British Politics Thread

So on a lighter note: a new book anthology to feature everyone's* favorite jam-eating, Daily Mail drone fighting Labour MP

Insane Troll Logic right there. "I became a tory MP because I hate the left wing because I had a shitty teacher".

A man armed with a knife was arrested outside Buckingham Palace on Friday night following a struggle with police. Scotland Yard said two male officers suffered minor injuries.

The incident occurred after the man, believed to be in his early 20s, stopped his car at traffic lights next to a police van. Officers inside the vehicle spotted a large knife displayed openly in the suspect’s car.

As the officers moved to detain and question the man, a struggled ensued and both officers sustained “minor injuries” to their arms, the Metropolitan police said.

The man, who was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and assault on police, was taken to a London hospital for treatment for minor injuries.

Detectives are carrying out an investigation of “scale and significance” into allegations the Conservative party’s use of a call centre in Wales may have broken the law.

Secret footage had suggested the Tories may have breached election law by allegedly using a call centre to directly contact voters in marginal seats. The party has insisted it did nothing wrong and said the call centre was hired to carry out legal market research and direct marketing.

South Wales police wrote to the Labour MP Wayne David this week explaining that members of its economic crime unit with expertise in investigating electoral integrity and complex and serious fraud were looking into the allegations.

The police confirmed the investigation was being carried out in relation to the Representation of the People Act 1983. A spokeswoman said: “As an investigation is under way, it would be inappropriate to comment any further at this time.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) also confirmed it was investigating the call centre.

The secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt, has challenged me on Twitter and in an article for the Sunday Telegraph over a talk I gave recently to the Royal Society of Medicine in defence of the NHS. Having been accused by Hunt of spreading “pernicious falsehoods”, I feel the need to respond.

Hunt doesn’t deny that he dismissed research contradicting his claim of excess deaths due to poorer hospital care and staffing at the weekend. He admits he relied on one paper by Professor Nick Freemantle and colleagues. But even if one accepts its disputed findings, the authors explicitly warn that “to assume these excess deaths are avoidable would be rash and misleading”. The editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, Fiona Godlee, wrote to Hunt to reprimand him for publicly misrepresenting the Freemantle et al paper. As a patient who has spent a lot of time in hospital, I would welcome improved services at the weekend. For this, we need a scientific assessment of the benefits of a seven-day service and of the resources required, not misrepresentation of research.

Hunt’s statement that funding and the number of doctors and nurses are at an all-time high is a distraction. Record funding is not the same thing as adequate funding. There is overwhelming evidence that NHS funding and the numbers of doctors and nurses are inadequate, and it is getting worse. The NHS had a £2.4bn shortfall in funding in 2015-16, bigger than ever before. NHS spending per person will go down in 2018-19. According to the Red Cross, the NHS is facing a humanitarian crisis. There is a staff recruitment crisis. The BBC reported that on 1 December 2015 there were 23,443 nursing vacancies, and a 50% increase in vacancies from 2013 to 2015. The Guardian reported in May that the number of nursing vacancies had risen further to 40,000. There are increasing numbers of doctor vacancies and increasing waiting times for GP appointments, treatment and surgery.

Hunt misquoted me, saying that I claimed the government wants a US-style insurance system. What I said was that the direction is towards a US-style insurance system, run by private companies. The increasing involvement of private health companies in the NHS is evidence for this. Hunt chose to highlight – dare I say, cherry-pick – the fact that private companies’ share of NHS contracts rose 0.1% over the last year. This is an anomaly among the data since 2006. The NHS private providers’ share was 2.8% in 2006-7 and rose steadily to 7.6% in 2015/16. The amount of private health insurance has fallen since 2009 as Hunt said, but that is because of the financial crash. We can conclude nothing about health policy from this and in any case, it is now increasing again. As waiting times increase, private companies report an increase in self-pay where patients pay directly for care such as hip and knee replacements.

Further evidence that the direction is towards a US-style system is that the NHS in England is undergoing a complete reorganisation into 44 regions with the aim of each being run as an “accountable care organisation” (Aco). An Aco is a variant of a type of US system called a health maintenance organisation in which all services are provided in a network of hospitals and clinics all run by the HMO company. It is reasonable to expect the powerful US HMO companies such as Kaiser Permanente and United Health will be bidding for the huge contracts to run these AC Os when they go out to international tender. Hunt referenced Kaiser Permanente as a model for the future budgetary arrangements in the NHS at the Commons health select committee in May 2016.

The NHS is political, but not necessarily party political. I am a Labour supporter but acknowledge that privatisation increased under Labour governments in the past. The question is whether democracy can prevail and the public can make its demands for proper funding and public provision undeniable by any government.

