UK Politics Thread IX: Try turning the UK off and on again.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm obviously mistaken about the date. But I think we'll need a source for both parts of the underlined, please.

The revelation that he wasn't nearly as disinterested as has been pretended was in Andrew Lownie's book, which I believe also (though unlike the coup it's hardly new) covers the paedophilia.

Can I have a specific citation please, with direct quote.

I've just looked through multiple reviews of Andrew Lownie's The Mountbattens, from both right- and left-leaning media, and none of them focus on either of these charges. They often focus on the point that Lownie argues that Mountbatten was bisexual or gay - which is supposed to be the book's key revelation - but there's nothing about paedophilia. The closest they come to corroborating your account over 1968 is a Spectator review that states:

After retiring as chief of the defence staff, Dickie courted further controversy through his supposed role in Cecil King’s 1968 ‘coup’ to oust prime minister Harold Wilson. He himself claimed no involvement, but Lownie suggests otherwise, which is odd since Dickie was politically progressive (willing to talk to nationalists in Burma, for example), even to the point of sympathising with Irish republicanism — which made his murder so mistaken.

That's hardly unequivocal, and if Lownie's book really does state that Mountbatten was a paedophile traitor, I'd somehow expect reviews to be all over that angle; the Guardian review certainly doesn't mention either point, and if any media outlet was going to rub its hands gleefully over revelations that a close royal relative was a paedophile traitor, I'd expect it to be the Guardian.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just noting that what you're suggesting here lies outside the mainstream of historical consensus; and while I'm very willing to consider this alternative perspective, I would ideally like to see it sourced properly.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

The revelation that he wasn't nearly as disinterested as has been pretended was in Andrew Lownie's book, which I believe also (though unlike the coup it's hardly new) covers the paedophilia.

Can I have a specific citation please, with direct quote.

I've just looked through multiple reviews of Andrew Lownie's The Mountbattens, from both right- and left-leaning media, and none of them focus on either of these charges. They often focus on the point that Lownie argues that Mountbatten was bisexual or gay - which is supposed to be the book's key revelation - but there's nothing about paedophilia. The closest they come to corroborating your account over 1968 is a Spectator review that states:

After retiring as chief of the defence staff, Dickie courted further controversy through his supposed role in Cecil King’s 1968 ‘coup’ to oust prime minister Harold Wilson. He himself claimed no involvement, but Lownie suggests otherwise, which is odd since Dickie was politically progressive (willing to talk to nationalists in Burma, for example), even to the point of sympathising with Irish republicanism — which made his murder so mistaken.

That's hardly unequivocal, and if Lownie's book really does state that Mountbatten was a paedophile traitor, I'd somehow expect reviews to be all over that angle; the Guardian review certainly doesn't mention either point, and if any media outlet was going to rub its hands gleefully over revelations that a close royal relative was a paedophile traitor, I'd expect it to be the Guardian.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just noting that what you're suggesting here lies outside the mainstream of historical consensus; and while I'm very willing to consider this alternative perspective, I would ideally like to see it sourced properly.

This was the Telegraph article I remember reading. It came out just before the book did and, yes, disrupted a consensus of disinterest in a coup that I think in retrospect should be viewed as little more than a cover-up indulged by credulous historians. No idea why it's not in those reviews (except that it's not really new, the allegations have been out for decades) but he wrote a letter about it here and it is in the book: p. 286-291.

[Concejos Unidos]

Sinn Fein approached New IRA group Saoradh over potential ‘co-operation’ on Irish unity referendum

Sinn Fein sought a potential “co-operation” agreement with dissident republicans to achieve a border poll, according to the Sunday Times.

The newspaper reported that the party’s chairman Declan Kearney made direct contact with Saoradh – widely considered to be the political wing of the New IRA – in late 2020.

According to the Sunday Times, Mr Kearney wrote to Brian Kenna who acts as the chairman for Saoradh, offering to arrange a meeting on promoting “engagement on developing a common strategy and co-operation" around a referendum.

He also offered an invite for a “delegation” from the dissident group to “meet with myself and other members of the Sinn Fein leadership”.

Sinn Fein defended the move to the newspaper arguing “dialogue and engagement” is a “vital part of the peace process”.

