings in the early 2010s of what would happen and who would be impacted, which were all ignored by May's team because they decided it wouldn't harm many people and they wanted harsh measures regardless, it wasn't an accident and was instead entirely deliberate).
2. Indefinite detention for illegal immigrants under a guilty until proved innocent basis, to be housed in upgraded military bases (when the UK immigration system can/has arbitrarily turned law abiding legal immigrants into illegal immigrants, see 1).
3. Scrap the modern slavery act 2015 (his argument seems to be too many successful asylum claims are made under this basis, he doesn't say all overwhelmingly by trafficked women).
4. Scrap the Human rights Act and/or pull out of the ECHR (would conflict with/break the GFA, the same GFA the EU has spent years negotiating with the UK to uphold).
5. Selectively apply the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention.
6. Expand the Rwanda Scheme to more third countries.
7. A biometric identity database, where everyone legally resident in the UK including British citizens, will be required to have an ID card and comply with the system. Private entities (eg employers, landlords, banks) and public entities (eg schools, NHS, councils) will be compelled to share data. Timothy wants all data on each person pooled in a single location, from which access to resources will be controlled. (not hard to see where this evolves, given new Tory laws on protest)
8. Scrapping/ending GDPR to make the database envisioned in 7 possible (another potential conflict with the EU).

The cost of his latest plans on immigration, are easily into the tens of billions: a network of new detention centres, conflict with the EU, paying more third countries like Rwanda is paid, a new invasive UK national ID database.
Hilariously Timothy says all this represents a cost saving.

Even more hilariously none of this will actually lower immigration levels (as Timothy basically says himself). It'll just maybe end the boat people. All for the small cost of tens of billions and nuking rights from orbit.

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the Home Office's complete and utter failure to deal with asylum claims in an efficient and timely manner. The best way to fix this is not to introduce yet more draconian, inhumane and almost certainly illegal measures to demonise all immigrants, but to instead spend all of that money on providing enough staff to assess asylum claims properly and efficiently.

If you can quickly distinguish between valid and invalid claims, allow valid claimants to stay and deport those with invalid claims, you remove one of the major incentives for illegal immigration (once here it takes so many years to consider claims that by the time a claim has been determined to be invalid, it is often impossible to deport the claimant because they have already made a life here).

One of the quickest ways to do this would be to follow the German example and not treat Albania as a country where you need asylum from.

Most of the successful claims from Albania are for women whom been trafficked as unwitting sex workers.

[JM2K6]

A short profile on Nick Timothy and what he's currently getting up to.

Timothy was an advisor to Theresa May (special advisor to May when she was Home Office Minister 2010-2015, joint chief of staff to the PM 2016-2017). He's uniquely responsible for the policies cooked up by May, namely the hostile environment, as well as the consequences of those policies: the Windrush Scandal, "go home!" vans, historic record breaking immigration levels.

In other words Timothy is another incompetent Tory, that somehow manages to so badly fuck everything up that he simultaneously makes everything substantially worse, whilst not even fixing the original "problem" he himself defined. Everything just balloons more out of control.

He's now having another go at the immigration issue, authoring a long policy position here. Interestingly the Home Secretary Suella Braverman has contributed the foreword to this document. By doing this Braverman has put her name to an extensive policy document that isn't government policy whilst being in the cabinet, this is a sackable offence but it seems she's bomb proof.

I've skimmed the document (115 pages) and read some sections more closely. Timothy's method of "fixing" immigration:
1. Ignore the Windrush Scandal, which he doesn't say much about nor is his central role mentioned, basically says it was a one off accident and should not stop harsh measures (nowhere is it mentioned there were warnings in the early 2010s of what would happen and who would be impacted, which were all ignored by May's team because they decided it wouldn't harm many people and they wanted harsh measures regardless, it wasn't an accident and was instead entirely deliberate).
2. Indefinite detention for illegal immigrants under a guilty until proved innocent basis, to be housed in upgraded military bases (when the UK immigration system can/has arbitrarily turned law abiding legal immigrants into illegal immigrants, see 1).
3. Scrap the modern slavery act 2015 (his argument seems to be too many successful asylum claims are made under this basis, he doesn't say all overwhelmingly by trafficked women).
4. Scrap the Human rights Act and/or pull out of the ECHR (would conflict with/break the GFA, the same GFA the EU has spent years negotiating with the UK to uphold).
5. Selectively apply the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention.
6. Expand the Rwanda Scheme to more third countries.
7. A biometric identity database, where everyone legally resident in the UK including British citizens, will be required to have an ID card and comply with the system. Private entities (eg employers, landlords, banks) and public entities (eg schools, NHS, councils) will be compelled to share data. Timothy wants all data on each person pooled in a single location, from which access to resources will be controlled. (not hard to see where this evolves, given new Tory laws on protest)
8. Scrapping/ending GDPR to make the database envisioned in 7 possible (another potential conflict with the EU).

The cost of his latest plans on immigration, are easily into the tens of billions: a network of new detention centres, conflict with the EU, paying more third countries like Rwanda is paid, a new invasive UK national ID database.
Hilariously Timothy says all this represents a cost saving.

Even more hilariously none of this will actually lower immigration levels (as Timothy basically says himself). It'll just maybe end the boat people. All for the small cost of tens of billions and nuking rights from orbit.

