UK Politics General - Speakers, Whips and a Black Rod.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Given the interest in the EU referendum thread I feel a thread on UK politics generally might be appreciated.

The United Kingdom has a complex constitution contained not in one codified document but a byzantine mix of informal conventions, traditions and customs. Accordingly while i will give a general outline here and will explain the major roles there are various ceremonial, dormant and honorary titles i will not cover such as the Lord High Steward, Royal Champion, Knight Marischal, Black Knight etc.

I am also not going to explain how the military interacts with the crown and parliament beyond saying that by convention military does not comment on civil politics and this is generally kept to.

I am not going to comment on the relationship with those territories like the Isle of Mann or Guernsey which are outside the UK but under the crown.

The uk consists of a tiered series of bodies- at the pinnacle is the crown-in-parliament at westminster, below these is the devolved parliament of scotland and then the regional assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland, below these are the mayoral cities and then at the smallest level the Local Authorities (councils)

The mother of parliaments remains the federal and supreme body of governance and legislature in the United Kingdom. Before 2011 it was also the supreme court.

The parliament consists or 3 parts- the ceremonial(ish) crown, the house of commons and the house of Lords. The general structure if a bill is thus: it is put before the commons sent to the lords who ammend and approve or dispute it, it returns to the commons for final reading and changes and the sent to the lords if they rejected it or to the queen for royal assent if the lords have already passed it. By convention the queen does not withold consent.

The upper house- The House of Lords has no fixed size. In the past it was made up of the peers of the realm- roughly 81 of the most powerful nobles. From 1702 it expanded to include several hundred aristocrats however as it grew in size it lost political power. For the past 100 years it has been reduced to ammendments to legislation, preventing abuse of the constitution and is unable to permanently veto bills or touch finance bills. It retains the power to reject a bill for 2 years twice, effectively meaning a gov must always have won a general election with a clear manifesto mandate before passing highly controversial legislation. By convention the lords did not vote down bills included in a manifesto of a majority government. With the changes to selection (see below) this is no longer the case.

The house of lords formerly contained a committee of non voting 'law lords' who were the uks highest court. This was split off in 2008-10 to form the UK Supreme court. A cosmetic change to reflect the reality of practice.

The lords are appointed by the crown on the advice of the prime minister and appointments committee. By convention the advice is always followed. Before the reforms hereditary peers all had a right to sit however now they elect 80 odd members to sit. 20 odd bishops of the church of england also have the right to sit. The reduction of the right to sit means that where the house was formerly dominated by hereditary earls and dukes it now is mostly populated by appointed Baron life peers, whose peerage and title are not inherited. Peers sit for life.

As a consequence of needing to control the HoL and the fact that sitting is a privilege and not a right which many peers do not actually use it is swollen in size to 800 members down from its 1999 peak of 1200. There are rarely that many actually in house.

The house is moderated by the Lord Speaker who they elect from the house and who cuts ties with their previous party on assuming the role. The Lord Speaker only votes on ties. The Leader of the House is the cabinet position of the leader of the governments faction of lords and allocates time to debate the legislation that reaches the lords from the commons.

The benches are divided into three groups- the government, the opposition and those lords who have no political alignment.

Most appointees are former senior politicians, businessmen, civil service or armed forces heads or other 'notables'

The house of commons although technically the lower house is the more powerful chamber. Members are elected to seats for 5 year terms. By convention the government is drawn from the party that commands a majority from the commons. There are two divisions- Government and opposition. The commons is the source of legislature and committees which draft legislation to be debated. The most notable offices of the house (as opposed to government) are:

the speaker- the moderator of the house, elected from mps and cuts tues with their party on assuming the role. Before the creation of the office of prime minister in the early 1690s this was the most powerful position in the house.
The leader of the commons- an old office that has changed a great deal over the centuries. Currently they set the timetable for debate.

Security in both houses is administered by an official referred to as Black Rod, by convention a decorated general who took early retirement. Both houses have a period set aside each weak where the government takes questions from the house. Ministers are subject to the oversight of their house.

As mentioned above the government is drawn from the majority party of the house of commons. The leader of this party becomes the Prime Minister. The prime minister appoints members of either the lords or commons to head up various branches of the civil service. These individuals form a council ferred to as the cabinet. By convention the PM is always from the commons. These positions can be termed either 'minister of X' or 'secretary of state for X' depending on the office. Each is twinned to a professional civil servant called the 'under secretary of x'. Some roles such as the 'Chancellor of the exchequer' who runs the treasury have unique titles. The structure of the civil service and cabinet are not fixed and can be varied between terms with departments split, merged and renamed. The cabinet sits on the front benches and members without government positions are referred to as back benchers.

