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

Yeah, a lot of political chatter says exactly this. With the UKBA still being a shambolic organization everyone picked up on the "could" in Rudd's speech.

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.

The HS2 opposition argument keeps weakening when it's pointed out about 70% of HS2 runs on the disused trackbed of the Great Central Railway, strategic economics will trump NIMBYism, but I suspect it will take more than fox hunting.

Someone recently pointed out for an extra £2bn you could put the entire line in a tunnel.

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?

In short? Nothing. But how many would go through the inconvenience when they're guaranteed sharp end experience?

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

This was announced by Sajid David, but it's the same announcement made every year since Brown. 250,000 homes a year which has never been met by any damn one. The worrying aspect was that he seemed to hint towards a relaxation of the laws regarding the Green Belt, rather than a desire to eat up more brownfield sites. (There's a massive one near me that's been barely scratched)



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.

Oh it got better: They're banning No Win No Fee lawyers from taking on such cases as well.



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

That's fine. Anna Sozzledberry has already been doing that sort of weird shit.
 
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.

At least this is entirely reasonable. If you're a guest in a country you should be aware you're to be on your best behavior, and if not, why should the host country put up with any more of your shit?
 
Somehow, things have gone completely to shit for UKIP in the last 48 hours. A couple of days ago the new leader, Diane James resigned due to a combination of her husband's illness, public abuse by Labour supporters, and her just never really wanting the job in the first place. Not only that, but she even put a mark on her leadership acceptance form that indicated she was signing it under duress, meaning the forms aren't legally valid, and the party's leadership has temporarily reverted to Nigel Farage.

Today has not only seen UKIP's top donor publicly saying that the party has fallen apart since the EU referendum, but Stephen Woolfe admitting that he was on the verge of defecting to the Tories before James's resignation. And now Woolfe has apparently been rushed to hospital after suffering a severe head injury in a fight with some other UKIP MEPs.
 
Today has not only seen UKIP's top donor publicly saying that the party has fallen apart since the EU referendum, but Stephen Woolfe admitting that he was on the verge of defecting to the Tories before James's resignation. And now Woolfe has apparently been rushed to hospital after suffering a severe head injury in a fight with some other UKIP MEPs.

Tbh they don't need to exist anymore. They achieved their goals. It makes more sense that the party would come apart at the seams now due to a lack of vision post brexit. Plus Farage was ukip essentially. Nobody can replace that lovable fish face.
 
Tbh they don't need to exist anymore. They achieved their goals. It makes more sense that the party would come apart at the seams now due to a lack of vision post brexit. Plus Farage was ukip essentially. Nobody can replace that lovable fish face.

I always used to make the joke that every UKIP candidate would photograph themselves shaking Farage's hand because he was the only one with any charisma in the party.
 
Former Civil Rights campaigner Shami Chakrabati, who had dodgily produced a whitewash antisemitism report (Conclusion: The Whole Country is antisemitic and its totally not a left wing thing guise) who then went on immediately after to be given a peerage and membership to the Labour Party then made Shadow Attourney General (All within four fucking months) is hitting out at the idea of the government bringing back Grammar Schools and state-funded selective education.

Only thing is she sends her son to Dulwich College, an £18,000 a year private school which only offers places by... selection.

Aka "One rule for me, and go fuck yourself plebs. VOTE LABOUR!"
 
Shami Chakrabati,

I've been a life long Labour supporter, but her getting appointed to any position has killed that for me it was on the fence before with the whole lack luster policy's and the way St. Jeremy has been running the party for the last few years but him appointing that self aggrandizing, duplicitous moron to the shadow cabinet is forcing me to take my vote elsewhere.
 
I've been a life long Labour supporter, but her getting appointed to any position has killed that for me it was on the fence before with the whole lack luster policy's and the way St. Jeremy has been running the party for the last few years but him appointing that self aggrandizing, duplicitous moron to the shadow cabinet is forcing me to take my vote elsewhere.

When I was a student I used to think she was one of the good guys. She rightly criticised the expansion of police powers in the name of anti-terror legislation under Blair and Brown (90 day detention etc.) and the creation under same of over 3,000 new criminal offences and an expansion of anti-social behaviour legislation but it seems that this was just a stopped clock moment for her. She's a nest featherer like all the others.
 