The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the Home Office's complete and utter failure to deal with asylum claims in an efficient and timely manner. The best way to fix this is not to introduce yet more draconian, inhumane and almost certainly illegal measures to demonise all immigrants, but to instead spend all of that money on providing enough staff to assess asylum claims properly and efficiently.

If you can quickly distinguish between valid and invalid claims, allow valid claimants to stay and deport those with invalid claims, you remove one of the major incentives for illegal immigration (once here it takes so many years to consider claims that by the time a claim has been determined to be invalid, it is often impossible to deport the claimant because they have already made a life here).

One of the quickest ways to do this would be to follow the German example and not treat Albania as a country where you need asylum from.

Alright Mr Jenrick, didn't know you were into rugby

[GogLais]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

[Paddington Bear]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

Amending the constitution on the back of a fag packet has worked so well for 30 years, so why stop now? Mandelson called it right I think when he said it will waste vast amounts of time that the government could spend on other things.

[GogLais]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

Amending the constitution on the back of a fag packet has worked so well for 30 years, so why stop now? Mandelson called it right I think when he said it will waste vast amounts of time that the government could spend on other things.

So do we stick with the HoL as it is forever or wait for some undefined better time? I’m not advocating that a Labour government focuses totally on it from day one but I think it’s a worthwhile long-term aim. And Lord Mandleson does have a bit of a vested interest.

[sockwithaticket]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I would rather Labour achieve power, start reversing a lot of the Tories regressive legislation and address key issues like infrastructure investment and services funding before they even mention trying to reform the Lords. I don't think it's a particularly strong vote winner and it'll seem a very abstract aim in the midst of a recession and cost of living crisis.

If they're going to expend political capital on something, vote reform is more important than HoL reform imo.

[C T]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I'm a bit conflicted by it really. I don't particularly like the idea of an unelected house, but as a general rule of thumb the house of lords do tend to reject (as much as they can) the particularly loony policies. I've always thought (rightly or wrongly) that they do tend to be a more sensible, and a voice of reason.

All of this to be fair is from a very uneducated and uninformed point of view (mine).

[dpedin]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I would rather Labour achieve power, start reversing a lot of the Tories regressive legislation and address key issues like infrastructure investment and services funding before they even mention trying to reform the Lords. I don't think it's a particularly strong vote winner and it'll seem a very abstract aim in the midst of a recession and cost of living crisis.

If they're going to expend political capital on something, vote reform is more important than HoL reform imo.

I have no doubt the aim of this is as said above - to make the tories defend the HoL and their record of appointing peers in particular with Johnson/Truss resignation lists. I am also in no doubt that once Labour get into power the timetable on this would be adjusted. It is an easy win for Labour just now ... just wait until the Mone PPE scandal gains real traction and more Tory Lords are sucked into this scandal. Just clever politics from Labour.

[GogLais]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I'm a bit conflicted by it really. I don't particularly like the idea of an unelected house, but as a general rule of thumb the house of lords do tend to reject (as much as they can) the particularly loony policies. I've always thought (rightly or wrongly) that they do tend to be a more sensible, and a voice of reason.

All of this to be fair is from a very uneducated and uninformed point of view (mine).

I’d have agreed with you until recently but now I think the whole thing has become corrupt and corruption spreads.

[GogLais]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I would rather Labour achieve power, start reversing a lot of the Tories regressive legislation and address key issues like infrastructure investment and services funding before they even mention trying to reform the Lords. I don't think it's a particularly strong vote winner and it'll seem a very abstract aim in the midst of a recession and cost of living crisis.

If they're going to expend political capital on something, vote reform is more important than HoL reform imo.

Abstract? Well I think that getting a seat in the legislature because you’ve been Tory treasurer or as a reward for supporting Brexit is pretty concrete tbh.

[JM2K6]

Public trust in government is at a real low and I don't think promising reform is a bad thing or a vote-loser, particularly given that they tackled the "but there's more important stuff right now" complaint head-on. And I agree with their reasoning. There's always a crisis and sometimes the crisis is created or exacerbated by the problems with our political system.

[sockwithaticket]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I would rather Labour achieve power, start reversing a lot of the Tories regressive legislation and address key issues like infrastructure investment and services funding before they even mention trying to reform the Lords. I don't think it's a particularly strong vote winner and it'll seem a very abstract aim in the midst of a recession and cost of living crisis.

If they're going to expend political capital on something, vote reform is more important than HoL reform imo.

I have no doubt the aim of this is as said above - to make the tories defend the HoL and their record of appointing peers in particular with Johnson/Truss resignation lists. I am also in no doubt that once Labour get into power the timetable on this would be adjusted. It is an easy win for Labour just now ... just wait until the Mone PPE scandal gains real traction and more Tory Lords are sucked into this scandal. Just clever politics from Labour.

Thing is, I don't think this really registers with or matters to many people. There are those who actively pay attention to politics, those who do so passively, those who occasionally notice a headline and those who are functionally apolitical until it's time to cast a vote. No matter how ineptly the Tories defend something like the HoL as an institution or their record on appointments over the last decade and a bit, it just doesn't seem to hit outside that first group.

That's not to say it isn't worth doing, but I don't think it should have much time or effort sunk into it while in opposition.

[sturginho]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I've not read Brown's proposals in detail, have they been published anywhere?

[petej]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I've not read Brown's proposals in detail, have they been published anywhere?

Rather they got us away from fptp. Only belarus still use fptp in Europe.

