"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"
This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD
Millions of people do not have photo ID. By forcing through mandatory voter-ID the government risk disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters. https://t.co/y0Upzof2FI
— Electoral Reform Society (@electoralreform) February 17, 2021
More from Robert Saunders
The big story in Parliament today really isn't which of three bad options the Opposition parties will choose. It is the absolute travesty of parliamentary democracy that is about to play out: a microcosm of the shattering effect Brexit has had on our constitution. [THREAD]
MPs are being asked to shovel through, in a single day, a bill that was published yesterday, implementing a treaty agreed six days ago, which comes into force tomorrow night. The European Communities Act 1972 was debated in Parliament for 300 hours. Today's bill will get about 5.
MPs will have at most four minutes to speak on a trade agreement covering more than 1,200 pages. Few will have had time to read it anyway, and their votes will mostly be cast by the Whips. The entire charade will be over shortly after lunch.
Today's legislation doesn't just transform our trade relations. As @jeff_a_king points out, it gives ministers the power to rewrite vast swathes of domestic law without further scrutiny. It is a massive transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive.
Parliament has to do this with the legislative equivalent of a gun to its head. The UK's current terms of trade with the EU cease to exist in 48 hrs. MPs cannot inflict a crash-out on their constituents, so all that's left for the Opposition parties to argue about is positioning.
MPs are being asked to shovel through, in a single day, a bill that was published yesterday, implementing a treaty agreed six days ago, which comes into force tomorrow night. The European Communities Act 1972 was debated in Parliament for 300 hours. Today's bill will get about 5.
MPs will have at most four minutes to speak on a trade agreement covering more than 1,200 pages. Few will have had time to read it anyway, and their votes will mostly be cast by the Whips. The entire charade will be over shortly after lunch.
Today's legislation doesn't just transform our trade relations. As @jeff_a_king points out, it gives ministers the power to rewrite vast swathes of domestic law without further scrutiny. It is a massive transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive.
Third, the general implementation powers contained in cl 31 allow ministers to make any law that is required to implement the agreement by regulations - and that this power can be used to do anything an Act of Parliament can do (including amend the bill/Act itself).
— Jeff King (@jeff_a_king) December 30, 2020
Parliament has to do this with the legislative equivalent of a gun to its head. The UK's current terms of trade with the EU cease to exist in 48 hrs. MPs cannot inflict a crash-out on their constituents, so all that's left for the Opposition parties to argue about is positioning.
This article, on the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, raises a question that needs more public discussion: who wields the historic powers of the Crown once the monarchy is no longer politically active? Should there be *any* limit on their use by a prime minister? THREAD
2. Some of the highest powers of the British state still technically belong to the Crown: from declaring war & making treaties to suspending Parliament. Those powers are now exercised "on the advice of the PM". But they do not *belong* to the PM, & might, in theory, be withheld.
3.For example: the 1950 "Lascelles Principles" set out three conditions under which a monarch might refuse to dissolve Parliament (a "Royal Prerogative" pre-2011). Others might include "when the Oppn is in the middle of a leadership contest" or "when electoral fraud is suspected"
4. In effect, the monarchy became the "emergency brake" of the constitution. It could not exercise these powers itself, but it could stop a govt from doing so. It could deny a PM access to the "nuclear weapons" of the constitution: like the power to declare war or suspend Parlt.
5.This was never a very satisfactory brake. It relied on one person with no democratic authority, who might be inept, corrupt or Prince Andrew. And as Britain evolved from a "constitutional" to a "ceremonial" monarchy, it grew ever less likely that a monarch would actually use it
ON THE BLOG: The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill \u2013 a return to constitutional normality?
— Constitution Unit (@ConUnit_UCL) August 1, 2021
Professor Alison Young, of @cambridgelaw, argues that it is wrong to place the blame for the extraordinary events of 2019 on the provisions of the FTPA.https://t.co/yYWEEOF1Td
2. Some of the highest powers of the British state still technically belong to the Crown: from declaring war & making treaties to suspending Parliament. Those powers are now exercised "on the advice of the PM". But they do not *belong* to the PM, & might, in theory, be withheld.
3.For example: the 1950 "Lascelles Principles" set out three conditions under which a monarch might refuse to dissolve Parliament (a "Royal Prerogative" pre-2011). Others might include "when the Oppn is in the middle of a leadership contest" or "when electoral fraud is suspected"
4. In effect, the monarchy became the "emergency brake" of the constitution. It could not exercise these powers itself, but it could stop a govt from doing so. It could deny a PM access to the "nuclear weapons" of the constitution: like the power to declare war or suspend Parlt.
