The highly paid political class in charge of each of the UK’s three major political parties detests, despises, distrusts and seeks to discard their own party membership.
The Conservative, Labour and SNP elite all view their party members as a potential embarrassment.
The Tory Party MP’s appear to have worked out how to get rid of Truss , the hopeless leader the membership lumbered them with, and to put in place a replacement – crucially – while minimising their own rules on including a vote of party members in the process.
All Candidates will require 100 MP nominations to stand – which should eliminate member favourites Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch. This makes it impossible for there to be more than three candidates nominated, as there are under 400 Tory MPs. MPs will then hold one or two rounds of voting until a winner is announced.
Only then will the candidates be put to the membership, with information on who the MPs chose. It is plain there will be huge pressure on candidates to step down after the MPs’ vote, so the election does not go to the membership at all.
There is a precedent. Andrea Leadsom was a kind of proto-Truss, with a similar ideological stance. Leadsom did not get to be Prime Minister because she was made to stand aside by pressure from senior MPs before the vote was put to the membership, where polls showed she might well have beaten Theresa May.
Given the chance, Tory Members would bring back Boris Johnson – that remains their number one choice. Alternatively they would, given the chance, be more likely to vote for populist right wingers like Suella Braverman or Kemi Badenoch, than more Establishment friendly figures. The new rules are designed to ensure they won’t get that chance.
Johnson however appears to be hoovering up more MP nominations than expected. Careerist Tory MPs will be worried about the impact on their own prospects of not backing him.
Many members entered the Tory Party from the winding up of UKIP. Opinion polls show that, after the economy, immigration remains their next highest priority, even after free movement from the EU has ended. In short, the Tory membership will vote in any nutter who promises rough treatment for immigrants.
It is fascinating that both the Tory and Labour parties have now adopted exactly the same mechanism to prevent the membership electing a leader again with views outside the narrow Establishment consensus – in both parties that mechanism being an increase in the number of MPs who have to nominate, before a candidate can get their name before the party membership.
The professionals are to radically limit the options of the members.
The Labour Party had under Jeremy Corbyn the largest mass membership of any political party in Europe. The current leadership has succeeded – quite deliberately – in losing half of them. The Labour members elected Keir Starmer on the basis of ten pledges to carry out the kind of left wing policies the Labour membership support. Almost all of those pledges have been summarily broken.
We have witnessed the Labour leadership refuse to endorse strikes which are the main avenue for working class resistance, ban its MPs from the picket lines, and refuse to oppose massive Tory attacks on civil liberties at home, while vying to be the most enthusiastic zionists and warmongers abroad. Labour members are summarily expelled for connection to legitimate socialist organisations.
This is what Labour Party members voted for:
This is typical of what they got:
Keir Starmer’s Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, not only wants to deport more immigrants than the Tories, she has for a decade been proclaiming that Labour will cut more benefits than the Tories. The disjunction between what Labour Party members want – and were promised by Starmer to get elected – and what Labour MPs want, could not be clearer.
The SNP, like Labour, has been shedding loads of members. The 2022 SNP Conference took place at the same conference centre in Aberdeen where I attended the 2015 SNP Conference. On that 2015 occasion the entire main hall was used, and full with some 7,000 delegates. In 2022 attendance had fallen to about 10% the number of delegates, with an equivalent fall in the hall space used:
By inviting non-delegates to attend for the leaders’ speech, the party managed to get 1,000 people for its big showpiece, which with complicit broadcasters using tight camera angles, looked pretty good.
The SNP is both paranoid and fundamentally dishonest about membership numbers. The 2022 election results for National Secretary are illuminating, an election in which the large majority of conference delegates might be expected to vote. A total of only 822 delegates voted in that election.
To give some indication of the rate of decline in participation in the party, that is about a third of the delegates who voted in the election when I stood for Party President just two years ago.
If you take alone the SNP MPs, MSPs, their paid staff, and SNP headquarters staff, SPADs etc, that gives you over 400 payroll votes. Hundreds of paid SNP councillors also automatically qualify as conference delegates. In short, the 900 odd delegate SNP conference is now almost totally devoid of the thousands of ordinary party members who used to be delegates.
Crucial past party conference decisions – including that an independent Scotland must have its own currency and central bank – are simply ignored by the party leadership which has announced this week that its proposal for an “independent” Scotland involves still using sterling for several years, and accepting some of the UK’s sterling denominated national debt; a simply disastrous proposition.
About 5,000 SNP members have defected to the small Alba Party, which now includes Scotland’s own currency, no NATO membership, and a republic as policies on Independence clearly different to the SNP. With its radicals gone, the SNP has become ever more neo-liberal, with an annual 1% reduction in the state sector share of GDP as a policy. The SNP leadership openly briefs the media against its own membership.
Here follows the perception, I believe very important, which led me to start writing this article four days ago. I have needed constantly to rewrite it because of the astonishingly fast developments with the Truss government collapsing; but originally the article was nothing to do with that, except for the fact the Tory party professional elite also hate their own membership.
I live in Joanna Cherry’s constituency and was an SNP member here. All of the stalwarts in this constituency have left the party. There was a system of 16 individuals who received the leaflets for distribution, and then gave them out to local volunteers in their area (I presume the 16 are by ward, but that’s a guess). All 16 key individuals left to join Alba.
The universal motive of members quitting was the Sturgeon SNP’s failure to make any move towards Independence despite multiple successive electoral mandates. This member insistence on Independence was deeply annoying to the large professional class in the SNP making excellent personal money out of the positions they occupied within the devolution settlement.
That is the same all over Scotland. The average Alba member is not just ex-SNP (and over 90% are), but were the heart and soul of SNP membership, the people who chapped the doors and delivered the leaflets. A year ago, it was being suggested the SNP would be seriously damaged without these people.
That turns out to be completely untrue. Because those who lead political parties – and here comes my promised perception – believe they don’t actually need members any more. Almost nobody attends hustings meetings, nobody reads leaflets and nobody engages with canvassers. Elections are now fought almost entirely through the mainstream media, and online.
For the modern campaign, parties need paid PR practitioners and they need paid troll farms. They don’t need little old men and women going door to door, other than once or twice for a candidate photocall.
The members, bluntly, are redundant old nuisances in the eyes of the political class. Nobodies who presume a right to have a say in party policy which should be dictated by the professionals.
Nor do they need the members’ subscription money. Starmer is delighted to have shed hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporting members, to pursue instead corporate and billionaire money. The SNP Conference in Aberdeen was simply a festival of corporate lobbying. The Tories have always run on dark money in huge tranches.
Then there is the ever increasing largesse of Short money – taxpayer funds which the political class have awarded themselves to fund their party administrations. This state funding of political parties is one of the very worst innovations of my lifetime and fundamental to the development of our careerist and unprincipled political class.
The UK’s political parties are becoming uniformly right-wing organisations which represent a very narrow spectrum of views – those of the corporate sector and billionaire donors; who also of course own the mainstream media, which thus has precisely the same narrow spectrum of view.
This is a fundamental change in what a political party is – it no longer is a free association of citizens holding a common political outlook and working to elect representatives to support that philosophy. This great change in society – which renders western “democracy” entirely meaningless – is being consolidated before our eyes.
The destruction of Corbyn and his member-supported left-wing programme is mirrored in the destruction of Truss and her member-supported right-wing programme.
Nobody is allowed any longer to put forward any programme that is not within the narrow and entirely unimaginative confines of the professional political class.
An election that pitched Corbyn against Truss would offer voters a real choice between two radically different visions of society, with the Lib Dems as an option for those who liked neither. That would be a real democracy. But it is not to be permitted to voters.
Irrespective of what Labour and Conservative Party members would like to offer, the electorate is likely to be presented with Sunak or Starmer, two people so close in political outlook and policy there really is little point in turning up to vote. In Scotland you can choose the SNP, with the same basic economic policies and no genuine desire to change much on the constitution.
This of course links to the ease with which the “markets” were able to destroy the Truss/Kwarteng mildly radical economic policy. Be in no doubt the “markets” would have done precisely the same to Corbyn/McDonnell. Again, no actual political choice that deviates from our unseen masters is to be permitted.
That is a much larger subject, for another day.
To end on a happier note, I am not sure the professional politicians can so safely write off the power of ordinary people campaigning in the real, not virtual, world. Both climate chance activists and union strikes are showing a way forward, while the feeling of social solidarity at the Assange protest in London recently reinvigorated me.
I will never forget the genuine social mobilisation behind the major unexpected and still sustained advance in support for Scottish Independence in 2014. I don’t think troll farms and PR firms can replace genuine popular movements, and I believe those are still possible, drawing on – but not dominated by – modern communications technology.
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
So Western Parliamentary Democracy is done. What system can replace it, and how?
Only sortition would make a real difference.
I can just see the chief executive of the local hospital trust submitting to the premiership of the lady who cleans his corridors. Of course we can do what the Athenians did, and limit the pool of possible holders of office to the rigorously screened few who qualify as racially, socially and economically acceptable citizens.
Why such dr*vel?
It’s like saying we don’t want to copy anything from the USA, because they only have McDonalds jobs.
A modern sortition system has of course no place for such racial or other profiling, and it could weed out the idiots among the voluntary candidates as of the Athenian meaning by means of a simple basic political and economic knowledge test, which should be mandatory for politicians and ideally also for voters in our current system as well.
Jaybee you cannot be serious ? A knowledge test for voters ?
Can I set the questions ?
If yes , I agree with you
” by means of a simple basic political and economic knowledge test, which should be mandatory for politicians and ideally also for voters in our current system as well.”