The largest opposition party (in the commons) forms Her Majesties Loyal Opposition and appoints a shadow cabinet whose jobs are to monitor, hound and question their govmt opposites. The shadow cabinet represents an alternate government and so does not,irror exactly the gov- positions which are merged in one are separated in the other and new minor postions may exist- the shadow minister for mental health has no gov equivalent atm as an example. The three most powerful offices are the treasury, foreign office and home office with health and education following close behind.

While only the largest party forms the official opposition all opposition parties are expected to form a shadow cabinet and so the frontbench of the opposition contains multiple parties.

Discipline is enforced by the whip system whereby appointed officials within a party keep dirt on mps and make sure they turn up and vote with the party on key issues. Where mps cannot make it into parliament whips from gov and opposition liase to match up missing mps so neither side is unfairly disadvantaged. Where a mp has died en route to a vote whips on the opposing side will remove a corresponding vote where a motion is close. Various bills mandate varying levels of discipline- a three line whip being most severe. A single line whip means members can vote as they wish and a two line whip means members should speak to the whip before not voting, normally the whip will agree provided the vote is not close/an opposite mp can be matched who is also not voting. Defying a three line whip means expulsion from the party or withdrawal of the whip- ie all party support is withdrawn and the mp becomes isolated.

By convention cabinet members resign before defying the whip. They are never expelled or punished for doing so. The chief whip of the gov is a cabinet position.

Whips are always sitting mps.
I'll give a brief summary of the political landscape as it stands at westminster. For the record in the past decade i have voted for every major party except the lib dems.

The current government- the conservatives:
One of the two ancient parties the tories have been in power more than any other party this century.
Centre right,
Individualistic- favouring part privatisation of state assets and individual rights,
Widely blamed for the deindustrialisation in the 80s but also for rejuvenating the economy and curbing ridiculous unions. The destruction of the unions and heavy industry earned them hatred in scotland and the north of england that has never really dissipated.
Often accused of being in the palm of big business.
Changes to the education and benefits system in the last parliament considered incompetent.
The party has suffered splits over the eu since 1989 and these led to the recent referendum. All three of the last tory pms went out of office at least in part due to infighting about the eu.
The party often pledges to reduce immigration. So far it has never managed.
The tories won the last election despite the polls indicating a hung parliament.
The party is popular in the rich south of england and the wealthy rural areas.
The party is in favour of greatly reducing benefits and of withdrawing from the echr and writing a new, reduced, human rights act.

The players to watch in their leadership election are: Boris Johnston, former London Mayor, Theresa May the home secretary.

Michael Gove the Lord Chancellor is an outside bet following his success in the leave campaign, tainted by his poor tenure as education secretary.

The Chancellor George Osborne ruined his chance by losing his temper and threatening a punishment budget if the uk voted to leave. If he can recover the £ he might gain it back.

The Opposition- the labour party.
Formerly the political arm of the unions the second major party of the post war era labour was the party that founded the welfare state.
Originally socialist the parties socialist economics lead to disaster in the winter of 1979 when strikes brought down its government.
The party always contained 'moderates' who in the 80s split to from the lib dems (see below)
In the early 80s a leader called Foot led a lurch to the left that led to their biggest ever defeat.
Over the next 17 years the party drifted to the centre until by the time of blairs election in 1997 they were a centre party.

New Labour were characterised by:
Low regulation
High immigration
Multiculturalism
In favour of the eu
Reducing child poverty
Devolution
Expanding the welfare systems
The war in iraq and banking clash rendered new labour toxic. The party was further tainted by its local councils covering up muslim child rape gangs under fears of provoking racism.

Under a leader called milliband it refused to apologise for past mistakes made re immigration, to offer a eu referendum, to limit immigration ot to accept responsibility for excessive deregulation.

Following their defeat the party lurched left under leader jeremy corbyn whose election was a sanders esque revolt against larty establishment. Corbyn is a socialist hangover from old labour and a protege of Foot. He returned to the policies of 1979 and while very popular with the party membership is widely unpopular with mps who see him as a liability.