The New IRA has previously claimed it was responsible for the murder of journalist and author Lyra McKee in Londonderry in April 2019 as she observed rioting in the Creggan area.

Sinn Fein previously condemned the killing “in the strongest terms possible” in 2019, just a year before the reported approach to the group was made.

=CONTINUES=

So it seems Sinn Fein communicated with Saoradh, the political wing of the new IRA, with an offer to cooperate in regards to a plan to cooperate for a referendum on a United Ireland, citing a change in public opinion due to brexit and the pandemic.

Great outlook Sinn Fein, terrific, well done! Especially doing it a year after they murdered Lyra McKee.

"Damnit, we're winning for the first time ever! What can we do to fuck this shit up?"

[The Archregimancy]

This was the Telegraph article I remember reading. It came out just before the book did and, yes, disrupted a consensus of disinterest in a coup that I think in retrospect should be viewed as little more than a cover-up indulged by credulous historians. No idea why it's not in those reviews (except that it's not really new, the allegations have been out for decades) but he wrote a letter about it here and it is in the book: p. 286-291.

Thank you; I appreciate you taking my request for a more robust source in the intended spirit, and for taking the time to reply accordingly.

It does to some extent reinforce my earlier point that the people who still condemn the Mail for its infamous 1930s 'hurrah for the blackshirts' article rarely seem to worry about the Mirror openly calling for a coup against Harold Wilson on its front page in 1968; perhaps it's simple lack of awareness?

[Mtwara]

Great outlook Sinn Fein, terrific, well done! Especially doing it a year after they murdered Lyra McKee.

I decided to search for Saoradh on Reddit to see what other people on Ireland related subreddits say. I was surprised that there was a big split over whether or not doing this was a problem.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

This was the Telegraph article I remember reading. It came out just before the book did and, yes, disrupted a consensus of disinterest in a coup that I think in retrospect should be viewed as little more than a cover-up indulged by credulous historians. No idea why it's not in those reviews (except that it's not really new, the allegations have been out for decades) but he wrote a letter about it here and it is in the book: p. 286-291.

Thank you; I appreciate you taking my request for a more robust source in the intended spirit, and for taking the time to reply accordingly.

It does to some extent reinforce my earlier point that the people who still condemn the Mail for its infamous 1930s 'hurrah for the blackshirts' article rarely seem to worry about the Mirror openly calling for a coup against Harold Wilson on its front page in 1968; perhaps it's simple lack of awareness?

The Mirror expressed similar sentiments to the Mail at the time. But even if that and the call for a coup (the latter of which I suppose has the response that they ousted Cecil King immediately after) did have greater awareness, the real reason they attack the Mail is because they disagree with it and the same motive isn't there with the Mirror.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I deleted my original reply and reworded it, it was awkward to read:

Great outlook Sinn Fein, terrific, well done! Especially doing it a year after they murdered Lyra McKee.

I decided to search for Saoradh on Reddit to see what other people on Ireland related subreddits say. I was surprised that there was a big split over whether or not doing this was a problem.

Yeah ive noticed its a very divisive thing for folks on reddit. I personally think it was a mistake, i just cant see how Sinn Fein was gona benefit from this at all, Saoradh despise them and arnt gona give up their attempts to restart violence any time soon.
I may understand Sinn Feins reasoning for them to focus on a border poll diplomatically instead of violence, after all bringing the IRA to the negotiating table was one of the main steps that led to the GFA and ended the Troubles, but i just dont see how they were gona benefit from this.

I think it was misstep and shouldnt have happened, especially not when Sinn Fein has been largely keeping itself quiet the last few years whilst the DUP draws all the attention with its self inflicted meltdown. Saoradh hate them and the new IRA has had the better part of 30 years now to try and move to peace and they have not. Unlike the Provisional IRA they lack any widespread support, dont have the numbers, dont have the capability and people dont fucking want them, but they refuse to listen.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Here's an entertaining meme from David Stewart, standing for the Northern Independence Party in Wingrove.

[Philjia]

Sinn Fein approached New IRA group Saoradh over potential ‘co-operation’ on Irish unity referendum

Sinn Fein sought a potential “co-operation” agreement with dissident republicans to achieve a border poll, according to the Sunday Times.