That would have got rid of Liz Truss at a very early stage.
What the Athenians did to mitigate the problem of idiosyncratic citizens was to put most decisions in the hands of large boards, randomly chosen, so that the idiosyncratic could be outvoted.
Biocracy, when all else fails. #biocracynow
How could contemporary biocracy ideas be summed up here in a few lines?
One of the articles that comes up for me on searching, is about the Nazi Biocracy – the folk nation as living entity needing to get back to nature and implement eugenics and racial hygiene (back when mental health was called mental hygiene, I recall) mixed with Christianity I guess.
Contemporary ideas on biocracy owe nothing to Nazis or Christianity, as far as I know. Here are a few quotes from Lynton K Caldwell:
that I include in my blogpost on constitutionally-encoded biocracy. It rejects both humanist and planetary-unrealistic ideologies as a basis for politics.
Gesundes Volksempfinden, in other words.
Yes, I should’ve said the article about Nazi physicians was only retrospectively calling it a biocracy because of the central ideology about the supposed racial health of the German people.
But I see the term was coined in the early 30s by American physiologist Cannon though. Who also came up with ‘fight or flight’ and ‘homeostasis’. And he was just talking an analogy between bodily homeostasis and economic stability, didn’t really pursue it. Seems he was anti-fascist and helped Jewish scientists.
P.s. I do very much agree btw if I understand correctly that it’s now coming from on the one hand environmentalism, and also improving understanding of humans as natural beings.
Keir Starmer is a creature/puppet of the Security/Deep State
Mostly I’m in agreement with Craig’s comments, and I’d go further about Starmer: his ascent to power, by lies to the voters and cynical manoeuvering within his own party, suggests he’ll do anything to get to the top. After he becomes Prime Minister at the next election, why won’t he use his office to ensure that he stays there?
I disagree about the comments on immigration. Craig has twice posted Rachel Reeves’ comments on deporting illegal immigrants – but she is right. Does Craig really believe that Britain should have completely open borders, allowing anybody who wants to settle in Britain? If so, Britain ceases to be a country; the first duty of any government is to protect the borders. If not, illegal immigrants should be deported, and they should be deported promptly, not left in limbo for months. By the way, most voters of both main parties agree with that; is Craig displaying the same contempt for the electorate as the party leaders display, just on a different topic?
I agree with Roger. The rough treatment is given out to illegals (aka people who have broken the law). They could come to the UK on Eurostar with a genuine ticket for a fraction of the price they pay for a seat in a rubber boat; but they don’t.
Why? Because to do that would mean having to provide ID and have it checked by security, just to make sure these people are not wanted elsewhere for crimes already committed, draft dodging, etc.
I will leave you to decide for yourselves why they choose to arrive in the UK with no form of identification whatsoever, and why they don’t claim asylum in France, or any EU country.
> draft dodging, etc.
If you’re Eritrean, and Ethiopian soldiers march into your country and start drafting all the men, it makes sense to leave Eritrea and seek asylum. Treating draft-dodging asylum seekers are fugitives from justice is wrong.
@ Roger: Utter piffle, the British state has caused people to flee their country by participating in the US empire of cruelty, competing with the zionist occupiers of Palestine for the status of the chief jackal. Rebuild the Middle East and the refugee “problem” disappears.
So what wars are they fleeing from in France and the EU?
Many of them aren’t fleeing France and the EU. Only a small proportion of asylum seekers travel through the EU hoping to settle in the UK, largely because they have other family members here
Yes, the most efficient way to migrate is to a place where you have family connexions so that you aren’t a fish out of water when you arrive.
Well said squeeth , do you think some of the earlier comments here are from people who are under 18
Perhaps they don’t know what oil has done to the Middle East
Thank you.
“illegal immigrants” I thought people were innocent until proven guilty. I don’t think Craig is suggesting totally open borders but the people come on boats at great cost because there is no other route that the government allows for them to get here. On appeal statistics most are genuine asylum seekers fleeing from possible death, others indeed are trying to get to a better life for them and families because UK & US wars have destabilised their homelands. France already takes more people than the UK and many people who come here speak English and have relatives here – the reason for their choice. Should we call most Australians and people in the USA illegal immigrants because they or their ancestors went to those countries and by cheating and murder took over from the native inhabitants? The UK exported its surplus population to the colonies to great profit for them and the UK. There should be official routes for people to come to the UK safely. Of course arrivals should be questioned on background and motives and those who are not in real need deported. I accept this is a complex issue and solution will also be complex. Maybe we cannot take everyone but don’t make them out to be less than our brothers and sisters in humanity. “They” could at some time be “us”.
«I’d go further about Starmer: his ascent to power, by lies to the voters and cynical manoeuvering within his own party»
Those happened *after* he had ascended to power, the political career of “Keith” was stunning in its rapidity:
* New Labour appointed him DPP in 2009 when he was just a well regarded lawyer, pushing him ahead of many more experienced candidates.
* In 2013 after a whole year spent “thinking about politics” he was gifted an ultra-safe central London seat by New Labour, pushing him ahead of many more candidates who had waited for decades for such an opportunity,
* In 2016 after a long 2 years on the backbenches he got a front-bench high profile shadow secretary of state position, jumping ahead of many more experienced MPs who had waited for decades for such an opportunity.
* In 2019 after 3 years on the front bench he became the main candidate for and won the leadership of the opposition, jumping ahead of many candidates with much longer experiences in politics.
The rise to prominence of “Rish!” has been even quicker:
* In 2015 he was gifted the ultra-safe seat of Richmond (Yorkshire), succeeding W. Hague (the seat is an historically “whig” one), pushing him ahead of many more candidates who had waited for decades for such an opportunity.
* After waiting patiently for a whole 2.5 years he was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary, jumping ahead of many more experienced MPs who had waited for decades for such an opportunity.
* He had to wait a whole 1.5 years to be appointed to the high office of Chief Secretary to the Treasury, jumping ahead of many more experienced MPs who had waited for decades for such an opportunity
* After another long 1.5 years he joined the front bench to become Chancellor, jumping ahead of many more experienced MPs who had waited for decades for such an opportunity.
* It took him then over 2 long years to become the main candidate for the leadership of the governing party, jumping ahead of many candidates with much longer experiences in politics.
* It took him as long as 2 months after losing the leadership election to be on track to be acclaimed by the media as leader of the governing party.
I suspect Sir Kier was picked as being a “safe pair of hands” to lead the Labour Party, none of this Socialism rubbish, but, in the case of Rishi, it was “it’s not what you know, but who you know”, that and money, of course.
I’d question the implied deference to experience in your comment. Generally speaking, ability should count for more than years of waiting.
(Not that I’m suggesting that either Labour or Tories actually do promote mainly by ability, of course.)
«question the implied deference to experience in your comment. Generally speaking, ability should count for more than years of waiting.»
We are talking politics, not engineering, and politics skill is largely based on experience, on working inside the system and knowing what works.
But the really important angle I was hinting at is that political careers are *careers*: many politicians are ambitious and are motivated by the prospect of advancement, to see a complete newcomer “jump the queue” must have made many of them quite angry. It is not just a question of skill, but also of rewarding successful service in some cases, “accomplished pairs of hands”. Promoting someone so fast so far ahead of people with long term service and qualifications must have been done for rather interesting reasons.
As to the question of skill, neither Sunak nor Starmer have demonstrated before (or after) their extraordinarily rapid promotions any notable political achievements.
«question the implied deference to experience in your comment. Generally speaking, ability should count for more than years of waiting.»
In addition ultra-safe seats like Starmers’ Holborn and Sunak’s Richmond don’t come along every year, in each case half a dozen big names inside either party must have had their eyes on them. It is hard for me to emphasize how extraordinary it is for people who have been in politics for at most a few years. Usually aspiring MPs are first given no-hope constituencies to learn the ropes of politics, supremely desirable Holborn and Richmond going to complete newbies is amazing.
Note: Holborn is BTW far more desirable than Richmond, it means that Starmer as a leader does not have to travel far to attend constituency office matter, it is a short Underground ride from Parliament. Many important MPs would kill for such a plum.
Note: Compare to Corbyn’s Islington, it is also for similar reasons a very desirable constituency, but Corbyn is sort of a native, he has from the backbenches served zealously Islington for some decades. Sunak is a lifetime south-eastener gifted what in effect is a Yorkshire “rotten borough”.
Brilliant article, thank you! People now need to work out what to do
Great post. Don’t agree with much of it but your analysis of the change in the way parties are organised is very shrewd.
Personally – and I don’t expect this view to be wildly popular among your readership – I am glad the parties are pruning their election procedures because what party memberships have come up with in recent years are leaders with charisma and sometimes attractive policies who unfortunately lack the technocratic skills also needed by the leader of a country in order to engage successfuly with foreign leaders and complex international systems.
‘Shrewd’ embraces many shades of grey. The analysis is astute, perceptive and presents the only path available that avoids the ‘kashmiri’ ‘mobocracy’ or pitch-fork revolt; and that is Scotland’s independence. So please consider membership of Alba to shine a bright light on freedom, on justice and on republic.
Next step, why not have MPs appoint MPs and do away with the electorate having a say.
Here’s what’s needed.
1. The right of consent in law. You can say no, or yes to the state
2. Open primaries for candidate.
3. Referendum by proxy. You nominate an MP, any MP as your proxy. For final passages of bills, it’s proxy votes that count.
Here’s why that works. If you are a Labour voter in a Tory seat, your vote counts for nowt.
If you are in a marginal seat your vote counts big time.
