Westministenders: Oh No Not Another One. Thread that is.

[RedToothBrush]

In this edition of Westministers we play a game of ‘Where are they now?’

In June 2016 our screens were subjected to the sight of a number of particularly vocal MPs who participated in debates and stood on soap boxes to talk about the referendum.

The most noticeable of these for Leave were perhaps Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom, Gisela Stuart, Nigel Farage, Priti Patel and Kate Hoey. For Remain it was David Cameron, George Osborne, Jeremy Corbyn, Ruth Davidson, Sadiq Khan, Nicola Sturgeon, Nick Clegg and Tim Farron.

It is starting to seem that anyone involved in campaigning either for or against Brexit in June 2016 has faced an epic battle for survival. Just how long can they last before being defeated or conceding defeat.

David Cameron’s scalp was the first to go, as he swanned off leaving everyone to clear up his mess.

Boris Johnson, who was keen to stamp his mark and pitch for the leadership by stitching up Cameron, got stitched up by Michael Gove who also lost his own bid for leadership as a result.

Johnson, of course, still lives to fight another day by getting a nice job as Theresa’s whipping boy. He’s occasionally let out by himself, but its Michael Fallon who does the ‘Grown Up Business’. He was said to be one of the last to support an early election. I can’t think why that might be.

Poor old Gove is now confined to a straight-jacket, the back benches where he’s been told to think about what he’s done like a naughty school child and a column in the Times

Andrea Leadsom was sent to a field of cows never to be seen again except to pop up for the odd cameo line shouting about ‘Jam’.

Queen Theresa also dealt with the other Conservative Leader Leave Candidate Mr Liam Fox, by shipping him off to every dodgy corner of the global to get pampered by state hostility.

Stephen Crabb simply crawled back under his rock.

The announcement of the General Election seems to be like the major soap incident episode where half the cast get killed off by a totally unrealistic disaster because their acting contracts weren’t being renewed.

The quitters and abdicators who now have legged it at the sight of a General Election are Gisela ‘Champion of the Brexit Bus’ Stuart and Nigel ‘Too chicken to be defeated for an eighth time and risk losing my nice EU pension’ Farage. George Osborne took the advice of his school teachers and had another career to fall back on when he didn’t become successful in his first choice.

Its rather starting to look like the curse of being a leading Brexiteer is to be made to disappear off the face of the earth or fuck off when the going gets tough. Have you seen Priti Patel lately? Does she even still exist? And Chris Grayling? He was convinced he was going to get chancellor when he supported May in her bid for the leadership.
Instead he got packed off transport and disappeared off the face of the earth much to the annoyance of everyone caught up in the rail strikes.

The only one who is remotely visible seems to be David Davis and is like May’s pet poodle who just tries to please his owner.

It’s almost like the only one still standing or hasn’t been banished is Kate Hoey. And the Lib Dems are trying to work on that one and make her sink beneath the waves, on board her Alan Partridge Titanic once and for all.

Conversely the visible Remainers seem to be – on the face of it - fairing rather better at the moment.

Sadiq Khan is hugely popular and actually does his job rather than fannying about on zip wires. Ruth Davidson is also well respected and apparently has saved Priti Patel’s job from abolition. If the rumours are to be believed bored with scrapping with Nicola, she might be lining herself up for ‘Big Things’ in Westminister. Cameron’s one time love interest, Nick Clegg hasn’t shaken the tarnish of the coalition but he is enjoying a new reputation as the Brexit Soothsayer and some people actually know who Tim Farron is now, which is progress. Nicola Sturgeon is of course riding high and seems to be a permanent thorn in Theresa’s side.

Jeremy ‘I’m a Remainer, honest comrades’ Corbyn is the one who seems to be something of a walking disaster area yet is also thriving with it like a zombie who just keeps going regardless of what you throw at him.

And then of course there is Queen Theresa. The Remainer. Who has crushed everyone in her party. Not just the saboteurs. Even her supposed ally Hammond and BBF Rudd have been thrown under the bus at her wimb when its suited May personally.

