Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Brain]

The committee appears to be less than sharp.

They are probably hiding their "sponsors" better than this guy but still wary of creating precedents

You think a widespread acceptance of corruption might hide even more corruption?

[Sheilbh]

I don't see the issue with what the Commissioner said in her report to a Committee. She does an investigation, she hears representations from Paterson (and his legal counsel) and makes finding on it within the framework of the rules. So in terms of the public interest point here are her findings:

We do not need to decide if Mr Paterson's approaches led to good outcomes. They may well have done. But the paid advocacy rule does not distinguish between lobbying for good causes and lobbying for bad causes. It only applies to lobbying for reward or consideration. There is a strong public interest in preventing any lobbying by Members in  return  for  reward  or  consideration,  no  matter  how  meritorious  the  Member  may  think it or that it would appear to be.

[...]

Mr Paterson has an evident passion for dairy and farming matters, based on his undoubted  expertise.  We  do  not  doubt  that  he  sincerely  believes  that  he  has  acted  properly.  Mr  Paterson  is  clearly  convinced  in  his  own  mind  that  there  could  be  no  conflict between his private interest and the public interest in his actions in this case. But it is this same conviction that meant that Mr Paterson failed to establish the proper boundaries between his private commercial work and his parliamentary activities, as set out in the Guide to the Rules. Mr Paterson told us multiple times in oral evidence before  us  that  he  was  elected  for  his  judgment,  and  that  he  judged  that  he  was  right  to  make  the  approaches  he  did.  But  no  matter  how  far  a  Member  considers  that  the  private interest of a paying client coincides with the public interest, the lobbying rules rightly  prohibit  Members  from  initiating  approaches  or  proceedings  which  could  benefit  that  client.  If  such  approaches  were  routinely  permitted,  the  lobbying  rules  would  be  of  little  value.  In  failing  to  see  the  evident  conflict  of  interest  between  his  commercial  work  and  his  actions  in  this  case,  Mr  Paterson  has  in  turn  convinced  himself that he is the victim of an injustice in being investigated by the Commissioner. That does not exculpate him. Being able to judge the difference between one's private, personal  interest  and  the  public  interest  is  at  the  very  heart  of  public  service  and  a  senior  member  of  the  House  with  many  years  standing  should  be  able  to  make  that  distinction more clearly.

It's actually listed as an aggravating factor in her findings that he was unable to see why the lobbying broke the rules, or to identify that he had a conflict of interests, and that: "The breaches, taken together, reflect a pattern of behaviour where Mr Paterson failed to observe a clear boundary between his outside commercial work and his parliamentary  activities.  No  previous  case  of  paid  advocacy  has  seen  so  many  breaches  or  such  a  clear  pattern  of  confusion  between  the  private  and  public  interest."

It's like a judge saying that x person didn't think they were breaking the law - but that doesn't matter and can actually be an aggravating factor in terms of sentencing if you should have been aware that it was breaking the law.

I'd add that as this suspension exceeds 14 days, the Speaker has to inform the relevant officers in the constituency because this triggers a recall petition (he can stand again). It strikes me as pretty unlikely as they weigh the Tory vote in Paterson's constituency - they got over 60% last election. But I could see this annoying the people of North Shropshire, so who knows. The whole recall mechanism is still quite new but I think there'll be petitions for this and Claudia Webbe's seat.

[The Larch]

It's a good campaign

There's legislation passing which broadly tightens the rules on this. It includes of amendments from the House of Lords which the goverment have accepted. They are rejecting one opposition amendment (they say it's badly drafted and would be incredibly expensive; opposition MPs say it removes the effectiveness and makes the entire bill worthwhile).

There's a Tory backbench amendment the goverment have now adopted that would basically require government to reduce discharges from storm overflows and a costed plan by next year on how to eliminate them plus monitoring by a committee. The opposition amendment from the Lords calls for a complete ban on storm overflows which would just need to be implemented now.

So it's an argument over not very much but being played very effectively.

