Westministenders: The Tory Civil War – The Knives Are Out Again. A Big Battle Looms.

[RedToothBrush]

Today has seen the publication of a story about how Johnson and Gove are holding May hostage in a ‘soft coup’ and have made various demands over what they want for a hard Brexit. The letter which was for May’s and Barwell’s eyes only has some how leaked. Don’t forget how Gove has just joined the Brexit Cabinet.

It comes at a time, when the Observer is also leading with an editorial demanding Johnson goes over his handling of the Nazarin Zagheri-Ratcliffe case as well as his long list of poorly judged comments which have had diplomatic consequences and another newspaper is leading with a story about how 40 Tories are ready to no-confidence May.

It all smacks of a personal battle between May and Johnson to govern the party, which has been playing out publicly for some time, most noticeable in the parallel Tory party conference leadership speeches and Johnson’s freelancing.

Johnson also seems to be potentially caught up, with what happens in the Mueller investigation due to a photo and lying about having met Misfud which could be politically damaging.

Priti Patel’s –sacking-- resignation also fits in neatly with the story. The Foreign Office were not informed and there is the curious side story that May DID know various details but told Patel to keep quiet, so not to embarrass the FCO. Or more to the point, be seen to be undermining Johnson.

Whether this is true or not we don’t know. It does have implications if its true, but it also says something if its not too. Why leak the story at all? Once again its about the Johnson v May dynamic.

As it stands, if Gove and Johnson have been leading May then why would they decide to ditch her and go for power without her?
Notably Gove has the best satisfaction scores of the Cabinet amongst Tories on Conservative Home too. He has had a lot of favourable comments over his statements over pesticides. The pair seem to have put differences aside and are working together. And May has become more and more of a liability. Johnson, also came second favourite to be Tory leader amongst Tories (if you discount don’t knows and none of the aboves). Maybe they fancy their chances…

Or it’s a last ditch attempt to cling on to that power as threats that Johnson might finally get the boot – if Zagheri-Ratcliffe does have her sentence extended and Johnson’s position is no longer tenable for even May’s self-preservation. Whilst much has been framed about it being about May’s political survival, its definitely not just her whose future is in doubt. Who was the ‘dead wood’, that young Tories demanded be ditched in a reshuffle to bring in young blood? Either way, Gove has firmly hitched his wagon to Johnson's effectively repeating Johnson's dismissal of Zagheri-Ratcliffe's case.

Anyway another week and another set of high political drama is a foregone conclusion.

A round up of other developments this week:

Tory Party / Government

1. May announces intention to enshrine Brexit leaving date in law to force rebels to tow the line. This has many implications, not least tax related and putting more pressure on the UK government. It’s generally regarded as a desperate move by anyone sane.
2. The Impact Assessments were a dogs dinner that was done at the last minute, and were not worth the paper they were written on. There was no detail to them.
3. Priti Patel’s –sacking—resignation after having undocumented and unauthorised meetings with a series of Israel ministers. And then lying about it.
4. Penny Mordaunt, who lied about the UK not having a veto to stop Turkey joining the EU, replaced Patel.
5. Damien Green Porn. Another ex-policeman is backing the story that it was found on his computer despite Green’s denials.
6. The ongoing Zagheri-Ratcliffe story with Iran and Johnson’s gaff and none apology
7. Photograph of Johnson with ‘The Professor’ Misfud has been found. This links Johnson to how events in the US might pan out. If there are lots more revelations in the Mueller inquiry about him, then that might reflect on Johnson and make him subject to some difficult questions. Politically this might be problematic for Johnson.
8. Claims that the whips office leaked the name of someone who reported allegations against Nigel Evans which occurred 6 months after Evans had been cleared of rape and the sexual assault of six men
9. Suspended Tory MP Charlie Elphicke has complained that he is yet to be informed of what he has been accused of.
10. Young Tory MPs issue threat to May that she brings in young blood and gets rid of ‘dead wood, who do nothing but screw up’. Give her until the New Year to do so.
11. 40 Tories apparently ready to no confidence May.
12. Lord Ashcroft’s latest poll reveals a very small percentage of people want a no deal situation despite all the noise of it being a good idea.
13. Lord Ashcroft mentioned in the Paradise papers. Reported as domiciled in Belize despite assurances given to parliament that he would give up his non-dom status and pay tax in the UK as a Lord.