You can’t change your mind for 5 years.
Removes the power of selection committees.
Right of consent protects minorities
MPs don’t deliver on manifesto promises
MPs do things not in their manifesto.
All solved by the above.
Nah! Proxy this, proxy that, proxy war, yes proxy – the neoliberal operand; neoliberalism – the root cause of inequality, imperialism, corporatocracy, globalisation and all that is corrupt. Who wants an agent or handler except the security services? Who wants a delegate? Just one exemption exists, that of a surrogate mother and that must be the true meaning of “proxy”…
“why not have MPs appoint MPs and do away with the electorate having a say”
I have a much more democratic proposal: “one man one vote” and “mandatory reselection” as standard for party membership, where each local MP elects their local party members, and local party members have to be re-selected by their MP every year.
🙂 🙂 🙂
I guess the “blob” politicians of all parties would be delighted, of course none more than those of the Militant Mandelsoncy.
Conjunction, name names please
“What party memberships have come up with in recent years are leaders with charisma and sometimes attractive policies […]”.
Charisma? Liz Truss? Does not compute.
But that is admittedly tangential to your main point. I think you could even strengthen your argument by pointing to the disaster of Brexit.
But should we conclude that politics can safely be left in the hands of a professional political class?
Surely not, because as Craig points out – and he has pointed out many times, and many other people have been pointing out for a very long time – they will primarily serve powerful vested interests, secondarily their own material self-interest, and only as a distant third the common good (however hard that is to define).
I don’t have a solution to this problem. Do you?
Craig writes, “That is a much larger subject, for another day.” I look forward to that day. I need some hope.
I don’t agree with your economic policy convictions and attributions at all, but your analysis of our parties and now pseudo or fake democracy is spot on.
Can the joyous, anarchic, grassroots Indy movement of 2014 be replicated today? A hae ma doots.
The Stalinesque, dead hand of Sturgeon’s NuSNP will tolerate nae deviation fae the thoughts of the Great Helmsperson. NuSNP adopted the über woke code of conduct devised by the preposterously self important “Aberdeen Independence Movement”. That ain’t an honest attempt to moderate speech and opinion, rather it’s a disingenuous means to vilify and exclude all voices that stray fae the path defined by the Anglo-American deep state compromised NuSNP.
The Yes movement of 2014 sprang fae the schemes. Aye its language and discourse was profane, that’s the point! It repulsed the middle class humanities graduate, permanent managerial class that comprised the sinecured ranks of Murrell’s Head office, but Alex Salmond had the political intelligence to surf the wave.
Any attempt tae resurrect that freewheeling, chaotic campaign will be suffocated at birth by Sturgeon’s lickspittle, Praetorian guard.
The important thing is Scottish independence
NS and SNP say there will be a referendum next year if that happens I am happy
If NS and SNP decide we will use the British pound for a few years or forever I don’t care because I am pretty certain that they will then be replaced by people who will introduce our own Scottish currency
Same goes for taking responsibility for some U.K. debt
The whole question of Scotland taking responsibility for some U.K. debt will be determined by how fairly Westminster negotiate the division of U.K. assets because most U.K. assets are actually under the control of Westminster and most are held in England
If Westminster return to us what belongs to us and do it quickly and efficiently upon Scotland taking to independence then we can talk about taking some responsibility for U.K. debt but only the bits of it that we agree we would have spent money on if it had been us spending the money
Railway lines in England – NO
Olympic stadia Olympic villages in London – NO
Nuclear weapons – NO
Nuclear power stations – NO
Etc etc etc
Yes, but “mass mobilisations of citizens” also carries significant risks with it. How to balance representativeness vs mobocracy? That line is very thin.
What a pleasure to agree with every word Craig.
Excuse me, I think I need to lie down for a moment.
I looked at the Electoral Commission recently and the SNP has not received any ‘notifiable donation’ so that means £5000 or more, since 2017. So they are very dependent on Short Money and compulsory levies on MPs and MSPs who have to hand over part of their salary.
Presumably once the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) comes into force, there will be another way of removing people from office:
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/10/18/factsheet-foreign-influence-registration-scheme-firs/
I guess Priti Patel would have had a criminal record by now if it had been in force during her first ministerial stint.
While lobbying on behalf of foreign powers is not unknown in Westminster, would a more general allegiance to neoliberalism count? A position taken to obey World Markets? Maybe a step too far. It seems that the Royal family will be free to continue to represent the interests of Gulf monarchies (and anyone covertly promoting Irish interests will also apparently be exempt from registration requirements).
Anyway, an Independent Scotland would inherit such a legal stance; so when would people in Scotland be obliged to register their previously covert arrangements with rump UK and other foreign powers?
What I suspect is that FIRS will be rigorously applied when the foreign power is Russia or China, or any country that supports them, but not when the foreign power is Israel or the US.
@Bayard, your suspicions may well turn out to be correct, but definitions will surely be tested in court (see also ‘extremism’, ‘terrorism’, ‘torture’, ‘colony’ and what crimes were not tried at Nuremburg). Now I think about it, will Ministers have crown immunity? Blast the UK’s quasi-Constitution.
The ability or the will of the courts to oppose the government decreases by the day.
An excellent résumé of today’s political absolutes from Craig, and a future ground for local Independent candidates and single-issue choices to appear on voting slips.
Mind, they can only prepare for the power-mongers eventually calling a GE.
“Over at Going Postal someone has made this comment…
“Just step back a moment and consider that the Conservative Party have, in the past week, fired a chancellor for wanting to cut taxes and a home secretary for wanting to cut immigration.””
That sums up the absurdity quite nicely.
Craig wants to talk numbers…..
Here are a few numbers…..
44,913
That’s the number of Alba votes in 2021 (including my vote in NE Scotland for my former hero, Alex Salmond.
1,094,374
That’s the number of SNP votes in 2021. Leaving aside the Green vote, the Alba vote was 3.9% of the Yes vote.
12,335
That’s the number of Alba FP votes in 2022
633,252
That’s the number of SNP FP votes in 2022. Leaving aside the Green vote, the Alba vote was 1.9% of the Yes vote.
According to Craig, there has been a mass exodus of SNP members, but that isn’t reflected in the votes cast by ordinary punters. If the SNP WERE losing members, surely we’d see evidence of that in election numbers?
According to Craig, the BBC are colluding with the SNP, to fool people into thinking that there were greater numbers at the conference, than there actually were. I wasn’t at this year’s conference, so I can’t comment on the actual numbers. What I CAN comment on, is the ridiculous assertion that the BBC …… the BBC for goodness sake!! ….. are aiding and abetting the SNP.
I love reading Craig’s blog. In almost every aspect of his writings, I agree with him and trust his word, but he has a SERIOUS blind spot, when it comes to the SNP/Alba issue. The fact that he would make such a ridiculous assertion about the broadcasters colluding with the SNP is testament to just how skewed his views are, on the issue of the SNP.
I reserve judgement on Sturgeon, both on the level of her involvement in the conspiracy against Alex Salmond, and her ruthless character. I’m no SNP “sheep”. I don’t think that the SNP’s tactics have been especially clever, but equally, I’m not going to swallow the nonsense that Craig, Barrhead Boy, Stu Campbell, and the rest of the PROFESSIONAL bloggers put out about the SNP having “sold us out”. They put out this nonsense as “fact”, when it is actually their opinion, backed by no REAL evidence, but simply by ascribing the worst possible motives to everything the SNP, (and Sturgeon in particular) say and do. For EVERY SINGLE piece of “evidence” of SNP evil intent that these guys point to, there is an opposite interpretation that can be applied.
The usual one is the slowness with which the SNP are inching towards independence. Craig and his cabal ascribe this to SNP malfeasance – that the SNP are too cosy with the status quo. They never – ever – admit the possibility that the SNP’s unwillingness to rush into another referendum might be SOMETHING to do with the polls ….. polls which STILL show the Yes vote in the 48-49% range. There are those of us who’ve got our fingers crossed that Sturgeon and the SNP have got private polling which encouraged them to announce the date, and that they haven’t been too precipitous!!!
Folk who blindly accept the views of the professional bloggers like Craig are JUST as ovine as the “Nikla worshippers”. IMO.
“According to Craig, there has been a mass exodus of SNP members, but that isn’t reflected in the votes cast by ordinary punters. If the SNP WERE losing members, surely we’d see evidence of that in election numbers?”
I don’t think that follows at all; indeed the article is literally about the lack of electoral effect of those members. I expect Alba will slowly grow – from a base of nil remember – if the SNP continues to stay in office and not deliver Independence. Starting to register in opinion polls now at 3 to 4%.
Craig, your logic and insightfulness is awesome. You analyse and comment in THE most lucid way, on just about every subject you write about – except the SNP and Alba.
On that subject, your partisanship let’s you down badly, to the point that even your arguments are weak.
Are you seriously suggesting that it could be possible that “The SNP, like Labour has been shedding loads of members”, and it WOULDN’T be reflected in the election results?
In 2014, the Scottish Labour Party shed loads of members, and their vote share in 2015 fell from 42% to 24%.
In 2016, the SNP’s regional vote share was 41.7%. In 2021, AFTER the foundation of Alba, and when, according to you, the SNP has “been shedding loads of members” the SNP’s regional vote share was 40.3%.
How come? Do the rules of psephology apply only to Labour, but not to the SNP.
As to your statement about “expecting Alba to grow”, there is no evidence of that happening. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Alba’s vote share in 2021 was 1.66%. In 2022, their vote share had shrunk to 0.7%.