It's a good argument because it's very easily put in clear cut terms that can incense people. "Allowing companies to dump shit on rivers and seas" is a very easy to understand principle. There's also a Brexit angle to it, as one of the Brexit sunlit uplands promises was that with Brexit environmental regulations would not be relaxed but could even be strenghtened. Also this is a topic in which, AFAIK, the application of EU regulations greatly improved the situation in the UK, as its beaches were notoriously polluted by sewage back in the day (that's the context in which Surfers Against Sewage, the org I mentioned, was born).

I read somewhere that this might be the first issue in which it is the Remainer type of person the one making the "emotional argument" about things being shite, and the Brexiter type the ones bringing up boring detailed arguments about outdated infrastructure and excessive investment needed to bring it up to the desired target. I thought you might appreciate that argument. 

No idea about the exact procedural path that this took, what I got was that an amendment proposed by the Lords (by the Duke of Wellington, I believe.  ) to put up a legal mandate on companies not to dump raw sewage was being refused by the government, and a group of Tory backbenchers actually rebelling against this and siding with the oposition. After that was when the Tories came up with the arguments about "Victorian sewers".

[Sheilbh]

It's a good argument because it's very easily put in clear cut terms that can incense people. "Allowing companies to dump shit on rivers and seas" is a very easy to understand principle. There's also a Brexit angle to it, as one of the Brexit sunlit uplands promises was that with Brexit environmental regulations would not be relaxed but could even be strenghtened. Also this is a topic in which, AFAIK, the application of EU regulations greatly improved the situation in the UK, as its beaches were notoriously polluted by sewage back in the day (that's the context in which Surfers Against Sewage, the org I mentioned, was born).

I read somewhere that this might be the first issue in which it is the Remainer type of person the one making the "emotional argument" about things being shite, and the Brexiter type the ones bringing up boring detailed arguments about outdated infrastructure and excessive investment needed to bring it up to the desired target. I thought you might appreciate that argument. 

100% - it's five years too late but it's good that Remainers have started to talk human. But sadly, because it's too late they need to tie it into a re-join argument which is more challenging.

But there's two issues being conflated here. One is pumping sewage into rivers and seas - that's something the government has allowed as an emergency measure because water treatment plants having chemical shortages. It's partly because of Brexit as with other supply chain issues/shortage, but also permitted under current (European) legislation as an emergency measure.

Separate to that is the new Environment Bill. It does have higher environmental standards than we currently do, not least because there's the level playing field provisions so we can't reduce existing environmental standards - and so far the government doesn't really seem to have any issue with following the TCA, except around Northern Ireland.

On the technical legal points environmental standards are being tightened and what's happening now is partly because of Brexit, but also permitted under European law. They're not the same, but it's good politics to mix the two up in the public's mind and it's how you make your point and the Greens especially have been very good on this.

Interestingly there are some divergences starting in environmental policy - so the UK hasn't followed the EU's export ban on plastic waste and DEFRA are consuting on allowing gene editing/making the rules a bit easier.

No idea about the exact procedural path that this took, what I got was that an amendment proposed by the Lords (by the Duke of Wellington, I believe.  ) to put up a legal mandate on companies not to dump raw sewage was being refused by the government, and a group of Tory backbenchers actually rebelling against this and siding with the oposition. After that was when the Tories came up with the arguments about "Victorian sewers".

Yeah - the amendment is technical and around how storm sewers will be phased out. It would make no difference to the current problem which is not requiring companies to treat sewage first. I've no idea who's right and it is a very technical point.