Parliament / Opposition both inside and outside parliament
14) May facing a possible revolt over Universal Credit. MPs due to vote on reducing wait times.
15) Talk that there are enough Tory Rebels prepared to back a Dominic Grieve amendment to force a meaningful vote on the Brexit Deal.
16) May under increasing pressure from business leaders to make a deal after a meeting with them at no. 10.
17) Lots of distraction in the Paradise Papers generally which raises the question over the power and influence of the super rich versus the poor. This plays well to Labour’s narrative and against the idea of a low tax post Brexit Britain.
18) Lord Kerr, author of the a50 clause states that May has misled the public and insists that it is reversible.
19) New Money Laundering and Sanctions Bill in the Lords. Government looking to omit 4th EU directive on tax avoidance. Naturally raises questions about whether UK would adopt new rules due to come into force the week after Brexit Day.
20) Money Laundering Bill also has lots of overlap with immigration and home office operations, raising some rather sinister questions over who could be affected and why. Potential for abuse seems to be huge.
21) Leave leaning Cornwall and Grimsby seeking special status in the face of Brexit – in line with remaining to preserve business / economic interests
22) Suicide of Welsh Assembly Labour member who was under investigation for sexual harassment
23) A Labour MP accuses the already suspended fellow Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins of inappropriate behaviour.

EU
24) Ireland demands the UK stays in the customs union.
25) Brexit talks have not progressed at all despite apparently being speeded up. Barnier saying that progress in December only possible if UK makes moves on the settlement deal. Prospect of stage two being delayed until March being raised. This leaves just 7 months to come to a deal, which plays to the No Deal Crowd’s interests.
26) EU believe the UK are not working in the best interests of the UK and there is a failure by May and Davis to understand the process or what No Deal will mean.
27) EU signalling that there is no bespoke transition. Only available options ae EEA or EFTA fudges.
28) Increasing view in Brussels that No Deal likely. EU think May hasn’t got the authority to come to a deal and its easier for her to drag UK off the cliff. Though they have doubts she will survive much longer.

World
29) Trump sides with Putin above the US Intelligence Community over the Russian election interference. On Veterans Day.
30) US’s Wilbur Ross said UK will have to dump European food safety standards and that losing our passporting rights to the EU would harm our interests with the US.
31) Developments in Lebanon, with it being said that Saudi Arabia said to have declared war. Many would consider this to be a proxy war against Iran. Crown Prince has purged political opponents including several with significant Wall Street interests. Eight died in a helicopter crash.
32) Large scale far right march in Poland as part of their Independence Day.

Kevin Schofield @ polhomeeditor
Asked a senior Tory MP if just getting to Christmas was the Government’s new aim. “Let’s focus on getting to Thursday first,” they replied.

Not sure that's real kenclarke account red^

@davidallengreen
The default position is that the UK will leave the EU by automatic operation of law, with a withdrawal agreement or not.
This will only change if something exceptional happens.
MPs knew this (or should have known this) when they voted for Article 50 to be triggered.
The only possible power parliament has now is indirect.
They can legislate that the UK government should seek to revoke A50 notification in the even to a bad deal or no deal.
There is no guarantee that the European Council (or ultimately the European Court of Justice) will accept such a revocation.
That said, it is likely that they would do, if it is in good faith.
Indirect, but this is best parliament can now do to take back control of Brexit.
But it is too late for parliament to have the direct "final say" on Brexit.
A50 has been triggered.
The cat, the genie and the horse are all out of their respective containers on that.

So we've just told the EU they can write a deal of their choosing and the UK parliament will ratify it because the alternative will be crashing out without a deal. Great negotiating skills there. Well done.

Ken Clarke's right. MPs of all sides should have thought about this before. After the ref the govt should have said we hear you, we will draw up a paper on how we can leave the EU, what the impact will be, then we will either have another ref or vote on it in parliament.

Woman, I'm not sure it really matters if that Ken Clarke account is real or not.