Incidentally, which polls are starting to register Alba at 3 to 4%? The latest poll I’ve seen (Yougov 4th Oct) had Alba at 1%.
«Are you seriously suggesting that it could be possible that “The SNP, like Labour has been shedding loads of members”, and it WOULDN’T be reflected in the election results?»
Those who paid attention to the article noticed that he is not merely suggesting it, but arguing it explicitly and supporting his argument with a fairly common and plausible reasoning:
“A year ago, it was being suggested the SNP would be seriously damaged without these people. That turns out to be completely untrue. […] Elections are now fought almost entirely through the mainstream media, and online.”
That is the common argument that mass/movement parties have devolved into political marketing businesses serving “high-net-worth” customers, like in the USA. Consider the case of New Labour: both in the 2000s and in this decade it has gotten rid of hundreds of thousands of “trot” members, yet its polls share has increased according to the mainstream media (the share has risen in both cases largely not because the absolute number of votes is rising, but because the absolute number of Conservative votes is falling, as many are “don’t know” or “won’t vote”).
What’s so incongruous about BBC Scotland being supportive of the SNP (in certain matters)?
During the fallout of the Question Time / Menthorn Media / Billy Mitchell scandal, BBC Scotland’s Director, Donalda MacKinnon’s position was; “what you thought you saw and heard didn’t happen”. A preposterous response, yet Sturgeon backed MacKinnon to the hilt. MacKinnon stuck ludicrously to this delusional assertion despite the emergence of photos of Mitchell in the Green room being plied with refreshments and an interview with Mitchell where he stated that Menthorn Media had him chauffeured to and from Question Time venues. Sturgeon’s support of MacKinnon never wavered.
BBC Scotland can promote the SNP as the “acceptable face” of Scottish nationalism whilst undermining the fundamental concept of independence (a brief that could equally be attributed to Sturgeon).
Opinions are just opinions after all
The day before yesterday Mr Campbell wings over Scotland said on his website that he does not see Truss leaving any time soon
The very next day she resigned !
So those who call themselves professionals are not always right
To me , I’m just an ordinary bloke , I thought to myself the day before yesterday that it was certain that Truss
would be gone any day this week
Last week I thought she will be gone by the end of October
She was losing senior staff being abandoned by the britnat media being ridiculed and laughed at there was no way she could survive
And yet the most famous possibly most experienced Scottish independence blogger got it so so wrong
I think it is possible to get too embroiled in politics
If you do
And you are not a leader of the politics you are involved in for example an MP or PM in government
You could be swamped in rumour , opinions that are factually incorrect and possibly you might get carried away with the value of your own opinions sometimes even presenting them as fact
Personally I think it’s virtually impossible to work out what NS plans to do
She is dealing with Westminster the best political machine in the world backed by a media that prints whatever Westminster wants both with a history of terrible wrongdoing to people who go against Westminsters wishes
NS in my opinion has to match Westminster shenanigans truths untruths muddy the waters
I’m sure that’s what they do
We will see next year if they are doing it for us
For Scotland
For Scottish independence
On becoming independent there will be many political changes new political party,s new politicians
Currency , U.K. debt , nuclear power , nuclear weapons , taxation , council tax , landownership , immigration , employment policy , so so much will be up for discussion and change
NS will be set aside when that happens
So will SNP
A referendum is the crucial next step
One that shows a simple majority in favour of Scottish independence
One that includes the votes of 16 and 17 year olds
” is the ridiculous assertion that the BBC …… the BBC for goodness sake!! ….. are aiding and abetting the SNP.”
Why is this ridiculous?
I enjoyed reading this excellent article feeling the deepest sense of pessimism which was not uplifted by the touch of optimism at the end. It is the case that there is an amazing amount of dissatisfaction with the way things are at present with widespread industrial action or threats of it from all quarter – barristers, teachers, nurses as well as railway and postal workers and so on, all symptomatic of a deeper underlying social malaise. There are lots of protest movements, PAL, Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion etc. all defying the efforts to put a block on their activities. There is Peace and Justice, and Enough and Enough, and the Citizens Assembly, all trying to get the voice of ordinary people heard.
The problem is that none of the political parties are taking any serious notice of any of this because they are self -absorbed in their own power battles. They are not debating why the country is in such a rotten state, why it is unacceptable for foodbanks to be normalised, why there is a cost of living crisis, why people are going cold, hungry and homeless, and why it is following stupid and ultimately self-destructive foreign policies as a colony of the United States. How to get their heads out of the sand that they have dug themselves into is the challenge, but it will need an almighty big dredger to do that.
All of those groups are people who want to force other people to do what they won’t do themselves because they are immune from the effects of their actions. ie. Trust funds etc.
= They are not debating why the country is in such a rotten state, why it is unacceptable for foodbanks to be normalised, why there is a cost of living crisis, why people are going cold, hungry and homeless
Because the welfare state has a 16 trillion pound pension debt. Your share is £600,000. This year’s increase is £60,000. The cause of those unacceptable things is because you and every taxpayer is not paying its fair share of those debts.
You’re complaining about symptoms of the debt.
If that is the case, which is arguable, then that is exactly what politicians should be devoting their minds and energises to instead of chasing each other around in their political silo.
£16 trillion divided by 67 million equals roughly £240,000 Aden. Also, that £16 trillion figure isn’t real debt because no money has changed hands. You could equally have argued before 1998 that the UK government was on the hook for trillions in future ‘university tuition debt’ – until that is, it wasn’t.
What do you think happens when pensions are paid by the state?
Clue: the recipients spend it, and tax is imposed on each initial and subsequent transaction, until, at any positive tax rate, the entire amount is eventually returned to the Exchequer, which balances the “books”, as if that were so important. The only currency that doesn’t is any that’s saved along the chain.
So any budget deficit simply equals private sector savings – which are a good thing. Once it’s spent again, it’s taxed, etc, etc.
The initial spend takes place in the normal way: following a Budget voted on by Parliament, the Paymaster General instructs the BoE to credit the reserve accounts of the banks of the recipients of departmental spending (in the case of pensions, the DWP), without recourse to prior taxation, NI fund, a govt “pension pot”, a Chancellors’ War Chest, the nation’s credit card, or any other ‘household economics’ analogies.
No need to lose sleep over the ‘affordability’ of U.K. state pensions, other than worry that they are about the lowest amongst peer nations, which is an ongoing disgrace
Extremely important post. But it is even worse than that because the two determinants of who rules now are the politicians, who are virtually appointed by the billionaires, and the markets who are also overseen by the same billionaires. The billionaires have now managed to effectively run the world and its governments. When you look at their wealth and their power it is frightening. A man like Elon Musk now has taken over space travel from NASA and other billionaires are shaping the way we get information and communicate.
Although Truss was a catastrophe and useless, it must be remembered that it is the markets that have got rid of her. Alexander Mercouris in a recent podcast, makes the same point as Craig Murray, that the means of destabilization of the government is even more undemocratic than the choice of leader by 160,000 conservative voters. In fact the markets did not seem to object to the much larger non-costed transfer of tax-payers’ money to the energy companies, instead focusing on the lesser tax giveaway.
We are here because of capitalism mark 2 with financialisation of everything. Unless the system changes, things will only get worse. There is no sign that things will change. Direct action is slowly being banned.
So how do you pay a £16 trillion pound socialist pension debt?
Not by paying energy profiteers 150 billion, thats for sure.
Where did you get this figure from?. The UK national debt is 2 trillion. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/september2021
I think it’s a totally imaginary figure, arrived at by calculating the size of the “pension pot” needed to pay all the old age pensions, for everyone in the country, whether they are of pensionable age or not. Since that’s not how pensions are funded, the figure is meaningless.
Indeed.
And what hope would there be if for example Alba was actually elected to lead in Scotland and Scotland became independent? The same market destabilisation will occur.
Billionaires don’t collectively ‘control’ the markets. Whilst they have their own group core interests they also compete at the margins (e.g those with interests in raw commodity and tech). Further, despite their immense surplus wealth they judge it necessary to conceal its operation which generates additional transactional costs.
Truss was picked and made leader by a group of these billionaires, acting heavily through the services of the internationally financed UK media. They appear to have found it was easier to win the leadership election than it was to ‘pick a winner’. The choice of Truss reflected the interests of the Randian cult, but not all billionaires by any means sign up to that. Those holding wealth largely derived from sterling denominated assets, and the wider political class of national authoritarians, have been in complete despair over the last 12 weeks.
“Unless the system changes, things will only get worse.”
Personally, I predict the next round of changes will actually make things worse. I can’t yet see the bottom of the pit.
“The billionaires have now managed to effectively run the world and its governments.”
The brief period of recent history when the world wasn’t ruled by the rich is merely a short aberration away from how things have always been. It’s the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
It’s just the same as they treat the plebs. That’s the issue. They dictate. They are the modern day French Aristrocrats.
Unfortunately for them the die is cast. The socialist welfare state has not taken the capitalist approach to pensions, by investing the money to pay its debts; it’s spaffed the lot. Now with a 16 trillion pound debt – and that includes your pension Craig – it can’t pay. The debt is too big.
So it needs to go fascist to force austerity onto the plebs to try and pay.
It’s going to end up the same way as 1789.
That’s not how state pension payments work, and you’re just being silly.
The currency required for state pensions in payment is spent into creation in exactly the same way as any other public spending, and there is no recourse whatsoever to any prior taxation, pot of money, national ‘fund’, or anything else.
Taxes (which are required to withdraw the spent currency from circulation so as not to allow inflation) are imposed *after* the spend, automatically, on the initial, and each subsequent transaction, until the whole lot is hoovered up by the Exchequer so the public spending process can continue, ad infinitum, without causing inflation.
