Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Duque de Bragança]

the new passports are going to be black? I thought you all fought for blue ones?

Will they still be manufactured by foreigners, or will they be made in this realm, this England?

Manufactured by foreigners in that realm, England.

[The Brain]

the new passports are going to be black? I thought you all fought for blue ones?

Will they still be manufactured by foreigners, or will they be made in this realm, this England?

Manufactured by foreigners in that realm, England.

This other, other Eden.

[Valmy]

Does it count if they are manufactured by foreigners in Wales or Scotland?

[Sheilbh]

the new passports are going to be black? I thought you all fought for blue ones?

Will they still be manufactured by foreigners, or will they be made in this realm, this England?

Manufactured by foreigners in that realm, England.

Nowt wrong with that.

I think it's being manufactured in Poland by a French company, but I don't know for sure. I feel like De La Rue have moaned about not getting the contract and how important it is for them.

[Sheilbh]

Cecil Rhodes statue at Oriel College will be taken down. At last.

Okay this was premature. The statement is very weird.

Basically the Governing Body (the Provost and the Fellows) have voted to set up an independent commission to review the statue and plaque dedicated to Rhodes. Their preference, which they'll express to the commission, is for it all to be removed. This is going against the wishes of the college leadership apparently.

So not quite there but close and likely to happen

[Valmy]

Kind of surprising somebody is still carrying a torch for Cecil Rhodea these days.

[Sheilbh]

Kind of surprising somebody is still carrying a torch for Cecil Rhodea these days.

They polled alumni a couple of years ago and 90% did not want it removed, with enough threatening their donations to get the leadership on side.

[The Brain]

Is there a Rhodes foundation or anything? Will people still take his money?

[crazy canuck]

Could start calling them Road Scholars

[Zanza]

The government's planned post-Brexit trade deal with New Zealand will have a negligible effect on the British economy and could actually make it shrink slightly and leave people worse off, according to government forecasts.

An official strategic outline of the government's plans for the deal unveiled on Wednesday says the effect on GDP (gross domestic product) from the deal will be "close to zero" according to government modelling.

Brexit dividends!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deal-new-zealand-economy-jacinda-ardern-a9571421.html

[Sheilbh]

For Valmy, the (slight) front-runner in the Lib Dem leadership contest has published a 120+ page idea of radical "liberal" policy ideas - they're not fully fledged and she's not backing them all but some are interesting. I feel for them at this point. First they had the indignity of a leadership contest no-one noticed, and then a pandemic hit which caused it to be delayed so not only has no-one noticed it but it's now lasted for about 7 months (no end in sight)
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0f36a8b4ece836161a7672b3ce57b666d539e142/785_808_5879_3528/master/5879.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=d32726dd38f6136d26d32ac501f853ba

I think Layla Moran is fairly impressive and would be the first leader of a national party to be led by a pansexual or someone of Palestinian descent.

Radical proposals in Lib Dem policy review suggest shift to the left
Free broadband among ideas in Build Back Better, edited by leadership hopeful Layla Moran
Peter Walker Political correspondent
@peterwalker99
Thu 18 Jun 2020 19.30 BST
Last modified on Thu 18 Jun 2020 21.28 BST


Moran says ideas in the booklet mark a final break from the coalition years. Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian

The Liberal Democrats could make a decisive shift to the centre left, shedding the final legacies from the party's period in coalition, under a review of policy ideas overseen by the leadership hopeful Layla Moran.

A new booklet, Build Back Better, edited by the MP, is billed as a modern equivalent to the Orange Book, a 2004 collection of essays from Lib Dem figures – including the former leaders Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, and former cabinet minister David Laws – which pushed the party towards a centre-right, markets-based stance.

In contrast, Build Back Better, with contributions from more than 40 Lib Dem MPs, members and supporters, includes essays advocating ideas such as a universal basic income, free broadband, and commandeering private health resources to clear a backlog of NHS operations caused by coronavirus.

Many of the contributors to the Orange Book went on to serve in the 2010-15 coalition with the Conservatives, a period followed by three generally disastrous elections for the Lib Dems.

Moran, the Oxford West MP and education spokeswoman, is seen as the joint favourite to win the party leadership battle, alongside Ed Davey, the interim leader.

Davey contributed to the Orange Book and took part in the coalition, and while he has unveiled radical plans of his own, such as a £150bn investment in the green economy, Moran is keen to place herself as the choice of the party's centre-left.

The third confirmed contender is the Bath MP Wera Hobhouse, who is seen as an outsider.

Work on the book – which does not form part of Moran's leadership bid – began two months ago, when the leadership race was postponed because of the coronavirus crisis. The competition has since resumed, with a new leader due to be announced in August. Many of the contributors, who include Cable, are remaining neutral on who they support.

Moran said the book was devised to define the party's "liberal response to coronavirus, so I didn't really think in terms of positioning". However, she added, a common theme emerged: "What it shows is we are a party of the centre left – that is where our beating heart lies."

This amounted to a move away from the ideas of the coalition, Moran said, lamenting what she called an overly slow evolution of ideas in the following period.

"I think we need to send a signal to both other parties and to the electorate that we are moving on from not just coalition but the last five years," she said. "It's very clear that at the next election the positioning is going to have to be to take seats off the Tories. That's the obvious thing."

She said the Orange Book was seen as a concerted shift to the centre-right. "When people read this, they'll see it's a shift to the centre-left. It didn't set out that way, but it seems to have been the natural response of party members who are writing."