The Victorian sewers point is fair in London. The centre still runs on Bazalgette's sewers (because when the Victorians built infrastructure they seemed to do it about 3-4 times the size they actually needed which is why it's lasted for 150 years) and I will alway click on the annual story about an enormous fatberg blocking some of the sewers whenever it comes up. They're building a new "super sewer" through the middle of London because it's an issue now, which I find really interesting because I love big infrastructure things

But it also gels with most of my annoyances: they did a study on how to do this in 2001, by 2011 we were already reaching crisis point in terms of discharge into the Thames. So inevitably given that it was a predictable problem that was already reaching crisis point we had 5 years of consultations and planning battles before construction started and it won't be finished until 2025 (at a cost of over £4 billion). To complete the standard British infrastructure approach of doing things too late, too slowly and very expensively we now just need to find a way to somehow shaft the North

[Sheilbh]

Re. British exceptionalism/cakeism - I see the SNP are debating a motion to ensure an open border with the rest of UK in the event of independence. That will operate simultaneously with their EU membership presumably

[Tamas]

Apparently, all British secret service stuff like recorded conversations and all those good bits are going to be hosted by AWS. 

[Josquius]

All hail Imperator Bezos

[Sheilbh]

Apparently, all British secret service stuff like recorded conversations and all those good bits are going to be hosted by AWS. 

Makes sense, no? Don't AWS do a huge amount of hosting for the US DOD and intelligence agencies so are very good at working with government on building secure cloud infrastructure?

[Tamas]

Apparently, all British secret service stuff like recorded conversations and all those good bits are going to be hosted by AWS. 

Makes sense, no? Don't AWS do a huge amount of hosting for the US DOD and intelligence agencies so are very good at working with government on building secure cloud infrastructure?

[Sheilbh]

The more interesting question is whether there are any defence departments/intelligence agencies AWS wouldn't do business with and who?

But I can't think of a UK equivalent off the top of my head - it's AWS or maybe Microsoft. I believe the French are building separate cloud infrastructure for their defence sector (based on Microsoft but operated and hosted by French companies). I'm not sure if that's worth the investment to build a British one separately given how close our intelligence relationships are with the US. In most defence things I'd almost always back do something together with the French because we've similar budgets and ambitions etc - but I'd probably carve out intelligence from that because there's zero doubt in my mind that the UK spies pretty strongly on France and vice versa

Separately it's budget day and in Starmer's run of rotten luck he has tested positive for covid so won't do the opposition response. Even worse he only got the positive test after he'd done a photoshoot of him sat with Labour Treasury team doing prep this morning - so not clear if they're also isolating now

Lots of pre-budget photos of Sunak working in his shirtsleeves/casual with civil servants and ministers. The brand Sunak thing is really striking because it always feels to me very obvious the contrasts he's drawing with Johnson - which is unusual for a minister in the same government (at least since Blair/Brown). But also to Jacob's question just goes with how much of a tabula rasa he still is. If there was ever a Manchurian Candidate in the UK, I feel it might be Rishi Sunak. I'm not saying he's a plant rising from nowhere to high office without a trace - but....

Also tradition is that the Chancellor has an (alcoholic) drink of his choice at the dispatch box. Sunak has water, as have all modern Chancellor's since Brown. But it is a reminder of the absolute horror of Victorian/early 20th century drinking culture.  Hugh Dalton apparently had rum and milk While Gladstone's choice was sherry and a beaten egg

The rest were fairly standard but lots don't strike me as particularly refreshing drinks - so Ken Clarke would have scotch, Healey and Disraeli had brandy and water while Churchill had brandy without the water. None of those drinks sound at all appealilng if you need a sip while giving a lengthy speech (I can get behind Nigel Lawson's white wine spritzer and Geoffrey Howe's G&T - and I'm intrigued by Hugh Gaitskell's rum and orange).

Edit: And he did keep a rabbit - with a far larger than expected cut to the universal credit taper.

[Sheilbh]

Guardian summary of the budget - I always feel the opposition having to respond to this must be probably one of the most difficult jobs in politics:

Budget 2021: key points at a glance
Rishi Sunak is delivering his budget – here are the main points, with political analysis
Richard Partington and Rowena Mason

Sunak's opening remarks
Rishi Sunak says his budget delivers a stronger economy for the British people: stronger growth, public finances and employment. The chancellor says he will give people the support they need with the cost of living and levelling up.

He says the budget does not draw a line under Covid, but does begin the work of building an economy post-pandemic.