#LearnMMT
Political Parties are a relatively modern thing, deriving from kinship factions, then during the course of the C18th and C19th solidifying into the Whigs and Tories so well known to schoolchildren. This occurred in sequence with the great constitutional change of the era, the transferral of government from the hands of the hereditary ruler into the hands of a primary adviser (PM) with their own advisers (Cabinet) based on their support within the Commons particularly on the supply of subsidies (Finance Bills).
Only with the expansion of the electorate did they become the mass movements of the mid C20th. They existed purely to enhance the firepower of the Party managers, in a diverse media landscape.
The political terrain further changed after 1911 with the introduction of MPs’ salaries. Previously the vast majority of members were of independent means, save a handful funded through Trade Unions. Allied to the successful bid to centrally control the selection of candidate MPs, the party managers have become the arbiters of who becomes an MP, and for how long. Entry is largely restricted to fully professional politicians, where losing a seat – especially given FPTP voting regimes – is the end of the line.
(As the incandescent Tory MP Charles Walker casually remarked “there is nothing as ex as an ex-MP”).
Mass Media power is radically concentrated into the hands of a tiny few, and campaign funds and billionaire backing are a decisive factor in most (possibly all) campaigns. This has been even further amplified by the control of ‘big data’ controllers. So, it is hardly a great surprise to find that parties, and with them the control of all the organs of the state (especially the security services, whom nobody even pretends have a judicial-like quasi-autonomy) reflect the collective interests of the donor class. That the members might adopt views contrary to those of donors converts them from an asset to a threat.
This is the core structure of ‘democracies’ (they are , of course no such thing) across the planet. Any new state however it forms will be coralled into the same ree/penfold (‘unseen masters’, indeed), or be labelled a pariah. I do hope, and feel sure they do, that Alba spends time thinking about how to escape the grim faced shepherds: de-professionalisation of politics, degradation of the role of the party, de-cartelisation/diversification of media ownership, management of big data collectors, dominant influence of asset-based wealth (usually international) on domestic political outcomes.
Sometimes it feels so broken there is nowhere to start again.
Thanks Craig for your posts, usually clarifying, always stimulating, and commonly written more tersely than I can manage!
It becomes more and more apparent that ‘Parties’ are the antithesis of democracy.
Party member allegiance is only to ‘The Party’, which facilitates the actions of lobby groups and is a focus for ‘donations’ from the right people.
“It’s a big Club, and you ain’t In It !” – George Carlin
As a member of a professional body I regularly vote, electronically, for candidates to fill the management roles of the body. I see absolutely NO reason why government elections (and local) could not be carried out in the same way ?
Our current voting system is corrupt and undemocratic.
Stevie Boy…..
In Estonia they vote electronically and even allow Estonians who are out of the country to vote .
When Estonia had a vote on independence they only allowed Estonians to vote
They did not allow Russians living in Estonia to vote because Russia has a much bigger population than Estonia and it would therefore be likely that nearly all those Russians living in Estonia would vote NO to Estonian independence .
Estonia thought their bigger neighbour would have too much influence on the outcome of their independence vote.
Sounds familiar
“I see absolutely NO reason why government elections (and local) could not be carried out in the same way ?”
Because, with electronic voting, they who control the electrons control the vote.
«Because, with electronic voting, they who control the electrons control the vote»
That can happen with all sorts voting: in some countries and places a lot of wannabe abastainer actually “vote”, by mail or sometimes in person. One of the few advantages of FPTP is that this usually does not change the result in many seats. Anyhow, historical quote:
http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/BAZHANOW/stalin.txt>
Boris Bazhanov “The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary” 1992.
“You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “what I think about this: I believe that it does not matter at all who will vote in the party and how; but what is very important is who will count the votes and how”
Actually even that is not that important: what matters more is who nominates the candidates.
> there is nothing as ex as an ex-MP
Walker is right, because nowadays most MPs are political science graduates who slipped immediately after graduating into working as a SPAD or on a think-tank. They know no trade, so being defenestrated by the electrorate is pretty scary.
There used to be a lot more practising lawyers in the legislature; I was never very keen on lawyer-MPs, but at least they know a trade, and aren’t compelled to cling on to their seats like limpets. And arguably having lawyers in a body whose purpose is to make and scrutinize laws, isn’t a wholly bad thing.
Jimmeh, you might find this of interest from the House of Commons library.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7483/CBP-7483.pdf
The march of the SPADS is given statistical embodiment in the table in part 7.
In 1979 there were merely 7 political organisers/politicians by 2015 there were 107. Farmers, and teachers/lecturers all look like to join colliers as ‘absent friends’, if they have not already. I would wonder what these poor souls would do if they lost their privileges and house pass. Even the lawyers rarely seem to have actually lawyered in recent times.
I suspect you remember the old adage ‘law before lunch and politics after’, apparently to reflect the need for the barristers to attend Chancery Court.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/01/corbyn-mcdonnell-crash-the-pound-truss-free-market
Interesting article by John McDonnell describing how he made preparations to try to avoid a Jeremy Corbyn Government being destroyed by the ‘markets’.
Thank you! I started looking for articles like that after reading Craig’s last article, but so much has been happening recently that I didn’t get far.
In fairness, this isn’t new. Conference voted in 1997 to hold a referendum on the monarchy after independence: a policy which was later ditched by Alex Salmond without consulting the membership.
Excellent article.
Re: “In short, the Tory membership will vote in any nutter who promises rough treatment for immigrants.”
This may be accurate but the reality is that everyone of the past nutters (eg. Herr Patel) have done and achieved nothing, the immigrants are still arriving in large numbers – from the EU – aided by the RNLI and MoD taxi service, and housed and fed in the best of surroundings with NHS ‘home’ visits, whilst large numbers of the indigenous population shuffle off to their food banks and die of treatable diseases. The immigrant issue is obviously all PR for the masses whilst the establishment really only want to quantitively increase the total population that they feed off of.
The other issue that confuses me, is why do the likes of McDonnell, Abbott, Corbyn, etc. still continue to support the Labour Party. IMO this is just an indicator that they actually support ‘The Party’ over the people and socialism.
“housed and fed in the best of surroundings with NHS ‘home’ visits, ”
If you are keeping people confined, what are you supposed to do if they need a doctor, send them off to the local GP with a promise to come back again? As to housing them and feeding them, I suppose if they were kept in cages outside with no food they’d soon die of exposure or hunger and that would be the problem solved, very cheaply. Once the message got back to their countries of origin, it would discourage others from coming here. Win-win!
It’s fine, by me, to disagree with what I actually said but excuse me if I don’t get involved with silly hyperbole. The Tories are NOT sorting out immigration, that’s the point.
As I understand it, Suella Braverman was sacked because she was opposed to more immigration, which is what Truss wanted. The Tories want more immigration, which is not surprising, given that there are 160,000 vacancies in the care sector, and those jobs are paid round about the minimum wage.
re – “housed and fed in the best of surroundings”, see ‘Manston migrant centre conditions appalling and inhumane, charity warns’ – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63262176
«Suella Braverman was sacked because she was opposed to more immigration, which is what Truss wanted. The Tories want more immigration»
There is a subtle angle to the immigration argument, and it is whether the immigrants are “visible” and have rights or are “invisible” and have no rights.
All the right-wingers want lots more immigration to solve the “it is do difficult to find cheap help nowadays” and to boost rents, but:
* The mostly skilled-working and middle-class kipper nationalists want immigrants to have no rights and to be “invisible” (stuck in their ghettos) in their beautiful tree-lined suburbs and schools; their only contacts with immigrants should be when they deliver their takeaway or make their coffee.
* The mostly upper-middle and upper class whig globalists don’t care much because their lives are so distant already from those of the lower classes that their contacts with the lower classes including immigrants are already minimal and they reckon the lower classes should have no rights, not just immigrants.
“* The mostly skilled-working and middle-class kipper nationalists want immigrants to have no rights and to be “invisible” (stuck in their ghettos) in their beautiful tree-lined suburbs and schools; their only contacts with immigrants should be when they deliver their takeaway or make their coffee.”
They don’t want immigrants, they want gastarbeiter, which, ironically, is what we had until we ended “freedom of movement” on leaving the EU.
“It’s fine, by me, to disagree with what I actually said but excuse me if I don’t get involved with silly hyperbole.”
If you don’t want to get involved in silly hyperbole, it’s best if you don’t use it in the first place.
The universal franchise in the UK has developed to were it is over the last century. It now means all over 18’s, with those over 16 in Scotland, able to vote.
It’s not the major political parties who despise and distrust voters, it’s the establishment comprised of those with wealth, power and privilege who want the enfranchised to be disenfranchised. Can anybody in the UK claim that the party they voted for is doing what they voted for them to do.
The EU “project” has successfully got around those pesky voters interference by disenfranchising every citizen in the EU. MEP’s only discuss what the Commissioner’s allow them to, no MEP has the right to introduce new legislation, amend existing legislation or repeal existing legislation. That is the exclusive privilege of the Commissioner’s.
It’s akin to the Lords telling the Commons what legislative matters they can decide on.
So when MEP’s get elected in a free vote, which they are, they can’t do the bidding of those who voted for them. Likewise, all national parliaments can have their wishes overturned by the tyrants in The EU Commission.
Anarchists are credited with the wise words ‘If voting changed anything they’d abolish voting’ Well, in the case of the EU ‘project’ they’ve gone one better, they’ve bamboozled everyone into believing they still have a vote that can change things. Now that’s a genius deception for you.
