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

  • 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:
The Labour Party's attempt to arbitrarily ban everyone who joined after the start of this year from voting in their upcoming leadership election has just been overturned by the courts. Now, this likely won't do anything to the outcome of the election, since all signs were that Corbyn would have won easily anyway. But what it does mean is that they're almost certainly going to have to refund the £25 they charged newer members for the right to vote in the leadership contest, meaning that even the one silver lining from the election (the £4m or so they earned from this charge) is going to turn into a not-insignificant loss.

That being said, they're not the only party having leadership troubles. UKIP have somehow gone from looking to have a real chance of smashing Labour into oblivion at the next election, to threatening to tear themselves apart because the favorite to succeed Nigel Farage left it too late to submit his application form.
 
The Labour Party's attempt to arbitrarily ban everyone who joined after the start of this year from voting in their upcoming leadership election has just been overturned by the courts. Now, this likely won't do anything to the outcome of the election, since all signs were that Corbyn would have won easily anyway.
Well it means nothing at the minute because Labour are appealing the decision anyway.
 
The Labour Party's attempt to arbitrarily ban everyone who joined after the start of this year from voting in their upcoming leadership election has just been overturned by the courts. Now, this likely won't do anything to the outcome of the election, since all signs were that Corbyn would have won easily anyway. But what it does mean is that they're almost certainly going to have to refund the £25 they charged newer members for the right to vote in the leadership contest, meaning that even the one silver lining from the election (the £4m or so they earned from this charge) is going to turn into a not-insignificant loss.

That being said, they're not the only party having leadership troubles. UKIP have somehow gone from looking to have a real chance of smashing Labour into oblivion at the next election, to threatening to tear themselves apart because the favorite to succeed Nigel Farage left it too late to submit his application form.

Woolfe also posted a picture proving he'd submitted his £5,000 application a good 25 minutes before the deadline and some very very convenient computer glitches meant that it didn't register until well after the 12 noon deadline. Members of the NEC also briefed out about a 14 year old driving offense that Wolfe committed too.

Basically there's some very strange NEC members who all want to back a party member nobody's heard of (some woman named Lisa Duffy) over the more well known faces of Stephen Woolfe and Diane James. To the point there's clearly conflicts of interest.

What is more likely to happen now to UKIP is the NEC will be either gutted or abolished completely allowing for a more direct membership election to take place; It's likely to be a James-Woolfe showdown, but there's also the argument that by either of them being in position of deputy they can appeal to voters on both sides of what used to be the political divide.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37057589

Labour appealed against the ruling, and won. 130k people unable to vote.

I'm sorry for being a dirty black American man (who at understands the importance of voting.), but shouldn't a political party want MORE PEOPLE voting for it? This seems like a dumb move that's only going to drive people against this party in the UK, someday.

Then again, I hear the party isn't doing well for itself to begin with, so this only adds to the spreading damage.
 
I'm sorry for being a dirty black American man (who at understands the importance of voting.), but shouldn't a political party want MORE PEOPLE voting for it? This seems like a dumb move that's only going to drive people against this party in the UK, someday.

Then again, I hear the party isn't doing well for itself to begin with, so this only adds to the spreading damage.
More people paying them £25 yes.
 
I'm sorry for being a dirty black American man (who at understands the importance of voting.), but shouldn't a political party want MORE PEOPLE voting for it?

Not when those people are delusional fuckwits who still refuse to acknowledge that Thatcher crushed and discredited the country's left-wing beyond any hope of ever recovering (albeit at the cost of leaving a toxic legacy for the right and subsequently forcing both parties nearer the middle) back in the 1980s.
 
I'm sorry for being a dirty black American man (who at understands the importance of voting.), but shouldn't a political party want MORE PEOPLE voting for it? This seems like a dumb move that's only going to drive people against this party in the UK, someday.

Then again, I hear the party isn't doing well for itself to begin with, so this only adds to the spreading damage.

Right now there's two factions within the Labour Party. Now, factions are nothing new and there's always bound to be such in any "broad church" political system such as the UKs and the USA.