The General Election now sets a new scene and opportunity for new characters to emerge. Now the rats have left the ship or been put in their place.

Will May set course to the left or to the right or simply plow on like a bull in a china shop?

Anyway I’m now looking forward to the shocking soap opera moment where your favourite hero or villain gets killed off in a twist you didn’t see coming. Role on June 8th. If only to get pass the upcoming horror of the next six weeks.

The real question is how have we come to a point where we have a GE in two months and not a single major party had any clear and coherent policy or position on anything? Gaahhh

Hugo Rifkind‏*@hugorifkind*
Corbyn used to be chaotic on domestic policy because he only cared about foreign policy. Somehow he's now chaotic on both. #Marr

On French elections: low turnout favours MLP, so far overseas turnout is low, fake stories about Russian influence on election abound, and MLP's been given a big loan by Russian banks.
It's a script being repeated across the west.
How many of the above will we be playing in coup bingo here.

All of the above encourage apathy which is the biggest enabler of fascism.

On Assange, press and social media curtailment on the cards, I have no doubt.

The Coyne stuff is very significant. Unite and Mac Luskey are enabling this JC shitstorm. A few weeks ago a Coyne win was possible. What's really going on with Unite and the labour party?

I learnt during the Indyref campaign (especially after Mark Carney's press conference on the Bank of England's position ) to check it in full what politicians and officials are alleged to have said and to check out the data sets behind opinion polls.

Even especially the BBC is susceptible to bias. Nick Robinson led an item claiming that Alex Salmond had refused to answer a question - yet in the full piece not shown on the BBC's news piece, Alex Salmond have him a very clear answer to the specific question but it wasn't the answer that Nick wanted.

Or the reports from Lord Ashcroft's recent polls proclaiming that Ruth Davidson had more popular ratings than Nicola Sturgeon, without pointing out that a) it was UK wide and that in Scotland NS was significantly more popular (53% to RD's 40%) and b) omitting the fact that UK wide, 46% of people didn't even know or did not have any opinion of Ruth (in contrast to 12% for Nicola)

I could go on.....

And what is really sad is that even the courts now agree that it is acceptable for politicians to lie as the public don't expect them to do otherwise: Liar Carmichael's defence at the special election court was successful on that basis (ie he admitted he explicitly lied) at least he wasn't awarded costs

Rant of despair over

The public are thoroughly pissed off with politics - accountability is at the very heart of it - and things are going in exactly the opposite direction.

And that's handy, isn't it? Call a GE now when everyone's so sick of politics they don't want to put energy into picking over any inconvenient details. If the country thinks politics is boring and pointless, politicians are all the same anyway, and politics can't really change anything, then they'll let you do whatever you want when you're in power.

Interesting to see the Tories banging the "strong and stable leadership!" drum. Partly for the sheer brass neck of touring themselves as a party of stability given their record since the last GE. But also 'strong'?

I don't think May is 'strong' in any sense that's useful. U-turns on budget promises, manifesto commitments, whatever the tabloid press pressures her to do next. Struggling to hold the Union together.

But she's good at putting on a facade of what people think 'strong' should look like, even when there's no substance behind it at all. And that's what voters seem to want. "We need a strong negotiator to get us through Brexit" = "we need someone who'll threaten and sabre-rattle", not "we need someone who'll understand the massive complexity and diplomatic nuance here." She stands a good chance of being the PM that loses the Union, because she doesn't seem to care about doing anything but Looking Tough about Scotland and NI - and Looking Tough with no substance or strategy behind it is just doing the SNP and SF's work for them. But hey, it's playing well with the back benches and Little England, so who cares?

I remember when she made Boris Foreign Sec and everyone was talking about the grand master plan she surely must have behind that. But she didn't. She thinks she's good at this. She thinks she's Churchill and Thatcher rolled into one. And now the electorate and useless sodding opposition are effectively going to tell her she's right.

With regard to Brexit and the unions, it's good for the union establishment. It gives them a cause to rally against and have a purpose for which they can be paid.

There is self interest in a situation which stiffs workers being created for the unions to oppose.

