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:
Leadsom has quit the conservative leadership race making may the defacto winner unless the 1922 committee decides otherwise.

Everyone who campaigned for brexit in the party has ethier lost their race (gove) or quit (everyone else). Its pathetic.
 
As much as Leadsom's treatment by the press over the last week or so has been complete bullshit, that sort of thing's been thrown at every PM in living memory at one point or another. Assuming she actually did quit because of that (instead of, say, May bribing her with a nice cabinet job), it shows that she just wasn't ready for No. 10 yet.
 
The problem was definitely the vile dogpiling and outright lies from Sylvester. It was followed by a lot of dogpiling from a load of MPs that frankly should know better.

May will have to ensure that Brexit is delivered and done so properly (including no freedom of movement) or UKIP will resurge rapidly.

If May is Smart she'll put IDS in as Brexit Minister, with Leadsom on the negotiating team.

EDIT: Oh yeah, there was supposed to be a Labour Party Thing too...

It was a fucking hilarious disaster due to the fact Peston, BBC and Crick from Sky all fucked off to cover Leadsom's dramatic withdrawal.

So the markets like stability... as such the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 saw a surge, and the pound rose slightly against the Euro (but crucially, and helpfully, still down against the dollar). With a PM now in place by Wednesday Night the markets are reacting rather favourably to this sign of things being stabilized.

The uncertainty of who would be the next PM seems to have been the biggest trigger for most market turbulence of the past fortnight (Cameron resigning on the day didn't help) and things are starting to recover now we have May in post by Wednesday.
 
Last edited:
Impressively, it seems like May's victory has done a great job of pissing off both ends of the political spectrum. The left are spewing bile at her for being an eeeevil authoritarian as home secretary, while the right are chimping out at the thought of being led by both a Remainer and the woman who helped lead the Tories away from Thatcherism.
 
Impressively, it seems like May's victory has done a great job of pissing off both ends of the political spectrum. The left are spewing bile at her for being an eeeevil authoritarian as home secretary, while the right are chimping out at the thought of being led by both a Remainer and the woman who helped lead the Tories away from Thatcherism.

Provided May hands decent positions to necessary brexiteers (and basically stuffs the Brexit dept with them) and a good spot to Leadsom she can secure the party easily.

It seems Leadsom's own team stopped and considered if she'd wind up pushing the Tories into a Corbyn style situation, a lot of constituency members were likely to back a confirmed Brexiteer over a (albeit mild) Remanant like May. Flipside is May's support among the party was massive.

May can't back out or really water down Brexit because some six million more voters backed Brexit than the current government at last year's election. The people's will has to be followed or any party standing in its way would face annihilation.
 
Labour have just ruled that Jeremy Corbyn is entitled to automatically be on the ballot in any leadership challenge, meaning that he'll probably be Labour leader until the day he dies.

Or the day the party dies, whichever comes sooner.
 
Labour have just ruled that Jeremy Corbyn is entitled to automatically be on the ballot in any leadership challenge, meaning that he'll probably be Labour leader until the day he dies.

Or the day the party dies, whichever comes sooner.

Or not. Hilariously both the moderates and Corbynistas had lawyer teams ready to take the NEC/Labour Party to court if they didn't get their way.

Labour Party destruction will continue for a good while yet.
 
Welp. May is now in Number 10 and boy on boy is she taking an axe to things.

Osborne is gone from the front bench entirely. Seems his continuing to talk down the economy even after Brexit didn't sit well with her.

Hammond is to come into the Chancellery to run the nation's finances. He's very dry and sober looking with a relatively level head.

Amber Rudd has been handed a Great Office by filling the Huge Kitten Heels left behind by May at the Home Office.

Micheal Fallon is a note of continuity remaining in the MoD.

Brexiteers have been handed very notable posts:

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (SSEE U) is handed to arch eurosceptic David Davis, one of the few MPs to openly campaign alongside Farage at Grassroots Out events.

Minister for International Trade has been handed to noted Atlantasicst (and Brexiteer) Dr Liam Fox.

The big shock was handing Boris Johnson position as Foreign Secretary, suggesting a deal was quietly done between the two and is a final definitive proof for BoJo to prove himself suitable for Great Offices, which are often seen as a testing ground for future Prime Ministers.
 
Labour have just ruled that Jeremy Corbyn is entitled to automatically be on the ballot in any leadership challenge, meaning that he'll probably be Labour leader until the day he dies.

