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:
What about crabb? He would be an excellent majoresque ordinary boy to capitalise on the brexit c2des and foil just about any lab candidate.

Javid and Crabb are trying to do this. Problem is they were both Remanants who went full retard during the campaign at times, basically saying we'll all be taken out and shot if we voted Brexit.

They're very discredited and their opportunism is hated. Voting for Javid and Crabb wouldn't be a vote for them but a vote for Osbourne who took them under his wing during the octopus era. Had they kept quiet during the campaign (or pulled a May of declaration of support them going quiet) then it would be a different matter.

Even though May's never been able to control the migration part of her brief she's seen as a strong and competent Home Secretary and powerful enough that Cameron hasn't dared to move her in 6 very long years. She's taken on the Police Union and the Chiefs of Police and won.

As much as she's a Remainer she does have a good track record coming out best in negotiations. She'd be the best candidate to unify the two wings of the Party.

That being said, she is the front runner, and the Tories rarely elect the front runners.

I'd not at all be surprised if Leadsom roars in from behind in her "Nu Maggie" persona we saw during the televised debates. With a bit of coaching (Less fixed grins) she'd do incredibly well and is currently the underdog to take over, just like Cameron and Thatcher before her.


EDIT: Meanwhile, in Labour....
 
The Conservatives are quietly but efficiently knifing each other and getting back to business as usual.

Labour can't even enact a coup properly.

They're not a real party much, but the Lib-Dems have had a ton of members apply to join recently. Whilst they USUALLY contest Conservative places rather than Labour, the Labour collapse combined with the diffusal of UKIP means that they'll probably get a handful of seats.
 
The Conservatives are quietly but efficiently knifing each other and getting back to business as usual.

Labour can't even enact a coup properly.

They're not a real party much, but the Lib-Dems have had a ton of members apply to join recently. Whilst they USUALLY contest Conservative places rather than Labour, the Labour collapse combined with the diffusal of UKIP means that they'll probably get a handful of seats.

This has always been my favourite thing about the Tories is they tend to be quick, clean, efficient and don't hold it massively against each other (Hesseltine is the exception). The leadership election will be its usual efficient self and nobody will hold it against each other for not winning.

Indeed, most of the contenders have likely thrown their hat in the ring to ensure they get a good spot at the cabinet table, most leadership elections see a few of the leadership candidates wind up taking up cabinet posts afterwards because of the perception they control a "faction".

It's complete bollocks of course as after Liam Fox (who's running again) was sacked for being defense secretary he did precisely sod all from the backbenches.
 
Corbyn just compared the State of Israel with ISIS.

Tories getting elected is gonna be easier than Hillary lying about something
Anti-semitism is just a thing about the Labour Party now, all the way from leading politicians to student groups, I guess that's what you get when your rhetoric is similar to that of a social media SJW.

It's like Game of Thrones with worse teeth and less rape (other than the occasional pig).
Is Tony Blair Cersei and Jeremy Corbyn the High Sparrow?
 
Nigel Farage to replace Cameron.

Come on you can do it England you're on a roll

All I know is that if Cameron is replaced with someone who fully supported Brexit and wants to push that good shit forward ASAP so as to get out of the EU much, MUCH faster than they likely are with anyone else - I welcome it happening. NOW.

Freedom from the EU not in 2 years time. Freedom from the EU, NOW.
 
Issues about Labour continue.

There have been reports up in Manchester of hate crimes including Abusing a US Army Veteran Three have now been arrested.

An Afro-Caribbean Centre closed after threatening phonecalls due to the fact they do look after elderly folks.

Meanwhile, Leadsom's odds have been slashed again. Frontrunners are now May and Gove Leadsom in the betting shops eyes.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, Leadsom's odds have been slashed again. Frontrunners are now May and Gove in the betting shops eyes.

Which is all well and good, but I'm not exactly trusting odds or polls after the mess they've made predicting the EU referendum. Even in the last GE they were pretty shaky.
 
Which is all well and good, but I'm not exactly trusting odds or polls after the mess they've made predicting the EU referendum. Even in the last GE they were pretty shaky.

The betting shops did really well at the GE and only really fucked up because they put too much stock into some rich tossers dropping large sums on Remain in what was a clear attempt to warp the odds.