The point holds true even if it's not an attributable quote.

And it's not dissimilar to what he has said in the past.

After the ref the govt should have said we hear you, we will draw up a paper on how we can leave the EU, what the impact will be, then we will either have another ref or vote on it in parliament.
Yes exactly. How do we have a situation where the people in charge of the country (of all political persuasions) are so incompetent?
We need to start getting MPs who have had jobs outside politics, know how to negotiate things, maybe even understand how to make a business case.
Fuckwits

There's a very real danger that the question "what's the point of parliament ?" might be asked by more and more people.

I think there's a collective madness which grips nations, and tricks them into believing that because it's "now" things are different to "then", which I regard as a dangerous delusion. Especially when coupled to the "well, that's them people ... us people are much different" ... the racists mindset.

Several remain voting MPs looked like they had been told the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist in Parliament this evening, yet all of them voted for Article 50 (unlike myself).

agree with the kenclarke comments.

@ZAdamsGreen
And what about Russian interference in #Brexit, @theresa_may? Where does that leave your "mandate"? #NoBrexit #Russia

Now we're the storyline is on the move.

It needs to be a story that leavers will be able to accept without losing face.

now the storyline^

I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of someone whose rationale for voting Leave being "taking back control", and yet can accept that it was rigged by foreign interference ?

Brexit does seem to tickle the "religion" part of the brain.

This is a great thread, in which the @50 challengers debate with others on the constitutional law remedies which may be available through the courts.

@50 challenge is on its way anyway.

@RobertCraig3
The only way to revoke Article 50 is to have a fresh Act of Parliament authorising the Government to revoke it.

Laura Kuenssberg‏ @bbclaurak
1. Yvette Cooper has put down another amendment this morn calling for govt to guarantee vote on brexit deal before Brexit day (timing is point of contention)
2. Headsup - 2 days a week up until Christmas there is going to be a lot of detailed stuff over this bill that ‘might’ not sound that interesting
3. I promise tho it is important - it’s part of crucial big picture of who is in controlling and influence how we leave the EU (obviously you are perfectly entitled to ignore it all!)
4. And it’s proxy for who is really running the country - is May in hoc to Brexiteers or can Tory remainers get a look in? Remember labour has divisions over this stuff too

The Independent‏ @Independent
MPs just released a 'catastrophic' warning over Brexit

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-customs-system-eu-withdrawal-bill-date-times-catastrophic-uk-borders-european-a8053591.html
Brexit: Failure to introduce new customs system by date of Britain's EU withdrawal would be 'catastrophic'

Failure to complete the introduction of a new customs system by Brexit in 2019 would be “catastrophic”, with the risk of huge disruption for businesses, massive queues at Dover and food being left to rot in trucks at the border, a parliamentary report has warned.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee said the number of customs declarations which HM Revenue and Customs must process each year could increase almost five-fold after the UK's departure from the European Union - from 55 million to 255 million.

Not news to us. But its now in a Parliamentary Report.

Tim Walker‏ @ThatTimWalker
Mrs May saying we need Brexit to thwart Russia is as mad as Churchill saying in 1939 we’ve all decided to become Nazis to thwart Germany.

Jim Pickard‏*@PickardJE*
Acute irony buried in May's message to Russia in tonight's speech: "You underestimate the resilience of our democracies...the commitment of Western nations to the alliances that bind us."

May doesn't look like the type to do irony.

Also, don't forget that 'Russian interference' is also about the use of and control over social media.

Something May wants to do.

Red - I don't know you are right for certain, but your 8.56am post rings very true based on what I know about how Whitehall works and how May / Johnson work together.

Who is your money on for last one standing in this particular gun fight?

Olennas, I don't know.

I think May v Johnson depends on timing and what order things happen and whether May can appease other rebels enough.

If things unfold more quickly in the US that works for May I suspect, but she faces more immediate concerns with the Withdrawal Bill.

It also doesn't take into consideration any other unforeseen political grenades which might get thrown.

I do think that Johnson's position is perhaps much weaker than the media seems to suggest though. He is deeply unpopular within the party, and there are multiple forces against him without any particular reason to stop that. He has rivals with ambition who could be backed over and above him.