In a move that positions it decisively as the party of “soft Brexit”, Labour will support full participation in the single market and customs union during a lengthy “transitional period” that it believes could last between two and four years after the day of departure, it is to announce on Sunday.

This will mean that under a Labour government the UK would continue to abide by the EU’s free movement rules, accept the jurisdiction of the European court of justice on trade and economic issues, and pay into the EU budget for a period of years after Brexit, in the hope of lessening the shock of leaving to the UK economy. In a further move that will delight many pro-EU Labour backers, Jeremy Corbyn’s party will also leave open the option of the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market for good, beyond the end of the transitional period.

Permanent long-term membership would only be considered if a Labour government could by then have persuaded the rest of the EU to agree to a special deal on immigration and changes to freedom of movement rules.

The decision to stay inside the single market and abide by all EU rules during the transitional period, and possibly beyond, was agreed after a week of intense discussion at the top of the party. It was signed off by the leadership and key members of the shadow cabinet on Thursday, according to Starmer’s office.

The new policy will inevitably be presented by Brexit supporters as evidence Labour is ready to betray the will of the people as expressed in last year’s referendum, which delivered a narrow victory for Leave. And it sets the stage for incendiary arguments with the government on 7 September, when the European Union (withdrawal) bill returns to the Commons for its second reading.

Pro-EU Tory M Ps, who also support remaining in the single market, will be put under intense pressure by Labour to fall in behind its position and rebel against their own party. If significant numbers were to do so, Theresa May’s already shaky grip on power would be seriously threatened.

By remaining inside a customs union and the single market in a transitional phase we would be certain that goods and services could continue to flow between the EU and the UK without tariffs, customs checks or additional red tape. There would be no need to set up complex alternative customs or trading relations. Given that UK-EU combined import/export trade totalled £553bn last year, this certainty would be hugely advantageous for British businesses and consumers. This arrangement would also safeguard the important social protections and rights that come from being within the single market.

There are a number of other significant advantages to this approach. First, it is a grown-up acknowledgement that bespoke transitional arrangements are highly unlikely to be negotiated, agreed and established in the next 18 months. Second, it provides maximum certainty for businesses and allays concerns that there will be delays or disruptions to trade when we leave the EU in March 2019. It would also ensure there will be a one-step transition to a new final relationship.

Third, it provides more time to resolve the complex question of the Northern Ireland border. Labour is clear that this extremely serious issue must not be rushed and that a considered agreement needs to be reached that prevents a hard border and has support from all communities. The government’s policy paper on this was incredibly light on detail and gave precious little reason to believe this will be resolved satisfactorily by March 2019.

Fourth, it would enable negotiations to focus on the central Brexit issue: the nature of the new partnership that needs to be built between the UK and the EU. This is challenging enough without having to negotiate separate transitional arrangements at the same time.

Labour also recognise that this transitional arrangement would – for all its merits – be imperfect and prove unsustainable beyond a limited period.

It would not provide a durable or acceptable long-term settlement for Britain or the EU. It would not provide certainty for either party. It leaves unresolved some of the central issues the referendum exposed – in particular the need for more effective management of migration, which Labour recognise must be addressed in the final deal.

That is why a transitional period under Labour will be as short as possible, but as long as is necessary. It cannot become a kind of never-ending purgatory. That would simply create its own uncertainty and ambiguity.

Instead, transitional arrangements must be a bridge to a strong and lasting new relationship with the EU – not as members, as partners. That new progressive partnership should be based on our common values and shared history. It must extend far beyond trade and security to include education, science, technology, medicine and culture.

It must be based on a deal that, as Labour made clear in our manifesto, retains the benefits of the customs union and the single market. How that is ultimately achieved is secondary to the outcome.

But the prime minister’s ideological obsession with leaving the customs union and the single market during a transitional period means the options to deliver a good deal for Britain are diminishing fast. The fanciful and unachievable proposals put forward in the government’s recent customs paper show the colossal risks it is willing to take with British jobs and the economy.

Labour will not take those risks. We will always put jobs and the economy first. That means remaining in a form of customs union with the EU is a possible end destination for Labour, but that must be subject to negotiations.

It also means that Labour is flexible as to whether the benefits of the single market are best retained by negotiating a new single market relationship or by working up from a bespoke trade deal.

Those two questions must be central to the Brexit negotiations. The government should not be wasting time pursuing bespoke transitional arrangements when certainty and clarity are what is needed.

Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, are facing a backlash from senior M Ps in Labour’s traditional heartlands after announcing a dramatic shift in party policy to back continued membership of the EU single market beyond March 2019.

