Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

Sorting through some books I came across a pile of short publication by the Hampshire Archive. One fell out and it was about HM Monitor M33, didn't know I had this and an odd conincident as I'd visited it a few months ago in the Royal dockyards.

Nice surprise read and interesting story about how it ended up in Dry Dock No.1 next to HMS Victory, it had been saved by a Hartlepool ship trust, but it was too expensive for them to restore.

So Hampshire Museum Services took over, found a budget, paid for it to be moved to Pompey, had it electrolytically desalinated, maybe a world first for a ship of this size, around 500 tons.
Restoration was completed some time in the early 2000s and it now has a suitable permanent berth in the dockyards.

But good grief, it shows how much local authorities have been hollowed out over the last 15-20 years; is there any UK council that would undertake such a large heritage project in the current climate?

And this project was done by the just museum service of a modest sized shire county council, only 1.5-2 million in population.

[Sheilbh]

Might be Portsmouth not Hampshire - but the other key bit is that Hampshire County Council is now spending 83% of its annual budget on social care for adults and children. It's one of many councils that might go bust in the near future.

Everything else - road maintenance, bins, parks, libraries, museums, homelessness etc - comes out of the remaining 17%.

In part it's hollowing out and Osborne's austerity by stealth strategy - but also in some ways the opposite as core services councils need to provide become even more in demand (especially adult social care with an ageing population). And a consistent theme of recent years has been those budgetary pressures on local authorities causing poor services, causing people to get annoyed and write to their MPs who then pressure government who set binding national targets and strategies which local authorities then have to comply with eating up even more of their budget. See things like the national bin strategy.

I think sorting out adult social care (in my view on a social insurance model not a "National Care Service") is possibly the biggest single issue in British politics. But more broadly we need to empower local councils again and let them have their own revenue streams rather than central government setting out in statute what services they must provide and central government holding the purse strings too.

[Sheilbh]

Again I'd rather the PM was not commenting on this sort of thing and there shouldn't be prosecutions.

But I think there is a fairly obvious double standard on tolerable and intolerable speech going on from a festival broadcast across the BBC and with a thirty year partnership with the Guardian.

I feel like it's kind of fine if we had an American/first amendment style attitude to free speech (and I'm increasingly swinging that way - for a few reasons particularly with our communications laws in that Economist story) - but if you don't have that set of laws then it does create issues. It's a long time ago but honestly it reminds me of the controversy of homopphobic lyrics in Jamaican dancehall artists performing in the UK.

[HVC]

Sorting through some books I came across a pile of short publication by the Hampshire Archive. One fell out and it was about HM Monitor M33, didn't know I had this and an odd conincident as I'd visited it a few months ago in the Royal dockyards.

Nice surprise read and interesting story about how it ended up in Dry Dock No.1 next to HMS Victory, it had been saved by a Hartlepool ship trust, but it was too expensive for them to restore.

So Hampshire Museum Services took over, found a budget, paid for it to be moved to Pompey, had it electrolytically desalinated, maybe a world first for a ship of this size, around 500 tons.
Restoration was completed some time in the early 2000s and it now has a suitable permanent berth in the dockyards.

But good grief, it shows how much local authorities have been hollowed out over the last 15-20 years; is there any UK council that would undertake such a large heritage project in the current climate?

And this project was done by the just museum service of a modest sized shire county council, only 1.5-2 million in population.

Has local council been hollowed out or have consultant power and NIMBYism increased? I mean, based on the stories I've read here they're have to be at least 2 bat studies and a noise survey before the project was even considered

[HVC]

What's social care for adults, Sheilbh? Welfare, or disability programs?

[Sheilbh]

What's social care for adults, Sheilbh? Welfare, or disability programs?

Support for adults who need help with their day-to-day lives. That includes people with disabilities, learning difficulties or illnesses.

But the overwhelming majority of that spend is on the elderly and especially people with dementia. Some will be in the home because the preference generally is to keep people in their homes but obviously a lot (especially with dementia) end up needing to be in a care home with 24/7 care. Normally assessed by social workers and care professionals.

It's under huge pressure at the minute. Most of the providers are private sector paid for by the state in one way or another - I have some experience with this and that is quite helpful. A lot of the care homes are basically small businesses in old B&Bs or the like. Basically the council pays the cost of care if you have assets under £20,000. If you've got assets over £100,000 then you pay for it yourself. And if you're in between there's a sliding scale of state support. All of which is subject to an overall cap of £85,000 so if you've been assessed as needing care and you hit that figure then the council pays for everything else.