"Let there be no doubt: our plan is working," he says.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: Sunak has adopted the prime minister's claims that the UK needs to move to a "new economic model" of higher wages and productivity. He is sounding decidedly like a Johnsonian optimist, trumpeting better than expected economic growth, rather focusing on fiscal discipline or balancing the books. He does, however, inject a note of caution about the threat of inflation, while insisting it is a global problem.

Inflation
    The chancellor says inflationary pressures are affecting the UK economy, with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasting that inflation will average 4% next year.
    He says the pressures are global in nature and are "impossible for us to address alone". However the government will act to support households, he says.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: Sunak says he has written to the Bank of England re-emphasising its remit on maintaining low and stable inflation. The measures to help struggling households are likely to be the flagship policy in the budget, with Labour warning they need to be immediate to help people through the winter.

Growth
    The chancellor says forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) show the economy will grow by 6.5% this year.
    Sunak says it will take until the start of 2022 for the economy to return to its pre-pandemic size.
    GDP will grow by 6% next year, 2.1% in 2023, 1.3% in 2024, 1.6% in 2025.
    In March, the OBR had forecast growth of 4% this year, after a plunge of 9.9% in 2020 – the worst recession for 300 years.
    The OBR's estimate for long-term scarring for the economy has been revised down from 3% to 2%.
    Unemployment is forecast to peak at 5.2%, down from a forecast for about 12% forecast last year.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: This is much better than expected, giving Sunak more room for manoeuvre on spending than he previously thought.

Borrowing
    Sunak says he is setting new "fiscal rules" for management of the public finances. Debt must fall as a percentage of GDP. In "normal times" the state should only borrow to invest in future growth, balancing everyday spending. This must happen by the third year of each forecast period.
    Sunak says borrowing in the current financial year 2021-22 will be 7.9% of GDP, and will fall to 3.3% next year.
    Debt levels will fall as a share of national income.
    In March, the OBR estimated a budget deficit – the gap between spending and tax income – of £233.9bn for 2021-22, or about 10.3% of GDP.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: Fiscal rules seem to change almost annually these days, as new chancellors tweak their parameters to suit their aims and ideology. Sunak says he is on track to hit the new rules, which appears to be hardly surprising given that he has just devised them for himself. They will give him more flexibility on borrowing than the previous rules and contain caveats about only applying "in normal times".

Spending review
    Sunak says there will be a real-terms rise for every government department.
    Departmental spending in this parliament will rise by £150bn, in the "largest increase this century". Spending will grow in real terms by 3.8% a year.
    Sunak says: "If anybody still doubts it, today's budget confirms it. The Conservatives are the real party of public services."
    The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates average real-terms annual growth in departmental resource budgets was higher in previous years, above 4% in 2000 and 2002 under Labour, and 4.1% under the Conservatives in 2019.
    There will be grant funding for local government £4.8bn, in the "largest increase in core funding for over a decade".
    Overseas aid will return to 0.7% of GDP by the end of the parliament, after a cut to 0.5% announced last year.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: The real-terms rise in budgets for government departments is more generous than expected, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies having previously warned that some could have been facing a squeeze. Part of this is likely to go on increases in spending on pay for public sector workers and to cover the rise in the national living wage.

Education
    Sunak says funding for each pupil will be returned to 2010 levels, in an increase worth £1,500 a pupil.
    The government is tripling investment to create 30,000 special school places, he confirms.
    Total support for catch-up funding because of the Covid pandemic will be almost £5bn.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: The extra money for schools is a new announcement that had not been trailed in the run-up to the budget. However, an increase in school funding to 2010 levels shows it has taken more than decade to return to previous levels after Tory austerity.

Levelling up
    Sunak announces £1.7bn of funding in the first grants from the Treasury's Levelling Up Fund, for towns and cities including Stoke-on-Trent, Leeds, Doncaster and Leicester.
    The funding includes allocations to constituencies held by the Labour leadership, he indicates: "We're so committed to levelling up we're even levelling up the opposition front bench."
    Libraries will be "renovated, restored and revived".
    Tax relief on museums and galleries was due to be announced in March next year; it will be extended until March 2024.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: There is a clear message here from Sunak that he is opting for "investment" rather than "retrenchment" – or spending over austerity. The main aim Johnson's premiership is to retain the seats he won in the Midlands and north at the next election, with the "levelling-up" argument clearly aimed at this audience.