I wonder if the letter by Johnson and Gove 'hijacking Brexit' was connected to the possibility of being shut out too. In the context of being sent after Johnson discovering the extent to which he has been shut out, it takes on something of a different complexion. It would make it a demand to be heard rather than barking orders as it has been framed. That would also explain the leak, if the response to it was to say, 'bugger off tell me what to do and I'll screw you' although it did have the effect of perhaps making May look weak.

Johnson apologised - seemingly under duress - after that.

This is massively speculative but something doesn't sit quite right about the whole saga.

There are questions that don't quite add up.

www.opendemocracy.net/john-boland/trumping-brexit-growing-failure-of-neoliberal-consensus

Trumping Brexit: the growing failure of the neoliberal consensus
The past is broken, the present is muddled and the future remains uncertain. The political elite don't seem to understand, and perhaps they don't want to.
For decades, Britain has placed great political emphasis on the nature of its ‘special relationship’ with America. Since the 1980s, when the political ascent of the Ronald Reagan administration in Washington was matched by Margaret Thatcher’s dominance over John Bull’s Island, it has been apparent that the two countries have worked to maintain a degree of ideological alignment that reflects the modern economic, social and political nature of their societies. At times, Britain’s cultivation of the ‘special relationship’ comes across as an attempt to maintain pre-eminence in the world by tying an element of their fortunes to that of America, but it could not be disputed that the type of neoliberal, capitalist tendencies that crystallised well before the advent of the 21st century was an outlook entirely bought into by both nations.
The rise to dominance of this type of approach is pivotal here, because it has created a generation of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who are unquestioningly wedded to it. Consequently, as neoliberalism enters its period of relative decline, the political elite cannot (or do not want to) understand what is happening.
The technical differences between the rise of Donald Trump and the realities of a Brexit vote are myriad – but that is not the central point. The core development that provided the spark is the implicit rejection of neoliberalism by millions of voters in Britain and America, who are using their opportunity at the ballot box to say that contemporary politics is just not working for them. They want something new but, in facilitating diverse (and perhaps concerning) outcomes such as endorsing Trump and voting to leave the EU, they do not quite know what the 'something new' should look like yet.
Critically, the presidential election and the EU referendum gave voters a platform to react against the status quo. In Britain, this was a reaction against the brand of suave, corporate politician epitomised by then-Prime Minister David Cameron, who was the default if somewhat unconvincing figurehead for the Remain campaign. In America, this was a reaction against the brand of establishment career politician epitomised by Hillary Clinton who, as the ultimate insider, was intrinsically related to the ailing political consensus of the 1980s.
critical reflection for exponents of neoliberalism is to consider the extent to which Anglo-American voters were cognisant of the fact that, in their rejection of the status quo, they were identifying their desire for a new political ideology to emerge. Anyone that grasps this may still have the opportunity to advocate an evolutionary approach that recognises the growing clamour for reform within notable segments of British and American society whilst retaining the aspects of neoliberalism that are perceived as working.
To simply dismiss the vast swathes of Trump and Brexit voters, or worse denigrate their ability to make a considered democratic choice, would be a distinct error of judgment. This type of attitude prevails on social media but, hopefully, neoliberal politicians in Britain and America are more sophisticated and keener to understand why contemporary politics is changing so significantly.
