Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Westminster watershed. The sex abuse scandal could lead to far
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Westminster watershed. The sex abuse scandal could lead to far reaching change.
Don Brind, who first began working at the Palace of Westminster in the 1970s and is still there gives his perspective
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Don't worry, we'll be charging them too.
Hard/WTO Brexit is the antithesis of all that, instead of a cabinet of Churchills arguing against the prevailing mood we've got a cabinet of Lord Halifaxes appeasing the Leadbangers.
I'm going to keep on articulating those views, hoping sanity prevails, but I find it depressing so many in the Tory party are cheering the dismantling of one of Mrs Thatcher's finest policies, something in all likelihood makes someone like Jeremy Corbyn PM.
A disorderly Brexit will be damaging for the Tory party at the next general election and maybe for longer.
...
...
We were always sovereign.
I know a tiny measure of this deference and perceived entitlement from my time as a Councillor, especially from people who don't know many other Councillors! It must be a thousand times stronger for MPs.
Time to take a far more corporate approach to Government. How about appraisals and interview processes for ministers? Any business could manage their HR, grievance, expenses, leave processes more competently.
Sex scandals just a small part of the picture in my view.
A purely hypothetical question for the legal eagles here - how high is the bar for prosecuting someone for aiding and abetting an offence, if they coerce someone to not report a crime to the police until such time as its impossible to gather evidence?
Indeed if Corbyn gets enough seats to form a government next time JRM may well become Leader of the Opposition.
British politics has not been this divided since Thatcher v Foot in the early 1980s (of course then there was at least the centrist SDP alternative, the LDs are a shadow of what they were).
The further 'selection' process is equally a nonsense: there are only 630 MPs and a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts. Effectively no choice at all."
The whole scandal speaks very poorly of the leadership skills of non-offenders, who seem to have been far too slow to realise what was going on around them or far too unwilling to do anything about it.
However, it can't last and delivery would break it. A Tory Party led by JRM (which it won't be) or a Labour Party led by Corbyn would both fail horribly in government because neither is remotely suited temperamentally to the demands of government. At that point, the governing party would suffer huge defections from voters - though to where remains an open question. Abstentions, the Lib Dems, a new or revived party on the left or right (as appropriate) are all possible. What isn't possible is the continuance of two blocks of support remaining at 40%+, neither of which is capable of governing.
Conservatism is about following Macaulay's mantra: "reform that ye may preserve"
Sound money, pro business, low tax are all important drivers of social cohesiveness (providing that the distribution of the proceeds is seen to be fair). Free trade is more of a Liberal (not LibDem) priority than a Conservative one - as a Liberal Unionist I am supportive, but not at any cost.
But you are muddling up the methods with the objectives.
edit: @david_herdson has reposted below at 10:46
Now, a number of question arise out of that which I'll come to in a moment but the first thing has to be to note that it is also run by humans and humans make mistakes: nearly all decisions are decided on the basis of a balance of risks and opportunities and not everyone gets everything right. Cock-up is more frequent than conspiracy.
The second point to note is that usually growing the economy - as long as it is shared fairly (itself a contentious concept) - is the surest way of ensuring social calm: a prosperous nation is usually a contented nation, or at least, one which will indulge its passion for change in moral improvement and the like rather than riot. This, however, is not a universal rule.
Thirdly, sometimes it's also necessary in order to lessen the risk of severe social disruption to permit and even instigate moderate disruption. I've just finished reading a history of the General Strike, which bears marked similarities to the Miners' Strike of 1984-5. In both cases, the government took a bitter fight to the strikers rather than seek compromise. In both cases, it did so because to do otherwise would have unbalanced the distribution of power in the country to such an extent that it could have proven ungovernable, or only governable at the cost of great violence.
So to Brexit. Whether Cameron was right to call his referendum is now beside the point; it has happened (though let's note in passing that the Lib Dems were quite happy to offer an In/Out referendum in 2005 with In linked not to a loosening of ties but to further integration). The question is therefore whether the government is right to implement the decision of the referendum and if so, how. (cont ...)