Infrastructure and investment
    The chancellor says he will increase investment to support London-style transport across the regions of England.
    The government will invest £21bn on roads and £46bn on railways to improve journey times between cities.
    Sunak announces the government's target for hitting research and development spending will reach £22bn by 2026-27, two years later than had been initially planned.
    The government will invest £20bn in R&D by 2024-25. Sunak says this stands as a "record investment to secure the UK's future as a global science superpower".
    Sunak announces he will limit tax relief for business R&D spending so that it only applies to domestic activities.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: Sunak is trumpeting billions of pounds more in investment spending. The small print will have to be examined to look at how much of this is new money, but he does appear to have gone down the road of big capital spending with the aim of boosting growth. Experts also pointed out the timings mean a target on hitting science funding would not be met until two years later than planned.

Employment and skills
    The chancellor says the government will raise government spending on skills and training by £3.8bn over the parliament, an increase of 42%.
    He confirms the government will launch a UK-wide numeracy service called Multiply .
    He says the programme will help 500,000 adults improve their numeracy.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: Skills is not a very voter-friendly topic but the government considers improving lifelong learning a key part of improving productivity. Much of this had been pre-briefed but the 43% increase in spending is nonetheless striking.

Brexit
    Sunak says changes after Brexit will encourage British merchant shipping lines to fly red ensign flags.
    He jokes that this means "red flags are still flying somewhere in this country, even if they are all at sea".
    Internal domestic flights will have air passenger duty cut. He says 9 million passengers will have their duty cut by half, "bringing people together across the UK".

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: This minor measure gives Sunak an opportunity for his first joke – not a very funny one – saying Labour will be pleased to see a red flag flying. The air passenger duty cut seems ill-judged in the run-up to the COP26 climate change conference, as it will encourage people to take carbon-intensive short-haul flights rather than train journeys.

Business taxes
    The chancellor confirms that the bank surcharge will be cut from 8% to 3%.
    Sunak says changes to business rates will be reformed to support companies, including a new 12-month relief for companies to invest in their premises.
    The chancellor says the investment incentives are worth £750m.
    Next year's planned increase in the business rates multiplier will be cancelled. That is worth £4.6bn over the next five years, he says.
    Sunak announces a 50% business rates discount for companies in retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, up to a maximum of £110,000. It is a cut worth £1.7bn.
    The chancellor says: "This is the biggest single year tax cut to business rates in over 30 years."

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: Tory MPs have been lobbying on this to support high street shops hit by the pandemic. Many small businesses will be pretty pleased with this and backbench Conservatives will be very happy to take this back to their constituents.

Pubs and alcohol duty
    Sunak announces radical changes for alcohol duty, in what he calls the biggest changes for 140 years.
    The UK's main duty rates on alcohol will be cut from 15 to six in a simplified system.
    Higher strength alcoholic drinks will attract higher duties, including stronger red wines, fortified wines and high-strength ciders. Lower strength drinks – such as rose, fruit ciders and liqueurs – will attract a lower tax rate than currently.
    Pubs and bars will benefit from a new "draft relief" cutting duty on beer and cider sold in pubs by the most since 1923.
    The cost of a pint will be permanently cut by 3p.
    There will be a small brewers' relief, including for cider makers.
    The chancellor says the reforms are taking advantage of leaving the EU to simplify the system.
    The chancellor says alcohol duties are "full of historical anomalies" as it dates back to 1643.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: There is a logic to these changes, punishing higher alcohol products and rewarding lower alcohol ones. However, big tax reforms have "minefield" written all over them – expect some aggrieved lobbying from some losers in the drinks industry and the potential for "pasty tax"-style headlines if there are some unintended consequences. It is also not clear whether the measures are revenue-raising or losing.