I've said before that Brexit is about putting people 'back in their place' and re-establishing traditional class definitions. It's equally beneficial for the union leaders -or 'working class elite' - as it is for the upper class elite'.

Where does Corbyn's allegiance lie in this regard?

It's not really that surprising for this reason, that there is a Left Brexit supporting movement. Self interest isn't just restricted to the right.

The public are thoroughly pissed off with politics - accountability is at the very heart of it - and things are going in exactly the opposite direction.

Do we know why political promises are not subject to the same standards as commercial advertisements? I can see that politicians might sometimes be communicating an intention rather than a promise, but surely that could be made clear in the communication.

Isn't that as explicit as Farron can be without being accused of messing with a party's "democratic processes" and the "will of its supporters" People who give a shit about what is happening and are not coping by sticking their head in the sand or sticking with tribal loyalties understand exactly what he is saying, and I am hearing that on doorsteps, though of course that is the metropolitan elite

The public are thoroughly pissed off with politics - accountability is at the very heart of it - and things are going in exactly the opposite direction.

Yes.

Here is a full explanation by the ASA:
www.asa.org.uk/news/political-advertising.html

In a nutshell

1. Freedom of speech and issues of censorship (who decides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is inherently political in its own right. Censorship always has an unaccountable authoritarian streak to it)
2. Promises made in a manifesto in year 0 might be very different to the circumstances that arise in year 4. Being held to a manifesto could be counter productive.

Personally I think censorship is a sticky subject, but I do think there are people pushes the boundaries of other areas of law here at the moment (which is why Levenson 2 is highly relevant). And I don't have a problem with government breaking manifesto pledges as long as its not EVERY one and when it happens a clear reason and admission of why without accompanying bullshit.

There is room to tighten this up. But not the political will.

pretty, And what is really sad is that even the courts now agree that it is acceptable for politicians to lie as the public don't expect them to do otherwise: Liar Carmichael's defence at the special election court was successful on that basis (ie he admitted he explicitly lied

I wholeheartedly agree on this. My hobby horse on this is Penny Mordaunt's multiple lying to the public, on tv, about the UK not having a veto on Turkey joining the EU. Marr, to give him his due gave her a few times to correct herself saying he thought UK had a veto. She just kept on lying.

Instead of a public apology, she was promoted. Every single time she says something, someone should say "are you lying now, Penny?" How do we know that is not an outright Penny, considering this is what you did before?"

I can't believe she was able to get away with lying to the public on TV like that and still gets on without people asking her about her lying.

There is a difference between lying, misleading unintentionally and things changing so you have to U-turn legitimately.

How do you legislate defining the difference?

This is the purpose of the media in a free democracy.

The trouble we have is the media is controlled. And it has weakened.

The good news is that you are still not allowed to libel (outside of the HoC chamber) and Hope Not Hate has issued a claim at the High Court against Nigel Farage for his remarks during a radio interview which described the charity as using "violent and undemocratic means". Seeing Farage have to cough up few tens of thousands in compensation plus a six-figure legal bill would offer a rare moment of cheer in the current climate.

Penny Mordaunt just lied. She did not say "I don't know anything about EU vetoes and new accession states". In fact her party were busy saying to Scotland in previous ref. that Spain not only could, but would, veto them in an EU bid. I can only think of one reason. To appeal to the UK's bogeyman and Turkey joining in order to shore up the vote for leaving the EU.

No unintentional or U-turn.

Are the French police investigating that Steven Woolfe incident involving Mile Hookem, I wonder? Or are there too many people who 'didn't see nothing, guv'?

I also wonder how the OLAF investigation into UKIP for alleged misuse of funds, amongst others from that parliament grouping, is getting on. Just like the UK police's investigation the Con's electoral funding. I believe some other issues were discovered during the OLAF investigation. I don't know if those other issues involved UKIP or not.

On the unions surely if the Russians want to interfere in British politics that is where they start.....

Thanks Red. I'll have a look at that ASA guidance.