[GogLais]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

I've not read Brown's proposals in detail, have they been published anywhere?

Rather they got us away from fptp. Only belarus still use fptp in Europe.

I’d guess we’re the only country in Europe with an entirety appointed/hereditary part of the legislature.

[dpedin]

I've not read Brown's proposals in detail, have they been published anywhere?

Rather they got us away from fptp. Only belarus still use fptp in Europe.

I’d guess we’re the only country in Europe with an entirety appointed/hereditary part of the legislature.

We have at the moment:

- a Head of State appointed just because he was first to come down the right birth channel
- a PM who was picked by his Tory MP mates in HoC
- an Upper House filled by those appointed by current and previous PMs and Queen/King and Bishops appointed by the Church of England only

Although all 'by the rules' of your democracy whichever way you look at it there does seem to be a bit of a democratic deficit in the UK and I can fully understand those who need change in our democratic processes.

[_Os_]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

Amending the constitution on the back of a fag packet has worked so well for 30 years, so why stop now? Mandelson called it right I think when he said it will waste vast amounts of time that the government could spend on other things.

Mandelson' gives the game away a little. He wouldn't have publicly said that if he had won the battle or had any chance of winning it. New Labour had two factions, Blairites and Brownites. The Blairites like Mandelson were mostly concerned with gaining and keeping power, the Brownites were more committed to big ideological ideas and the plans which go with that. That's why constitutional reform was done quickly at the start of Labour's first term and dumped just as quickly, Blair had no will to do it. I think Mandelson is wrong about how difficult it'll be too, if Labour win a landslide they just implement their manifesto, if Labour do not win a majority and co-operation with other parties is required those smaller parties will hardly be against constitutional reform.

There's some deeper elements that make reform more likely than not. Labour has promised reforming the Lords for 100 years, it's only ever happened in small steps because they didn't know what to do with it (I think abolishment was their original position). But now devolution has happened, they have an idea of what to do with it making a chamber of the regions (side point, this is very much like South Africa's upper house the National Council of Provinces). To my knowledge this is the most clear idea of how to reform (not abolish) the Lords they've had in 100 years. It would also answer another problem reformers always face, of giving up power moving it outside Westminster, this reform keeps power centralised in Westminster. Lords and further devolution are maybe the easiest reforms (far easier than creating English regions or something like that).

There was cross party support for reform of the Lords at the end of the last period Labour was in power, a majority of Tory MPs wanted Lords reform back then from memory they wanted it majority elected (including the likes of Hannan who is now in the Lords and unelected). This is another reason Mandelson is wrong, it's the Tories who by 2024 would've wasted 14 years not using that time to reform it as they wished.

[fishfoodie]

I must say, it is nice to see Tories fighting like rats in a sack again

I'd say the latest section of the UKs worst serial killer, Matt "The Bollock Eater" Hancock, tells us who leaked Michelle Mone's involvement in the PPE fraud, & thus dropped the Govester in the shit.

It's hardly a coincidence that the original leak happened just before he started his attempt to rehabilitate his career, & flog his book.

I don't think he fancies taking all the blame in the Inquiry; & that will mean him flinging as much shit at the fan as possible, to spread the blame across as many of the Cabinet as possible.

[Paddington Bear]

Any thoughts on Labour’s intent to reform the HoL? I hear the stuff about there are more important issues atm but forcing the Tories to defend the HoL as it is now seems good idea.

Amending the constitution on the back of a fag packet has worked so well for 30 years, so why stop now? Mandelson called it right I think when he said it will waste vast amounts of time that the government could spend on other things.

Mandelson' gives the game away a little. He wouldn't have publicly said that if he had won the battle or had any chance of winning it. New Labour had two factions, Blairites and Brownites. The Blairites like Mandelson were mostly concerned with gaining and keeping power, the Brownites were more committed to big ideological ideas and the plans which go with that. That's why constitutional reform was done quickly at the start of Labour's first term and dumped just as quickly, Blair had no will to do it. I think Mandelson is wrong about how difficult it'll be too, if Labour win a landslide they just implement their manifesto, if Labour do not win a majority and co-operation with other parties is required those smaller parties will hardly be against constitutional reform.

There's some deeper elements that make reform more likely than not. Labour has promised reforming the Lords for 100 years, it's only ever happened in small steps because they didn't know what to do with it (I think abolishment was their original position). But now devolution has happened, they have an idea of what to do with it making a chamber of the regions (side point, this is very much like South Africa's upper house the National Council of Provinces). To my knowledge this is the most clear idea of how to reform (not abolish) the Lords they've had in 100 years. It would also answer another problem reformers always face, of giving up power moving it outside Westminster, this reform keeps power centralised in Westminster. Lords and further devolution are maybe the easiest reforms (far easier than creating English regions or something like that).

There was cross party support for reform of the Lords at the end of the last period Labour was in power, a majority of Tory MPs wanted Lords reform back then from memory they wanted it majority elected (including the likes of Hannan who is now in the Lords and unelected). This is another reason Mandelson is wrong, it's the Tories who by 2024 would've wasted 14 years not using that time to reform it as they wished.

Further devolution and making the Lords a 'chamber of regions' are not only wastes of parliamentary time as Mandelson suggests, but also bad ideas in their own right. Mucking around with the constitution has generally got us worse outcomes over the last 30 years or so and there's little evidence that's about to change.