Cost of living
    The chancellor says an increase in fuel duty will be cancelled, saving motorists £8bn over five years.
    After 12 years of freezing fuel duty it will save the average motorist £1,900.
    The chancellor confirms the national living wage will increase from £8.91 to £9.50 an hour from April.

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: This is pitched as a measure to help struggling families. But cancelling a fuel duty increase is yet another measure that runs counter to the government's narrative on tackling the climate emergency ahead of the COP26 climate summit next week.

Taxation and universal credit
    Sunak announces that he will cut the taper rate in universal credit from 63p to 55p. This will be worth more than £2bn.
    The work allowance will be increased by £500.
    The chancellor says this will be implemented no later than 1 December.
    It comes after the government cut universal credit by £20 a week from early October after a temporary uplift during the coronavirus pandemic, in a cut worth more than £5bn.
    Sunak says his "goal" is to reduce taxes by the end of the parliament.
    He says: "By the end of this parliament I want taxes to be going down, not up."

Rowena Mason, deputy political editor: Sunak is sounding most passionate as he throws some red meat to Tory backbenchers promising tax cuts in future. He goes on to announce reforms to the universal credit system that will enable those in work to keep more of what they own. It goes some way towards reversing the £20-a-week universal credit cut but only for those in work, not those out of work. It feeds in the Conservative narrative of encouraging employment but ignores the plight of some of those struggling the most.

I still think it's incredible that permanent scarring from covid - when we shut the economy down - is only 2% and that's higher than the BofE forecast of 1%. I believe that's the lowest long-term impact from any UK recession that we have data on. That is not what I would have expected in March 2020.

Also minimum wage up to £9.50 (based on Low Pay Commission recommendation). All in all a little more Johnson and a little less Sunak than I expected - very pleased that they're committing to (eventually) returning to the UN target of 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid but that is a very niche topic. I think a huge increase to adult skills education seems like a very good thing.

Generally though it feels a little difficult for Labour to find an immediate attack line on this, because it is not like the types of Tory budgets we've seen for the last 10 years.

[Josquius]

Haven't had time to go through the budget thoroughly...but two initial thoughts.

1: Seems they've stolen another one of my ideas with reducing tax on pub beer. I should invoice them.
2: intetesting they're really doubling down on the "this was the plan all along! High skills high wages!" nonsense around brexit despite this never being mentioned pre ref or indeed in the years since and has only started to be a thing as the effects begin to bite.... Hmm.

As much as I have huge sympathy for the whole idea of who cares if costs go up if wages do too... I just don't see this keeping pace. And with the world beatingly awful British social security system I can see a really nasty gap forming/further widening between those with decent jobs and those stuck on unemployment/zero hours crap.

And I suspect this is exactly as planned from the tories. They're big on trying to bring working people onto their side with a good scapegoat and those on benefits are well established as this.

[Sheilbh]

This won't be the end either. Thanks to the tax rises in March and the ones announced, and the OBR increasing their growth projections the government should have about £100 billion to play with between now and the next election.

On wages in the latest moment endearing Johnson to the British business community he also said today that workers should go and ask their bosses for a raise

I think the thing that's interesting here is that I think politics has moved to the left decisively especially on economic issues since 2010 which is good - and why the Tories are shifting. I think there is something to the fear expressed by some Tory MPs, including Sunak's allies, that if politics becomes about public spending and both parties want to do that then it favours Labour because they're better at running the public services (while the Tories are trusted with the economy and finances).

On the other hand the Tories dominated the 50s and 60s by basically running on Labour's economic policy so...

Edit: But, I suspect it won't be responsive to a "x days to save our NHS" style Labour campaign - the type of Labour politics that party members and activists love. Not sure if Labour's message is there yet.

[Zanza]

That's not good.

[Sheilbh]

No - and not the only example. See productivity, which is obviously very linked to wages:


It's the most important issue in UK politics I think.

And when you add in the highest taxes in 70 years - plus the potential of interest rate rises it's not the most positive looking picture (despite the big rebound from covid).