The sheer scale of the hypocrisy and its exposure makes me honestly wonder who the fuck would still vote Labour. I mean, we had the dodgy as hell quitting peerage list of Cameron's but that was kind of expected and none of them produced a laughably obvious cover up report.
 
The sheer scale of the hypocrisy and its exposure makes me honestly wonder who the fuck would still vote Labour. I mean, we had the dodgy as hell quitting peerage list of Cameron's but that was kind of expected and none of them produced a laughably obvious cover up report.

One of my personal lolcows (the superannuated she-hippie) and her many friends / asspatters on Facebook. This is because they believe that the non-Corbynista wing of the party are all "Red Tories" and in the pay of (((THEM))) just like Theresa May, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the entirety of the mainstream media, etc.

These people are also all pro-disease (which is what I'm calling all anti-vaxxers from now on), pro-alternative medicine, believe cannabis cures cancer and AIDS, believe chemtrails are a thing.

In a way Corbyn is also a bad thing for the Tories because now there'll be no real opposition to every Colonel Bufton Tufton type raising a song and dance from the back benches and shitting up any coherent policy with bringing back flogging and suchlike.
 
The tories have opened up a massive 17 point lead over labour according to this poll

It doesn't surprise me. All they do anymore is fling shit at each other and look incompetent.
 
The tories have opened up a massive 17 point lead over labour according to this poll

It doesn't surprise me. All they do anymore is fling shit at each other and look incompetent.

This would produce a majority of 114. That's before boundary changes are likely to hand another 20 or so seats to the conservatives.

This would be a good time for May to consider it, but she's in full blown "Nation's Interest" mode right now and the instability of an election wouldn't help. However, should Parliament continue to try and obfuscate the largest single democratic decision ever undertaken by the UK public... it would be a good idea to gun for it, local associations would much more carefully vet candidates for their Brexit credentials and woe betide anyone going against the grain.

It has been kind of fun watching the liberal elite rage and rage and then wonder why their poll ratings are dying.
 
I'm quite interested, being a lawyer and all that, about this Brexit judicial review.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37704117

Seems to me it's a footbullet for the applicants if I'm honest. All the Remoaners get if they are successful is a declaration that invoking Article 50 requires a Parliamentary vote, and I can't see that going against the outcome of the referendum on the basis that it would be the biggest boost for UKIP imaginable and the electoral carnage would be colossal.

I think they are right that the final settlement will require Parliamentary ratification because it would require a further treaty to actually give effect to Brexit but invoking Article 50 doesn't mean that rights of constitutional standing will be of necessity affected; separate agreements concerning the free movement of UK citizens within Europe and the rights of UK citizens to work in Europe etc. could well preserve what is in the EU treaties. All Article 50 does is commence the process of a country leaving the EU; the terms of that leaving are agreed between the parties.

I'm thinking that on reflection the JR shouldn't succeed.
 
I'm quite interested, being a lawyer and all that, about this Brexit judicial review.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37704117

Seems to me it's a footbullet for the applicants if I'm honest. All the Remoaners get if they are successful is a declaration that invoking Article 50 requires a Parliamentary vote, and I can't see that going against the outcome of the referendum on the basis that it would be the biggest boost for UKIP imaginable and the electoral carnage would be colossal.

That might be the case, if UKIP didn't seem so hell-bent on destroying themselves right now. The former leadership favorite has bailed out on the party for good, Nigel Farage is apparently threatening to do the same if a new leader isn't in place by the end of next month, and rumors are swirling about the party's main donor getting ready to call in his loans, which could push them over the brink.
 
I'm quite interested, being a lawyer and all that, about this Brexit judicial review.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37704117

Seems to me it's a footbullet for the applicants if I'm honest. All the Remoaners get if they are successful is a declaration that invoking Article 50 requires a Parliamentary vote, and I can't see that going against the outcome of the referendum on the basis that it would be the biggest boost for UKIP imaginable and the electoral carnage would be colossal.