It's a huge cost for councils and only increasing with an ageing population and as council budgets were cut, they, understandably, chose to focus on preserving spending for social care (for children and adults) with everything else basically being cut to the bone. There's been numerous reports commissioned by both parties in office on how to fix it - broadly those reports come back with a slightly higher cap (£100k, say), plus some form of social insurance and/or inheritance tax increase specifically for care (although the Treasury hates hypothecated taxes). Both Gordon Brown and Theresa May ran with this type of reform in their election manifestos and both times it became a huge attack line for the other side as a "dementia tax" (for slightly different reasons as the proposals were a bit different). So it's an issue everyone knows is broken, broadly everyone has roughly the same idea how to fix it - but no-one wants to because it's politically lethal.

Has local council been hollowed out or have consultant power and NIMBYism increased? I mean, based on the stories I've read here they're have to be at least 2 bat studies and a noise survey before the project was even considered

Six of one, half dozen of the other But I would say I suspect that having to spend 83% of your budget on the most essential and important services council provides probably does mean their planning departments are a little under-resourced.

I do generally think all over councils and the central government we should be ending all the contracts with outsourced providers. There are some areas where I think it can be useful (basically if there is a market for that service) but an awful lot where there's not and I don't think it works then.

[mongers]

Sorting through some books I came across a pile of short publication by the Hampshire Archive. One fell out and it was about HM Monitor M33, didn't know I had this and an odd conincident as I'd visited it a few months ago in the Royal dockyards.

Nice surprise read and interesting story about how it ended up in Dry Dock No.1 next to HMS Victory, it had been saved by a Hartlepool ship trust, but it was too expensive for them to restore.

So Hampshire Museum Services took over, found a budget, paid for it to be moved to Pompey, had it electrolytically desalinated, maybe a world first for a ship of this size, around 500 tons.
Restoration was completed some time in the early 2000s and it now has a suitable permanent berth in the dockyards.

But good grief, it shows how much local authorities have been hollowed out over the last 15-20 years; is there any UK council that would undertake such a large heritage project in the current climate?

And this project was done by the just museum service of a modest sized shire county council, only 1.5-2 million in population.

Has local council been hollowed out or have consultant power and NIMBYism increased? I mean, based on the stories I've read here they're have to be at least 2 bat studies and a noise survey before the project was even considered

This was some time ago, though it did take the Royal Navy over three years to agree to the scheme, guess there were nervous about an old rust bucket of a ship being filled with electrolyte and treated for a few months, only a relative stone's throw* from HMS Victory? 

* 125 feet, I measured it on the satellite photo.

[Admiral Yi]

Do council have their own tax base or only get what daddy gives them?

[Sheilbh]

The UK has one of the most centralised systems of local government revenue in the developed world - I think British local councils are responsible for the lowest share of their own revenue in the OECD.

It is relatively recent but the UK is an extreme outlier on this. So 5% of taxation in the UK is collected by local government (and that is to some extent controlled by central government) - the OECD average is over 10%. Even looking at non-Federal states, in Poland it's 12%, in France 14%, in South Korea 18% and in Japan 23%. This is why I think about 50% of the UK's austerity under George Osborne was cuts to local government grants - it was "austerity by stealth" because the central government wasn't cutting any services. But real-term per capita spending has decreased to 75% of what it was before 2010 - I also think this is causing other budgetary issues for the central state. For example, I think the lack of capacity in the social care system shows up in welfare benefits and people in hospitals (horrible word but what NHS staff refer to as "bed blockers").

I also think - to HVC's point - this helps drive the NIMBYism of local councils. Because they don't really get much of an upside from growth. They don't have their own tax base or tax policies so approving new builds or even encouraging new business is often experienced by them as increased costs. And, in fairness, people aren't entirely wrong to be opposed to new building for the same reason.

My understanding is that level of centralisation basically dates to the post-poll tax system, with council tax which was introduced in the early 90s. It's a property tax which was supposed to be adjusted over time based on property values - problem is that house prices massively increased in the 90s, so it's never been re-valued. I believe this means that when there are new builds they have to be valued based on what they would have cost in 1991 to work out their council tax band

There's a few reasons for the centralisation - some I'm sympathetic to and others not. But I think fiscal devolution is a hugely important thing - and you can see the impact of devolution just by looking at Scotland over the last 25 years. Since devolution Scotland's economy per capita has grown second fastest in the UK's nations and regions only slightly behind London. It's overtaken both the South West and East of England. In 1999 when devolution started it had an economy roughly the size of the West Midlands (home to Birmingham one of the plausible second cities, with Manchester) - since then GDP per capita in the West Midlands has grown by 18%, in Scotland it's grown by 33%.

I think one part of this is that the UK has a particular problem with large cities compared to most countries - Scottish cities have vastly outperformed their English counterparts since devolution (with the slightly unique exception of Aberdeen which is an oil and gas town so very cyclical).

