Interesting Links for 09-01-2018

[andrewducker]

On The Turing Completeness of PowerPoint

(tags: video funny powerpoint computers )

Chris Grayling's 27 Seconds as Conservative Party Chairman

(tags: conservatives fail viaSwampers )

Donald Trump's tweets aren't random - he's live-tweeting his favourite tv

(tags: tv politics usa twitter )

The couple who got engaged and married on the same day

(tags: marriage )

The plummeting Conservative membership makes the party ripe for entryism

(tags: Conservatives funny politics )

How to argue, in eight easy steps

(tags: argument conversation advice )

Lemurs mob BBC News reporter

(tags: video cute bbc )

The Omnicopter, A Super Agile Omni-Directional Drone That Can Play Catch With a Ball

(tags: drone video )

Goodbye iPod, and Thanks for All the Tunes

(tags: music apple )

Is everything Johann Hari knows about depression wrong?

(tags: depression OhForFucksSake johannhari mentalhealth psychology )

Plans unveiled for new Northern Forest from Liverpool to Hull

(tags: forests trees nature uk )

Beginner's guide to longevity research

(tags: longevity lifespan research )

The reshuffle that wasn't: May blows it again

(tags: politics conservatives fail )

7 articles that are basically free therapy

(tags: advice life relationships )

Ibuprofen alters human testicular physiology

(tags: sex drugs )

Iran Bans English in Primary Schools

(tags: english iran )

Jeremy Corbyn insists UK cannot remain in single market after Brexit

(tags: UK Europe labour )

China wants an orderly exit from Bitcoin mining

(tags: bitcoin china )

Tory MSPs back call for Scottish Parliament to reject UK Brexit Bill

(tags: scotland uk europe politics )

A 430-Year-Old World Map, Taking Up 60 Square Feet

Link to a zoomable version: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~303661~90074314:Composite--Tavola-1-60---Map-of-the
(tags: maps history )

Swallowable sensors reveal mysteries of human gut health

(tags: bodies )

New insights into lifetime personality change

(tags: personality age psychology )

Women more likely to suffer winter depression and mood changes

(tags: women depression winter sad )

Comments

[danieldwilliam]

In modern times, in practice, the Prime Minister would expect unfettered de jure power to appoint the Cabinet. They are probably in a technical legal sense advising the Queen on the apppointment of her ministers but the accepted constitutional position is that the Prime Minister appoints the Cabinet.

What is at stake here is that the Prime Minister is only PM if they can command a majority in the House of Commons and in practice that means being leader of the largest party.

May is in a weak position. Her party is very, very split over Europe. It's also split over other policy areas. Like any broad church party it has a left-wing and a right-wing. It's also split over issues of personality and electoral strategy. Many Tories love Boris Johnson. Many Tories think he's a vacuous, power-grabbing oik who's ambition far exceeds both his actual abilities and any concept he might have of loyalty to friends, to party or to country.

Externally the Tories lost the last election (sort of) and are in real danger of losing the next election. The next election is not due for about 4 1/2 years but *could* happen any time. The situations that cause an early election are likely to damage the Conservative Party very, very badly because they are disorderly and involve at least some internal rebellion.

May gets the blame for the election result in May where they went from a 20% polling lead and looking at 100-200 seat majority to losing seats and their majority and having to do a deal with the DUP. She's damaged. She's also a lukewarm Remainer and not entirely trusted by either side of the European split.

The rules for the Conservative Party leadership are that about 30-40 sitting MP's can trigger a leadership election by writing to the Chair of the Parliamentary Conservative Party expressing No Confidence. There is a vote on the No Confidence motion. If passed Conservative MP's vote on a short list for the leadership election using run off voting until there are two candidates. These are put in front of the current membership of the Party

So the conversation is probably going something like this

May to current Secretary of State for X: I'd like you to stop being Secretary of State for X

SoS4X: I don't want to stop and if you sack me I'll trigger a) a backbench rebellion on issue X, b) a backbench rebellion on Europe (for or against) c) a leadership challenge, d) I'll just make your life miserable or e) I'll defect to the Lib Dems or UKIP.

May: Okay then, you can stay as Secretary of State for X.

Usually the response would be May: Well, off you go then, let me know how it goes, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

That is usually the response because usually the party is more unified and the PM has just won an election or is just about to win one.

[mountainkiss]

May isn't a Remainer any more. She takes inordinately seriously the mandate of the referendum.

[danieldwilliam]

I agree that May takes the Brexit vote seriously.

However, I think in this context (both the internal Tory split and the national split) it is only your position before the vote that counts. If you were for staying in the EU before the vote you are a Remainer and shall always be a Remainer.

Which is where May's problems here begin - she isn't trusted by either camp.

[mountainkiss]

Fair enough, although I do think it's important not to refer to her as a Remainer because it's so misleading. Nothing about her leadership can be interpreted through that lens.