5.This was never a very satisfactory brake. It relied on one person with no democratic authority, who might be inept, corrupt or Prince Andrew. And as Britain evolved from a "constitutional" to a "ceremonial" monarchy, it grew ever less likely that a monarch would actually use it
It is right to ask *why* industries like fishing have declined. The problem is the blithe assumption that the answer must always be "because of the EU". The problems facing the UK fishing industry long predate EU membership, and will not be magically solved by Brexit. [THREAD]
1. Fishing had been declining for much of the twentieth century. The number of UK fishermen more than halved in mid-century: from nearly 48,000 in 1938 to 21,000 in 1970. By 1970 - the year *before* the UK signed the Treaty of Accession - fishing made up less than 0.1% of UK GDP.
2. That decline had many causes. A century of over-fishing had left stocks dangerously depleted. Younger generations were moving out, in search of safer and better-paid work inland. And the "Cod Wars" with Iceland (1958-76) triggered the collapse of the Atlantic trawler fleet.
3. The "Cod Wars", in which Iceland expelled GB trawlers from its waters, were a grim reminder (a) that other states have sovereignty too & (b) that power-politics still exist outside the EU. For Cold-War reasons, the US backed Iceland. The UK had to fold. https://t.co/t8wdvtCgMb
4. There were other challenges, too. In the early 1970s, Norway & Iceland were dumping large quantities of frozen fish on the British market, driving down prices for domestic suppliers. The fishing fleet badly needed investment for modernisation but was struggling to raise funds.
After all these years... remainers still go "AH HA but fishing is a tiny contribution to the economy".. Well why might that be? Why has it withered? Why has it become a totemic issue in our relationship with Brussels? Yes it is tiny now. But for millions that's the sodding point.
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) December 17, 2020
1. Fishing had been declining for much of the twentieth century. The number of UK fishermen more than halved in mid-century: from nearly 48,000 in 1938 to 21,000 in 1970. By 1970 - the year *before* the UK signed the Treaty of Accession - fishing made up less than 0.1% of UK GDP.
2. That decline had many causes. A century of over-fishing had left stocks dangerously depleted. Younger generations were moving out, in search of safer and better-paid work inland. And the "Cod Wars" with Iceland (1958-76) triggered the collapse of the Atlantic trawler fleet.
3. The "Cod Wars", in which Iceland expelled GB trawlers from its waters, were a grim reminder (a) that other states have sovereignty too & (b) that power-politics still exist outside the EU. For Cold-War reasons, the US backed Iceland. The UK had to fold. https://t.co/t8wdvtCgMb
4. There were other challenges, too. In the early 1970s, Norway & Iceland were dumping large quantities of frozen fish on the British market, driving down prices for domestic suppliers. The fishing fleet badly needed investment for modernisation but was struggling to raise funds.
There are important differences between Trump and Johnson, but I'm wary of the idea that Johnson is "liberal" and Trump "authoritarian". I fear this overstates Johnson's "liberalism", and risks missing the warning lights that should now be flashing across British politics. THREAD
2. It's true that Johnson has a "libertarian" streak: he dislikes rules, taxes, "red tape", "do-gooders" and the "nanny state". But so does Trump. Indeed, Trump goes much further on this, presenting masks, lockdowns, gun control, taxes & environmentalism as a danger to "freedom".
3. Johnson is not morally conservative, but nor is Trump. Neither much cares what people do in private, & neither sets much store by "conservative" moral norms on truth, fidelity or sexual continence. (Tories used to call this "licence", not "liberalism", but it's common to both)
4. Johnson might, personally, be more "liberal" on immigration than Trump, but he's been no less quick to weaponize the issue for political gain. The demand to "Take Back Control of our Borders" was as central to Johnson's victory in 2016 as "Build the Wall" was to Trump's.
5. Johnson is not, like Trump, an instinctive protectionist. But he was happy to lead a nationalist insurgency against the UK's biggest free trade arrangement, and stoked support for a "no deal" Brexit that would have involved huge tariff increases. To quote an earlier leader...
Good piece on lazy "Boris is Trump" nonsense. I'd go further. Johnson is socially liberal at heart, Trump is authoritarian. Johnson is instinctive free trader, Trump is protectionist. Johnson is pro-migration at heart, Trump is xenophobe https://t.co/RGom19xSfx
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) January 7, 2021
2. It's true that Johnson has a "libertarian" streak: he dislikes rules, taxes, "red tape", "do-gooders" and the "nanny state". But so does Trump. Indeed, Trump goes much further on this, presenting masks, lockdowns, gun control, taxes & environmentalism as a danger to "freedom".
3. Johnson is not morally conservative, but nor is Trump. Neither much cares what people do in private, & neither sets much store by "conservative" moral norms on truth, fidelity or sexual continence. (Tories used to call this "licence", not "liberalism", but it's common to both)
4. Johnson might, personally, be more "liberal" on immigration than Trump, but he's been no less quick to weaponize the issue for political gain. The demand to "Take Back Control of our Borders" was as central to Johnson's victory in 2016 as "Build the Wall" was to Trump's.
5. Johnson is not, like Trump, an instinctive protectionist. But he was happy to lead a nationalist insurgency against the UK's biggest free trade arrangement, and stoked support for a "no deal" Brexit that would have involved huge tariff increases. To quote an earlier leader...
If anyone thinks this is a good faith proposal, designed to secure democratic consent for changes to public monuments, let's look at what Robert Jenrick said four months ago about the procedures he is about to impose. [THREAD]
2. In a speech last September, Jenrick complained that "the planning system is broken". Only "1% of people" had "the esoteric knowledge to navigate [its] arcane and protracted world", shutting out those "who don’t have the time to contribute to the lengthy and archaic process".
3. If campaigners make it through that process (which Jenrick himself calls "as inconsistent as it is slow") more barriers lie ahead. "I will not hesitate to use my powers as Secretary of State" to enforce the view, to "be set out in law", that statues should "almost always" stay
4. When this govt wants councils to do something - like building houses - it invariably overrides the planning system. When it wants to *stop* them doing something - like moving statues - it enforces it. This is not an attempt to democratise change. It's an attempt to obstruct it
5.If the goal were to prevent direct action against statues, blocking lawful & constitutional avenues for change would be a foolish way of doing it. As I wrote here, we need good faith mechanisms where the case for change can be argued & contested lawfully
Robert Jenrick is to change the law so that historic statues, plaques, memorials or monuments cannot be removed without going through a formal planning process.
— Christopher Hope\U0001f4dd (@christopherhope) January 16, 2021
Twelve thousand statues are covered by the law changes.
2. In a speech last September, Jenrick complained that "the planning system is broken". Only "1% of people" had "the esoteric knowledge to navigate [its] arcane and protracted world", shutting out those "who don’t have the time to contribute to the lengthy and archaic process".
3. If campaigners make it through that process (which Jenrick himself calls "as inconsistent as it is slow") more barriers lie ahead. "I will not hesitate to use my powers as Secretary of State" to enforce the view, to "be set out in law", that statues should "almost always" stay
4. When this govt wants councils to do something - like building houses - it invariably overrides the planning system. When it wants to *stop* them doing something - like moving statues - it enforces it. This is not an attempt to democratise change. It's an attempt to obstruct it
5.If the goal were to prevent direct action against statues, blocking lawful & constitutional avenues for change would be a foolish way of doing it. As I wrote here, we need good faith mechanisms where the case for change can be argued & contested lawfully
8. Debate around public statues is not going to go away. Nor should it, for it raises profound questions about our values & the ownership of public space. So councils need to establish good-faith processes in which debate can happen - and from which meaningful change can emerge.
— Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) June 9, 2020
More from Politics
We’ve been getting calls and outreach from Queens residents all day about this.
The community’s response? Outrage.
Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.
When we talk about bringing jobs to the community, we need to dig deep:
- Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?
- What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?
Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families.
Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.
We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.
It’s possible to establish economic partnerships w/ real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.
The community’s response? Outrage.
Amazon will divide its second headquarters evenly between New York's Long Island City and Arlington County's Crystal City neighborhoods. Other cities may also receive major sites. https://t.co/c1lKmeQinX
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) November 13, 2018
Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.
When we talk about bringing jobs to the community, we need to dig deep:
- Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?
- What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?
Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families.
Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.
We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.
It’s possible to establish economic partnerships w/ real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.
All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.
But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.
Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.
I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
The strange thing about the fight to displace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is that no one seems willing to run against her. https://t.co/VhBqf4KJom
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) November 21, 2018
I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.
But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.
Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.
I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
You May Also Like
1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:
Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.
Characteristics of a personal moat below:
2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.
As Andrew Chen noted:
3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized
Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than
4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.
After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.
5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.
In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.
Characteristics of a personal moat below:
I'm increasingly interested in the idea of "personal moats" in the context of careers.
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
Moats should be:
- Hard to learn and hard to do (but perhaps easier for you)
- Skills that are rare and valuable
- Legible
- Compounding over time
- Unique to your own talents & interests https://t.co/bB3k1YcH5b
2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.
As Andrew Chen noted:
People talk about \u201cpassive income\u201d a lot but not about \u201cpassive social capital\u201d or \u201cpassive networking\u201d or \u201cpassive knowledge gaining\u201d but that\u2019s what you can architect if you have a thing and it grows over time without intensive constant effort to sustain it
— Andrew Chen (@andrewchen) November 22, 2018
3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized
Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than
Things that look like moats but likely aren\u2019t or may fade:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) November 22, 2018
- Proprietary networks
- Being something other than one of the best at any tournament style-game
- Many "awards"
- Twitter followers or general reach without "respect"
- Anything that depends on information asymmetry https://t.co/abjxesVIh9
4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.
After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.
5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.
In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