I wonder whether it might be possible to differentiate between a political 'promise' on which it might be legitimate to u-turn, and a straight factual misrepresentation. An example of the latter could be the £350million to the NHS - as a simple untruth. This would not be wide enough to capture all dubious political statements, but it at least might be a start.

The clear untruth being the basis for the £350m figure in the example above - not the potential to give it (or not) to the NHS.

I can understand a bit about the ASA guidance re political promises.

However, I can't thole the ability of politicians and others to make statements that are just straight out lies whether that be because the true facts are a matter of public record (eg the fact that member states have a right of veto over the accession of new members) or where they deliberately lie about things that they have done or know about, for electoral advantage (in Liar Carmichael's case)

And the courts condone this "because people know that politicians lie"

Not acceptable. We deserve better.

We - both the public and the politicians - are not used enough to referendums to understand that not just that facts can be manipulated but that they can be downright falsified (OK, politicians have already got the hang of that ).

I believe that we need an independent fact-checking body and that neither side can make statements with reference to the "facts" of the referendum without it being cleared by that body - or as a minimum all article should include a link to a fact-checking body who can comment on the veracity or not of the claims being made.

I think that that would have been useful nay essential in both the Indyref and the EU Referendum, so that the electorate could make an informed choice and not be manipulated by the likes of Dacre, Murdoch and the Mail.

The result may well have been the same (especially as the "promise" - which wouldn't have been covered was for a "Soft Brexit" ). But it would have gone some way to addressing some of the bitterness that built as a result of the misleading info that was being and continues to be promulgated.

And as this GE seems to being run on the grounds of providing an enduring to the Conservatives for a hard Brexit, despite GEs should being about a wide variety of things, such lies have an even greater impact.

I remember (I've mentioned this before) once hearing on the Brian Hayes show shows how long ago it was that "Democracy was the rule of the majority with the consent of the minority" Given that no recent governments have had a had a majority of the popular vote (because of our FPTP system), the statement would be ore accurately be "the rule of the minority with the consent of the minority"

And we're failing even by that definition.

Checking in.

I am on the Lib Dem mailing list and received this from Tim Farron yesterday:

--

Dear Cloud,

I want to make this clear.

The Liberal Democrats will not enter into any coalition deal with either Theresa May’s Conservatives or Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party.

On Thursday 8th of June, every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to change the direction of our country and stop a hard Brexit.
The reasons for this decision are simple.

Under no conditions can we sign up to Theresa May's Hard Brexit agenda; a hard Brexit will be a disaster for Britain. It risks crashing our economy and leaving us isolated on the global stage.

And Jeremy Corbyn would be a disaster for the country - he has no plan for the country, our economy and offers no leadership – and as Labour leader, every time it has mattered he has given Theresa May a blank cheque on Brexit.

Over the next 46 days, we're going to offer the British people a real alternative and a vision of a Britain that is open, tolerant and united.

Together, we are going to elect more Liberal Democrat MPs and change the direction of our country.

Let’s make it happen.

Thank you,
Tim

Oh and this at the end of the email

PS: More than 10,000 people have joined our party since Tuesday – and we’re on the cusp of reaching 100,000 members. Will you help us do that by asking your friends and family to join us and help change the direction of our country?

You can do that here: www.libdems.org.uk/ask-to-join

If they keep going, the LibDems might actually overtake the SNP membership! - although they too have been getting an influx of new members. It was at 120,000.

Anyone know what labour party membership is at right now? I remember they were dropping in March, but then i heard they had gained some since the GE announcement, but i cant find any current figures.

Here are the latest figures on membership i can find, but they don't include changes since the GE announcement

Latest Party membership figures

According to the latest available estimates from political parties’ head offices, press releases and media estimates:

The Labour Party has around 517,000 members, as of March 2017.
The Conservative Party had 149,800 members as of December 2013, the latest available estimate published by CCHQ.
The Scottish National Party has around 120,000 members, as of July 2016.
The Liberal Democrat Party has 82,000 members, as of February 2017.
The Green Party (England and Wales) has 55,500 members, as of July 2016.
UKIP has around 39,000 members, as of July 2016.
The Plaid Cymru has 8,273 members, as of July 2016.

researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125