[_Os_]

Further devolution and making the Lords a 'chamber of regions' are not only wastes of parliamentary time as Mandelson suggests, but also bad ideas in their own right. Mucking around with the constitution has generally got us worse outcomes over the last 30 years or so and there's little evidence that's about to change.

There's majority polling support for Lords reform, if they win a majority with that in the manifesto there'll be a mandate. I'm not sure what the point of having an unwritten flexible constitution is if you want to keep everything fixed in stone? Isn't a lot of the point that things can be made and unmade based purely on commanding a majority in the Commons (which seems mad to me, but those are the rules).

I think you'll be hard pressed to find Scots that think devolution itself was bad and should be rolled back. When a third option of further devolution is given to Scots on the constitutional question, that usually beats no change and independence. Which is why Salmond wanted that third option on the ballot in 2014 and why Cameron refused that request (because it would look like Cameron had lost when more devolution won).

The Tories just fucked this one, Cameron's big constitutional idea was referendums on everything. Just about every Tory MP was talking big on constitutional change before the 2015 election, Cameron even got Heseltine to produce a report on economic growth which recommended regionalism within England giving more power to cities (the Tories do not agree that economic growth is unlinked to constitutional reform, they've said they're closely linked in the recent past). The Tories then agreed it was all good stuff, and did nothing, other than the referendums. Then there was the Levelling Up stuff, without the content of the previous plan leaving just the slogan.

The waste of parliamentary time is when nothing happens because there's no plan, which is the current situation of the last half decade.

[fishfoodie]

Is the HoL reform policy, a good place for Labour to ow the seed of Electoral reform ?

I mean the first question will be how do we elect any new 2nd House, & PR in some form is the obvious way of making it representative, & then maybe you have longer terms, & mid-term elections etc, so the Government of the day isn't guaranteed to control both houses.

Of course, the idea is that once people see the 2nd House is more representative, they might question why a Party that gets 5% of the vote mightn't win a single seat.

[Paddington Bear]

Further devolution and making the Lords a 'chamber of regions' are not only wastes of parliamentary time as Mandelson suggests, but also bad ideas in their own right. Mucking around with the constitution has generally got us worse outcomes over the last 30 years or so and there's little evidence that's about to change.

There's majority polling support for Lords reform, if they win a majority with that in the manifesto there'll be a mandate. I'm not sure what the point of having an unwritten flexible constitution is if you want to keep everything fixed in stone? Isn't a lot of the point that things can be made and unmade based purely on commanding a majority in the Commons (which seems mad to me, but those are the rules).

I think you'll be hard pressed to find Scots that think devolution itself was bad and should be rolled back. When a third option of further devolution is given to Scots on the constitutional question, that usually beats no change and independence. Which is why Salmond wanted that third option on the ballot in 2014 and why Cameron refused that request (because it would look like Cameron had lost when more devolution won).

The Tories just fucked this one, Cameron's big constitutional idea was referendums on everything. Just about every Tory MP was talking big on constitutional change before the 2015 election, Cameron even got Heseltine to produce a report on economic growth which recommended regionalism within England giving more power to cities (the Tories do not agree that economic growth is unlinked to constitutional reform, they've said they're closely linked in the recent past). The Tories then agreed it was all good stuff, and did nothing, other than the referendums. Then there was the Levelling Up stuff, without the content of the previous plan leaving just the slogan.

The waste of parliamentary time is when nothing happens because there's no plan, which is the current situation of the last half decade.

Interesting question raised here - has devolution been a success? Which requires reminding ourselves of the stated and slightly less stated but obvious objectives of it (in the Scottish context):

1) To 'kill nationalism in its cradle'
2) To demonstrate that the Labour Party is the authentic voice of the Scottish people
3) To consolidate the Labour Party in its Scottish heartland

That went well.

Constitutional reform has to be looked at through the lens of the British state, which Starmer and Labour aim to be in charge of sooner rather than later. Devolution may have had its successes, it has had its failures, but clearly it has weakened the British state, almost to the point of collapse. I'm not anti-devolution per se, but the way it was set up meant it could only end one way - as a tool for dividing the Union. It worked well enough when Labour were in power in Westminster, Cardiff and Holyrood, but has failed in all other circumstances.

Your point on regionalism is a better one. The challenges of devolution as it has been created are:

1) If you insist on devolving to Scotland and Wales as nations you can't possibly to England for obvious reasons, creating obvious problems
2) None of these entities are able to raise enough of their own money and the English ones lack the power to make enough of their own decisions to create better outcomes. So we end up with the worst of both worlds, an incoherent system that breaks down common ties within the country and encourages separatism, but leaves the devolved governments reliant on money from Westminster and able to blame the same for their issues.

Then let's look at Labour's HoL reform in the 90s, again what a stunning success we see. Or head over to the judiciary and look at the comical creation of a Supreme Court, seemingly because they all watched the West Wing, and then remind ourselves that their proposals advocate involving it even more into the political process.
My point is - constitutional reform is all well and good (and what preceded all of the above was far from perfect) but if you don't think it through properly and do it just because you can you end up with unforeseen negative consequences, some of which nearly brought the British state to an end. If you think that's a good thing (and I have a suspicion you might) then great, but it isn't reasonable to expect people who don't to go along with it.

[GogLais]

Well maybe ok to much of that but it’s a depressing thought if as a country we’re incapable of meaningfully reforming the HoL.