Today 21/28 shadow cabinet ministers resigned in protest to his handling of the referendum.

The broad gist of old labour policies is:
Nationalisation
Strong union laws
immigration
Anti eu
Anti nuclear
Heavy regulation
A large welfare state

After campaigning for those issues in defiance of the whip for 30 years the corbyn policy group is something like this:
Nationalisation
Strong union laws
Open Immigration
Pro eu
Anti nuclear
Large welfare state
Tax on the rich
Tax on property

At this point its hard to say who could replace corbyn. If there is no election a split seems likely. His support amongst the party members means he would probably win one in the event of a contest watch: Chucka umma, dan jarvis, yvette cooper, hilary benn, stephen kinnock and gisela stuart. If corbyn does not run watch frank fields and john mcdonnel as well.

Labour have traditionally done well with migrants, urban areas, scotland and the north of england. Their vote in scotland collapsed to the snp after campaigning against independence.

The lib dems

The atrophied whig party the liberals were boosted by the merger with breakaway moderate labour in the 1980s.

They were the junior partners in a coalition in 2010-2015 where after running on a centre left platform they implemented centre right policies. Most infamously promising to end tuition fees before trebling them.
They were eviscerated in 2015 and reduced from third party to fourth.
Their policies have shifted over the years but are normally socially liberal, focussing on individual freedoms. Previously popular in the rural south west of england and rural scotland.
Their vote showed a glimmer of recovery in the recent local elections.

Ukip-
The party of nigel farage is a right wing party focussing on british nationalism and appealing to the working class, despite gaining 4 million votes they only have a single seat.
The party pressured cameron into offering a referendum after defeating tories in bye elections.

In 2015 it took a great many votes from northern labour seats and stands ready to take them if labour continue to remain pro eu in these strongly leave areas.

The snp- the supposedly socialist scottish national party has held power in scotland for the past decade. Ill go into them in detail when i describe scotland's politics but enough to say they swept scotland at the last election and are basically new labour in a kilt and waving a red flag.

It is likely the new conservative pm will trigger an election so he has a mandate for negotiating as gordon brown was severely criticised for not doing so when he took over from blair

That'll do for now, ill detail the devolved legislatures and their political climates at a later date.
 
Last edited:
But it's like that because most of the people voting against the Tories mostly or out of habit. These are the people whom were alive in the Thatcher years and they're shrinking in number every election - obviously.
this is key i think- a lot of the safe labour areas are like that because they are either-

migrants- who become less loyal as they integrate and pandering to whom alienates locals.
areas that suffered under thatcher - as you say collective memory of the 70s/80s fades each election. We have seen in scotland what happens when the tribal loyalty breaks.

this is like something from the thick of it- corbyn on letting the press into the shadow cabinet where he was to defend his leadership:

 
Labour is finished mate, or at-least I think so as HM Opposition by the next election. They've lost Scotland and I reckon that they will lose the North East as-well.

Corbyn and his Momentum crew are, I'd suspect, the same type of affluent bourgeois that most SJW's are. They are not the Labour base. I'm from Middlesbrough, which is all Labour and has been for decades. But it's like that because most of the people voting against the Tories mostly or out of habit. These are the people whom were alive in the Thatcher years and they're shrinking in number every election - obviously.

I reckon UKIP could hoover up seats in the North-East on the Brexit wave and some anti-immigrant rhetoric, if my "lived-experiences" are anything to go by it would work. These people may by economically left, but they are culturally conservative. Corbyn showing up to WW2 Memorial's without a tie, not singing the anthem and the rest of his hippy act does not gel with them at-all.

I reckon, next election, we're going to the Labour vote split between them and UKIP and Labour will finally transition into the UK's SJW party and move down South. We'll be looking at a strong Conservative Party, with UKIP, SNP and Labour taking up the rest of GB's seats.

Tbf there's always a chance labour could right the ship in time. At least the parliamentary party knows this in whatever limited fashion they're capable of.

This just leaked from sky news.

http://news.sky.com/story/1719331/goves-wife-raises-johnson-leadership-concerns
Gove's Wife Raises Johnson Leadership Concerns

An email sent to Michael Gove by his wife reveals concerns about the support Boris Johnson has in the party and the media.

The email, which was also sent to the Justice Secretary's aides, was passed to Sky News.

