I've found the stupidest political take

[andrewducker]

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.

Comments

[mountainkiss]

The more serious point might be that a sophisticated debate is needed about balance here. A fully transparent and externally accountable advisor is of less use to the principal, though both extremes are probably bad.

[danieldwilliam]

I agree.

If the advisor can't articulate things that are controversial or nuanced then they're of no use to the principle.

And the principle retains ultimate responsibility for the advisors they pick and the influence they allow them to have.

I have some suspicions about the particular case in point here.

And I'm not sure English politics does nuance at the moment, not least because it currently doesn't do facts or memory very well.

[mountainkiss]

It is difficult. There is a point of view that if the principal has a bad character then there is an inevitable corruption of even the best and best-intentioned advice. Other viewpoints also available. My jury is out. I’m waiting to see if No. 10 can settle down in the Rosenfield era. Initially it looked good but the rapid turnover of Union advisors isn’t a great sign.

I make no assumptions about Carrie because I don’t trust a single word the press says about her. See also: Meghan.

[danieldwilliam]

Aye, one of my suspicions is along the Meghan axis.

[mountainkiss]

TBF the PM was a good user of good advisers as Mayor of London but (1) much easier portfolio (2) his character may have hardened since then.

[danieldwilliam]

Drawing from Machievelli, bad character in what dimension and in the service of what? A thuggish ideologue (like Thatcher) is unlikely to have the same difficulties with their advisor pool as the current incumbent.

Re: the Union advisors - does the modern Conservative Party actually care about the Union? When there isn't an immediate and career enhancing crisis to respond to?

[mountainkiss]

My understanding of the PM’s specific bad character is the inability to distinguish fantasy from reality (a topic on which I should be very careful in taking the moral high ground), a terror of being disliked that makes him promise people what they ask regardless of its good sense, realisability or any other conflicting promises he might have made, and a complete lack of understanding that truth has any meaning as a concept. But all this might be (1) unfair and / or (2) changeable with the right team around him.

[danieldwilliam]

I don't think it's unfair and I think it's so fundamental that if it were changable with the right team around him, then what, after all, is the point of him?

[mountainkiss]

He wins elections.

[danieldwilliam]

He has won elections. I'm not sure that's the same as winning elections.

I think the chances are about 1 in 4 that he dooms the Conservative Party to a generational defeat in 2024.

[mountainkiss]

If I were the Conservative Party I’d probably take that deal.

[mountainkiss]

Re the Union: I think that genuinely caring about the Union and not wanting to be responsible for the loss of the Union should in principle show up as similar behaviours. I suspect the PM is more in the latter camp, but CDL in the former. Again personal opinion only. Regardless of which camp they are in, they do not seem to be able to lead with good sense.

[danieldwilliam]

I think I disagree with your first sentence.

Or at least, depending on the defination of "responsible". I am using "responsible" as being on the front page of the Daily Mail when it reports the Yes winning Indyref 2 rather than being considered responsible by a consensus of mid-21st century historians.

The difference being that, in the short-term, you are allowed to lie outragiously during Indyref 2 if you don't expect to be in charge during Indyref 3 or if you think you can tactically blame someone else.

Genuinely saving the Union requires a huge rethink in the way England does politics. Probably in ways that are inconceivable to the Conservative Party and probably an anathma to England's structure or its view of itself in the Union.

[mountainkiss]

I’m really sorry but am not following your argument. Can you unpack?

[danieldwilliam]

In order to genuinely save the Union it needs to be reconstituted. There is a long-term and deep demand for more self-determination in many parts of the UK. Scotland most noticeably but in Wales, Northern Ireland and London too. London lacks the nation-building element of the other areas but it is the largest and it has all the money. Crudely, comparing regional economics Scotland breaks even and London (not the Westminster government) pays for everywhere else.

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?

[danieldwilliam]

This article on the Union Unit and, tangentially, on the role or otherwise of various advisors.

https://www.businessforscotland.com/bewildered-boris-johnson-stands-by-as-failing-union-unit-becomes-a-laughing-stock/

[mountainkiss]

That last point is accurate and complicated. I’m fascinated by the speed at which Steve Baker has destroyed his political capital and credibility.

[danieldwilliam]

How so? I don't think I've been following it closely.

[mountainkiss]

As I understand it, he liked his role as chief no-deal agitator so much that he’s now duplicating it as the voice of the libertarian anti lockdown brigade, failing to notice that there’s literally no constituency for it anywhere in the country.

[danieldwilliam]

I expect he'll emerge unscathed as either no one will listen to him or he won't be blamed for the deaths his policy would lead to.

[mountainkiss]

I don’t think he’ll remain unscathed within the party.

[danieldwilliam]

Mmmh, I was kind of getting the impression that the Tories were all for opening up and only Johnson's steady hand on the helm was preventing them.

[andrewducker]

That makes sense, thank you.

And yes, he must have decided that if people were with him for one thing they'd be with him for another. I'm rather glad they aren't.

[mountainkiss]

I think he’s just developed a taste for agitation at all costs. But usual caveats apply; all this is second-hand and may be inaccurate.

[andrewducker]

I'm not aware of him. What happened?