I think they are right that the final settlement will require Parliamentary ratification because it would require a further treaty to actually give effect to Brexit but invoking Article 50 doesn't mean that rights of constitutional standing will be of necessity affected; separate agreements concerning the free movement of UK citizens within Europe and the rights of UK citizens to work in Europe etc. could well preserve what is in the EU treaties. All Article 50 does is commence the process of a country leaving the EU; the terms of that leaving are agreed between the parties.

I'm thinking that on reflection the JR shouldn't succeed.

I have no special knowledge of UK law, but it strikes me that since a referendum necessarily requires legislative approval in the first place, that if the legislature has the power to call a referendum on an issue that it would ordinarily have the power to do itself, and there is legislation permitting such a referendum, it should in principle be binding. Even if not, as you point out, it would be potentially suicidal for Parliament simply to ignore the results of a referendum it called.

Apparently, there isn't much case law, and to date there have only been three such referenda, the first in 1975.

Also, while the exit itself may be mandatory if the referendum is binding, it may require doing things that, themselves, require further legislative action. There are going to have to be laws, regulations, procedures, and other actions. Treaties in broad terms but that require unknown specific things to be done can't really be self-executing.
 
Two by-elections took place yesterday. The first was to fill the late Jo Cox's seat, which unsurprisingly resulted in victory for Labour due to none of the other major parties fielding a candidate.

The second was to fill David Cameron's seat, which the Conservatives held onto... but with a much lower percentage of the vote than last year. More surprisingly, the Liberal Democrats came second after a massive surge in their vote, and UKIP's vote tanked; they dropped from third place last year to fifth place, coming behind the Green Party's candidate - who happens to be the real-life Bernie Bro, Larry Sanders.
 
I have no special knowledge of UK law, but it strikes me that since a referendum necessarily requires legislative approval in the first place, that if the legislature has the power to call a referendum on an issue that it would ordinarily have the power to do itself, and there is legislation permitting such a referendum, it should in principle be binding. Even if not, as you point out, it would be potentially suicidal for Parliament simply to ignore the results of a referendum it called.

Apparently, there isn't much case law, and to date there have only been three such referenda, the first in 1975.

Also, while the exit itself may be mandatory if the referendum is binding, it may require doing things that, themselves, require further legislative action. There are going to have to be laws, regulations, procedures, and other actions. Treaties in broad terms but that require unknown specific things to be done can't really be self-executing.

In short: Referendum are very rare in the UK but the general rule of thumb is they are binding. It's electoral suicide to go against the will of the people and generally they are respected when passed by the act.

MPs voted 6:1 in favour of the act as it stood, so in theory should pass the will of the people expressed via referendum as per the precedent set by the previous AV referendum, the Scottish Independence referendum, and the joining of the EEC back in 1975.

The issue is that the majority of the MPs currently sitting are treasonous cunts in thrall to a foreign power Remoaners. The result is the "wrong one" and we were "lied to" or are "rasict" and every other insult they've been using in the past decade and a half in spite of the fact this vote was the single largest democratic vote ever undertaken in the United Kingdom and is considerably larger than John Major's massive vote in 1992.

There's also been the latest fucking idiocy of Nick Clegg, former deputy PM during the coalition (who passed the act and was the only party at one point demanding a referendum on the EU) now saying we didn't vote for a "Hard Brexit" and nobody said we'd be leaving the single market in spite of a reel showing the opposite.

At present, the plan as laid out by the May Government is to use Royal Perogrative to pass the result and this basically sidesteps Parliament which is stuffed with traitors people who aren't too keen on Brexit to begin with. Current EU law is going into a "Great Repeal Bill" which is to be put forward next year to put all existing EU law into British Law formally to be abolished, amended or enhanced at leisure.

The first target is likely to be EU laws relating to agriculture and fisheries as a priority as everyone hates the Common Agricultural Policy here and its resulted in lots of british farmers and fisheries to fight for stuff with one hand tied behind their back because of fat and lazy French Farmers.

As much as dangerhairs and other screeching London twatteratri say otherwise, stuff like employment law and disabled rights which are stronger here than in the EU are going to be left alone.
 
As promised, Zac Goldsmith resigned as the Conservative MP for Richmond Park yesterday after the government declared that a third runway would be built at Heathrow. He'll stand as an independant candidate in the upcoming by-election, which the Tories will not contest.
 
Back
Top Bottom