[petej]

Well maybe ok to much of that but it’s a depressing thought if as a country we’re incapable of meaningfully reforming the HoL.

Or getting rid of fptp.

[GogLais]

Well maybe ok to much of that but it’s a depressing thought if as a country we’re incapable of meaningfully reforming the HoL.

Or getting rid of fptp.

Agreed.

[Paddington Bear]

Well maybe ok to much of that but it’s a depressing thought if as a country we’re incapable of meaningfully reforming the HoL.

Not opposed to reforming it, just think we need more thought as to what we’re trying to achieve with it and the outcomes. I.e a proportional chamber probably best but all but guarantees Farage a seat etc

[GogLais]

Well maybe ok to much of that but it’s a depressing thought if as a country we’re incapable of meaningfully reforming the HoL.

Not opposed to reforming it, just think we need more thought as to what we’re trying to achieve with it and the outcomes. I.e a proportional chamber probably best but all but guarantees Farage a seat etc

I don’t think Labour have detailed proposals for the HoL atm. As far as I’m concerned they have a Parliament term to sort it out and I’m sure it won’t and can’t be a priority for the first couple of years.

[Calculon]

If farage gets the votes why shouldn't he get a seat. I mean people who share his political views also deserve representation

[_Os_]

Further devolution and making the Lords a 'chamber of regions' are not only wastes of parliamentary time as Mandelson suggests, but also bad ideas in their own right. Mucking around with the constitution has generally got us worse outcomes over the last 30 years or so and there's little evidence that's about to change.

There's majority polling support for Lords reform, if they win a majority with that in the manifesto there'll be a mandate. I'm not sure what the point of having an unwritten flexible constitution is if you want to keep everything fixed in stone? Isn't a lot of the point that things can be made and unmade based purely on commanding a majority in the Commons (which seems mad to me, but those are the rules).

I think you'll be hard pressed to find Scots that think devolution itself was bad and should be rolled back. When a third option of further devolution is given to Scots on the constitutional question, that usually beats no change and independence. Which is why Salmond wanted that third option on the ballot in 2014 and why Cameron refused that request (because it would look like Cameron had lost when more devolution won).

The Tories just fucked this one, Cameron's big constitutional idea was referendums on everything. Just about every Tory MP was talking big on constitutional change before the 2015 election, Cameron even got Heseltine to produce a report on economic growth which recommended regionalism within England giving more power to cities (the Tories do not agree that economic growth is unlinked to constitutional reform, they've said they're closely linked in the recent past). The Tories then agreed it was all good stuff, and did nothing, other than the referendums. Then there was the Levelling Up stuff, without the content of the previous plan leaving just the slogan.

The waste of parliamentary time is when nothing happens because there's no plan, which is the current situation of the last half decade.

Interesting question raised here - has devolution been a success? Which requires reminding ourselves of the stated and slightly less stated but obvious objectives of it (in the Scottish context):

1) To 'kill nationalism in its cradle'
2) To demonstrate that the Labour Party is the authentic voice of the Scottish people
3) To consolidate the Labour Party in its Scottish heartland

That went well.

Constitutional reform has to be looked at through the lens of the British state, which Starmer and Labour aim to be in charge of sooner rather than later. Devolution may have had its successes, it has had its failures, but clearly it has weakened the British state, almost to the point of collapse. I'm not anti-devolution per se, but the way it was set up meant it could only end one way - as a tool for dividing the Union. It worked well enough when Labour were in power in Westminster, Cardiff and Holyrood, but has failed in all other circumstances.

Your point on regionalism is a better one. The challenges of devolution as it has been created are:

1) If you insist on devolving to Scotland and Wales as nations you can't possibly to England for obvious reasons, creating obvious problems
2) None of these entities are able to raise enough of their own money and the English ones lack the power to make enough of their own decisions to create better outcomes. So we end up with the worst of both worlds, an incoherent system that breaks down common ties within the country and encourages separatism, but leaves the devolved governments reliant on money from Westminster and able to blame the same for their issues.

Then let's look at Labour's HoL reform in the 90s, again what a stunning success we see. Or head over to the judiciary and look at the comical creation of a Supreme Court, seemingly because they all watched the West Wing, and then remind ourselves that their proposals advocate involving it even more into the political process.
My point is - constitutional reform is all well and good (and what preceded all of the above was far from perfect) but if you don't think it through properly and do it just because you can you end up with unforeseen negative consequences, some of which nearly brought the British state to an end. If you think that's a good thing (and I have a suspicion you might) then great, but it isn't reasonable to expect people who don't to go along with it.

It'll make more sense starting with your question at the end of your post about the future of the UK. Peter Hitchens and the late Roger Scruton hold the position closest to mine I guess, basically if Scotland wants independence then that should happen and England should not get in the way of it (on the contrary England should be as accommodating as possible, as Hitchens states repeating Ireland wouldn't be good). Where I depart from Hitchens and Scruton is that the UK state should be reconfigured if doing so can hold the UK state together longer. It seems to me a lot of the Scottish nationalist argument is purely a representation argument. The deeper argument Scot nationalists make of basically "we can be an Ireland/Denmark/Norway", also seems true to me, but I don't think a majority goes for that if there's an easier option that gets them most of the way.

NI is in a different category for me, there's just an overwhelming amount of momentum pointing towards a united Ireland (everything from demographics, international treaties establishing a framework, strong US lobbying, lack of will from England to keep it in the UK, NI unionists making poor choices, republicans probably being the most organised/successful political grouping in the UK, etc).

