Rishi Sunak tries to lead the UK

According to a brief search, Major declined a peerage - I assume because he wanted to step back from Westminster as much as possible, fair enough. Blair and Brown are of course tarnished by (respectively) Iraq and the GFC (the former much more so). There was a fair old outcry when Blair was knighted recently (with which I sympathise, I don’t believe in honouring war criminals - OK, that’s hyperbole, but only just). I suspect Blair would love a peerage and Brown might decline one, based purely on personal speculation. I also assume the powers that be feel Brown can’t be offered one until Blair has been, and the latter is more controversial.

Then there is a party politics side of it - naturally, a Tory government isn’t going to rush to honour a former Labour leader, and vice versa. As for Cameron, May, Johnson, and Truss, obviously they’re all still more tarnished (and more recently) than Blair.

Jesus, some people live for asinine nitpicks.

Who is credited with the conservative landslide in the last election? Boris fucking Johnson. Yes, I know as an individual he technically only ‘won’ Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

Happy?

Moderating:

Dangerously close to a personal attack. Dial it back, please.

No warning issued.

Depends on who’s doing the crediting. A lot of people would suggest that the credit goes to Jeremy Corbyn.

On the other hand I feel we should give her some support.

It’s amazing how fickle the British are:

Britons would now vote to rejoin the EU in a second referendum by a record 14-point margin, a new poll has found.

A tracker poll found support for reversing Brexit is now at 57 per cent, compared to just 43 per cent who want to keep it.

“If only someone had warned us of the serious economic consequences of Brexit!”

I recall at the time a lot of people being interviewed on television saying that they wouldn’t have voted leave if they had believed it had a chance of winning.

I think the same thing was true of many who voted for Donald Trump in 2016.

There will be published forensics one day, ie: news sources like the BBC will actually speak of it. It appears the targetted ads on social media were ludicrous, but so targeted that people were unaware that they were pure racist (A side by side video of an hospital waiting room, one full of non white people, in the EU, one empty with just white people) for the old people and full on lies (we’ll have more indians coming into the country) for the Indian people. There was other ones like those that claimed the EU was banning Tea (yes, ludicrous, but aimed at the type of political illiterate who’d say that Nazis were socialists). Oh, and I think the biggest set targetting those who were probably marginally pro-EU to not vote at all, it makes no difference. It was that 1.7 Million margin which made the difference, and it was military level manipulation, the type which gets a dictator elected in a small african country.

You know Brexit, for a lot of people just relished the opportunity to give a pompous political elite, a kick up the backside. Be they from Brussels or Westminster.

Here was a government asking the people their advice about a complicated issue. It was absurd, the voters were never endlessly informed about the issues in the way they were in the Scottish independence vote in the preceding year of campaigning. Brexit was over in just s few weeks like a General Election and the leave campaign suggested that it would be good for the country to reject all this nonsense from Brussels.

Under those circumstances it is not surprising that people voted the way they did. The voters did not take it seriously. The whole idea of a referendum is unusual in UK politics and in this case it was used simply to get Cameron out of an internal party problem.

Other countries that do use referendums as part of their political process make a lot of effort to ensure the issue is simple and the people are well informed. We can look to Ireland and Scotland as examples.

Brexit was a Conservative party internal issue that got amplified into a major national question. It is an example of how party politics can work against the national interest. Did it even fix the issue for the Conservatives for once and for all? It certainly did not. It is a political party that is split and unable to govern effectively as the past few years have shown.

Something essential IMO about referenda is if you want to use them as binding sources of policy and law, you should have a legal structure for that in place first, not wing it. And when you do have the vote, be specific on what happens from the results – present to the voters the specific legislation to be enacted, rather than a generic idea; or else then be subject to a second ratification vote once you DO have the specifics in hand.

And, don’t change from them being “consulatative” to “binding” after the vote.

The legal basis of the Brexit vote was only ‘advisory’. However politically it was seized upon by the Leave campaign as an irresistible political imperative. It became ‘the Democratic will of the people!’ that no politician dare ignore. There was much talk of ‘direct democracy trumping traditional representative democracy. This has a whole range of serious constitutional implications if it were to become part of the political system. Other countries that use referendums have thought through the implications carefully and are very careful about how they are run. The Brexit vote was 48/52, quite a narrow majority and the issue itself was complicated with many facets.

Most voters have very little idea about how international trade works, what country buys and sells, so the economic consequences were unclear and the Leave campaign emphasised that they should not by concerned about warnings because these were part of ‘Project Fear’ orchestrated by the Remain campaign.

Brexit was tremendous fun for the millionaire businessmen behind the Leave campaign. They were unelected and able to exercise an outsized influence on UK politics. Cameron was fearful of the Eurosceptic wing of his party and their wealthy backers. Labour was equally threatened by its own Eurosceptic wing who regarded the EU and its single market as a capitalist enterprise.

The EU and Brussels have long been resented as a competing executive authority by UK politicians from both sides of political spectrum. The benefits of a large single market have never been explained.

It is rather like the contention between the States and the Federal government in the US. The fear was the EU was evolving into a federal superstate.

This fear is not unique the UK. Poland, after a couple of decades of economic investment by the EU may now be required to contribute more into the EU than it gets out. It now has a strong nationalist movement, that puts a premium in national sovereignty and resents interference from the EU and its concerns over constitutional changes and the politicisation of the judiciary.

Other EU members are worse. Hungary is even more nationalist and were close to Polish nationalists until the closeness of Hungary to Putin forced a serious reality check in Poland. Being part of a big club like the EU and NATO makes a lot of sense in Central Europe because it affords some protection against mad dictators invading from east or west.

That existential fear does not exist in the UK because it is a defensible island. It has always regarded Europe as where the bad things come from and history bears this out. Euroscepticism is easy to understand in this context, but it does not translate to trade policy. The EU is a huge economic block, very nearby, and trade with it is essential for the prosperity of the UK.

If the Conservatives actually had a plan for post Brexit to transform UK trade, they would have had some credibility.

However they did not. Trade deals take years and are hard won. No-one told the UK voters that and so now the economy is facing a huge loss of trade.

They simply did not ‘Get Brexit Done’ as Boris Johnson proclaimed in his populist campaign. There are lots of loose ends and no amount of boasts about immigration control and strong borders is going to reduce the economic effects that will now be clear to the electorate.

It is astonishing how Truss proclaimed growth to be the solution and yet her whole party is committed to the most anti-growth economic policy of all: Brexit.

Will Sunak be able to develop policies that stimulate the economy when the UK trade relationship with the EU is trashed and the Truss approach of unfunded tax cuts for rich folk is now discedites?

I am waiting for a new ‘Cunning Plan’ and I hope it is better than the last one.

From this shower? Good luck with that.

I’m watching Have I Got News For You? and the host said this joke:

“Not only is Sunak the first non-white Prime Minister, he’s the first who can go into 10 Downing Street through the cat flap.”

Huge laughs.

What is the joke??? He’s tiny or something?

Apparently he’s a bit of a shortarse.

Since when is 5 foot 6 short?

The average male height in the UK is 5 foot 9 inches.

At 5 foot 6, he is not exactly running around under the table and probably at eye level with many other world leaders. They all look pretty diminutive compared to the members of their security teams who tower around them.

Finding something about politicians to laugh at and ridicule is a requirement for comedians and satyrists in the UK. Previous tenants of 10 Downing St have been very forthcoming in this respect. They may struggle to get some traction with Sunak.

I don’t know so much: