andrewducker (
andrewducker) wrote2021-02-21 07:30 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I've found the stupidest political take
One of the many Conservative subgroups has decided that it's wrong that Carrie Symonds (Johnson's fiance) has any input into his political decisions, because she's not elected.
Now, she may be giving him advice they disagree with. She may even be giving him terrible advice. But the idea that he shouldn't be talking to his fiance about the decisions he's making because she's not elected is just ludicrous.
Is he not allowed to get ideas from books which aren't written by sitting MPs? Is he not allowed to talk to external experts who aren't elected? Not allowed to talk to members of the public in case he listens to them before they're voted on?
He's an MP. He gets to vote on laws. And he gets to listen to, and learn from, whoever he deems appropriate. If someone doesn't like the opinions he takes on, and the decisions he makes, that's fine. We can totally judge him for that. If someone thinks that he associates with awful people and judges him for that, then that's also fair enough. But the idea that he shouldn't listen to anyone unless they've been elected is beyond laughable.
Now, she may be giving him advice they disagree with. She may even be giving him terrible advice. But the idea that he shouldn't be talking to his fiance about the decisions he's making because she's not elected is just ludicrous.
Is he not allowed to get ideas from books which aren't written by sitting MPs? Is he not allowed to talk to external experts who aren't elected? Not allowed to talk to members of the public in case he listens to them before they're voted on?
He's an MP. He gets to vote on laws. And he gets to listen to, and learn from, whoever he deems appropriate. If someone doesn't like the opinions he takes on, and the decisions he makes, that's fine. We can totally judge him for that. If someone thinks that he associates with awful people and judges him for that, then that's also fair enough. But the idea that he shouldn't listen to anyone unless they've been elected is beyond laughable.
no subject
I’m really sorry but am not following your argument. Can you unpack?
no subject
That isn't going to go away. So it must be accommodated.
That requires some or all of the following changes.
1) Devolution must be entrenched in the UK constitution.
2) More powers and more fiscal autonomy for London
3) More powers and more fiscal autonomy for part of England that are not-London - this is where the solidarity transfers from London to the rest of England become important both economically and politically.
4) Possibly a Federal UK - which requires polity building in England, if not out and out nation building.
5) A fundamental re-think about the role of local government in the UK and probably a return to Chamberlain's Birmingham instead of seeing local government as the executors of central government detailed policy.
6) Some difficult conversations with the Republic of Ireland.
7) Some difficult conversations with the EU.
8) This all likely requires some big changes to the UK political party structure and probably House of Lords reform and electoral system reform.
9) An interventionist industrial strategy over several decades to make the UK's economy more cosmopolitan rather than metropolitan.
Or Plan B
England has to admit to itself and the rest of the Union that it is in fact a colonial power.
I don't seen anyone in England talking about this, or even thinking about it. In Scotland and Northern Ireland the question is caught up in a binary decision about the status of the those areas inside or outside of existing nation-states.
Brutally, I'm not sure the Conservative Party has much appetite for telling Cornwall that in order for Scotland to remain in the UK London will be paying less towards Cornish people. Or telling people in London that they can't have a new tube line until they've paid for Manchester and Liverpool to have the same Gross Value Added and labour productivity as London has.
So who in the Conservative Party has the appetite to work on that for a decade?
Compared to Plan C - can they win a short-term election by rhetoric and dishonesty whilst leaving the fundamental issues unchallenged and for someone else to deal with?
no subject
no subject
no subject