Back to the start of your post. Labour's political calculations were wrong, but it's also a bit irrelevant when assessing the constitutional dimension (as far as the politics goes, Scotland is behaving like a new polity and nationalists tend to dominate those for the first generation, eg African states after independence). No one gets to see what would've happened if there was no devolution. Scotland would've gone into two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan they may have been able to say they didn't support ("fptp supresses the will of the Scottish people!"), and then into a Brexit they do say there's no Scottish majority for, and then into a Covid pandemic where they may have been able to say "we had no say in the rules/lockdown/PPE procurement, were dictated to by Westminster and left short changed". There was a 75% majority from a 60% turnout for devolution in Scotland in 1997 (much larger than the 1979 referendum, which was the now infamous 52%/48% split). The idea that could've been ignored and the UK would come out stronger with Scotland having no voice outside of its Westminster seats (and EU parliament seats when the UK was in the EU) doesn't seem plausible to me.

England can't be devolved because there's not much will for it among the English, there's nothing more to it than that. Polling sometimes indicates they want an English parliament, but also says they want less politicians. Devolving regions also doesn't have much support. So it reaches an impasse. One avenue could be regions that want more power have it devolved to them (London?), and the rest simply go without, then if it works that may change minds elsewhere. I see all this as very unlikely though.

It strikes me that if devolution produced an economic benefit for Wales and Scotland or not, would be the sort of thing there's research on, it would be surprising if there's been no effort to quantify it. Before devolution they were subsidised though, so I'm not sure this works as an anti-devolution argument. It's more of a pro-devolution argument surely, "the UK development model has produced an extremely well developed London/South East/South, everywhere else is left behind without the power or resources to build new infrastructure and encourage investment etc, and remains beholden to often poor central planning from Westminster/Whitehall ... therefore devolution"?

Labour reform of the Lords was half hearted in the 90s, because they wanted buy in from all parties, so went with a watered down option to please the Tories (and as I said, Blair wasn't heavily invested in it anyway). It's a different world now, "Get Brexit Done" and all that. Get a majority then bulldoze the platform through is viable now, that method may not produce as lasting results as Labour's reforms in the late 90s though.

[Tichtheid]

Tories duck for cover as Commons probes Michelle Mone’s Covid fortunes
John Crace

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-fortunes

[Paddington Bear]

It'll make more sense starting with your question at the end of your post about the future of the UK. Peter Hitchens and the late Roger Scruton hold the position closest to mine I guess, basically if Scotland wants independence then that should happen and England should not get in the way of it (on the contrary England should be as accommodating as possible, as Hitchens states repeating Ireland wouldn't be good). Where I depart from Hitchens and Scruton is that the UK state should be reconfigured if doing so can hold the UK state together longer. It seems to me a lot of the Scottish nationalist argument is purely a representation argument. The deeper argument Scot nationalists make of basically "we can be an Ireland/Denmark/Norway", also seems true to me, but I don't think a majority goes for that if there's an easier option that gets them most of the way.

The problem with this is that the Scottish people were asked exactly this question not so long ago and decided they didn't fancy it, and there's precious little evidence they've changed their mind.

As for keeping the State together, if all functions of State bar basically the military are devolved (correct me if I'm wrong but that seems to be the suggestion in Labour's document, Scotland would be able to conduct foreign policy under their proposals), what's the point? The State is done for anyway at that point so may as well cut our losses. We're either a country or we're not.

Back to the start of your post. Labour's political calculations were wrong, but it's also a bit irrelevant when assessing the constitutional dimension (as far as the politics goes, Scotland is behaving like a new polity and nationalists tend to dominate those for the first generation, eg African states after independence). No one gets to see what would've happened if there was no devolution. Scotland would've gone into two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan they may have been able to say they didn't support ("fptp supresses the will of the Scottish people!"), and then into a Brexit they do say there's no Scottish majority for, and then into a Covid pandemic where they may have been able to say "we had no say in the rules/lockdown/PPE procurement, were dictated to by Westminster and left short changed". There was a 75% majority from a 60% turnout for devolution in Scotland in 1997 (much larger than the 1979 referendum, which was the now infamous 52%/48% split). The idea that could've been ignored and the UK would come out stronger with Scotland having no voice outside of its Westminster seats (and EU parliament seats when the UK was in the EU) doesn't seem plausible to me.

England can't be devolved because there's not much will for it among the English, there's nothing more to it than that. Polling sometimes indicates they want an English parliament, but also says they want less politicians. Devolving regions also doesn't have much support. So it reaches an impasse. One avenue could be regions that want more power have it devolved to them (London?), and the rest simply go without, then if it works that may change minds elsewhere. I see all this as very unlikely though.

This is all very binary. The two options weren't status quo or what we have now. My preference is strong city and county councils based on existing, coherent and often ancient identities, with powers to raise funds and run large areas of policy. It absolutely can be done on a local level - see the Channel Islands where authorities the size of a smallish council run very effective services. Iraq and Afghanistan are poor examples for 'fptp supressing the will of the Scottish people' given Scotland was returning sizeable majorities for the governing party at the time.
English people don't want devolution on the terms offered. The regions created by Labour were fake and obviously so, of course they didn't work. Poll people on 'would you like local politicians to decide how to run your schools/which roads to repair etc' and you'd get very different outcomes.