A paradigm shift in society is always a long time coming. The first step in the realisation that, as Bob Dylan put it, ‘Things Have Changed’, is acknowledging the failure of the existing way of doing things. The fearsome challenge comes in creating a new and better way of doing things. In the lag time before a new approach develops there is always that fraught period whereby the status quo battles to save itself. The failure in the existing way of doing things, and the nadir for neoliberalism, occurred in 2008 when the financial crisis threatened to overwhelm and sweep away the foundations of this consensus.
Perversely, the reason that this did not occur was a consequence of the largest programmes of state economic intervention (in both Britain and America) since the New Deal era of the 1930s. In political commentary since, one of the most amazing realities is that the significance of such a socialist intervention (to save a capitalist system) has been largely ignored. Thus, the response to the 2008 crisis was to stabilise by whatever means necessary and, aside from largely cosmetic changes, maintain the framework that had initially brought us to the point of crisis.
There was one crucial difference that would affect ordinary people. The crisis would open the door to an unprecedented (in terms of the modern era) period of austerity which would promote savage cuts to public expenditure in order to, allegedly, balance the public purse. There were only two huge flaws with such an approach – the first being that it comprehensively did not work and the second being that it entirely failed to address broader structural deficiencies within the economy, such as the arrival and consolidation of incredibly poor wage growth (or even stagnation) alongside rising welfare dependency, house prices and job insecurity.
Consider the mentality of many individuals when they turned out to vote – either back in June or on Tuesday – and imagine the central fault-line running through their thinking. In the case of Britain, there is a sizeable proportion of people (that cuts across age, ethnicity and employment status to give but three markers) that had fallen victim to the ‘quirks’ of the economy. The young priced out of the housing market, the elderly struggling on fixed incomes, and the demographic in between that at best had not seen a pay increase for several years, or were locked into the insecurity of zero-hours or fixed-term employment. Their choice was Remain (and the apparent continuation of the status quo) or Leave, which would result in the delivery of a completely uncharted territory, but one that would at least put the political establishment into a state of flux that may, or may not, actually shake things up for the better. When the performance of leading Remain campaigners is factored in, and the assertion that they did little to inspire, the seeds of a reactionary vote are certainly visible.
Step across the Atlantic and a similar type of scenario is also evident. Many are already focussed on how Trump secured his success by turning America’s Rust Belt into a Republican stronghold – in some instances for the first time since the 1980s. Wisconsin is the most instructive example, illustrating in a nut-shell the disconnect between neoliberal elites and the ordinary voter. Clinton opted not to visit the state at all during her campaign – the first time since 1972 that this had been the case and, with hindsight, demonstrative of either an arrogance or complacency that would prove extremely costly.
Trump filled the void and became the first Republican to win Wisconsin since 1984 providing a neat circularity – the last time Wisconsin favoured the GOP was at the high point of Reaganomics and here it is, 32 years later, that the ultimate political outsider reclaimed it for them. This achievement was not necessarily on the basis of offering new and concrete ideas but capturing a prevailing mood of discontent at the increasing failure, ironically, of the economic outlook that had last propelled the Republicans to success in ‘America’s Dairyland’.
2016 will stand out as an incredible year for British and American politics – both nations are now fully immersed in an era where a new paradigm needs to be worked out. The past is broken, the present is muddled and the future remains uncertain. How did we get to this point? Well maybe Dylan captured it best when he nonchalantly observed that “people are crazy and times are strange”. Times are likely to get stranger still as neoliberals, disillusioned voters and, for their part, a confused mass media try and work out what on earth is happening out in the real world.