[calimac]

"Remainer" is actually best seen as an obsolete term these days, more useful in discussing a politician's past history or their general mental cast than their current position, rather like using "appeaser" after the outbreak of WW2. There were no more appeasers, but it was sometimes still useful in analyzing what a person would do next, e.g. if they sought a negotiated peace.

Similarly, what today are sometimes called "Remainers" are actually "Overturners," as in they wish to overturn the Referendum. That's a more extreme position than having opposed the Referendum at the time, and should be judged separately. A Remainer then might be an Overturner now, but has not changed position if they accept the Referendum results, because that was then and this is now. There might be a correlation between Remainers-then and Soft Exiters-now, and that's where it's useful to identify who was then a Remainer.

[danieldwilliam]

Not refering to her as a Remainer is to give her a different ideological label and one that attempts to change the national discourse from Brexit to post-Brexit.

It allows the conversation to move on from the question of EU membership.

Which is fine, if that is what one wants to do, but if one wants the UK to remain or rejoin the EU then Remainers must remain Remainers until Brexiteers wonder off to do something else.

[mountainkiss]

She is not a Remainer. She is a whole-hearted Brexiteer and will continue to be one. Nothing about her wants to stay in the European Union. What she was before the referendum is not relevant any more.

[danieldwilliam]

I think our disagreement here is about whether the past or the future is the most relevant. Are people allowed to change sides?

I don't disagree with you that she is fully behind her espoused policy of leaving the EU in accordance with the expressed will of the British people.

It is unclear what her position would be if the opinion polls were running 60% for Remain.

As always I suspect that a Tory hasn't changed their mind on something important so much as they have realised that saying and doing something different leaves the Tory Party in power.

I don't think she enjoys the full trust and confidence of the pre-referendum Brexiteers because of her prior position. They suspect she is either a fair weather friend or working to bring down Brexit from within.

Perhaps more importantly if we move to a position where people are allowed to shift from being Remainers to Brexiteers then we are accepting that Britain will be leaving the EU and not re-joining. If one wants Britain to rejoin the EU then Remainers must be prepared to carry a grudge about it for decades to come.

[mountainkiss]

I don't think we get to choose on Theresa May's part whether she is to carry a grudge about it for decades. She is fully committed to carrying out what she regards as the democratic result of the referendum.

[danieldwilliam]

No we don't get to directly chosse what she thinks and what she wants to do.

But we get to decide how we label that. Pragmatic democrat or traitor. A bad Remainer or a New Brexiteer. Honourable or wretched. Right or wrong.

And through that label influence others.

[mountainkiss]

We do, but any label implying that there is any meaning now for her in her previous conviction is inaccurate.

[danieldwilliam]

The label has consequences for her, even if she wants to move beyond it.

Part of her current advantage is that she is sufficiently in both camps to survive. Part of her problem is that her room for manouvre is limited because she is not fully trusted by either side.

And this sort of grudge keeping is exactly what I was talking about on Sunday.

[mountainkiss]

In my view the negative consequences of the inaccuracy of the label when applied to her, with its consequent dilutions of both the integrity of the labeller and the meaning of the label, outweigh any positive consequences in this context.

[danieldwilliam]

I would expect you to take such an open and honest approach.

It is good that at least one of us is not being corrupted by Brexit.

[calimac]

All you say is true, but it's been true before without producing this kind of a result. Major was a weak PM of a split party in a precarious electoral situation, but I don't recall him having any difficulty shaping his own Cabinet.

[calimac]

In further thought:

Most of what you say is things I already know. Which suggests that you're not addressing what's really puzzling me, which in turn suggests that I may not have phrased my question clearly enough.

For instance, I know why a PM might not want to sack a troublesome minister, and indeed considered putting a discussion of that in my original comment, but what I can't follow is why, having decided to sack them anyway, a PM would change their minds on having this pointed out. Any experienced politician would have weighed this in the balance already.

I guess what I mean is that I don't need to know why things are as they are so much as why they're different than they were on previous occasions when they've been as they are.

[danieldwilliam]

I think the new bit of information available to May yesterday is that many Cabinet members are actually willing and able to be bloody minded.

The Tories have a long history of hanging together to avoid hanging separately. They are usually able to agree to stay in power doing nothing when they are unable to agree what they want to do.

However, this time they are in the middle of a national crisis, something has to be done and they still can't agree what to do.

[calimac]

That is so unanswering of my question that I wish I hadn't read it. It's like answering "Why did Brexit pass?" with "Because more people voted for it than against it."

[danieldwilliam]

I think what you are missing here is that the fundamental nature of the Tory Party is a club for the exercising of power by the Tory Party.

Individual Tories will scheme and machinate, plot and backstab to get power for themselves up to, but almost never beyond, the point where they risk damaging the Party's electoral performance or worse, splitting the Party.