To go down that road would risk the defection of a substantial portion of the electorate to movements more extreme than have governed Britain in centuries. Even now, Labour is led by members of its far left (whatever the policy manifesto might say), and the Tories are under severe pressure from its internal right and from the external right which is propping up its support in the polls (this should not be viewed as a defect, by the way; it is how democracy is supposed to work). Nonetheless, practical politicians have a duty to demonstrate the worth of practical politics.
The stakes are enormous and leadership of the highest quality is demanded. It would be easy to get it wrong either way and in so doing, generate a demand for political revolution, which could, inter alia, bring along all sorts of unsavoury pet enthusiams along with the revolution. When the mainstream is discredited, critical thinking goes with it and much is let by, by default.
To win the case for good government, the Tories have to demonstrate good government - and that means staying aligned with the people, even when their act against their interests. Lead, yes; cajole, yes; educate, definitely. But impose at your peril.
The aviation sector’s concern is that unlike other businesses, which can fall back on World Trade Organisation agreements, a cliff-edge Brexit would mean flights grounded as there are no historic rules to fall back on.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/20/us-airlines-aviation-regulations-post-brexit-open-skies-agreement-eu
At best, that's misleading and incompetent journalism.
I have a theory about that but its too long to write at the moment....
One is Open Skies, which is a reciprocal agreement for commercial airlines to operate throughout Europe (not just the EU) and between the Europe and the USA. The EU say that if we leave the EU we automatically withdraw from these agreements so British planes wouldn’t be allowed to fly to the EU or US (or even overfly them) on the day we leave the EU.
The other issue is regulation via EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency. EASA is responsible for ensuring safety of air travel as regulators, they issue certificates of airworthiness to planes and airlines, and licence certain professionals such as pilots, maintainence engineers, dispatchers, air traffic controllers, safety officers at airlines etc. In the UK, this work is mostly done by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) using power delegated to them by EASA. Some are suggesting that the day we leave the EU we will have no airworthy planes and no qualified pilots to fly them as our membership of EASA will lapse.
I think there are a lot of us who feel like that. But like it or not we're going to be landed with one or the other. Up till a month or so ago I'd have abstained (voted Lib Dem or Green) marginally hoping May would get in because I don't trust Corbyn's or his team.
Now I'm of the opinion that however crap they turn out to be they couldn't be worse.
Anyone any idea if the Dept of Transport is anywhere near the case?
The Tories only became the party of the industrial and merchant classes when the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as their main opponents, indeed some Tories like Disraeli and Joseph Chamberlain were outright protectionist at times.
Absolutely core to democracy is the right to say that the outcome of a previous democratic vote is the wrong one for the country.
arguably the most antithetic regime to our values on earth who this government not only embraces but also sells it weapons
For all the ineptitude within the current cabinet, it can and is getting on with the day job effectively (indeed, one side effect of the Brexit focus is that the government isn't reorganising the NHS or education again).
And they'd spend like never before. Never forget - every Labour government always runs out of money; the only question is how long it takes.
Both of those could be solved by the UK being given membership of EASA and Open Skies on the same basis that they currently have.
If the EU were to impede those then it would (rightly) be perceived as an incredibly hostile act - something beyond offering/not offering benefits from membership of the EU.
Switzerland is an associate member of EASA and this is probably where we will end up, but as the EU are the EU they’ll probably be expecting us to pay EASA’s entire ongoing budget as the price for joining.
The regulatory issues can be solved by UK passing legislation giving the CAA (a transport department quango) back the teeth that EASA took away from them, and then the UK can submit to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation, a UN quango) for recognition. The open skies agreements could them be modified providing everyone agreed (including the EU). This isn’t the work of a week though, so we need to get on with it.
Very few of the "Tories" as you define them exist any more.
The Conservative party is fundamentally a mixture of Peelites/One Nation Tories/Liberal Unionists [aka Whigs] and Radicals.
Extract from the recently published Lib Dem Approach - Beliefs and Values
Markets and the State
In general, economies which base their economies on free markets and free trade are themselves freer an fairer: markets are generally better than bureaucracies in matching demand and supply, allocating scarce reources and rewarding innovation and entrepreneurship.
But it does go on to mention caveats about markets sometimes failing.
So Lib Dems have not been entirely taken over by socialists.
Until a new centrist party emerges a la En Marche the impasse will remain.
The coalition years were a beacon of stability compared to the current clusterf*ck.
I'm a soft leaver, I'd take a ten year transation, I'd take EEA/EFTA, some form of BINO, so long as it shows real signs of ending ever closer union and slowly but surely returning democratic control to Parliament.
But the way some of you carry on, as if you're wishing for the country to go down in flames, makes me want to stand up, sing a rousing chorus of 'There'll always be an England' then go out and give Johnny Foreigner a Sound Thrashing™.
It's just counterproductive. If Brexit is a failure, it will be seen as the fault of the EU for being unreasonable and pushing us over the cliff edge. Blame will be apportioned and the EU will take its fair share. But so will the people in this country actively wishing for - in some cases appearing to cheer on - the worst possible outcome.
Resentment will build, not just towards our own establishment class, who appear to be the main cheerleaders, but to the unelected bureaucrats in the EU who sought to punish us for exercising our democratic rights.
And you think we'd want to go back?
Was she pushed or did she jump? Will it affect her accountant status?
Before the vote, some people said it was a bad idea. It's not their fault when it turns out to be a bad idea.
Some people voted against, because it was a bad idea. It's not their fault when it turns out to be a bad idea.
Since the vote, some people have pointed out that it is still a bad idea, and bad consequences flow from it. It's not their fault it's a bad idea.
The fault with Brexit lies with the Brexiteers and those who voted for it. Which is why so many will "forget" which way they actually voted in the future.
And her expenses are being investigated.
I made two points:
(i) It *could be* solved relatively easily - that is absolutely true
(ii) To ground our planes would be a hostile act - my opinion, obviously, but not an unreasonable one
That is not to say that it will be solved, but that it should be.
How close were they at Uni together?
They’re trying to hold us over a barrel for the money they’ve no legal basis for demanding, and allowing huge uncertainty to be created in a number of industries, aviation being just one. It’s not a good look, and there’s every chance that the EU overplay their hand here.
Many (most?) of Salisbury's Cabinet were Liberal Unionists.
JRM is probably closest to an old fashioned Tory. Fox is probably a Radical. May I suspect is a ONT.
Still prefer Alonso. If Red Bull's in with a shot, McLaren should be too.
The worst possible outcome for everybody is we crash out with no deals.
Given that is UK Government policy, hard to see how the EU suffers reputationally if that happens
Similarly, the full weight of the remain establishment has been pumping out non-stop Brexit-related doom and gloom since June 2016 - and the polls haven't shifted an inch.
It is, unfortunately, a matter of simple human psychology. When things go wrong, we seek a scapegoat. That scapegoat is always 'the other', never us. If things go wrong, the EU and the remain establishment who appeared to fight the process tooth and nail will be the ones to get the blame.
And that won't be the fault of the right wing press. It will be a matter of simple human psychology.
Incidentally, though,my wife and another of my girl-friends (previously) experienced what I considered (in the 50’s) unpleasant sexual harrassment on continental exchange visits. Before, I hasten to add, I met them. My wife is still (60 years later) rather averse to visiting France.
Now put back to 2.30pm.That means, according to https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/07/boris-johnson-under-fresh-pressure-to-retract-his-error-about-briton-jailed-in-iran-politics-live the rough timings for events in the Commons are as follows.
11.30am: Business questions.
12.30pm: UQ on Brexit impact assessments.
Around 1.15pm: UQ on Priti Patel.
Around 2pm: UQ on Yemen.
Around 2.30pm: Boris Johnson statement.
The Urgent Questions are
3 UQs 12.30: 1. @mtpennycook on Brexit Impact Assessments 2. @KateOsamor on Patel & visit to Israel 3. @StephenTwigg Saudi blockade of Yemen
’Twill be interesting to see how Patel reacts under hostile questioning.