In the message Sarah Vine urges Mr Gove to seek specific assurances about his role in any Cabinet led by Mr Johnson before offering his support for any run for the leadership.

It reads: "Very important that we focus on the individual obstacles and thoroughly overcome them before moving to the next. I really think Michael needs to have a Henry or a Beth (Mr Gove's media advisers) with him for this morning's crucial meetings.

"One simple message: You MUST have SPECIFIC assurances from Boris OTHERWISE you cannot guarantee your support. The details can be worked out later on, but without that you have no leverage.

"Crucially, the membership will not have the necessary reassurance to back Boris, neither will (Daily Mail editor Paul) Dacre/(Rupert) Murdoch, who instinctively dislike Boris but trust your ability enough to support a Boris Gove ticket.

"Do not concede any ground. Be your stubborn best.

"GOOD LUCK."

A spokesman for Mr Gove told Sky News: "We don't comment on private email exchanges or conversations."

A source close to Mr Gove said that a member of the public was accidentally copied into this email, which was her personal opinion.

They added: "Obviously Boris and Michael have had many discussions about how the campaign will proceed".

Sky News Political Correspondent Darren McCaffrey said: "(The email) trolls up some interesting stuff - essentially that Michael Gove mightn't necessarily be 100% behind Boris Johnson - that he had outstanding questions, or that he did yesterday."

Choice quote
"Crucially, the membership will not have the necessary reassurance to back Boris, neither will (Daily Mail editor Paul) Dacre/(Rupert) Murdoch, who instinctively dislike Boris but trust your ability enough to support a Boris Gove ticket.
 
Tbf there's always a chance labour could right the ship in time. At least the parliamentary party knows this in whatever limited fashion they're capable of.

I'm not even sure if I care whether they do or not tbh. They haven't done much to save Teesside, maybe it was inevitable but things are getting really bad there and allowing Labour to take our vote for granted hasn't made anything better. When I think of my uncles, now redundant from British Steel bitching about the Pakis and the kind of people whom joined the party, en-masse, to elect Corbyn I don't know if we're on the same side.

Admittedly I was one of those people myself, but I did it purely because I thought Corbyn could be controlled and I've never been ion any majority when it comes to political opinion.

The whole thing is a farce and I think we're going to see a lot more purple up north by the time the nation goes to the polls again.
 
Friend who works for the libdems says party reg is up, so assuming that's accurate they could swing something, I doubt it, but they might pull from the people too lefty for UKIP who have fallen out with the main parties.
 
Friend who works for the libdems says party reg is up, so assuming that's accurate they could swing something, I doubt it, but they might pull from the people too lefty for UKIP who have fallen out with the main parties.

The Lib Dems intend to run as a party that will keep the UK in the EU. Which is all very well and good, until you realise that that would undo all of the work that would have to be put in to take us out of Europe to begin with. I highly doubt they'll make too much of an impact.
 
Having been up Newcastle during the Independence Weekend in which we were all still sort of staggering about unsure what the hell we were doing I can say with a level of certainty that UKIP is coming. Provided it plays it smart.

The biggest problem with a lot of new parties is they try and fight nationally before they can fight regionally. This is why parties like the Greens and even UKIP can hoover up votes nationally but translate them into nothing in Parliament.

However, at the last two elections UKIP adopted a double strategy, this actually translated into an internal divide and debate within the party. These two strategies are called "Blue UKIP" and "Red UKIP".

Blue UKIP was to try and be a "proper conservative party" but this strategy largely had its guns spiked by the change in attitude of how Tory MPs were selected.

They were generally elected by things such as open primaries in which anyone was invited along to vote (some of whom were elected by thousands of voters before going on to win the seats). This is because the Tory Party is a ruthless survivor and thanks to its more individualistic nature, tends to adapt very quickly.

This is why the Tory Leadership election is currently such non-news in the UK. It's simply what they do and whoever wins is going to have the party swing behind them because it's just what they do (aside from a few curmudgeonly holdouts). The referendum also finally lays to rest the ghost of the 90s civil war.

Red UKIP is to be socially conservative on law and order but rather left wing on economic issues. This was the main strategy played with during the 2015 election in particular (largely under Paul Nuttal's guidance). This resulted in a list of 43 seats in which they came second to Labour, around half of which they came within a few thousand votes.

One such "victim" of the Red UKIP strategy was Morely and Outwood, which unseated Ed Balls, the then Shadow Chancellor under Ed Miliband and put in a Tory Rival that barely had any campaign money spent on her.