The newspaper reported that the party’s chairman Declan Kearney made direct contact with Saoradh – widely considered to be the political wing of the New IRA – in late 2020.

According to the Sunday Times, Mr Kearney wrote to Brian Kenna who acts as the chairman for Saoradh, offering to arrange a meeting on promoting “engagement on developing a common strategy and co-operation" around a referendum.

He also offered an invite for a “delegation” from the dissident group to “meet with myself and other members of the Sinn Fein leadership”.

Sinn Fein defended the move to the newspaper arguing “dialogue and engagement” is a “vital part of the peace process”.

The New IRA has previously claimed it was responsible for the murder of journalist and author Lyra McKee in Londonderry in April 2019 as she observed rioting in the Creggan area.

Sinn Fein previously condemned the killing “in the strongest terms possible” in 2019, just a year before the reported approach to the group was made.

=CONTINUES=

So it seems Sinn Fein communicated with Saoradh, the political wing of the new IRA, with an offer to cooperate in regards to planning a referendum on a United Ireland, citing a change in public opinion due to brexit and the pandemic.

Great outlook Sinn Fein, terrific, well done! Especially doing it a year after they murdered Lyra McKee.

Sinn Fein trying to be friends with Republican terrorists? Say it isn't so!

[San Lumen]

Sinn Fein approached New IRA group Saoradh over potential ‘co-operation’ on Irish unity referendum

So it seems Sinn Fein communicated with Saoradh, the political wing of the new IRA, with an offer to cooperate in regards to planning a referendum on a United Ireland, citing a change in public opinion due to brexit and the pandemic.

Great outlook Sinn Fein, terrific, well done! Especially doing it a year after they murdered Lyra McKee.

Sinn Fein trying to be friends with Republican terrorists? Say it isn't so!

Isn’t Sinn Fein the party that refuses to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and therefore doesn’t take their seats?

[Philjia]

Sinn Fein trying to be friends with Republican terrorists? Say it isn't so!

Isn’t Sinn Fein the party that refuses to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and therefore doesn’t take their seats?

Sinn Fein is the party that refuses to take their seats and therefore doesn't swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

[San Lumen]

Isn’t Sinn Fein the party that refuses to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and therefore doesn’t take their seats?

Sinn Fein is the party that refuses to take their seats and therefore doesn't swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

If they won the most seats in the Assembly the country would therefore be without a government.

[The Archregimancy]

The sexism scandals and partygate scandal have now managed to collide.

That notorious left-wing rag The Sunday Times alleged over the weekend that a 'Sexist of the Year' award was handed out at the alleged lockdown-era Number 10 Christmas party in December 2020.

Non-paywalled link:

https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayne ... t-12603583

It may be that this is a misunderstanding; one source I read stated that the Sunday Times story has since been edited (I'm unable to check), and now focuses on a whole raft of other objectionable sexist behaviours with no relationship to the lockdown parties. But it's a bad look. And even if Angela Rayner is making hay out of the story, then it's not exactly difficult to make hay when the government leaves so many bales just lying around untended.

[Philjia]

Sinn Fein is the party that refuses to take their seats and therefore doesn't swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

If they won the most seats in the Assembly the country would the country would therefore be without a government.

They do participate in Northern Ireland's devolved assembly but not in the UK's national parliament. However, if they win the most seats in the Assembly and are therefore entitled to have their leader in Northern Ireland be First Minister, the largest unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party, may refuse to participate in the Assembly which will prevent the Assembly from functioning as there is a requirement for a mandatory coalition between the largest Nationalist party and the largest Unionist party.

[San Lumen]

If they won the most seats in the Assembly the country would the country would therefore be without a government.

They do participate in Northern Ireland's devolved assembly but not in the UK's national parliament. However, if they win the most seats in the Assembly and are therefore entitled to have their leader in Northern Ireland be First Minister, the largest unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party, may refuse to participate in the Assembly which will prevent the Assembly from functioning as there is a requirement for a mandatory coalition between the largest Nationalist party and the largest Unionist party.

So even if one party gets a majority coalition is still required?

[The Archregimancy]

Isn’t Sinn Fein the party that refuses to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and therefore doesn’t take their seats?