The problem is that the factions basically boil down to 40 MPs, Jeremy Corbyn and the membership versus 171 Labour MPs, chunks of the party machinery and its more centrist members (who are currently in a minority).

It is largely believed the vast majority of the 130,000 members are Corbyn supporters ready to re-elect him again into the position of Leader. Indeed, Corbyn seems to stand on well over 50% of the polling for the party election and knowing the reliability of polling companies this is likely much much higher.

Corbyn is such a useless sack of wet tweed that most new members and members of the grassroots org Momentum merely project what they desire onto him, and Corbyn and his attack dog/gatekeeper Seamus Milne are exploiting this to the full.

It's not perfect, of course, the policy announcements soon become a fucking mess (still building the nuclear-capable subs to protect jobs and keep the unions happy but removing their primary weapon, the nuclear warheads, to keep the hippies happy). Labour MPs know they can't win the swing seats (and indeed seem to be losing them more and more) with Corbyn in power.

Of course, this isn't what the Momentumites want. They don't really want power, they just want to be able to chant "Tory Scum" in the House of Commons as a useless protest movement.
 
I'm sorry for being a dirty black American man (who at understands the importance of voting.), but shouldn't a political party want MORE PEOPLE voting for it? This seems like a dumb move that's only going to drive people against this party in the UK, someday.

Then again, I hear the party isn't doing well for itself to begin with, so this only adds to the spreading damage.
The thing to bear in mind is that it is not that long ago that labour was a Socialist and union based collectivist party whose moderate members were in favour of nationalisation of industry and whose left members were actual communists. As late as the 1990s they closed their meetings by singing the internationalist revolutionary song the Red Flag and addressed each other formally as Comrade.

Throughout the 1980s the party fought a civil war to expel the revolutionary element (often referred to as the Trots) and become electable. During the early part of this struggle the left led by Michel Foot succeeded in briefly taking control of the party and putting forward a program of mass nationalisation, heavy tax on the rich, strong union laws and nuclear disarmament only to suffer the greatest defeat in the parties history. If these sound familiar it is because corbyn got his start under Foot and the current policies are almost identical to the '79 manifesto but with mass immigration and diversity thrown in for good measure.

The trots then were characterized as a small core of radical demagogues who whipped up frenzies in the working class in the hope of sparking revolution- piggybacking onto more powerful groups like unions or the parties to push hard left doctrines about class conflict and ownership of the means of production. Corbyn was part of a faction called the Bennites who believed there was no such thing as an enemy on the left and that radical socialism would solve all the working mans problems. this made them 'useful idiots' to use the old soviet term.

Corbyn ruined his career in the moderate party by being involved in two failed coup attempts against party leader and reformer Neil Kinnock in the 80s.

many hard left types felt abandoned after labour moved to the centre under blair, Corbyn plays to this crowd of old school socialists and new identity politics types looking for a party of student radical politics- what he refuses to acknowledge is that these policies have always been a disaster with the electorate. With labour having lost 4 million votes to ukip, moving to the left and focussing on open borders will not win them back, following the financial crash borrow to spend is no longer acceptable to the electorate (see miliband's defeat) and neither will increasing taxes attract the centre middle class vote. Corbyn can attract large rallies but so could Foot- like foot he will find his support in concentrated in a few heavily union seats and a handful of university/immigrant inner city seats- not enough to counter the rural and middle england town based conservative vote.

the 130,000 members are young voters with no grasp of politics beyond student politics and highly vulnerable to trots whipping them up into hysteria- the party knows this and it knows if they vote corbyn will win and if corbyn wins he will be crushed. exactly as happened with Foot.

of course pointing out to corbyn supporters that he is trailing Miliband in the polls never mind May or that the uk has not voted socialist since the 70s or any other metric of the mans utter disconnect with the wider electorate and they will point to his rallies and call you a red tory.

130 000 new members is no good if those members are the leftist university fringe of the uk and going to drag the party away from the centre and any chance at government.
 
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of Labour's new members were Tories deliberately trying to get Corbyn elected. He's like a man who thinks that the best way to stop a ship from sinking is to put some bigger holes in the hull so the water can get out.
 
aF6wmPi.png

I find this hilarious for some reason.
 