Possibly the worse thing about listening to scotnats is the laments they shriek for the passing of the EU, an organ that would give them less control over their own affairs than the current UK Union does…_
DiggerUK says the EU would give them less control over their own affairs than the UK union does – care to expand how the England colonial project based at Westminster, which claims complete ownership of Scotland, could possibly be less than an actual union of countries in which only partial sovereignty is ceded. Do you think an independent Scotland would be referred to as a region in the EU, as happens in the UK.
P.S. your comment fails on the simple fact that a considerable number of independence supporters did vote leave in 2016 so “…….. Scotnats is the laments they shriek for the passing of the EU, …” is inaccurate. You refer to the SNP. A common error of Britnats is to see the SNP and independence supporters as one and the same. They are not.
«MEP’s only discuss what the Commissioner’s allow them to, no MEP has the right to introduce new legislation, amend existing legislation or repeal existing legislation. That is the exclusive privilege of the Commissioner’s.
It’s akin to the Lords telling the Commons what legislative matters they can decide on.»
That’s the usual ridiculous misrepresentation of how the EU works: the legislative chamber of the EU is the EU Council, made of ministers accountable to elected national parliaments. The EU Council has the (almost) exclusive power to introduce new legislation by ordering the EU Commission (which is the EU civil service) to draft it, just like in the UK essentially all laws are drafted by civil servants and MPs can usually only vote on bills prepared by the civil service as instructed by ministers (in the EU only the EU civil service can draft laws because of language issues, to ensure that all translations have the same meaning, because the EU civil service is supposed to be “impartial”).
The EU Parliament is not the EU legislative chamber, but the EU *advisory* chamber, roughly equivalent to the Lords. Unfortunately the names of the EU political organs are badly translated into english from french terms that do not have meanings at all similar to similar words in english.
The kippers who keep misrepresenting the role of the EU Council, Commission and Parliament miss the two *real* democratic deficits of the EU, that have nothing to do with the entirely mythical “tyrants in The EU Commission”:
* The EU Council is at the same time the EU government and the EU legislative chamber, in that regard the EU does not have separation between executive and legislative powers: EU laws are both proposed and approved by the ministers of EU member governments, who are politically accountable to the EU national parliaments, not so much to the EU Parliament. In practice the UK system also has not much of a separation between executive and legislative powers, outside confidence motions, as UK governments propose laws, have them written by the civil service, and their majority in the UK Commons and Lords rubber-stamps them.
* The votes that the national ministers who are members of the EU Council cast when they legislate are not one-person-one-vote, but less than proportional with increasing population, so a german, italian, french, polish voter counts for far less than a danish or czech voter when EU laws are passed.
“That’s the usual ridiculous misrepresentation of how the EU works: the legislative chamber of the EU is the EU Council, made of ministers accountable to elected national parliaments. ”
That’s watering democracy down to homeopathic levels. The people vote to choose MPs. Those MPs chose ministers. Those ministers choose members of the EU Council. No-one has any compulsion to do anything the voters want.
“the legislative chamber of the EU is the EU Council, made of ministers accountable to elected national parliaments.”
Not really, because each minister is “accountable to” a different national parliament! Divide-and-rule in action. Even if a couple of national parliaments dislike what the EU Council has done, there’s usually nothing they can do because most decisions are taken by (qualified) majority vote.
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/com/eu-and-me/img/en_exe03.svg
As all can see, only the commissioners can make proposals…_
«As all can see, only the commissioners can make proposals…”
I guess all except a few can easily see that means just that the EU Civil service can write *drafts*, under the instruction of the EU Council (and sometimes the suggestion of Parliament members). Again that is to handle reliably multiple languages. The EU Commission, like any civil service, can issue drafts by their initiative, but cannot vote on them either. If the EU commission is not zealous in carrying out the directives of the EU Council, or in considering the suggestion of the EU Parliament, they can be sacked, they are just civil servants, and they have been sacked at least once.
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu_en
“What does the European Council do?
* decides on the EU’s overall direction and political priorities […]
* ask the European Commission to make a proposal to address it
* pass it on to the Council of the EU to deal with”
“What does the Council do?
* negotiates and adopts EU laws, together with the European Parliament
* EU ministers meet in public when they discuss or vote on draft legislative acts”
Again in french “proposal” means “draft”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_(France)#Law_proposal
“A proposal for a law can originate from the Government (projet de loi) or a Member of Parliament (proposition de loi). Certain laws must come from the Government, including financial regulations ”
Ah funny that last bit — the representatives of the people are not allowed to initiate interference with the banks, only the finance sector’s representatives (e.g. the finance minister, or the president) can do that.
Received this, in an email from ‘Believe’ In Scotland (SNP civilian wing) this morning..
“Even if an independence referendum was not granted before a general election, there is simply no way it can be denied if the SNP forms the Official Opposition and is the second largest party in the House of Commons. This begs the question: what else would have to be done to prove that it is time?”
So make SNP official opposition in WM, giving them even more goodies, and they’ll be so much more motivated to leave WM!! That’ll be me off the GMK mailing list.
“Corbyn against Truss would offer voters a real choice between two radically different visions of society, with the Lib Dems as an option for those who liked neither”.
Only for those blithely unaware of the Lib Dems’ own vision of society, which is every bit as pitiless and extreme as that of their old colleague Liz Truss.
Forget their role in enabling the Cameron-Osborne austerity regime. Just go back to the last GE, 2019, and you will find the LDs’ Deputy Leader Sir Ed Davey expressing outrage at the level of public spending being proposed by Boris Johnson, branding the PM “Santa Claus”.
What Sir Ed proposed instead in 2019 was PERMANENT AUSTERITY for the UK by means of a permanent government budget surplus.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019-liberal-democrats-permanent-spending-surplus-363716
That vision of society has such strong appeal among ordinary rank and file Lib Dems that they subsequently elected Sir Ed party leader.
The Lib Dems’ hard-right, dystopian market-fundamentalist view of society was at the fore again during the summer when they demanded the RMT strikes be broken by the army. More recently too when their former spin doctor Mark Littlewood went into raptures about Liz Truss’s Britannia Unchained mini budget. Littlewood, now Director General of the libertarian, free market IEA think tank, said it was “The best budget I have ever heard a British chancellor deliver. Not a trickledown budget but a boost-up budget.”
It is worth remembering all this whenever you see anyone trying to represent the Lib Dems as a safe middle ground party or extolling a “progressive alliance” between the Lib Dems and the Labour Party of Mandelson-Reeves, or indeed the supposed nirvana of a PR electoral system in which the Lib Dems would invariably be the kingmakers.
Lib Dems gave us Nick Clegg and Liz Truss, enough said.
Uncomfortable question.
Who is more likely to prevent a return to austerity economics — Boris Johnson or a Keir Starmer-Ed Davey “Progressive Alliance” liberal dream team?
That’s a very good question!
Johnson, who wants to be liked, is always very keen to spaff money, although often corruptly and inefficiently, but almost all and any public spending (apart from perhaps on arms) is a good thing; it’s how we get our money!
Starmer/Reeves would likely be just as austerity-driven as Hunt or post-Covid Sunak, so could well see in a harsher spending regime.
Ridiculous to think that the Tories under Johnson could be further to the left economically than Labour… but there we are.
> there is nothing as ex as an ex-MP
Walker is right, because nowadays most MPs are political science graduates who slipped immediately after graduating into working as a SPAD or on a think-tank. They know no trade, so being defenestrated by the electrorate is pretty scary.
There used to be a lot more practising lawyers in the legislature; I was never very keen on lawyer-MPs, but at least they know a trade, and aren’t compelled to cling on to their seats like limpets. And arguably having lawyers in a body whose purpose is to make and scrutinize laws, isn’t a wholly bad thing.
In general I agree with your comment but they(lawyers) have very basic and outdated knowledge
in Economics. Main problem for most of population is economy and survival. The whole economy
argument is based on false premises resulting in wrong conclusions and wrong policies.
MMT and Mr Shig….. claims that things are upside down then popular believe in MSM. Kind of Who orbits around whom
Sun around Earth or vice versa!
I am woke whatever that means but it should not be a main distraction.
An independent Scotland accepting its fair share of the UK national debt won’t be anywhere near as disastrous a proposition for Scotland as it refusing to take on that debt. Why? Because around 60% of Scottish exports (about a quarter of Scotland’s entire GDP) go to the rest of the UK, which could easily decide to impose WTO tariffs on Scottish imports in retaliation. Even if it didn’t, a campaign to boycott Scottish products, whipped up by the tabloids etc, would have similarly horrible effects for the Scottish economy – maybe more so.
Assuming it did accept the debt, Scotland should also receive its share of UK gilts bought by the Bank of England under its QE scheme, which would effectively reduce the Scottish debt-to-GDP ratio from 80-90% to 50-60% – a level that most reasonably developed economies should be able to manage.
P.S. UKIP hasn’t been wound up; it continues under the statesperson-like leadership of one Neil Hamilton. It also still has seven local councillors – which is seven more than Alba.
Lapsed Agnostic…..
If England refuse to buy Scottish gas, Scottish electricity, Scottish water, Scottish whisky, Scottish oil products, Scottish food, Scottish fish, we wont worry, England can whistle in the wind for the debt they have accrued.
Scotland has no governmental powers to borrow and no say in what Westminster borrows or spends.
I do hope England can import gas, electricity, water, whisky, oil, food, fish etc. from overseas because it does not produce enough itself.