Sinn Fein is the party that refuses to take their seats and therefore doesn't swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Sinn Fein refuses to take their seats at Westminster on the basis that British political institutions should have no role to play in governing Ireland (and vice versa); the Westminster oath of allegiance would require them to recognise the legitimacy of British political institutions, so is often held up as a symbol of their abstentionism, but isn't necessarily the primary reason.

They take their seats at the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, but this only requires a member's pledge to discharge their office in good faith, to commit to non-violent democratic means, to act in accordance with decisions of the executive and Assembly, and to comply with the ministerial code.

[Philjia]

They do participate in Northern Ireland's devolved assembly but not in the UK's national parliament. However, if they win the most seats in the Assembly and are therefore entitled to have their leader in Northern Ireland be First Minister, the largest unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party, may refuse to participate in the Assembly which will prevent the Assembly from functioning as there is a requirement for a mandatory coalition between the largest Nationalist party and the largest Unionist party.

So even if one party gets a majority coalition is still required?

Yes but nobody is getting a majority in the Assembly anyway.

[Callruss99]

its hard to argue against starmer being a tory plant at this point. falls on their side of almost everything apart from specific non ideological issues that we will forget about in a few weeks.

0 challenge to this tory party while making sure the entire party has 0 left leaning influence. amazing how blatant.

[The Huskar Social Union]

They do participate in Northern Ireland's devolved assembly but not in the UK's national parliament. However, if they win the most seats in the Assembly and are therefore entitled to have their leader in Northern Ireland be First Minister, the largest unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party, may refuse to participate in the Assembly which will prevent the Assembly from functioning as there is a requirement for a mandatory coalition between the largest Nationalist party and the largest Unionist party.

So even if one party gets a majority coalition is still required?

As Philjia said The NI assembly has a mandatory coalition that makes Nationalist and Unionist parties work together, if the two largest parties refuse to enter government (either one or both) then the NI Executive cant form. And no party is ever going to win a majority here any time soon, its just not going to happen. And as Arch said, the NI Assembly does not require you to make an oath of allegiance to the British Monarch so Sinn Fein will take their seats there as their abstentionist policy is not needed.

The reason why we more than likely wont have a government after the election if Sinn Fein wins the most seats (they technically have the most seats now anyway) is because the DUP refuse to stomach the idea of a Nationalist First Minister, especially an Irish Republican First Minister. They argue its over the NI Protocol and Brexit, but if those things were not in the picture at all they would still refuse to go into government unless they were the largest party and its down to purely sectarian reasons.

They will not entertain the idea of an Irish Nationalist First Minister because it means they are no longer the top dogs around and that NI has changed considerably since the end of the Troubles. The First Minister has always been Unionist, and even though the office is the exact same as that of the Deputy First Minister in regards to decision making, authority, power in the executive etc, the symbolic name difference is why they will collapse the government if Sinn Fein tops the polls and has the most seats.

The First Minister is Unionist. It has always been Unionist. It cant be Nationalist.

That is the principal reason why we wont have a government after this election if the polls are accurate. Petty sectarian spite from the DUP and many other Political leaders from Unionism. The DUP and TUV flat out refuse to accept democracy if they dont get their way (I watched the leadership debate last night and Jeffrey Donaldson refused to say the DUP would participate in government with Sinn Fein if they were the largest party, over and over and over again), and the supposedly now moderate UUP cant even say if they would serve as a leading party in the executive with Sinn Fein if they won the seats to make them eligible to hold the office of DFM.

Also Northern Ireland has not had a government before. We didnt have one from 2002-2007 after Unionists withdrew after Sinn Feins offices were raided by the PSNI under allegations members of their staff were gathering information for the IRA. We didnt have one from 2017-2020 over the RHI scandal, Brexit and the Irish language Act. We almost didnt have one last year over the Irish Language Act and we dont have one now because the DUP withdrew a few months ago over the NI Protocol, their bad polling and the Irish Language Act.

[Ifreann]

So even if one party gets a majority coalition is still required?

As Philjia said The NI assembly has a mandatory coalition that makes Nationalist and Unionist parties work together, if the two largest parties refuse to enter government (either one or both) then the NI Executive cant form. And no party is ever going to win a majority here any time soon, its just not going to happen. And as Arch said, the NI Assembly does not require you to make an oath of allegiance to the British Monarch so Sinn Fein will take their seats there as their abstentionist policy is not needed.

The reason why we more than likely wont have a government after the election if Sinn Fein wins the most seats (they technically have the most seats now anyway) is because the DUP refuse to stomach the idea of a Nationalist First Minister, especially an Irish Republican First Minister. They argue its over the NI Protocol and Brexit, but if those things were not in the picture at all they would still refuse to go into government unless they were the largest party and its down to purely sectarian reasons.

They will not entertain the idea of an Irish Nationalist First Minister because it means they are no longer the top dogs around and that NI has changed considerably since the end of the Troubles. The First Minister has always been Unionist, and even though the office is the exact same as that of the Deputy First Minister in regards to decision making, authority, power in the executive etc, the symbolic name difference is why they will collapse the government if Sinn Fein tops the polls and has the most seats.

The First Minister is Unionist. It has always been Unionist. It cant be Nationalist.

That is the principal reason why we wont have a government after this election if the polls are accurate. Petty sectarian spite from the DUP and many other Political leaders from Unionism. The DUP and TUV flat out refuse to accept democracy if they dont get their way (I watched the leadership debate last night and Jeffrey Donaldson refused to say the DUP would participate in government with Sinn Fein if they were the largest party, over and over and over again), and the supposedly now moderate UUP cant even say if they would serve as a leading party in the executive with Sinn Fein if they won the seats to make them eligible to hold the office of DFM.

Also Northern Ireland has not had a government before. We didnt have one from 2002-2007 after Unionists withdrew after Sinn Feins offices were raided by the PSNI under allegations members of their staff were gathering information for the IRA. We didnt have one from 2017-2020 over the RHI scandal, Brexit and the Irish language Act. We almost didnt have one last year over the Irish Language Act and we dont have one now because the DUP withdrew a few months ago over the NI Protocol, their bad polling and the Irish Language Act.

Clearly the problem is that the Irish insist on having a language.

[Shrillland]

Government officially releases White Paper on mutilating public service broadcasting getting rid of the licence fee

While I do see the alternative funding via internet or electricity surcharges making sense, especially with people no longer watching TV in its classic form, getting rid of the licence fee altogether is going to be ruinous. Take it from this American, you don't want a country where all your broadcasters are at the mercy of corporate sponsors. You're already losing Channel 4, get rid of the Tories come '24 and preserve the BBC at least.

[Ostroeuropa]

Tories+Labour: "PR Is BAD!"

SNP: "You've convinced us."

Tories+Labour: "What?"

SNP: "You've convinced us. We're going to abolish PR in the Scottish parliament."

Tories+Labour:

SNP: "Is there a problem?"

----

I would pay good money to see this.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Nadine Dorries, the honest broker of the Conservative party, shares a photo of Keir Starmer earing a curry with a man who died in 2019 as evidence he broke covid guidelines in lockdown in 2021

The photo is originally from 2015 btw

The Conservatives should just kick her out of the party at this rate and save themselves further embarrassment.

edit: Ah seems she was linking to a Daily Mail article which was not clear in the original image as it cuts off just below the photos. Still dishonest but not as bad as i originally thought.

edit edit: words are hard

[The Huskar Social Union]

Westminster Voting Intention (Scotland):

SNP: 42% (-6)
LAB: 24% (+4)
CON: 21% (=)
LDM: 7% (=)

Via @PanelbaseMD, TBC. Changes w/ 9-12 Nov.

Decent sized drop from the SNP towards Labour up in Scotland, but the SNP still have a commanding lead.

[Hirota]

Nadine Dorries, the honest broker of the Conservative party, shares a photo of Keir Starmer earing a curry with a man who died in 2019 as evidence he broke covid guidelines in lockdown in 2021

The photo is originally from 2015 btw

The Conservatives should just kick her out of the party at this rate and save themselves further embarrassment.

edit: Ah seems she was linking to a Daily Mail article which was not clear in the original image as it cuts off just below the photos. Still dishonest but not as bad as i originally thought.

edit edit: words are hard

Edit: I'd originally posted clarification that Husk has already provided.

It appears honesty is in short supply in both the constituency offices of Mid Bedfordshire and South Perthshire, as well as Northcliffe House in Kensington.