As an aside, the path to Brexit takes in two points of reform that are very much in vogue - PR and devolution.
PR - there's a very strong argument that without their EU parliament seats won by PR UKIP would never have had the funds or prominence to push aggressive Euroscepticism as they did and threaten Cameron's right flank.
Devolution - Cameron only won his 2015 majority on the back of a late Tory surge fuelled by the concern of English voters that the SNP would prop up a Labour minority government. We got to that point because devolution was botched.

Which is really my opening point - Labour reformed Britain off the back of a fag packet and I bet if you'd have gone to a Scottish Labour conference circa 1997 and suggested the latter outcome and the collapse of the party you'd have been laughed out the room. Dicking about with the constitution has second order effects that take a little while to work through the system and I'd really rather we don't see Gordon Brown pulling an Eric Cartman 'Operation Cannot Possibly Fail - A Second Time'.

[_Os_]

It'll make more sense starting with your question at the end of your post about the future of the UK. Peter Hitchens and the late Roger Scruton hold the position closest to mine I guess, basically if Scotland wants independence then that should happen and England should not get in the way of it (on the contrary England should be as accommodating as possible, as Hitchens states repeating Ireland wouldn't be good). Where I depart from Hitchens and Scruton is that the UK state should be reconfigured if doing so can hold the UK state together longer. It seems to me a lot of the Scottish nationalist argument is purely a representation argument. The deeper argument Scot nationalists make of basically "we can be an Ireland/Denmark/Norway", also seems true to me, but I don't think a majority goes for that if there's an easier option that gets them most of the way.

The problem with this is that the Scottish people were asked exactly this question not so long ago and decided they didn't fancy it, and there's precious little evidence they've changed their mind.

As for keeping the State together, if all functions of State bar basically the military are devolved (correct me if I'm wrong but that seems to be the suggestion in Labour's document, Scotland would be able to conduct foreign policy under their proposals), what's the point? The State is done for anyway at that point so may as well cut our losses. We're either a country or we're not.

Hold up, nowhere did I say I support an Indy Scotland or whatever (it's not my fight/problem). The best course of action to me seems to let Scotland decide, which is where your opposition to devolution stops working, not many Scottish people think it has failed and want it all rolled back. The majority seems to be for more devolution.

The foreign policy element is limited to devolved areas, which will turn out to be a bit meaningless. State to state agreements happen on trade, not on which particular layer of government collects taxes. US states will have more foreign policy autonomy. What could happen maybe is the UK signs an agreement for reciprocal extradition with somewhere, and Scotland decides it would rather not be part of that (totally guessing here). I know UK citizens can be pursued from the UK in some US states but not others depending on the circumstances (complex area).

Not buying that a state called the UK which has Scotland in it, will not actually have Scotland in it. I think you're getting hung up on the exact constitutional framework, when it's all just a means to an end.

This is all very binary. The two options weren't status quo or what we have now. My preference is strong city and county councils based on existing, coherent and often ancient identities, with powers to raise funds and run large areas of policy. It absolutely can be done on a local level - see the Channel Islands where authorities the size of a smallish council run very effective services. Iraq and Afghanistan are poor examples for 'fptp supressing the will of the Scottish people' given Scotland was returning sizeable majorities for the governing party at the time.
English people don't want devolution on the terms offered. The regions created by Labour were fake and obviously so, of course they didn't work. Poll people on 'would you like local politicians to decide how to run your schools/which roads to repair etc' and you'd get very different outcomes.

As an aside, the path to Brexit takes in two points of reform that are very much in vogue - PR and devolution.
PR - there's a very strong argument that without their EU parliament seats won by PR UKIP would never have had the funds or prominence to push aggressive Euroscepticism as they did and threaten Cameron's right flank.
Devolution - Cameron only won his 2015 majority on the back of a late Tory surge fuelled by the concern of English voters that the SNP would prop up a Labour minority government. We got to that point because devolution was botched.

Which is really my opening point - Labour reformed Britain off the back of a fag packet and I bet if you'd have gone to a Scottish Labour conference circa 1997 and suggested the latter outcome and the collapse of the party you'd have been laughed out the room. Dicking about with the constitution has second order effects that take a little while to work through the system and I'd really rather we don't see Gordon Brown pulling an Eric Cartman 'Operation Cannot Possibly Fail - A Second Time'.

Labour's plans for England seem to include more powers for councils. Again, the Tories could've done this if they had the will, they commissioned a report by Heseltine before the 2015 general election which recommended it (and from memory that report referenced another report from the 1960s or 1970s which made similar recommendations). It does seem to be a pattern in England when what needs to be done is known for half a century, nothing is done, then in the rare times Labour get in they at least try something then they're attacked for it.

I think your criticism of devolution doesn't really work when the counterfactual is thought through fully. If Scotland had never had devolution. The reason Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't come up in Scottish debate as something they were forced into, is because they supported Blair/Labour under the Westminster fptp system, but also under the Scottish pr/additional member system. Devolution has removed a lot (but not all) of the representation argument, without devolution there would still be minimum 75% who wanted devolution in 1997 and probably a lot more too. Maybe enough people to force the SNP into seats even in a Westminster election (without any pr system in the background giving them a platform), that's what an existential question did to NI in Westminster elections. You seem to be saying there was another way of doing Scottish devolution maybe? Not sure how without a Scottish parliament something the Scots have an "ancient memory" of more than the people of Leicester or wherever have regarding their local council. There's every chance without devolution Scottish politics could be more toxic, the binary existential question is the key driver, wrong to think that trying to supress representation supresses the binary question (especially so when that question is fundamentally about representation).