Thanks for your reply, Terence. The UK has accrued the debt partly on behalf of the Scottish people, and due to the Barnett formula, public spending per capita in Scotland is significantly higher than in England. The Scottish Parliament has the power to raise extra income tax on earnings, so if it didn’t want Scots to benefit from this borrowing, it could work out how much has been borrowed to fund public services in Scotland, increase tax rates to cover this, and give the additional proceeds back to HM Treasury. If the Scots Parliament was able to borrow money of its own accord, it would more than likely be spending the proceeds on more or less the same things as the Westmonster one: health, education, benefits, pensions, etc etc.
England can easily source most of the things you listed on international markets for similar cost (have you tried any of the Jap whiskies? Some of them are quite nice, if I do say so myself). Eventually, Scotland should be able to find new markets for most of its products, but this will take time – years and years – by which point a lot of economic damage will have been done. As a result of its actions, the cost of borrowing for Scotland will also be far higher than for the rest of the UK to compensate investors for the risk that Scotland might renege on that debt as well. The idea that an independent Scotland can just do what it wants and there won’t be economic consequences is for the birds.
Anyway, why would Scotland taking its fair share of the national debt be disastrous? Surely any future independent Scotland wouldn’t be such an economic basket-case that relatively modest amounts of debt would be crippling, like a colder version of Burkina Faso or wherever? By the way, most of the North Sea gas fields are in English waters. Also, by ‘Scottish water’, do you mean Highland Spring?
Lapsed,
” The UK has accrued the debt partly on behalf of the Scottish people,…” well golly gosh old boy how very kind of you.
Try that on your next door neighbour and see how that goes. You could say I run up some debt for you getting builders in to install a new driveway for my house which you could use when I am on holiday if you want. Please note if you are thinking of moving house I expect you to pay your part of the debt. Your neighbour would probably tell you to f*** off. Well that’s my response as well.
Lapsed do you ever sit back and think about what you say – that is pure colonial thinking.
” public spending per capita in Scotland is significantly higher in England.” ????? aye that’s right just like they built the railways in India to help the poor locals. England starves its own children and needs a footballer to embarrass its clown of a PM (some trans they call Doris) to take some action but gives loads of dosh to Scotland. Lapsed you are full of Britnat propaganda.
Lapsed your colonial thinking is for the birds and it is offensive.
Thanks for your reply, Cubby. At the risk of repeating myself, if the Scottish authorities had wanted Scotland not to rely on ‘English’ debt, they could have, in not as many words, essentially told England “**** off, we don’t want your Sassenach debt”, just by raising Scottish income taxes, and giving the amount of debt that had been used to fund Scottish public services in a given year back to the Treasury. Then they would have a very good case for not taking their pro-rata share of the UK national debt if and when Scotland becomes independent. It’s also worth noting that the Scottish parliament gets to decide exactly how much money (raised via both taxation and debt) is spent on health, education and many other things in Scotland.
I’ll give you another example: as I’m living in safe Tory seats (parliamentary & council) at the moment but don’t vote Tory, I essentially have no say in how my taxes are spent. Does that mean I can just stop paying Council Tax, or get a job that pays cash in hand and not declare it – even though I benefit from the bins being emptied every fortnight and the streetlights coming on at night, etc? By your logic, it does – but good luck with getting a judge to go along with it.
Well, I’m not sure I can come up with a convincing argument against the cry-laugh emojis, but here goes: Scottish public services mostly benefit Scottish people, just like Indian Railways mostly benefit Indian people. I’ve heard Boris called a fair few names, many of them deserved, but never ‘trans’ or ‘Doris’. Hope you’re not being trans-phobic – people don’t like that these days.
When you say my thinking is offensive, what you mean is that it offends you – but I’m only trying to get you (and maybe one or two other people on this thread) to think a bit more about these things. I’ll try to reply to your other comment when I get time later in the day. P.S. How do you know I’m not an (early middle-aged) girl?
Lapsed your argument has absolutely nothing worthwhile to command it. I am clearly Britnat and English colonial phobic. I really don’t care if you are male female or inbetween or want to call yourself it.
Pretty tiresome and offensive hearing the old standard comparison by Britnats between the nation Scotland and English regions or shires or towns or villages. If you cannot see how your posts may be offensive then it is no wonder colonial attitudes still persist to this day.
“eventually, Scotland should be able to find new markets for most of its products, but this will take time – years and years”
That’s what was said about Russia, but, judging by the time it took them to find new markets for its natural resources, that would probably be weeks and weeks.
Lapsed
1. I thought the UK was global Britain which wanted to trade with the whole world. That would look great to the rest of the world: vindictive England will not trade with its nearest neighbour.
2. This trade threat stuff is classic colonial tactics. Try and decolonise your mind. It’s England that would be isolated, not Scotland. Unless you think the aircraft carriers can be sent to Scotland, where they were built, to intimidate the population. It’s 2022 not 1707.
3. If Scotland takes its share of U.K. debt, we take our share of UK assets. Buckingham Palace would make a very nice home for Craig as Scotland’s Ambassador.
4. The 60% figure is probably nonsense like a lot of the UK figures that the UK produces about Scotland e.g. Propaganda GERS figures.
5. Scotland has a positive export position, unlike England, and will have no trouble continuing to export to the rest of the world once it reopens the ports that England shut to ensure Scotland’s exports were sent via England. There will no longer be BRITISH Bell’s whisky or BRITISH haggis.
6. I am sure after independence we will continue to send our surplus electricity to England even if England tries its usual colonial tactics.
Thanks for your reply, Cubby. To address your points:
1. The rest of the UK would probably still be willing to trade with Scotland, just on WTO rules with tariffs – which are particularly substantial on food and drink. Many people around the world would see this as fair do’s for Scotland not being willing to take on any of the UK national debt. Don’t forget, for better or worse, the BBC still has a lot of clout throughout the world with which to influence opinion.
2. Classic colonial tactics involve taking over other people’s lands without permission – I can assure you no one will be colonising my mind unless I want them to. Who mentioned anything about aircraft carriers? In 1707, England and Scotland didn’t become Great Britain because the Royal Navy bombarded Scottish ports with broadsides until Scotland surrendered and was forced to join the union. On the contrary, the Act of Union was voted through by the Scots Parliament because the Scottish finances were in a parlous state.
3. Scotland can have UK assets in Scotland such as Holyroodhouse etc. I doubt many people in the rest of the UK would have any problems with that, though they might have with it trying to commandeer Buckingham Palace.
4. The 60% figure will almost certainly be about right. As Remainers never tire of telling us, around 45% of the UK’s trade is with the EU, and, unlike that situation, England and Scotland share a common border and (mostly) a common language.
5. Every year from 1998 to 2020, Scotland has run a trade deficit. I doubt that changed in 2021.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/348541/scotland-net-trade/
6. Who knows about the future supply of electricity? The UK’s energy situation is rather up in the air at the moment.
Slainte
Lapsed,
1. It would be your loss. If you think it would be so good where are the English independistas. Vote for English independence: is that not what brexiteers wanted? BBC is known as the original state propaganda broadcaster. Not trusted.
2. The Scottish Finances were not in a parlous state. It was England that was in debt due to all the wars it was waging. The people of Scotland did not want the union. Members of the parliament were bribed and intimidated and English spies e.g. Defoe, were rife in Edinburgh. An English fleet was moored off the coast of Scotland and an English army on its border. It was a forced marriage resisted by the people of Scotland through riots and petitions. Bully-boy England.
3. You are the one who said Scotland has to take a percentage of Scotland’s debts run up by crooks like Johnson. Scotland had no say in the running up of these debts.
4/5. Sorry to break it to you but Britnats lie and they have been lying for a very very long time. They have been saying since the 70s that the oil/gas will run out in 5-10 years. In 2014 they said the same but the great BBC never challenges the current we must open up more fields in the N. Sea spouted by the same people who said it was but finished. The British Empire, also known as the English colonial project, has been lying and ripping off other countries resources for many a century.
6. Scotland already produces more than enough electricity for its own needs and exports the remainder to England. New wind farms off the coast of Scotland under development will take the power direct to England. No need to thank us because It is not expected from Britnats, but if England tries it on after independence then it can easily be shut down. So, in summary, Scotland has a massive amount of energy resource but the Scots get the high market charges due to successive English-controlled governments, Thatcher etc. Norway pays a fraction of what we pay but of course they are not a colony of England. Norway also has its massive wealth fund – a trillion or so – we have nothing – but of course they are not a colony of England.
Westminster has regularly told its colonies they could not survive without its assistance. The facts have proven otherwise. Scotland will be no different. As the chairman of Tesco said recently, Ireland is 4th in the league of GDP to head of population. The UK is 30 something. The benefits of Irish independence: from the UK-forced famine to 4th.
Sadly Lapsed you seem to have this idea that the British Army went around the world spreading goodness and light like some sort of Salvation Army. It didn’t and it doesn’t and its negative effect was felt in Scotland as well.
Thanks again for your reply, Cubby. Here we go again:
1. Just because I don’t agree with everything you say doesn’t mean I’m a BritNat. I happen to believe that, in the long run, most Scots would be better off out of the union, not least because they could get rid of Trident and thus become a lot safer. Rightly or wrongly, the Beeb is more popular globally than you might think: as an example, 15 million people a week worldwide watched the fairly tedious Dateline London with Shaun Ley – that hardly anyone in the UK watched, which is why it got axed, even though it would have been cheap as chips to make.