Everyone knows there are fiscal transfers in the UK from rich regions to the poor - these are on a larger scale than in Germany (but with far fewer results I'd suggest). Scotland still gets them (and gets more than they did in 2000) but they are less reliant on them now than the North-West, Midlands (East and West - the huge increase in transfers to the West Midlands is particularly striking) and Yorkshire and Humber.

I think a lot of it is down to devolution. There's a Scottish government serving a population about as large as many English regions and it is delivering. It's also why I think Brexit was a bad idea but I think it is less of an issue than our the problems we can solve ourselves (and I think we could solve them without having another, very divisive, referendum). The BofE's estimate (which looks right) on Brexit's impact is about 4% - the West Midlands and other regions in England have underperformed by the equivalent of four Brexits over the last 25 years and I think that should be far more central in our debate and politics than it is. It would however mean central government doing less, sacrificing power and the Treasury especially allowing others to do things.

[crazy canuck]

The NYTimes headline says it all - A Year After "loveless landslide" UK Leader Even Less Popular

[Josquius]

Define do both.

There's about 90 Labour seats where Reform are in second place and about 40 where the Greens are second place (this would expand if we include the Gaza Independents).

I don't understand why you're focussing on this though.
It doesn't matter who comes in second place, what matters is who comes in first.
Labour has lost 7% of its voters to Reform, but it has also lost 9% each to the Greens and Lib Dems.
Given the last election was towards the upper end of what we can expect Labour to attain, this left-of-Tory 18% cluster is far more important than the 7% Reform cluster.
Especially when you consider many of these people going Reform will be doing so out of anger at the world rather than any genuine belief in xenophobia.
Also worth noting these voters tend to be old and less viable in the long term...

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52435-a-year-after-the-2024-election-which-voters-have-abandoned-the-labour-party-and-why

They're really not. Voters don't have particularly strong fixed opinion on issues, they are vastly more heterodox in their attitudes than people who are involved in politics or follow politics closely. It's why in the 2010s there's a surprising number of Lib Dem-UKIP swing voters.

They're both change parties, they're both anti-system. There was some really interesting polling by More in Common after the "island of strangers" speech and Greens and Reform voters are the ones who are most likely to feel that you can't generally trust people and to feel disconnected from society. There's an interesting book I don't entirely agree with on class which basically argues that part of what's going on is a downwardly mobile graduate class (loads of debt, can't get on the housing ladder, lower "graduate premium", more routine and semi-routine jobs requiring degrees) that is radiclising, which formed Corbyn's base and a lot of Green voters or the left populist wing of politics; and there's an economically precarious, in his phrase, petty bourgeoisie that powered UKIP and now Reform. I think they're two sides of the same coin.

Sure, Reform and Greens don't trust the system other. I'd believe that.
But are they coming from the same place in this distrust? Would it be the same specific people they distrust?
I notice for instance about town that you get "Our preferred payment method is cash, don't trust the banks!" sort of signs in businesses that equally carry a hippy and a brexity vibes.
Same end point but from a different place where its unlikely most would be happy with the opposite- paranoia about the far left is a tried and tested strategy of the far right.

I have a different view on the policy issue and what's right. But I think there's a valence issue here too I think it's a priority for Reform, I don't think it massively is on the left. The issues that I think really hurt Labour on the left were the winter fuel payment, disability benefit cuts and Gaza. And I think Reform voters basically agree with Green voters on the first two and there's even a fair bit of overlap on the last.

I agree immigration isn't a huge issue on the left. I think Labour can get away with some tighter restrictions on immigration. But there is a limit. Making it hard to move to the UK is one thing. Copying the language of the far right and actively harming people....that will turn on Greens.
See Israel another for example. Not normally a key issue with large numbers of people on the left, an issue kept alive largely by a hardened core of Palestinian rights activists... but things have gotten so bad lately that a lot more people are coming off the fence on this and seeing it as a bit of an issue. If Labour go too far over to the Reform side on other more important issues this is a huge risk.

Yeah but also it reflects a deeper malaise. People have, in different ways been voting for change since at least 2016 - I'd argue since 2010 - and it's not happening.

I disagree. There's been a definite enshittening of the country since 2010 more broadly and 2016 even more so. :p
[

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - just on top of the Times interview which I quoted a bit of earlier about how he hadn't turned his full attention to the disability benefit issue having just come from the G7. There was similar language in the Observer interview but I think, worse, on the "island of strangers" speech he gave. Just as an aside as he refers to it here - there's a very weird story about attempted arson attacks on properties connected with Starmer. Two Ukrainians and a Romanian have been arrested and a court date has been set but it seems but there's nothing I've seen on what the motive might be (I mention nationality because my initial thoughts were either far-right or pro-Palestinian extremists - but it doesn't seem like either of those from what I've read):

The prime minister, who had arrived back from a three-day trip to Ukraine the night before, was due to unveil the government's new immigration policy that morning. "It's fair to say I wasn't in the best state to make a big speech," he says. "I was really, really worried. I almost said: 'I won't do the bloody press conference.' Vic was really shaken up as, in truth, was I. It was just a case of reading the words out and getting through it somehow ..." – his voice trails off – "... so I could get back to them."