What I think is perhaps going on here is that several individual Tories have told their own Prime Minister that they are willing and able to risk the ruination of the Tory Party if they don't get their own way. That may not have happened since the Corn Laws.

[calimac]

Again, you're patiently explaining what I already know, and ignoring my question. Are you trolling me?

[andrewducker]

Your question* is "I can't follow is why, having decided to sack them anyway, a PM would change their minds on having this pointed out. Any experienced politician would have weighed this in the balance already."

And the answer that Dan is giving, as far as I can see, is that the current situation "may not have happened since the Corn Laws" - i.e. it's so unusual that the Prime Minister wasn't able to weigh it correctly.

Which doesn't seem to be ignoring your question, to me. What am I missing?




*Interpreting that as a question, that is.

[calimac]

No, the question, phrased in terms of that point, is "Why hasn't this happened since the Corn Laws?" When crisis situations sufficient to cause them have happened before, and I cited the previous Tory v Europe crisis under Major.

So the basic question, as I explained it before, is, and I quote, "I don't need to know why things are as they are so much as why they're different than they were on previous occasions when they've been as they are."

[calimac]

Actually, even the Corn Laws were a different type of situation. There, almost all the ministers went along with the PM (except for Stanley, and he resigned, as one would ordinarily do in such an impasse). It was the backbenchers who revolted, and did so in such quantity as to suggest that what kept the ministers on board was loyalty to the PM - the exact quality missing today - more than agreeing on the issue.

[danieldwilliam]

May is a price taker, almost uniquely for Tory PM's, because British foreign policy is almost uniquely bad.

It is not matched to our best interests, is probably beyond our capabilities, is not under our control and is not well supported domestically.

For most of the last 200-250 years the following have mostly been true:

The British Government has had good control over the British state.

The British state has had good control over the territory of Britain and significant influence over the political discourse in the territory of Britain.

Britain has been either an obviously assending power or a zenith imperial power (or within living memory of that).

So the head of the British government has enjoyed freedom of unilateral movement. They could pursue policy A, or policy B or pursue no policy and if anyone got hurt they were usually poor and foreign and didn't matter.

At times when the above have been less true the Tories have either had some ideological or personal alignment, been very electorally strong or have not been in government.

They have never been in a position where they have had to risk the ruination of the British state and (worse) the ruination of the Tory Party at the same time. They've always been able to dodge the question. Often this has been because,when in difficulty they could use some of Britain's economic or military or foreign policy momentum to call a pause in their own divisions, do nothing, and remain in power. They are now up against the clock and can't take a time out.

At the moment the British state is in crisis.

Its foreign policy has collapsed. It is clearly not only a waning power but a waned power. No one has told the British people this. They expect Gloriana and Brittania to crest the wave of Victory any day now.

The government does not have good control of the state. There are successful independence movements in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not clear that the British civil service can do what it is being asked to do. It is not clear that the civil service believes that what it is being asked to do is possible. Britain's domestic policy and institutions are in a poor shape.

A decade of austerity politics and poor productivity growth have left the British people disatisfied and truculent. There seems no prospect of an economic improvement to boost moral and to pay for some political compromises.

There is a real possibility that if the UK mismanages Brexit it could end up with food riots, a civil war in Ireland, Scotland leaving the Union and then another one or two decades of real economic pain. For which the Tories will be blamed.

The Tories are electorally weak and probably weakening.

They are more than averagely divided on issues other than Brexit.

May, has almost no room for manouvre and everyone knows this. The only thing keeping her in place is that almost everyone also knows that if they replaced her her replacement would have less room for manouvre.

Hunt (and others) has demurred on a move from a job he wants. Ordinarily the PM would banish (eg) Hunt to the backbenchs. He might challenge for the leadership. He might win or lose. The Tories might be electorally disadvantaged by this squabble but nothing really bad would permanently happen.

At the moment it is probably the case that May is the only candidate for PM who is acceptable to all of the various factional groupings in the Tory Party. This is partly the case because she is the incumbent and therefore no factional group increases their power by leaving her in place.

But the the Tories are not far away from having a knife fight in a phone box, in public, with likely results that the DUP pull their support for the goverment, the Brexit talks stall catastrophically, the Labour Party win the election in 2018, and 2023 and 2028, and a third of the Tory Party join the Lib Dems.

And I think Hunt et al in complete knowledge that Britain's position is appalling bad and that, if Brexit fails, the Tories' position would be apocalytic, have quitely pointed out to May that, actually, they *will* trigger a leadership contest if they don't get what they want.

They are able to do so because Britain's foreign policy is awful. They know May will have to give them what they want because the alternative is that a Tory leadership fight triggers economic ruin for Britain and permanent electoral damage to the Tories.

Foreign policy is the root cause.