BigChocFrenzy

When Smith & Wesson were banned from selling guns to the RUC ?

Have you a cite for that ?

rtb you may well be right about the May/Johnson thing. It is all very fishy. However I cannot accept the gaffe over Nazanin was a result of poor briefing. If we all know the true position that the family's defence is that she was there on holiday, and has been ever since she was detained, it is inconceivable that Johnson was unaware.

On another note, thank you for your sterling work. These threads and all posts on them are essential daily reading. Along with the Richard North blog - he may be an unlikeable individual who does not suffer fools to say the least, with some views that would be anathema to me in normal times, but he knows his stuff on trade.

These are not normal times though. All his apocalyptic predictions are sadly coming to pass.

Still waiting for a reply from my Tory Mp on releasing the brexit impact statements. Rather overtaken by events I guess.

In that context Lurking, Nick Timothy's column in the Sun today about Hammond is worth a read. (Yes I know).

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4906913/nick-timothy-opinion-philip-hammond-budget/
No one knows what Fiscal Philip Hammond’s policies are — but he must show he wants to make people’s lives better
The Chancellor's upcoming Budget is an essential test of whether the Government can truly deliver reform and improve the lives of many

The two are obviously bitter rivals and Timothy is a wanker.

But there is some truth in his criticism of Hammond here. The problem is that Hammond is also not wrong in saying we need to think about the economy and Brexit isn't going to fix problems.

If you want meaningful change it has to be paid for. Brexit creates conditions in which that is impossible and Hammond recognises this.

But Hammond's lack of imagination and lack of radical thinking is also problematic. My rant about the Stamp Duty rumour is a good example. Hammond has to be willing to do something far more wide reaching which he won't.

Yet if he were to go, who would take his place? Would their views on Brexit mean they were reckless rather than radical?

I don't disagree with the piece with Open Democracy. When you talk to leavers where there is sensible comment its around this idea for a need for change - and where there is recognition of a problem. The issue is what solutions are placed on the table and the ideas that are said to cause the problem.

Much is down to blame shift rather than a political honesty.

We are not progressing from the dynamic of blame shift to political honesty either though.

Timothy thought he could force it, and did it badly and without consultation in his idea for the dementia tax. If that had been better thought out, it might well have be a decent policy - but it needed to be coupled with other radical thinking in other areas connected to home ownership as currently the assets that grandparents have, are seen as the only thing that will allow children and grandchildren to own homes.

Nick Boles drive to try and get ideas across is also worth noting.

For politics to be healthy, detailed policy ideas from a variety of different political view points need to be produced and debated.

As much as I dislike Timothy, there is something to be said for what he's saying. Not that I would get rid of Hammond either because of the mess we are in.

I don't think the Russian bot story is going to swing the tide on brexit. I sometimes check the comments on stories on yahoo when I check my mail as it is right wing and interesting to see the other POV. Opinions vary from disbelief in bots, to 'I make my own mind up, it wouldn't influence me anyway, to 'well they (the bots) are only saying what's true'. Although it could swing the tide for the less trenchant brexiteers. To be fair a lot of those commenting are racist and islamaphobic so unlikely to be convinced.

At the most fundamental level, people have given up every right they have as a human being in the UK - the right to hunt and gather food, the right to build shelter and protect our family, the right to use land to support ourselves, and a whole raft of other activities our forbears would have taken for granted.

We have surrendered these rights - these inalienable rights - on the altar of Mammon through the proxy of money.

That surrender is nominally voluntary. We give up our rights in the understanding that doing do makes for a better society for us all. The famed, oft-mentioned but increasingly less respected "social contract".

People can only be shortchanged for so long.

It's interesting, in this context, to bring up immigration, and maybe one of the underlying but not vocalised fears about it.

People from outside the UK - and the EU in general - are probably a hell of a lot less understanding when the state takes things away, and they get fuck all in return. They're probably more aware of it, notice it before we do, and less prepared to suck it up.

Against that backdrop, it's not surprising that every wave of immigration has been met with accusations of sedition and fermenting unrest.

"At the most fundamental level, people have given up every right they have as a human being in the UK - the right to hunt and gather food,"

i have some Swedish relatives. food is a huge part of their life.
good food. they hunt and forage/gather berries, mushrooms and the like. they do have their own land, but aren't limited to that. i am intrigued by the swedish allemansratt. it is every man's right to collect wild food. not commercial crops, there are protected areas. a while back, i read a book about growing up in the forest of dean. in great poverty. and police being involved when they were desperately hungry and picked some blackberries or apples. how miserable.

visitsweden.com/about-the-right-of-public-access/

Robert Peston‏*@Peston*
What I particularly enjoyed in this Tweet by officials in Liam Fox’s trade dept is it endorses a Daily Mail article all about @JacobReesMogg Attack on @hmtreasury. Brexit is even threatening the solidarity of
Whitehall

Jo Maugham QC‏*@JolyonMaugham*

Here's the now deleted tweet from @LiamFox's department. Deleted, presumably, because it was a serious breach of the Civil Service Code.

Remember the good old days? When the Mail tweeted out the Government's propaganda? Rather than the Government tweeting out the Mail's propaganda?

Well (as they say).

Dept of Trade tweeted a DM article about the Economists for Free Trade (Minford et al) claiming a Brexit windfall for the UK - so endorsing a pressure group and publicising an article criticising the Treasury

Funnily enough, it’s been deleted now.