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:
Any other time any other vote and referendum they'd abide by it and respect it, they aren't. A number of them are now actively behaving in a manner that in any other century would label them as traitors. I can see them voting against a GE as the ultimate sign they know they're doing wrong but don't give a singular fuck anyway because they don't belong to the british people but to a fetishized obsession with Brussels.
i think the map speaks for itself-

upload_2016-11-3_16-22-34.png


the tiny minority of labour safe seats and the snp is not enough to carry the commons, it really would take a complete detachment with reality to risk it. a detachment that would be addressed at the next election.
 
Don't worry, you guys have Sikhs to support you when the second British Civil War happens. Those guys are taught by their temples how to kill a man with their thumb.
 
i think the map speaks for itself-

The tiny minority of labour safe seats and the snp is not enough to carry the commons, it really would take a complete detachment with reality to risk it. a detachment that would be addressed at the next election.


Ordinarilly it would, and had this vote been conducted on a FPTP basis at each counting region it's 60% LEAVE, 40% remain.

Once again, they've ceased to act in a sane manner because they think the british public (aww, bless 'em) have been "misled" and if "only they understood" properly. Or it's all those hideous racists who only turn up occasionally to vote.

The most prominent people already seem to have agreed they've got till 2020 max so will do as much damage as possible before then, or they're in those few remain-voting areas so don't care if they act like a massive twat in the interim because "hey, my place voted correctly."

I can honestly see Labour MPs voting against an early GE on the basis that the british public are still "misled" as there needs to be a good 100+ mps to trigger a vote of no confidence now thanks to the Lib Dems shit rigged fixed term parliament act.
 
I can honestly see Labour MPs voting against an early GE on the basis that the british public are still "misled" as there needs to be a good 100+ mps to trigger a vote of no confidence now thanks to the Lib Dems shit rigged fixed term parliament act.
Thats true, and i could rant about that stupid act for days, but a simple majority is enough to repeal the act.


And yes its the usual false conciousness bollox from the virtue signalling left.
 
Hey if played right this could settle this issue. Nobody could complain if parliament got a say and brexit passed. it just might take longer.
 
Hey if played right this could settle this issue. Nobody could complain if parliament got a say and brexit passed. it just might take longer.

Nobody could complain

Lol just you wait. We could have had eight referendums, all of them saying Leave and had Jesus himself descend from the heavens to cast for Leave and people would still find a way to complain.
 
Lol just you wait. We could have had eight referendums, all of them saying Leave and had Jesus himself descend from the heavens to cast for Leave and people would still find a way to complain.

Ok let me amend that, nobody could complain and be taken seriously
 
To be honest if it fails at the Supreme Court I will be utterly livid.

I'm of a mind with you. I can understand the legal reasoning of the High Court, and I don't want to be childish about the legal system not going my way- that is how a liberal would act- but all of these delays, this posturing, its insane, traitorous, and anti-democratic. I hope May finds a way to put this to rest I really do. The sooner this blow is dealt to the EU, the better.
 
I'm of a mind with you. I can understand the legal reasoning of the High Court, and I don't want to be childish about the legal system not going my way- that is how a liberal would act- but all of these delays, this posturing, its insane, traitorous, and anti-democratic. I hope May finds a way to put this to rest I really do. The sooner this blow is dealt to the EU, the better.

Well, there's only a few ways:

Hope the Supreme Court agrees with the government.

Put in the motion in parliament to allow debate (but little amendments)

Call a General Election with Brexit central to the mandate. (Nuclear Option)

The final option is kind of appealing because of how much of a disaster the other parties currently are, the Tories are sitting a clear 17 points ahead on the supposedly "new" polling methods which would translate into a healthy 70-80 majority, it also basically reruns the referendum leaving only a few deluded holdouts campaigning versus a mass who continues to send out the message of "we are on your side because we have to be."
 
The final option is kind of appealing because of how much of a disaster the other parties currently are, the Tories are sitting a clear 17 points ahead on the supposedly "new" polling methods which would translate into a healthy 70-80 majority, it also basically reruns the referendum leaving only a few deluded holdouts campaigning versus a mass who continues to send out the message of "we are on your side because we have to be."
I read somewhere that if the lead remains up to the boundary changes that leaves labour with <100 seats. That is Whig territory.
 
This Question Time, I swear, (From an audience member) "Democracy is all well and good but referendums are just popularism and dangerous" and then she goes on to agree with a panel member that the public shouldn't have say on important things like membership of the EU and gets a round of applause.

So much double speak.
 
This Question Time, I swear, (From an audience member) "Democracy is all well and good but referendums are just popularism and dangerous"

I generally agree with that but once you do one, obeying the will expressed in the plebiscite is not optional. It is not a rhetorical trick to be performed just to try to stamp what you were already doing with the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy.
 
Yeah, the BBC has basically clamped down on the QT audience, making it more akin to the farcical ANY QUESTIONS? on the radio where "anyone" can turn up but always mysteriously gets filled with Liberal leaning luvvies even in heavily conservative safe seats.

Remember, Watford voted narrowly for leave, meaning the audience should've been a rough 50/50 split of supporters and detractors from this decision. Was it what happened in QT last night? Nope.

I'm beginning to wonder if the media and elites legitimately want to stoke issues like this to cry racism and xenophobia when people finally start shoving back.

You've just had a foreign born national try and overturn the will of 17.4m and has just been backed by a judge who founded a fucking european law club (Conflict of Interest is apparently an unknown term).

Like I said, Supreme Court goes against the government, I will be out protesting and I've never done such a thing in my bloody life, I've been hearing a lot of other sentiments too from people much older than me.
 
My immediate thoughts following the announcement yesterday were that Brexit was going to be stopped outright. Having watched and read a lot more last night and this morning, Brexit will still go through, but the terms of it will be negotiated if the Supreme Court doesn't overrule this judgement.

Even Corbyn made some comment acknowledging that "Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union" which I was absolutely not expecting. MPs will probably have their hands tied in that, yes, they can be awkward, they could possibly even force us through a "soft" Brexit, but there WILL BE separation from the EU. To directly oppose Brexit at this point would be political suicide.

Ultimately none of us are privileged enough to be a hedge fund manager with the money, time and selfishness to fight against this, so we're just going to have to see what happens.
 
I generally agree with that but once you do one, obeying the will expressed in the plebiscite is not optional. It is not a rhetorical trick to be performed just to try to stamp what you were already doing with the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy.

It's one thing if you don't want to do a referendum. NOBODY forced the Conservatives to do the referendum, they did so because they realised that the winds were blowing that way and they risked being anally raped in 2020 if they didn't.

But if you do call one, and MPs voted 6 to 1 FOR the referendum being held, you cannot go back on your word after the fact. The Commons sure as hell can't and the Lords? The Tories put the referendum in their manifesto, so one would think that the Lords would be unable to interfere with the result (Not that those unelected bastards should have the right to do so anyway)

However, if the the Lords DO have the right to interfere, the only real way around it would be to call a GE and put Brexit IN the manifesto. In that case, the Lords cannot interfere due to a weird mixture of conventions and laws passed almost a hundred years ago.

And the Tories would probably have a serious fucking majority in the Commons afterwards, because UKIP has collapsed, Labour has gone back to the 80s and the Lib Dems are running on a 'Stop Brexit' platform which will get them precisely fuck all. I can see them taking Labour seats, but not Tory seats. Now granted, I'm opposed to huge parliamentary majorities because it lets fuckheads do what they want with zero repercussions.
 
Another Tory MP just resigned. Differences of opinion over how the Brexit's being handled, apparently.

Never mind getting Article 50 through parliament, at this rate May's going to have to call another election just to avoid ending up in charge of a minority government!
 
Yeah, the BBC has basically clamped down on the QT audience, making it more akin to the farcical ANY QUESTIONS? on the radio where "anyone" can turn up but always mysteriously gets filled with Liberal leaning luvvies even in heavily conservative safe seats.

Remember, Watford voted narrowly for leave, meaning the audience should've been a rough 50/50 split of supporters and detractors from this decision. Was it what happened in QT last night? Nope.

I'm beginning to wonder if the media and elites legitimately want to stoke issues like this to cry racism and xenophobia when people finally start shoving back.

You've just had a foreign born national try and overturn the will of 17.4m and has just been backed by a judge who founded a fucking european law club (Conflict of Interest is apparently an unknown term).

Like I said, Supreme Court goes against the government, I will be out protesting and I've never done such a thing in my bloody life, I've been hearing a lot of other sentiments too from people much older than me.

I live in a coastal town where the main industries are farming and tourism. Round here is pretty solid (60%+) Brexit territory. The locals are not amused by the depredations of a rich banker and a hipster hairdresser to try and overrule millions of hard working taxpayers. Put simply, if Gina Miller came down here on holiday, she'd have a fairly large chance of suffering a freak surfing accident.
 
I live in a coastal town where the main industries are farming and tourism. Round here is pretty solid (60%+) Brexit territory. The locals are not amused by the depredations of a rich banker and a hipster hairdresser to try and overrule millions of hard working taxpayers. Put simply, if Gina Miller came down here on holiday, she'd have a fairly large chance of suffering a freak surfing accident.

A lot of folks over on Guido were questioning if she'd have to be awarded police protection as a result of the ruling, at the taxpayers expense, obviously.

With her £30m in the fucking bank.

I am legit surprised if this isn't some Continuity Remain trick to stoke xenophobic tensions.

Meanwhile, meet Nicola Gorb possibly the vilest woman you could meet who voted remain and wishes that Brexiteer's kids get sick and die because of their hubris.

Oh, and she works for Great Ormand Street Hospital, the most famous children's hospital in the UK.

Such a caring sort, eh?
 
A lot of folks over on Guido were questioning if she'd have to be awarded police protection as a result of the ruling, at the taxpayers expense, obviously.

With her £30m in the fucking bank.

I am legit surprised if this isn't some Continuity Remain trick to stoke xenophobic tensions.

Meanwhile, meet Nicola Gorb possibly the vilest woman you could meet who voted remain and wishes that Brexiteer's kids get sick and die because of their hubris.

Oh, and she works for Great Ormand Street Hospital, the most famous children's hospital in the UK.

Such a caring sort, eh?

It's always wonderful when someone has a pretty decent point, but then completely undermines it by acting like a complete and utter sociopath on national television. The court of public opinion is most unfair, but ultimately soooooooo damned satisfying.
 
Back
Top Bottom