Or the day the party dies, whichever comes sooner.
They've only got themselves to blame if they can't find a more electable candidate to stand against him.

I'd pay £35 to vote if they could find a candidate who outright said they wanted to focus on helping the working class and get rid of all other forms of identity politics from the party.
 
They've only got themselves to blame if they can't find a more electable candidate to stand against him.

I'd pay £35 to vote if they could find a candidate who outright said they wanted to focus on helping the working class and get rid of all other forms of identity politics from the party.
I believe that was theresa May's platform....
 
I believe that was theresa May's platform....

May is basically roaring back into power as Thatcher Reborn which when you consider what Thatcherism should've been/was on paper (namely using the elite's tax moneys to set things up to level the opportunity playing field for everyone else) it's pretty obvious she wants to appeal to the six million extra voters who voted Leave.

The new secretary of state for education seems to be hinting heavily that a return of Grammar Schools may be on the cards too, which was a great way for the bright to be given the necessary hand up.

Indeed, the de-Etoning of the government has been a good sign and a proper return to the Grammar-School-Set. Indeed, more ministers are state educated than has been in a government in a very long time.

Or to put it even more funnily; May didn't just park tanks on Labour's front lawn, she's ordering the government to dig trenches and lay out mine fields.
 
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to replace the UK's nuclear deterrent.

Here's the Prime Minister being very decisive.


Seriously. I've not voted for her yet but based on that performance alone I'd be happy to.
 
More American cultural cancer is imported to the UK, by academic cunts for whom racial politics transcends nationality and common sense. Incidents so infrequent that I struggle to think of an appropriate adjective (I had used "highly") are being used as justification for dumb protests.

We all know of-course that the best way to get empathy from a Brit is to obstruct their commute, it won't possibly generate angry, dismissive tweets from those affected which will be used as justification by the people whom caused the fuss in the first place.

They have have a quote from a chap called Tony Sewell, a black-guy who writes about black people but whom wrote here (albeit in 2008) that he thought claiming "Institutional Racism" is "irresponsible" so who knows what he really thinks.

When will this shit end? It doesn't belong here. Even in the racist heart-land that is the North-East people I can't remember hardly any people hating blacks; you could throw a stone and probably hit someone who genuinely disliked Muslims, but not black people.

People all over the world, these social justice types, read American news and blogs and import it into their own countries were it isn't relevant. I hate to sound like Alex Jones but this really is a globalist mind-set that these people have, they're as blind to nationality in people as they are perceptive about race.
 
More American cultural cancer is imported to the UK, by academic cunts for whom racial politics transcends nationality and common sense. Incidents so infrequent that I struggle to think of an appropriate adjective (I had used "highly") are being used as justification for dumb protests.

We all know of-course that the best way to get empathy from a Brit is to obstruct their commute, it won't possibly generate angry, dismissive tweets from those affected which will be used as justification by the people whom caused the fuss in the first place.

They have have a quote from a chap called Tony Sewell, a black-guy who writes about black people but whom wrote here (albeit in 2008) that he thought claiming "Institutional Racism" is "irresponsible" so who knows what he really thinks.

When will this shit end? It doesn't belong here. Even in the racist heart-land that is the North-East people I can't remember hardly any people hating blacks; you could throw a stone and probably hit someone who genuinely disliked Muslims, but not black people.

People all over the world, these social justice types, read American news and blogs and import it into their own countries were it isn't relevant. I hate to sound like Alex Jones but this really is a globalist mind-set that these people have, they're as blind to nationality in people as they are perceptive about race.

Considering the majority of racism in the UK is against white people (Poles, Romanians, Travellers, etc) I doubt this'll catch on, but among a small section of upper-middle class uni student's they'll probably do great.
 
More American cultural cancer is imported to the UK, by academic cunts for whom racial politics transcends nationality and common sense. Incidents so infrequent that I struggle to think of an appropriate adjective (I had used "highly") are being used as justification for dumb protests.

We all know of-course that the best way to get empathy from a Brit is to obstruct their commute, it won't possibly generate angry, dismissive tweets from those affected which will be used as justification by the people whom caused the fuss in the first place.

They have have a quote from a chap called Tony Sewell, a black-guy who writes about black people but whom wrote here (albeit in 2008) that he thought claiming "Institutional Racism" is "irresponsible" so who knows what he really thinks.