But three senior Labour M Ps from northern England and Midland constituencies have told the Guardian that the move risks alienating thousands of voters in traditional seats who support greater controls on immigration.

John Mann, the MP for Bassetlaw who voted to leave the EU, told the Guardian the new policy would fall apart unless it incorporated an EU immigration policy. “There are a lot of ladders being laid [by the shadow cabinet] to the continent and they require a clearly defined immigration policy to remain credible,” he said.

Another traditionalist MP said the policy would be “very damaging in hundreds of Brexit-voting seats” that Labour needs to hold outside major cities. “There aren’t enough metropolitan remain-type voters to win an election. There is real concern that we have misled voters.”

Another said: “This is a disaster in northern towns where we got Ukip’s vote by backing Brexit and immigration controls as soon as possible, not by hoping they might come through in the future.”

The policy change has delighted many pro-EU Labour backers. The party plans to also leave open the option of the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market for good, beyond the end of the transitional period.

Pro-EU Tory M Ps who also support remaining in the single market will be put under intense pressure by Labour to fall in behind its position and rebel against their own party.

Matthew Parris, the former Conservative MP now working as a columnist, told Radio 4 that despite his loyalty to the Tories and his opposition to Corbyn, he had begun to think about “the possibility of voting for a party that is brave enough to take this stand”.

Some Conservative M Ps hope Labour’s change of policy could open the way for them to put further pressure on the government to soften its stance during the negotiations. One said: “This could be the leverage we need.”

Anna Soubry, a former minister, said Labour’s new stance was part of a shift in the political landscape since the general election. “Hard Brexit has gone, thank god. The debate has shifted to the arguments we have been making for some considerable time.”

However, she warned that Corbyn and the shadow chancellor, John Mc Donnell, were still “Eurosceptic Bennites”, adding on Twitter: “They’ve not changed their minds, they’re playing politics.”

David Owen, who left Labour in 1981 to form the SDP, has written a letter to the Guardian praising Corbyn’s new position on Brexit. The former foreign secretary described himself as a Labour supporter who agreed with much of Corbyn’s manifesto, and said he may consider rejoining the party in the future.

In the letter, Lord Owen wrote: “As a Labour supporter not yet ready to renew my membership, it is good to see Keir Starmer’s position agreed with Jeremy Corbyn.”

Brexit campaigners have seized on signs of a possible climbdown over Europe and are using it to rally support around alternative Tory leaders, according to a study.

Analysis of social media activity, a key political battleground during the referendum, reveals a particular backlash at the European court of justice (ECJ) after ministers hinted it could play a continued role in British affairs after March 2019.

Researchers at Signify, a data science company, used public data to examine 50,646 individuals sharing articles about the ECJ on platforms such as Facebook and found four times as many people were pro-Brexit than pro-remain, while 83% expressed negative sentiment about the court.

Promotion of hot button issues such as the ECJ now appears to be behind a wave of online support for Tory politicians who are opposed to any softening of the government strategy, and may stir a similar resurgence in support for Ukip as Labour also softens its Brexit message.

“The issue is a proxy for sovereignty and control, and has become a tool for galvanising Tory Brexiteers and Ukip supporters, coalescing their support around Jacob Rees-Mogg,” said Joe Harrod, chief operating officer of Signify.

“It’s hard for remainers to get traction on this topic because all their arguments are about process and statutes, while many leave voters genuinely regard sovereignty and the rule of Brussels as a red line issue. It’s a perfect topic to energise that base.”

There was a similar wave of interest on Twitter, where the ECJ became the second hottest Brexit topic of the last fortnight, overtaking immigration as a key feature of online reaction when the government published a series of new policy papers.

Analysis of social media trends is still in its infancy but is alleged to have played a critical part in helping Brexit campaigners effectively target anti-EU messages during the run-up to last year’s referendum.

The issue has been amplified via alternative media outlets such as Westmonster, a Breitbart-style site funded by the leave financier Arron Banks, and others who have praised the firm response of Rees-Mogg.

However, the Signify research suggests that public understanding of the detailed issues behind the headlines remains limited.

“The ECJ is a boring issue brought to life by personalities, especially Rees-Mogg – which makes it a perfect topic for a network that has been coalescing behind him as a candidate for prime minister,” added Harrod. “Building outrage about red-line issues would seem to provide Ukip with a route back into the debate.”

It doesn't matter how clean the break is, the ECJ is going to stay involved because it's that, or dumping pretty much everything that's been decided since joining the EU. And dumping everything would be a nightmare because it would involve going through every single case that involved ECJ decisions at all and relitigating them.

There is even a small proportion of Brexit voters who think we can go back to pre-decimalisation.