2. The Scottish finances were in a parlous state before union: their colony in Darien had failed with huge losses, and the Royal Scots Navy couldn’t protect their merchant fleet from pirates on the high seas, plus they’d just emerged from the Seven Ill Years where around 10% of the Scots population had died of starvation – that’s comparable to the Irish Potato Famine and had nothing to do with English landlords. At the time, Scotland was also allied with England & Wales against France & Spain in the War of the Spanish Succession – and earlier in the War of the Grand Alliance – which was also costing them, as well as England, lots of money. We have no way of knowing what the bulk of the Scottish people wanted, as no reliable opinion polls were available at the time. Bribery was just the way most politics in Europe got done in the 18th century – and in some respects is still much the case now: it’s just that the bribes come afterwards – ennoblements, investment bank sinecures, etc.
3. As detailed on this blog and elsewhere, compared to some senior figures in the SNP, Boris is a choir-boy. As for Scotland having no say in the running up of debts, see my previous comment at 14:31 today.
4&5. If you think that reputable financial statistics compilers just make things up because they are full of BritNats, why not go the whole hog and claim that the 2014 referendum result was fabricated by BritNats to thwart the will of the Scottish people?
6. When the wind isn’t blowing, which happens more often than people think, Scotland doesn’t produce anywhere near enough electricity for its own needs at peak times. In order to do so, it would either have to build several oil-fired power stations, which are rarely built these days due the (usual) high cost of oil compared to gas and coal – or come up with energy storage solutions like batteries, electrolysis plants for hydrogen, or pumped storage, all of which can be done but involve a huge amount of investment.
Electricity prices in Norway are low because it has a large amount of low-cost hydro-power relative to the population. Scotland refusing to sell electricity to the rest of the UK could lead to blackouts, but according to the National Grid there could be blackouts this winter anyway – does that mean that the UK government is going to suddenly start supporting Russia so it can buy their gas? I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Thanks to the Barnett formula, for the last forty years, substantially more public sector workers could be employed in Scotland than would otherwise have been the case. If, from 1980 onwards, Scottish public sector workers were to have put about a sixth of their salaries into a trust fund for the future benefit of the Scottish people, by now that fund would have a similar amount to the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – but they didn’t. It’s simply not the case that the English stole Scotland’s oil and Scots got nothing in return.
Just about all former British colonies have survived in one form or another, but many can’t really be said to have thrived, some of them with GDP per capita levels comparable to where they were when they left the Empire. Where have I said the British Army was/is an unalloyed force for good in the world? You’re putting words in my mouth.
Slainte mhath.
Lapsed, I have to admit I cannae be bothered reading all your rubbish – I didn’t get too far – life’s too short to go reading the same nonsense over and over again.
I will give you one example where you are wrong. You say we have no way of knowing what the hulk of Scottish people thought about Union as there were no opinion polls. There were no opinion polls certainly and I don’t think you deserve much credit for working that one out. There were, however, petitions to the Scottish Parliament. Only ONE petition was for the union. Eighty petitions AGAINST the union. Before you start thinking up your pathetic ah but stuff – your BBC (which you worship) broadcast a programme a few years ago which confirmed the existence of the petitions, held by Glasgow university on a 80 to 1 basis and overwhelmingly against the union. The petitions were ignored by those in the parliament who voted for union. There was no democracy then for Scotland and there never has been since. The Treaty of Union has been broken many many times by England since 1707. The speaker of the House of Commons boasted that Scotland had been caught and we will hold it fast.
Ps your comments on Darien are the usual Britnat propaganda version of history – Neil Oliver would be proud of you.
Lapsed you are just repeating false Britnat propaganda.
“Because those who lead political parties – and here comes my promised perception – believe they don’t actually need members any more. Almost nobody attends hustings meetings, nobody reads leaflets and nobody engages with canvassers. Elections are now fought almost entirely through the mainstream media, and online. For the modern campaign, parties need paid PR practitioners and they need paid troll farms.”
Another factor in this is the increasing irrelevance of the individual candidates, the “if you tied a blue ribbon round a monkey, it would be elected in this constiutency” effect. People now vote for the party, mostly, although some vote for that party’s leader. ” Are you voting for Boris” people were asked in the last election. There is no longer any need for a constituency level organisation at all.
A professional, careerist, managerial class, yep. Although ‘professional’ usually implies a certain aptitude, which few of these people in parliament actually possess. A fact rarely iillustrated as vividly as it’s been with the hapless, clueless Truss’s obvious overpromotion and then equally rapid fall.
Starmer’s rise and the lack of media scrutiny therein regarding his outrageous pledge making and breaking, is made all the worse coming on the heels of Corbyn being subjected to the most vicious and intense scrutiny we’ve ever seen a UK politician face. The press’ door-stepping and the way his every utterance & ‘liked’ tweet, past and present, came under the microscope contrasts starkly with Starmer’s kid-glove media treatment. The London based media clearly see themselves as part of the same apparatus as the self-serving, self-protecting ToryLabSNP centrist careerist cabals, happy to collude with them to deny real meaningful democratic choice in the UK.
Something – maybe the only thing – that could make a difference is the introduction of proportional representation for Westminster. At Labour’s recent conference members voted for the party to support proportional representation for Westminster, and Starmer simply dismissed the vote. Begging the question: why do CLPs bother to send delegates to conference if their votes on anything important are non-binding and can simply be viewed by the leadership as advisory, and thus ignored? The same was true in 2021, when members tried to bind the party with a motion on sanctions on Israel, including stopping UK arms sales, a motion the then shadow Foreign Secretary, Lisa Nandy, said shortly afterwards, the leadership would likewise simply ignore.
This disenfranchisement is not unique to the UK, the European democratic deficit extends to the politically half-baked EU; three of its four Presidents are completely unelected : Commission, Council and ECB. Yet these individuals are seen wielding real power, they feel free to pronounce on, and bring forth legislation, as if mandated by stonking great public majorities. The elected part – the European parliamernt – can’t even initiate legislation and its elected (by MEPs) President, Roberta Metsola is the least well-known President among the unelected officialdom. This makes for an utterly absurd relationship vis-a-vis the Commission, Council and Parliament, their relative power and importance. I know this has been mentioned before(like a broken record) but it’s worth reiterating, if only to highlight the lack of democratic legitimacy there.
This trend towards ‘managed western democracies’ where politicians and media live in their own ‘gated community’ and only the ‘in group’ or establishment approved (blue ticks) lackey journos are allowed to comment, and only certain opinions are allowed, is ongoing. All views from outside are automatically classed as potential misinformation, those expressing them aren’t allowed to the ‘journalist’ designation by the establishment friendly big tech platforms. The western elite seem to be moving us to the world of the Hunger Games with the public kept in the dark and excluded from decision making, and the official narrative is the ONLY narrative allowed.
How much of this trend is the fault of the real power shifting to the financial and bond markets? Market sentiment can literally make or break govts and their currencies, as we’ve witnessed recently with the end of of Truss/Kwarteng reheated Thatcherite delusion. That same powerlessness has removed any potential for radically different policy platform approaches or political experimentation, left or right – lest face the full mighty wrath of these markets. Thus, we’ve probably got the politicians we deserve.
Since sortition would make a difference, it is not true that only proportional representation would make a difference. Unless sortition is regarded as a species of proportional representation.
A belter of an article Craig, a real eye opener the corporate media is the new membership, spewing out propaganda to influence voters, we don’t matter anymore just our tick in the box on election day, and then we’ve to shut up until the next election.
Meanwhile LBC news this morning had William Hill bookmakers draw in Boris Johnson’s chances of becoming PM again from 12/1 to 6/4, a big drop in odds if you ask me, the bookies seldom get it wrong, and with Johnson cutting his holiday short to head home, he might find himself back in Number Ten.
The Telegraph has an updating tally of declared Tory MPs on its webpage. Johnson seems likely be able to reach 100 and thus make the final two. If it goes to their members to decide, he’s likely a shoo-in as they never really supported his removal and he was preferred over Truss and Sunak in polls throughout their recent leadership contest. The one, maybe only advantage, of bringing Johnson back, is it’ll quell the opposition parties and media demands for an immediate election, as Johnson can legitimately claim he already has a five-year mandate to implement their manifesto. They’ve realised Johnson has certain teflon qualities that are a seriously underrated trait in politics.
Worth remembering how those who stated Tory MPs were idiots in seeking to ditch electorally ‘successful’ Johnson, got accused of being Russian bots – trying to damage the UK by promoting his continuation. Shows how misguided that silly paranoia-driven accusatory BS can become, doesn’t it.
> bookmakers draw in Boris Johnson’s chances of becoming PM again from 12/1 to 6/4
I reckon it’ll be Johnson.
He’d be a bad choice, for the country and for the Tory Party. He has no platform, so he’d make some sense as a caretaker; but Tory backwoodsmen don’t want a caretaker, evidently.
I’d prefer Johnson to Starmer. Voters need their noses rubbed in the shit that results from voting Conservative these days. And maybe Starmer will be replaced before the next GE, possibly as a result of supporting yet another Israeli atrocity against Palestinians.
Jimmeh,
“I’d prefer Johnson to Starmer. Voters need their noses rubbed in the shit that results from voting Conservative these days”
So with only two Tory parties to choose from these days – what does one do – vote for one or the other?
“And maybe Starmer will be replaced before the next GE”
You’re dreaming, Jimmeh. If there’s one thing Starmer is good at, it’s controlling the Labour Party. Anyone likely to replace him will be charged with anti-semitism or something equally disliked, tried in the media, announced to be guilty, and expelled from the party.
Roger, or Starmer could use the Sturgeon approach to Salmond.
Excellent analysis but extremely disheartening.
Spot on, Mr Murray.