Provided Red UKIP is the strategy formed and they focus on their core areas of Kent/Essex and the North only; Then UKIP could see a large number of seats swing their way. This would give them a power base from which to launch forays into the 106 seats that actually matter. The English Midlands. UKIP may still fight nationally, but if their resources became focused onto the seats that are seemingly more vulnerable (namely the Labour Heartlands) then we're about to see a new Party rise and another die.

Fascinating era to live in.
 
Having been up Newcastle during the Independence Weekend in which we were all still sort of staggering about unsure what the hell we were doing I can say with a level of certainty that UKIP is coming. Provided it plays it smart.

The biggest problem with a lot of new parties is they try and fight nationally before they can fight regionally. This is why parties like the Greens and even UKIP can hoover up votes nationally but translate them into nothing in Parliament.

And the unfortunate result is that the parties that do have regional success are generally premised on nationalism and therefore can't turn their local power into anything UK-wide, e.g. SNP.
 
The big danger for UKIP is that once the Brexit's complete, their supporters deem it "mission accomplished" and either go back to Labour or Lib-Dem, or (probably more likely) don't bother voting in 2020. They do have a nice opportunity now, but it'll require developing from a loose conglomeration of people who hate the EU into a more ideologically coherent party.

In other news, Johnson's leadership bid might actually be in some trouble now; Michael Gove has terminated their alliance and launched his own bid.
 
In a surprise move, Gove has announced his leadership bid!

He also took the opportunity to stab Johnson in the back. He said

I respect and admire all the candidates running for the leadership. In particular, I wanted to help build a team behind Boris Johnson so that a politician who argued for leaving the European Union could lead us to a better future.

But I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead.

twitterfeed.png


twitterfeed2.png


twitterfeed3.png


:popcorn:

torycivilwar3.png
torycivilwar2.png


Looks like the Tory civil war is on.
 
When I think of my uncles, now redundant from British Steel
That's got bugger all to do with 'the pakis', and everything to do with the fact that our steel industry was forty years behind everyone else. I know people who work in high-end manufacturing, and British steel has been regarded as being absolute dogshit for decades - they've always bought from abroad because it's significantly higher quality.
 
Or.... not. Nadine is a firebrand MP. With the sudden storming away from Boris the membership will be dissapointed but will they not forgive a Great Tory reformer like Gove?

He's more popular among grassroots and the wider public as a "true" Brexit candidate he's able to draw in more talent than folks realise. He acquitted himself excellently on two widely televised debates (Sky news and BBC).

People bandied about a Boris/Gove ticket, but instead perhaps Boris should seriously consider a Gove/Boris ticket instead. He'd still be able to reach deep into voting blocks that are averse to Tory candidates while Gove could represent a powerful, highly intelligent and at times ruthless prime minister.

As much as I would love Boris as PM, I kind of find myself agreeing with May and Gove. We don't need a showman. Not just yet. Four years of a solid, intelligent man who can set up the system ready for a showman however... different matter entirely.
 
What in the actual fuck. That was... unexpected. Okay, his job would have been harder having to face Gove, but I didn't think he'd give up without a fight!
 
I think it's because he didn't have the backing of Murdoch and the like (Gove did). Boris didn't want an uphill fight against the press.

He came all this way and got nothing. :story:

gove.png


Meanwhile JC decided to say this nonsense.

The Guardian.png
 
Boris taking the shock step back makes a lot of sense. Too many other MPs were uniting to go up against him (with Hunt, Morgan and others rumoured to run just to try and go up against Boris) this would extend the leadership campaign a lot longer than the Political atmosphere seems to be able to afford.

By stepping back he can also write his own meal ticket with whoever wins the contest. Excluding BoJo from a Brexit cabinet would be very very stupid.

Of the actual slug out that will be put before the members? I'm going to say May (because she's making all the right noises as a figure of compromise) and Leadsom. Gove will do well initially but I think he will lose out to Leadsom of all people.
 
What about crabb? He would be an excellent majoresque ordinary boy to capitalise on the brexit c2des and foil just about any lab candidate.
 
Corbyn just compared the State of Israel with ISIS.

Tories getting elected is gonna be easier than Hillary lying about something
 
Another day, another BOE statement about easing. The markets cant get enough.

20160630_BISBULL.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom