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:
And the latest bit of great news for Labour - Jeremy Corbyn's seat is going to be abolished (and not replaced) at the next election. Now I've got the mental image of Labour being reduced to third or fourth largest party after the next election, with Corbyn himself no longer being an MP, and yet still refusing to step down as party leader.

George Osborne's seat's apparently getting abolished as well, though rumours had been pointing to him and Cameron calling it quits at the next election anyway.
 
Well this keeps getting funner and funner.

Since his election back in 2010 Andrew Bridgen, MP for Leicestershire North West has been highly critical of Vaz. Now that the Mirror has provided an Opening he's been calling for a police investigation and a parliamentary inquiry into Vaz's conduct.

Vaz's response is to threaten to sue him.

Quel surprise.

In other news, Emily Thornberry's been crying SEXISM because she was challenged to name the French foreign secretary. Apparently pub-quizzing female MPs is sexist. Even though they do it to male MPs all the time.

Isn't her view the real sexist one though, because she's implying that women are delicate little flowers and women politicians because of this should be soft-soaped by journalists?
 
Quel surprise.

In other news, Emily Thornberry's been crying SEXISM because she was challenged to name the French foreign secretary. Apparently pub-quizzing female MPs is sexist. Even though they do it to male MPs all the time.

Isn't her view the real sexist one though, because she's implying that women are delicate little flowers and women politicians because of this should be soft-soaped by journalists?


This is the same woman who's actually an arisocrat (Lady Nugee) and tried to claim she was a Colonel in the army when she's a ceremonial Colonel and has about as much military authority as the toothbrush they use to make you clean the parade ground as punishment.
 
Quel surprise.

In other news, Emily Thornberry's been crying SEXISM because she was challenged to name the French foreign secretary. Apparently pub-quizzing female MPs is sexist. Even though they do it to male MPs all the time.

Isn't her view the real sexist one though, because she's implying that women are delicate little flowers and women politicians because of this should be soft-soaped by journalists?
People like her seem like they can't handle not being in control or questioned and whenever things get tricky cry bigotry so they can play moral arbiter and take over the conversation.

The sad thing is I don't think it's intentional they're just so obsessed with identity politics it trumps everything else they do.

Edit as to not double post:

The Private Eye exposes hypocrisy at the Guardian:
Last month editor Kath Viner emailed Guardian staff about her plan for more coverage of zero-hours contracts: “As projects such as our investigations into Sports Direct, Hermes and gangmasters demonstrate, this is a subject at the heart of our journalism. We are therefore looking for a work correspondent who will be able to write distinctively about work-related issues both inside and outside the workplace. Apply here…”

The casual vacancy
After completing long application forms, however, several in-house hacks were told they weren’t eligible: the post was “for Guardian staff only”.

Since they work at the Grauniad office and are on the payroll, with set hours and a title, they foolishly thought they were employed by the paper. But the recruiter explained that “by ‘Guardian staff’ I mean staff who are on a permanent or fixed-term contract”. The rebuffed applicants aren’t technically staff because they are on, er, zero-hours contracts.

There are over 100 hacks at the Guardian employed this way. These casuals are also forced to take a month’s unpaid leave every so often to stop them doing two years’ continuous service and thus gaining employment rights. In a splendid example of Grauniad humbug, the heavily pregnant editor of the paper’s “women in leadership” network was recently forced to leave with no maternity pay.

Last week’s announcement of an end to zero-hours contracts at Sports Direct means its casual staff actually have more employment rights than those at the Grauniad. Sounds like a perfect subject for the paper’s new work correspondent!

Some of their previous articles:
image.jpeg

image.jpeg
 
Last edited:
That's not going to happen ever. That seats a nice, safe conservative one. He's doing it for publicity.

Also corbyn has won the leadership contest by a comfortable majority.

Lol, Green Party.

Hilariously about the vote for Corbyn: Only 47% of the membership actually voted at all so I've been seeing people mockingly ask when Owen Smith will demand another vote for the leadership election because the majority of Labour members couldn't be arsed.

Like he's been doing for the EU referendum.
 
Lol, Green Party.

Hilariously about the vote for Corbyn: Only 47% of the membership actually voted at all so I've been seeing people mockingly ask when Owen Smith will demand another vote for the leadership election because the majority of Labour members couldn't be arsed.

Like he's been doing for the EU referendum.

Smith was so awesome when someone asked him about the Labour Voters who voted to leave. He responded with 'Actually 60% 0f Labour voters voted to Remain.'

Keep in mind that Smith also wanted a second referendum on Europe.

So he was going to alienate 40% of his electorate and expect to make it back by promising to borrow £200 billion to invest in the economy. He's so horrible that he made Jeremy Corbyn look fucking fantastic.
 
It's kind of odd how frequently that fact changes. I've heard it referred to as Labour members voting to Remain (No surprise considering how London's surge of Corbynistas warps the party's membership drastically.) Other times it's Labour Voters, which really doesn't sweep away the scale of the northern rout for Remain.

Basically anyone who knows the exact demographics for the EU vote don't exist.
 
It's kind of odd how frequently that fact changes. I've heard it referred to as Labour members voting to Remain (No surprise considering how London's surge of Corbynistas warps the party's membership drastically.) Other times it's Labour Voters, which really doesn't sweep away the scale of the northern rout for Remain.

Basically anyone who knows the exact demographics for the EU vote don't exist.

Whether or not Smith knew the exact details is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he guessed that 40% of his electorate turned their backs on his ideals and so he was willing to further alienate them.

What a colossal idiot.
 
An Israeli parliamentary correspondent saw his press pass revoked by Momentum just over an hour after it was approved. Jerry Lewis was granted accreditation to Momentum’s “The World Transformed” fringe event at the Labour Conference before they withdrew just 1 hour 22 minutes later when an email told him he had been approved by mistake.

A shocked Lewis shot an email back, asking for an explanation:

I am sure it has absolutely nothing to do with my application mentioning my broadcasting credentials for Israel Radio for whom I have been their UK correspondent for over 35 years, nor some of my other journalistic endeavour as the Jewish Telegraph’s Political and Diplomatic editor for a similar period, in which both capacities I shall be attending this week’s Labour Party conference for the thirty-sixth year in succession.
Momentum’s Joe Todd apologised and claimed, despite previously allocating one, that they had “run out of press passes” for the event; described as Momentum’s four day festival of politics, art, music and culture. Does anyone really believe that?
http://order-order.com/2016/09/26/momentum-withdraw-israeli-radio-journalist-press-accreditation/

I find this kind of thing a little concerning because it seems to be the same kind of way Jewish students were treated in student unions, they complained about harassment based on being Jewish so in response of it becoming so widespread it made the news and in one case it was so bad a university was forced to pay compensation they appointed a woman with a history of antisemitism who has since removed Jewish students ability to appoint a Jewish representative for their racism committee :
Even worse, in its final form the motion removed the ability of Jewish students to choose a representative on the Anti-Racism and Anti-Fascism committee (ARAF). The resolution passed, with a deciding vote from Bouattia herself, creating a situation where the ARAF committee is now appointed by the NEC of the NUS, rather than being chosen by students from the groups it is meant to represent. The Union of Jewish Students responded with a statement pointing out that it is now ‘down to NEC to elect the ARAF committee and therefore to decide on behalf of Jewish students who represents them. This decision is undemocratic and excludes the 8,500 Jewish students we represent. It was no surprise that the NUS president, Malia Bouattia, who had the deciding vote, once again showed that she has absolutely no interest in defending Jewish students’ interests by voting to remove the ability of Jewish students to shape for themselves the student movements’ fight against racism and fascism.’
And also:
She once described the University of Birmingham (a campus with a large Jewish community) as a ‘Zionist outpost’ and has complained about ‘mainstream Zionist-led media outlets’. She was also involved in the scrapping of an NUS motion to condemn ISIS. At NUS national conference this year, there was applause for speeches against a motion to commemorate the Holocaust.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...dents-again-malia-bouattia/18577#.V-nVQ-t4Wh-

These people remind me a lot like the members of Momentum who in response to claims of antisemitism had many members privately blame it on a Jewish/Zionist conspiracy but publically pretend to be concerned although in reality are working to remove Jewish people from having any power within Momentum/Labour.