Several essays are about a green recovery from the impact of coronavirus, with Cable arguing for a new and more ambitious green investment bank. Others tackle the rise of technology and the idea of a digital bill of rights.

One essay, by a former councillor, Paul Noblet, calls for not just a universal basic income, but universal free services, such as broadband, water and energy.

Moran stressed that while the ideas were some way from becoming party policy, she hoped the review would bring a boost to the process of rethinking what the party stands for.

"To put it bluntly, since coalition there has been a bit of a dearth of that in the party," she said. "Of our membership, 50% are new since the coalition. I don't think we've really harnessed the power of their ideas yet."

Of course it'd be a cold day in hell before I vote for the little orange bastards, but still - good to see them trying to think again after the barrenness of the coalition and then only being about Brexit.

[Valmy]

Well somebody had to care about Brexit since Labour refused to accept their patriotic duty.

[grumbler]

Well somebody had to care about Brexit since Labour refused to accept their patriotic duty.

You are wasting your breath.  Brits care about class warfare, not Brexit.

[Josquius]

I think we've now reached a level of accepting its utterly fucked and we need to massively stock up on non perishable food at the end of the year.

[Sheilbh]

The Robert Jenrick story deserves a lot more attention:

The Robert Jenrick affair has the potential to do lasting damage to the government
Jill Rutter
17 June 2020
The headlines are all about coronavirus and Brexit, but Jill Rutter says a planning decision in January could yet come back to bite the government

The story has it all. The first "millennial" cabinet minister. A rich Tory donor. A lavish dinner with an unfortunate seating plan. Potential connections into the heart of Downing Street. In normal times, it would be leading the news bulletins and splashed across the front pages. These are not normal times, however, and that makes the minister in question, Robert Jenrick, a lucky man – for now.

The government only gets involved in contentious planning decisions

At the heart of the story is a planning decision made by Jenrick, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government. Ministers in that department make planning policy – but they also act as arbiter of last resort on planning decisions. As Jenrick explained to MPs in the Commons, only contentious decisions cross ministerial desks. The role is "quasi-judicial", and ministers must act very carefully to preserve the integrity of those decisions lest they open the way to legal challenge.

On 14 January Jenrick took a decision on a big development in East London after the local authority, Tower Hamlets, had failed to decide in time. The Planning Inspectorate, an executive agency of the MHCLG, advised against, but Jenrick gave the go-ahead – critically, on the day before a hike in the Community Infrastructure Levy which would have cost the developer an estimated extra £40m. A few weeks later the developer, Richard Desmond, made a £12,000 donation to the Conservative Party. A few weeks previously, with the decision sitting on Jenrick's desk, Desmond had sat next to the secretary of state at a Conservative Party fund-raising dinner.

Jenrick claims that official advice determined the timing of his decision

Tower Hamlets and the mayor of London challenged Jenrick's decision, and in May the parties settled through a consent order. This led the secretary of state to concede that the timing of the decision "could lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility" of bias. He agreed that his decision would be quashed, and it will now be redetermined by another minister in the department (which is normal practice in planning decisions).

Labour is now pressing for the papers leading up to the decision to be disclosed. Jenrick says the documents are all with the cabinet secretary, that he fully informed his department of his contact with Desmond before making the decision, and that officials advised that a decision was needed before the CIL hike. Delaying, and incurring the additional cost, would have made the scheme unviable. Jenrick's assertions should have been documented – and there should also have been written advice on whether Jenrick needed to recuse himself from the decision. How much damage the affair does to the government in the long-term may depend on whether the cabinet secretary vindicates the secretary of state's account.

Accusations of sleaze are highly damaging to the government

Jenrick's position will become untenable if the cabinet secretary cannot back up his assertions. But even if he does vindicate Jenrick, the stench of sleaze could linger.

Governments are vulnerable when it looks as though they are using their power to give unfair advantage to donors or supporters, or if there is the suggestion that access is for sale. John Major's government added sleaze to the charge sheet of incompetence over the so-called cash for questions affair – much more minor than a lucrative planning decision – and both contributed to Tony Blair's thumping majority in 1997. The shine was taken quickly off the Blair government over the suggestions that it had changed its policy on tobacco advertising in Formula 1 following a big donation from F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone – and Blair's government was then investigated by the police over cash for honours. More recently both Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind saw their reputations take a hit when they appeared to be willing to trade access for cash.

This is a government which has already taken a huge hit in popularity for refusing to sack Dominic Cummings over his apparent breach of the lockdown rules (and Jenrick himself faced difficult questions over his visit to his parents and second home early on in lockdown) while the prime minister's own poll ratings have plummeted after criticism over his handling of the pandemic. The government does not want to have to fight on more fronts.

The biggest risk for the government is whether the Jenrick story has links to Downing Street

For now, at least, the row is centred entirely on Jenrick, but an even bigger risk to the government is if there is any evidence linking Downing Street to the decision. The development was initiated when Johnson was mayor of London, and Eddie Lister, one of his most senior advisers then, is working in Downing Street now.

For the time being the prime minister will be relieved the heat is on Jenrick rather than reaching further into government. If the communities secretary cannot see the row off quickly, however, then the PM may be forced to sack him. He will be reluctant to add a ministerial scalp to the growing list of enforced government U-turns that Keir Starmer has notched up since becoming Labour leader – not least since Jenrick is one of the more competent performers in a cabinet short of talent. But if Jenrick goes, the spotlight could turn on No.10.