When will this shit end? It doesn't belong here. Even in the racist heart-land that is the North-East people I can't remember hardly any people hating blacks; you could throw a stone and probably hit someone who genuinely disliked Muslims, but not black people.

People all over the world, these social justice types, read American news and blogs and import it into their own countries were it isn't relevant. I hate to sound like Alex Jones but this really is a globalist mind-set that these people have, they're as blind to nationality in people as they are perceptive about race.

To be honest the more shrill they get the quicker some elements of the establishment will move to quash them. The first wave of these idiots tried to get statues removed in Oxbridge of Cecil Rhodes and it was rumoured the Dean was ready to do so until numerous scholarship heads and donors told him he so much as touched anything historical they would cease funding the university and do so until they were removed from post.

In the end he snarkily released a statement welcoming the complaining students to go to any other university they wished.

TBH the most fascinating thing going on right now is black flight in the UK. Any family that can afford to move away from the cities is doing so due to the criminal element and lack of opportunities inner cities afforded to black folks. My own previously achingly white town has gone from basically no black families to well over a dozen as people from major cities escape from what is increasingly a shit situation.

The problem is people confusing the stats of the MET with the wider UK. While its true that there seems to be a racial bias to stop and search in London this doesn't seem to continue as much into the wider UK.

Grabbing the other great city melting pot: Birmingham the "seven times more likely" drops to just twice as likely across all ethnic groups.

Basically: some dick heads going about screaming like this isn't going to generate any sympathy whatsoever and suddenly turning around and screaming "racist" at them at a time when that stupid claim is increasingly ineffective is going to spike BLMUK's effectiveness long before it can properly begin.
 
To be honest the more shrill they get the quicker some elements of the establishment will move to quash them. The first wave of these idiots tried to get statues removed in Oxbridge of Cecil Rhodes and it was rumoured the Dean was ready to do so until numerous scholarship heads and donors told him he so much as touched anything historical they would cease funding the university and do so until they were removed from post.

Another highly staged debacle I watched with exactly the same thoughts as this one. You had a campaign to remove the statue in South Africa and then a South African in the UK decided to push the same issue to get more Twitter follows and make out like it was a big deal.

But it was saved for different reasons. What if Oxford University had come under the governments purview? I think that they would have caved. In this case a bunch of old conservative donors laid down the money on the college admin whom you were right, they would have capitulated too.

The main thing is that once it's gone, it's gone. You aren't going to a get a movement to restore a state of fucking Rhodes.

Basically: some dick heads going about screaming like this isn't going to generate any sympathy whatsoever and suddenly turning around and screaming "racist" at them at a time when that stupid claim is increasingly ineffective is going to spike BLMUK's effectiveness long before it can properly begin.

Public sympathy doesn't really matter I don't think. Not working class public, i.e. the majority, anyway. Academic/University activists though I can see getting on-board with this. Since when has reality mattered to them. Then the media will pick up on it and the politicians, whom seem to think that the media genuinely reflect public opinion, will pander.

It'll be a self-fulfilling cycle, angry comments against BLM will be framed as racism or at the very least just white people not understanding and BLM needing more "awareness". I'm working class to the core, I reckon I have a good understanding of how most people will react to this, but the academics and the media I don't know but it hasn't mattered in the past.
 
Is this the right thread to post the more than 50% downvoted video of Owen Jones interviewing the UK BLM leaders?

If not then apologies.

Oh, it is.

It's adorable that ceebeebees did this though, letting this kids on to talk about kids stuff they feel is all important to them.

Look how fucking smug the guy looks too. They picked the right thumbnail there.

This is the same Owen Jones who skirts lolcow territory by used to getting into commentary slap fights with the "windowlickers" over on Guido Fawkes and stormed off in a hissy fit because other commentators refused to consider the Orlando Massacre as a "Gay holocaust" and treated it as mainstream as Gay culture is now considered here in the UK.
 
This is the same Owen Jones who skirts lolcow territory by used to getting into commentary slap fights with the "windowlickers" over on Guido Fawkes and stormed off in a hissy fit because other commentators refused to consider the Orlando Massacre as a "Gay holocaust" and treated it as mainstream as Gay culture is now considered here in the UK.
You mean when he did a runner on Sky News? That shit was trending on Twitter all over. He just can't accept that Islam not liking homosexuals might be the cause over general society.
 
Back
Top Bottom