The prime minister's words included a long section on the importance of having "fair rules" that "give shape to our values" and hold diverse nations �such as Britain together. But then he went on to warn that without such rules,� "we risk becoming an island of strangers". �To many ears, that sounded a lot like Enoch Powell's infamous "rivers of blood" speech half a century earlier, when he said �Britain's white population would be "strangers in their own country".

The left denounced his speech as "shameful" and warned Starmer was dancing to the populist Reform UK party's tune. Starmer insists none of that is true: the speech was simply a mistake. "I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of Powell," he says. "I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either," he says. "But that particular phrase – no – it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it."

Emphasising he is not using the firebomb attack as an excuse and doesn't blame his advisers or anyone else except himself for these mistakes, Starmer says he should have read through the speech properly and "held it up to the light a bit more".

I sympathise with Starmer on a human level. But again I think there's something a little barrister-y of it in turning from one brief to the other.

But I think this is actually a more damaging apology/regret. I don't think it's great for the PM to basically say he doesn't always read his speeches "properly" before delivering them. I've read a few political memoirs and diaries and this is extraordinary to me. In Blair's time for example working on the speech would take up an insane amount of time in a run up to a major speech. Because Blair and his team saw speeches as a really important way of setting their agenda (signalling to cabinet and civil service the priorities) and making their argument to the public. I have a slight suspicion that Starmer just views it as the fluffy/PR bit of politics when it's actually the substance (basically thinking like a civil servant not a political leader).

But also, obviously PMs rely on speechwriters, but they shouldn't draw attention to it or blame them (while saying they're not blaming them) because the job of a speechwriter is to capture and ventriloquise their boss's voice and agenda - see Obama's speechwriters as an outstanding example. It begs the question of whether you can believe what the PM says because it's not clear he believes what he says. This goes to the wider authenticity/hypocrisy issue many mainstream parties and leaders have had.

I'd add this is particularly the case as the Times are reporting that Number 10 are planning to try and win back "authoritarian leaning" voters by increasing the messaging on crime and immigration. Apparently the strategy team in Number 10 have recommended advertising on buses, in supermarkets and with social media influencers. Two big problems - I think it's doubling down on a strategy the Tories repeatedly had of not doing much to solve a problem but talking ever more loudly about how you're going to get tough on it, and why would anyone believe this?

I've thought for a while that Reeves needs to go for Labour to get a grip - I'm most of the way to thinking they need to ditch Starmer too (and not sure he could ditch Reeves without calling his own position into question).

Incidentally with the recent Carney precedent in Canada - I can't help but wonder if the leaders of the Tories and Labour at the next election aren't currently in parliament (I think Tory party rules prohibit this but I'm not sure)? In particular I'm thinking of Burnham and a Johnson comeback (as polls with him as leader of the Tories show their vote doing significantly better at the expense of Reform).

Edit: By the by also gossippy comments from spads about the interviews where Starmer repeatedly said "I'm responsible for what happens and I apologise for that and it was a mistake which I regret. But I wasn't actually paying attention to it until too late." One line from a spad I saw was "he basically blamed us all for allowing him to make poor decisions. That's not leadership." I don't think they're wrong.

[Sheilbh]

By the by I've mentioned before how I don't think Labour's thought through how their different policy goals interact. Just something to keep an eye on maybe.

Saw a story in the Guardian today on entry level jobs - graduate schemes, apprenticeships, internships and junior jobs with no degree requirement - falling by a third. The research was focused on the impact of AI. Similarly we've also had the CEO of BT saying AI could support deeper job cuts - particularly in junior roles. But the impact is being felt in traditional service roles - both customer service people for companies like BT but also, say, junior consultancy or analyst roles.

I think that is a big part of the story. Where government comes in is Labour have been pretty enthusiastic about AI (and I'm not sure they're wrong in that) - but at the same time they've increased the employer's payroll tax which particularly makes lower paid entry level roles more expensive. And I'm not sure it's been thought through how those two policies interact, similarly the increase of employer's NI, with increasing rents and rates having an impact on physical retail and hospitality.

I'd add where I think the government's approach to AI is wrong is their policy on copyright which is going to hurt the UK multi-billion creative industries. It might help some of the UK's AI industry which is, from everything I understand very good for Europe - but also likely to just get bought up by American big tech companies - and more likely it'll mainly help the big American and Chinese tech companies at the expense of actual work and production in this country.