As a Labour member, this leadership contest between Jeremy 'Hamas are my buddies' Corbyn and Owen 'Who the fuck are you?' Smith, depresses me to no end. Jones himself describes himself as being 'as radical as Corbyn' which in normal speak means that he'll be crushed in any general election. I will not be voting in this leadership election (Even if I am eventually allowed to) and I fully intend to sit and watch them burn until they finally figure out that people will no longer accept such extreme and partisan positions in this country.

But what would I know about basic economics and electoral facts....according to Momentum I'm clearly one of those filthy Blairite Counter-Revolutionaries who won't support Comrade Corbyn.

But I'll wait. The pendulum always swings and in fifteen years or so Labour might just be able to figure out what people on these autistic as fuck forums have already figured out. Who knows, maybe I'll end up being the next Tony Blair?

On second thoughts, I'll just keep telling Chris to kill himself like a good little Kiwi.
 
Last edited:
Isn't Owen Jones a columnist for the Graun?

Fuck my life, you're right. Sorry it's Owen SMITH who I'm talking about lol. That's how forgettable he is.

EDIT: Fuck me again, in my correction I still called him 'Owen Jones' This guy is literally so boring.
 
Last edited:
I have nothing against Corbyn on a personal level (barring disagreements on certain political points) but if the best that the Blairite side can offer is Owen Smith and Angela Eagle, are you surprised when Corbyn gets 100k's of votes?
 
The thing that's perhaps so gauling about all these socialist leading lights is the rank hypocrisy. We can talk about the Bennites, lead by Tony Benn who was a heredity Peer and had millions in the bank. Or Jeremy Corbyn, who's family home is worth some £2.5m. Yet they cheerfully propose banning or changing things that would yank the ladder up behind them.

It fucking says something when the last truly working class leader of Labour was Harry Perkins and he has the slight dint of being a fucking fictional character.
 
I have nothing against Corbyn on a personal level (barring disagreements on certain political points) but if the best that the Blairite side can offer is Owen Smith and Angela Eagle, are you surprised when Corbyn gets 100k's of votes?
I think identity politics is ruining the Labour party right now, none of them are even willing to speak up about the anti-semitism problem due to Islam being perceived as the more "Oppressed" group, they also just turn a blind eye to gender segregated Labour rallies and then you get the likes of Angela Eagle who thought being a woman somehow made her more eligible for the leadership role, there's a lot of self entitlement going on.

It makes me worry if they got back into power they'd go back to being in denial about Rotherham council style scandals since it doesn't fit their political narrative.
 
I think identity politics is ruining the Labour party right now, none of them are even willing to speak up about the anti-semitism problem due to Islam being perceived as the more "Oppressed" group, they also just turn a blind eye to gender segregated Labour rallies and then you get the likes of Angela Eagle who thought being a woman somehow made her more eligible for the leadership role, there's a lot of self entitlement going on.

It makes me worry if they got back into power they'd go back to being in denial about Rotherham council style scandals since it doesn't fit their political narrative.
The whole case involving the Jew vs Islam feud in Labour is basically the old established donor faction going against the newly arrived (in last 25 years) voting block. Taking either side is extremely risky, which is why Corbyn keeps his mouth shut, and I can't blame him as I would likely do the exact same thing.

Identity politics is ruining a lot of European left-parties, along with basically allowing the far-right to rise. If you let the cases like Rotherham and Rochdale and Cologne continue to happen, you will end up in a equivalent of a race war. I don't even mean that in a alarmist or MUH 14 WORDS kind of way, I mean that in the timebomb that is being allowed to fester here in the current geopolitics. If people don't think their law enforcement is acting on their behalf, Americans will remember Koreatown back in the LA 92 riots.
 
Well holy crap

One of the most powerful MPs in the country who has run the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the most powerful committee's in parliament has been doing coke and buying Eastern Euro rent boys.

Considering Vaz's own moralizing against the Press it's kind of hilarious seeing them take him down and out.
 
Back
Top Bottom