If they are doing that now what would they be like if Corbyn became PM?
 
Last edited:
To be honest, Bouattia has been a great poster child for the reform if not abolishment of the NUS. Of the five universities which have held a disassociation vote this year four have voted to quit the NUS because of the union's increasingly batshit behaviour. Each uni (which includes pretty prestigious universities such as Lincoln and the Gold Medal Factory of Loughborogh) instead has now a local union only, which is working much closer to the faculty.

Even Oxford only narrowly survived the vote because the NUS had to hurl a lot of resources at it to keep it that way. Had Oxford gone independant it's likely Bouattia would've been ousted.
 
To be honest, Bouattia has been a great poster child for the reform if not abolishment of the NUS. Of the five universities which have held a disassociation vote this year four have voted to quit the NUS because of the union's increasingly batshit behaviour. Each uni (which includes pretty prestigious universities such as Lincoln and the Gold Medal Factory of Loughborogh) instead has now a local union only, which is working much closer to the faculty.

Even Oxford only narrowly survived the vote because the NUS had to hurl a lot of resources at it to keep it that way. Had Oxford gone independant it's likely Bouattia would've been ousted.

I think Exeter voted to stay with the NUS as well. But then Exeter is a little island of champagne socialism in the Land of Farmers, Cider, and Surfing, so... yeah. Everywhere else in Devon is robustly Tory. And Brexiteer Tory as well.

There's a really fucking annoying meme going round on Facebook at the moment about how if Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable, how did he get elected as Labour leader? I just want to find the originator of it, cuff them about the head and shoulders, and shout, "DEMOGRAPHICS! DEMOGRAPHICS! DEMOGRAPHICS!" into their face.
 
Well the only conference this year that matters, the Conservative Conference is now halfway done. Little on overt policy has been announced but what has been has been quite interesting:

  • Foreigners who break even "minor laws" could face up to 10 years being banned from the UK.

  • High Speed 2, the new high speed rail line between major UK cities is still going ahead.

  • UK to stop "importing" medical staff by 2020 by obligating all medical students educated in the UK to work for four years for the NHS, "same as army recruits" before they can work for anyone else.

  • MoD to sell off spare land to build new homes for military families.

  • First steel plating to be cut next week for the Trident's successor boats.

  • Exemption for all British service personnel from the Human Rights Act during warfare, ending millions of pounds wasted on legal defence, the money saved will go into mental health rehab for armed forces personnel

  • Brexit process to start by "no later" than March 2017. Putting the opening negotiation salvos right in the centre of the French and German elections, keeping two of the major players off balance.
 
Foreigners who break even "minor laws" could face up to 10 years being banned from the UK.

We'll see if they actually follow through with that or not. It sounds like virtue signalling to try and eat UKIP's lunch.

High Speed 2, the new high speed rail line between major UK cities is still going ahead.

Good. Hopefully it'll be done and done well. I suspect there might have to be some horse-trading with the Home Counties on that though - i.e. if you stop nimbying HS2, we'll support unbanning fox hunting.

UK to stop "importing" medical staff by 2020 by obligating all medical students educated in the UK to work for four years for the NHS, "same as army recruits" before they can work for anyone else.

Interesting point. But who's to say that well-off students won't go to medical school abroad and then parachute themselves into private practice here?

  • MoD to sell off spare land to build new homes for military families.
  • First steel plating to be cut next week for the Trident's successor boats.

Good on both points, but on the first, not good enough. There needs to be more homes built everywhere where possible.

Exemption for all British service personnel from the Human Rights Act during warfare, ending millions of pounds wasted on legal defence, the money saved will go into mental health rehab for armed forces personnel

I foresee caterwauling from the usual suspects about how this is encouraging troops to brutalise ordinary Iraqis and Afghans and whatever but I'm not sure it is; this doesn't mean we're pulling out the Geneva Conventions or suchlike.

Brexit process to start by "no later" than March 2017. Putting the opening negotiation salvos right in the centre of the French and German elections, keeping two of the major players off balance.

This is gonna be fun. Expect some Remaniac salt at that time...
 
Back
Top Bottom