Labour were foolish to think devolution would give them immediate political advantage, they assumed pr meant there couldn't be a majority party. They only had to look at SA to see in a new polity a nationalist party can get a majority under pr, a younger Os did point this out in the 2000s before SNP growth, he was dismissed with not that concealed racist contempt ("yeah maybe in Africa, whatever"). For me it's about giving Scots what they want, not value judgements on what they decide to do with it.

It is funny to me that the 2016 referendum is touted as "the first time people had their voices heard" (which effectively used pure pr), and UKIP used EU elections to get protest votes they couldn't hope to do anything with in a Westminster vote using fptp as you say. Then all this is used as example of why pr is bad. If they had a voice earlier somewhere that mattered to Westminster (which means in Westminster) maybe they would've been exposed sooner. There's also a case that the issue of the EU moderated the far right. The BNP were knocking on the door of 1 million votes mainly from England in the 2004 and 2009 EU elections, they got 500k votes in the 2010 general election when UKIP got 900k votes but ran 200+ more candidates. All it takes is a few wealthy-ish funders and a party to the right of the Tories starts doing well, even the crude openly fascist and racist BNP could do it running in half the constituencies and competing against both the Tories and UKIP/Farage in his prime (and other smaller far right formations like the English Democrats), in an election the incumbent Labour government was probably going to lose. For the entire 80 years before UKIP beat the BNP (Farage used to boast about taking the BNP's voters) with the anti-EU stuff, the default mode of the English far right was fascism/extreme racism (their connections to SA were always to the fringe parties and groups that were extreme even in the apartheid SA)/violent paramilitaries (some of which became banned terrorist organisations)/leaders that had Tory connections in their past. The only element Farage retained was the leadership core and funders having Tory backgrounds. Cameron's problem was that a lot of the Tory base agrees with this stuff (Reform hitting 9%-ish in a few polls now), and he shit himself.

[dpedin]

Tories duck for cover as Commons probes Michelle Mone’s Covid fortunes
John Crace

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... d-fortunes

This has the potential to blow the Tories off the planet for many decades. There is obviously a lot of squirming going on and those involved are already trying tho shift blame ie Hancok, Gove, etc. Many Tories and their contacts have made millions illegally from the PPE and testing fiascos and it will all blow up in their faces - Randox, Immensa, Medpro, Pestfix, etc. Even the more 'upfront' deals ie £37B for TT&T and the role of Serco CEO Robert Soames a Tory will come under the spotlight if for nothing else their sheer incompetence, over pricing and inability to deliver. It is going to drag them all down and hopefully a few of them to jail.

[Paddington Bear]

Hold up, nowhere did I say I support an Indy Scotland or whatever (it's not my fight/problem). The best course of action to me seems to let Scotland decide, which is where your opposition to devolution stops working, not many Scottish people think it has failed and want it all rolled back. The majority seems to be for more devolution.

The foreign policy element is limited to devolved areas, which will turn out to be a bit meaningless. State to state agreements happen on trade, not on which particular layer of government collects taxes. US states will have more foreign policy autonomy. What could happen maybe is the UK signs an agreement for reciprocal extradition with somewhere, and Scotland decides it would rather not be part of that (totally guessing here). I know UK citizens can be pursued from the UK in some US states but not others depending on the circumstances (complex area).

Not buying that a state called the UK which has Scotland in it, will not actually have Scotland in it. I think you're getting hung up on the exact constitutional framework, when it's all just a means to an end.

Devolving just about everything is the end of the Union sooner or later - this is why it is a bad idea! Not sure how many times I can keep rephrasing this point. We are either a country or we are not.

I think your criticism of devolution doesn't really work when the counterfactual is thought through fully. If Scotland had never had devolution. The reason Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't come up in Scottish debate as something they were forced into, is because they supported Blair/Labour under the Westminster fptp system, but also under the Scottish pr/additional member system. Devolution has removed a lot (but not all) of the representation argument, without devolution there would still be minimum 75% who wanted devolution in 1997 and probably a lot more too. Maybe enough people to force the SNP into seats even in a Westminster election (without any pr system in the background giving them a platform), that's what an existential question did to NI in Westminster elections. You seem to be saying there was another way of doing Scottish devolution maybe? Not sure how without a Scottish parliament something the Scots have an "ancient memory" of more than the people of Leicester or wherever have regarding their local council. There's every chance without devolution Scottish politics could be more toxic, the binary existential question is the key driver, wrong to think that trying to supress representation supresses the binary question (especially so when that question is fundamentally about representation).

Except that isn't the counterfactual I posed and my criticism was of Labour's tendency to not think through the effects of constitutional change rather than constitutional change itself. Devolving powers to much stronger city councils in Glasgow and Edinburgh (and Leeds and Manchester and and), and to the Highlands & Islands Council (and Cumbria and Devon etc) would have created the local control away from Westminster that I think we agree is/was necessary without fundamentally undermining the Union, which is what has happened. Ancient memory was a reference to the failed English regions as I'm sure you knew from reading but have misrepresented.

I'm not quite sure on the 'Scottish politics could have been more toxic' - the worst case would be that the system had failed, 35-50% of Scots were voting for Nationalist parties and demanding independence. Oh.