Tracking by bets placed; Leave bets outnumbered Remain by the thousands but all were tiny, less than £100 a time. The thing that warped the markets on the final few days were a few individuals placing staggeringly eye watering bets. One Remain bet was some £45,000! That warped the odds and eventually sent the betting firms into a tizz when they began to hear how heavily Postal Votes went against them.
 
Theresa May's campaign team has caused the Streisand effect by pressuring the Telegraph into deleting a critical article about May - https://web.archive.org/web/2016070...at-self-promoter-but-a-terrible-home-secreta/

(Although there are conflicting reports and officially claim they had nothing to do with the articles removal)

Which is all well and good, but I'm not exactly trusting odds or polls after the mess they've made predicting the EU referendum. Even in the last GE they were pretty shaky.
:powerlevel: The odds were great I got £220 for putting £20 on Leave, the bookies aren't giving predictions it's just an indicator of how people are betting.
 
Good lord, is there anyone among the Leavers who was actually serious about any of this? An entire nation got trolled.

I think they planned up to 'leave Europe' beyond that, who cares. We left Europe. Job done. Time to retire.
 
Last edited:
Like is there any reason for the Leave leaders to drop out like this or are they really just abandoning ship?

Nigel Farage was probably the most honest among the Leave Leaders. His goal was to get Britain out of Europe, no matter what, unlike Johnson and Gove who seem to have been taken by surprise by us actually leaving. Farage sees that his task is complete and so is off to enjoy some rest, leaving the rest up to people who have the power to do something.
 
Farage has basically achieved his aim but it has been at a slight cost. He's seen as a divisive figure even among those who support him. Many have adopted the attitude of supporting him simply because he was different. Very few can name other UKIP leading lights like Paul Ruttal and Stephen Wolfe.

UKIP is very much the Nige Farage Roadshow at present and right now it needs to grow into a legitimate political force, especially with Northern Labour support being so allegedly rotten, easily as rotten as Scotland's Labour Vote. I wouldn't be surprised to see UKIP change names again in order to ensure it's no longer a one issue party. (Personally I like the ring of "Britannia" but that's just me.)

For all his strengths Farage being as... frankly egotistical and controlling as he has been at times is a major character flaw and one that has wounded the party and its limited funding. Forcing the party to fight nationally has been under his direction while Ruttal and Wolfe wanted to be more focused.

Whoever steps into Farage's shoes will find them huge initially, but can easily steer the party into building up a new core of seats for itself.

====================================

So Leadsom finally launched her leadership bid Short Version Here

I watched most of it live and frankly, she did do a very very good job. She answered questions well and succinctly, she adopted the proper tone of a friendly and open PM in waiting and at the end after fielding questions well, she was swarmed by the cameramen all wanting the just right shot.

A poll conducted by the grassroots friendly Conservative Home puts her and May at a dead heat.
 
Farage has basically achieved his aim but it has been at a slight cost. He's seen as a divisive figure even among those who support him. Many have adopted the attitude of supporting him simply because he was different. Very few can name other UKIP leading lights like Paul Ruttal and Stephen Wolfe.

UKIP is very much the Nige Farage Roadshow at present and right now it needs to grow into a legitimate political force, especially with Northern Labour support being so allegedly rotten, easily as rotten as Scotland's Labour Vote. I wouldn't be surprised to see UKIP change names again in order to ensure it's no longer a one issue party. (Personally I like the ring of "Britannia" but that's just me.)

For all his strengths Farage being as... frankly egotistical and controlling as he has been at times is a major character flaw and one that has wounded the party and its limited funding. Forcing the party to fight nationally has been under his direction while Ruttal and Wolfe wanted to be more focused.

Whoever steps into Farage's shoes will find them huge initially, but can easily steer the party into building up a new core of seats for itself.
Suzanne Evans would be a good choice for UKIP leader in my opinion (Even though she's currently suspended), she always handles herself well during interviews and doesn't have any political baggage aside from inner party drama as far as I'm aware.
 
Fox is out of the Conservative leadership contest after finishing last in the first round of voting, and Crabb has also withdrawn; both have backed May.

My prediction at this point would be that May easily wins the MP vote, but Leadsom crushes her in the membership vote, as there seems to be a growing desire among the party grassroots to cast off the party's "Blair lite" image and fully re-embrace Thatcherism. However, there's also rumors that May's going to have some of her supporters vote for Gove, who she'll likely be more easily able to beat in the membership vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom