Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if those numbers reflect a sentiment that no matter who is in power, the country if screwed because of Brexit.

[Sheilbh]

I wonder if those numbers reflect a sentiment that no matter who is in power, the country if screwed because of Brexit.

I don't think so - I think it's really tied to cost of living issues, especially around energy, because that has a direct effect on people's sense of being better off or not now. That isn't true for Brexit which is ultimately, according to the OBR (independent economic forecasters), going to have a long-term hit of 4% of GDP over the next couple of decades. Brexit's the frog in the pan as it boils, inflation is the frog being thrown into a boiling pan. So April is the start of the tax year and many people will have recently received a letter saying their energy bills are going up by 50% because the gas price cap has been lifted (it's run by the regulator and is largely driven by the price of wholesale energy which is obviously very high right now).

Labour's message on that is better - I also think Labour's message generally has become sharper and they're ahead in the polling on almost every economics question which is extraordinary (the equivalent would be if the Tories were leading on who is best to manage the NHS - it just never happens). The Tory message is not strong enough - and they're power and people feel they haven't done enough. But the other polls on the economy - again I think you need to go back to 2005 for Labour to be ahead on the economy:


But I think across the West cost of living is going to make things very difficult for incumbents in the next few years. We're seeing the start of that with Le Pen zeroing in on it but I think it'll be a feature of politics across the West - especially in Europe and especially with energy. In Britain the beneficiary of that is likely to be Labour who won't mess around with supporting Ukraine. But I think opposition parties in general will be able to make hay - my worry is that unless politicians in Western Europe are able to do something to support people on cost of living then it will erode support for sanctions on Russia depending on who is in opposition.

Although worth pointing out that British people generally dislike politicians/don't give them credit for things and have a strong "they're all as bad as each other" view. The most popular politician in the country, according to polling, is Ed Balls who lost his seat in 2015 It happens quite a lot - Tony Benn was loathed by a lot of the country as an incredibly divisive figure of the hard left (which he was), then in old age he became a benign pipe-smoking national treasure; same happened with Michael Portillo who was an ultra-Thatcherite Tory minister and really hated, but has since been rehabilitated by doing gentle documentaries about trains.

[Sheilbh]

This is excellent (20 minutes but worth it):
https://www.ft.com/video/d3bafb94-9dbd-4c1e-8016-8cd8331960f1

How London became the dirty money capital of the world

Russian oligarchs and companies have been investing in London for two decades, encouraged by British politicians of all stripes, but critics say the 'London laundromat' cleans dirty money from Russia and across the globe. The FT examines why it took Russia's invasion of Ukraine to put the issue in the spotlight and whether new sanctions and measures to tackle the problem go far enough

[Josquius]

It seems for the coming local elections labour really is piling in with using the tories tricks against them.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-election-leaflets-2620-cost-of-living/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The old 350 million trick.

[Sheilbh]

I don't really see an issue with it.

But I don't have an issue with the £350 million. I've never really been upset by politicians using a gross figure instead of a net figure

[Sheilbh]

Partly as a response to the Me Too movement various independent greivance/complaint procedures were established in parliament. This was largely done after John Bercow stepped down because of the huge number of bullying complaints against him. The new Speaker - who is, unlike Bercow, very popular with people working in parliament - has set these up for employees of the Commons (the Lords has, weirdly, had this for years) as well as members of staff for individual MPs.

One of the big fears has been that basically there is no HR function in parliament. There was no formal complaints procedures. Employees of parliament were a little more protected because they, in theory, worked for the institution. But staff of individual MPs had little to no formal recourse for anything from bullying to sexual misconduct.

Sadly - but not really a surprise - it looks like it was long overdue. Reportedly 56 MPs, including 3 cabinet minister and 2 shadow cabinet ministers, are now under investigation in relation to sexual misconduct. Obviously this is basically like an HR investigation so the headline figures have leaked but in theory the process should be confidential. But 56 out of 650 MPs seems high to me even if they're not all grounded.

[Sheilbh]

900 hundred objections to "build homes, a cafe and other facilities". The site is currently a derelict, disused power plant
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-04-25/what-does-the-future-hold-for-old-north-devon-power-station

Apparently people are criticising the environmental impact. I could be wrong but I feel it's probably better than a derelict power plant's environmental impact.

The thing that really pisses me off about this is the number of people who say it's not building they're opposed to just building on the green belt and we should look to re-develop brownfield sites. The same people nine times out of ten then object to replacing a disused powerplant or try to save their historic car park

[The Larch]

There was an article recently about York on The Economist that defined it as "the city that didn't want to grow", or somesuch, due to all the opposition that every single project happening in the city accumulated. I couldn't read it fully because it was paywalled, but if someone can take a look and copy it here it'd add to the NIMBYism in the UK debate, I think.

[Josquius]

NIMBYs are bad and should be shot out of a cannon, it is known.
But politically what can be done about them?
Lots of thoughts of what should be done, but what can be done... Under the British system appeasing locals is very important. Both the lib dems and Labour seem to be keenly chasing the nimby vote.

[The Larch]

Ok, I managed to get the Economist article on York:

The NIMBY city
The parable of York, a place that does not want to grow

Last december York City Council considered a proposal to demolish a Mecca bingo hall and replace it with student housing. The building was acknowledged to be architecturally undistinguished. It was also unused—it had closed during the covid-19 pandemic and never reopened. Still, some councillors objected. One argued that the bingo hall was "clearly a cultural facility, if not institution" and called on the chairman to resign.

The council eventually approved the plans. But the eruption of controversy over the redevelopment of an ugly, defunct building is pure York. "It's quite a backward-looking city—it's very nostalgic," says Helen Heraty, co-owner of the Grays Court Hotel, which unlike the bingo hall is both old and beautiful. And nostalgia is a problem, for York and for Britain.

When politicians talk about "levelling up" Britain, they tend to imply that northern England, the Midlands and Wales are hungry for development and growth. This is certainly true of prominent northern politicians such as Andy Burnham and Ben Houchen, respectively the mayors of Greater Manchester and the Tees Valley. But the north also contains places that are as nimby as any other in the country.

York is a small city of 211,000 inhabitants with a lovely, largely medieval centre. Over the past few decades it has fared well economically, although like many places it has slipped a little since the financial crisis (see chart). York University churns out more graduates every year. Taking an average of the past five years, 50% of residents are estimated to have a post-secondary qualification, compared with 41% in Britain as a whole. The city could be a powerful engine of the northern English economy. But it does not want to be.

British cities are supposed to have local plans, agreed with the government, which explain where they will build new homes and offices. The last time York managed to do this was in 1956. That is not an oversight. York has simply not wanted to turn into a bigger city like Leeds or Manchester, says Neil Ferris, the corporate director of place at York City Council: "Do you need all those big sheds, do you need all those factories to have a good quality of life?"

York has surrounded itself with an enormous green belt, eight times as large as the built-up area of the city, which prevents suburban sprawl. It cannot grow upwards, partly because planners do not want to block views of the cathedral. And apart from some railway yards, which will be redeveloped in a plan known as York Central, it lacks the large blocks of post-industrial wasteland that have allowed cities such as London and Manchester to build rapidly in their centres.

As a result it adds homes and people only slowly. Between 2015 and 2020 York's population grew by 2.5%, or an average of just over 1,000 people a year. That is slower growth than the United Kingdom as a whole. Students seem to account for nearly all of the increase: full-time enrolments in the University of York alone have risen by 4,785 over the past five years.

York is hardly better at creating commercial buildings. A new office development known as Hudson Quarter claims to be the first of its kind in the city for at least ten years. The amount of office space in the centre of York fell after the national government made it easier to convert offices into homes. "We have a lot of people looking at York and then going elsewhere," says Laurence Beardmore, president of the chamber of commerce.

York might well be a richer city if it allowed itself to grow faster. The council does worry that York loses too many graduates, who push off because they cannot find entry-level homes or highly skilled work. It is generally the case that bigger cities are more productive than smaller ones, although this is less true in Britain than elsewhere. And as Mr Beardmore points out, even sprawling cities can have beautiful centres. Just look at Paris.

But the truth is that the established residents of York are doing fine. Desirability and limited construction help explain a ratio of median home prices to earnings of 8.8, above the 6.4 average for the Yorkshire and Humber region. "Your average person in York who owns a house is quids in," says Philip McCann of the University of Sheffield. York's refusal to grow harms its residents less than the people who cannot afford to move there.

TL/DR: Northern England can be as NIMBYstic as Southern England. Also, NIMBYsm actually benefits those who are already "in" the system.

[garbon]

How will York fare with an aging population?

[The Larch]

How will York fare with an aging population?

That's a good question that could have been adressed in the article. I wonder what's the age of an average York resident, and what the city plans to do once it inevitably becomes a city of pensioners.

[Sheilbh]

That's a good question that could have been adressed in the article. I wonder what's the age of an average York resident, and what the city plans to do once it inevitably becomes a city of pensioners.

I looked it up and York is younger than the national average age. It has a university so about 10% of the population are students.

But you're right it's not a north/south thing or even an England/Scotland/Wales thing. It's not an ideological thing either. Basically almost all parties promise at a national level to support development and growth and building, but at a local level block it or campaign against it (the Lib Dems are particularly shameless). It's all very much we're pro-development but not here. Brighton and Bristol spring to mind as examples of two solidly left-wing cities that are incredibly NIMBY.

I think the interesting thing are maybe the counter-examples - Liverpool is very supportive of developments (though there's starting to be a bit of pushback on that), Manchester has entirely redeveloped itself and is now the North's London, Tees Valley is very supportive of building and they have a Tory mayor who is constantly encouraging new projects to be in his region. So I think a politics that is supportive of growth and development is possible - in all those cases there is a strong local leader which might be a key factor. They're all also areas that have broadly bought into the idea that actually if the core of the city prospers other bits will too. It is very common in the UK to basically spread the jam very thin so every area gets something but it's too small to transform anywhere - I think those areas have managed to avoid that by persuading the wider region that they all benefit from transforming Manchester or Liverpool themselves.

It is infuriating. I mentioned it briefly but the government pulled the plug on the OxCam Arc which was a plan to build infrastructure and create a "growth corridor" between Oxford and Cambridge running through Milton Keynes. The idea was you've got two very good research universities that both create lots of high-tech start-ups that are about 40 miles apart (but have no direct train link I don't think) and in the middle you have a high-growth, popular area for companies in Milton Keynes. So you build infrastructure, give broad support to developments in those cities and in between, you build housing stock in new towns so the cities can expand etc. Basically trying to encourage a conurbation across a few ares like Silicon Valley or bits of the Rhine. It's a really good idea. I'd take the figures with a pinch of salt, but the promoters of the project estimated it could boost our GDP by 3% over the next few decades (by way of reference the independent economic forecaster for government projects Brexit will cost us 4% of GDP over the same time).

But the government pulled their support for it - I think because it was controversial for local MPs but also it didn't fit with "levelling up" to spend money on Oxford and Cambridge when you were cutting it in the North, so they cut it everywhere. It's infuriating. We have investors saying there are tens of billions waiting to invest in UK start-ups (especially in Cambridge and Oxford around tech and life sciences etc) but there's not enough lab space. Meanwhile Oxford now has housing about as expensive as London so we're even starting to price out the people you need in and around a research university. It all makes me so angry.

It's not limited to this government either - it's institutional. See this blog from someone in the LSE about Birmingham from about 10 years ago about how central government decided to put a block on Birmingham because it was growing too fast (I'd bold the whole thing):

Booming Birmingham and the Need for Rebalancing
For all those worrying about London's 'booming' economy and the urgent need for rebalancing, here's a fascinating lesson from history (sent to me by a colleague* and taken, I believe, from Birmingham 1939-1970. History of Birmingham Volume 3 by A. Sutcliffe and R. Smith):

---
Birmingham itself was second only to London for the creation of new jobs between 1951 and 1961. Unemployment in Birmingham between 1948 and 1966 rarely exceeded 1%, and only exceeded 2% in one year. By 1961 household incomes in the West Midlands were 13% above the national average, exceeding even than those of London and the South East. Although employment in Birmingham's restricted manufacturing sector shrank by 10% between 1951 and 1966, this was more than made up during the early post-war period for by employment in the service sector, which grew from 35% of the city's workforce in 1951 to 45% in 1966. As the commercial centre of the country's most successful regional economy, Central Birmingham was the main focus outside London for the post-war office building boom. Service sector employment in the Birmingham conurbation grew faster than in any other region between 1953 and 1964, and the same period saw 3 million sq ft of office space constructed in the city centre and Edgbaston. The city's economic boom saw the rapid growth of a substantial merchant banking sector, as major London and international banks established themselves within the city, and professional and scientific services, finance and insurance also grew particularly strongly. However this service sector growth itself attracted government restrictions from 1965. Declaring the growth in population and employment within Birmingham to be a "threatening situation", the incoming Labour Government of 1964 sought "to control the growth of office accommodation in Birmingham and the rest of the Birmingham conurbation before it got out of hand, in the same way as they control the growth of industrial employment". Although the City Council had encouraged service sector expansion during the late 1950s and early 1960s, central government extended the Control of Office Employment Act 1965 to the Birmingham conurbation from 1965, effectively banning all further office development for almost two decades.

Up until the 1930s it had been a basic assumption of Birmingham's leaders that their role was to encourage the city's growth. Post-war national governments, however, saw Birmingham's accelerating economic success as a damaging influence on the stagnating economies of the North of England, Scotland and Wales, and saw its physical expansion as a threat to its surrounding areas – "from Westminster's point of view was too large, too prosperous, and had to be held in check". A series of measures, starting with the Distribution of Industry Act 1945, aimed to prevent industrial growth in the "Congested Areas" – essentially the booming cities of London and Birmingham – instead encouraging the dispersal of industry to the economically stagnant "Development Areas" in the north and west. The West Midlands Plan, commissioned by the Minister for Town and Country Planning from Patrick Abercrombie and Herbert Jackson in 1946, set Birmingham a target population for 1960 of 990,000, far less than its actual 1951 population of 1,113,000. This meant that 220,000 people would have to leave the city over the following 14 years, that some of the city's industries would have to be removed, and that new industries would need to be prevented from establishing themselves in the city. By 1957 the council had explicitly accepted that it was obliged "to restrain the growth of population and employment potential within the city."
---

[* update: my colleague tells me that he, in turn, got this from Jon Neale at Jones Lang Lasalle]

And it didn't even work. My understanding is that there were controls on the size factory space you were allowed to build in "congested areas". The evidence is those investments didn't get moved to the North or the West, but instead they were just shrunk to be allowed in that "congested area"

There's just a whole range of British pathologies - hatred of success, tall poppy syndrome, suspicion of cities - that curdled into decisions like that. And it's a real contrast with the pre/inter-war development of cities, in part because central government became so much more important.

There's people who've estimated that basically without that meddling Birmingham should be about twice the size and other Midlands cities - such as Leicester, Nottingham etc about a third bigger than they are. We'd be a far more "normal" European country with multiple big economies in many urban centres.

Edit: And it's hard not to see that exact same thing that happened to Birmingham now happening with the OxCam Arc: we can't let this region's economic success get out of hand, when we haven't fixed South Shields. As in 1964, so now - it won't result in fixing South Shields but futher entrenching London's dominance by shafting another area's success

[The Larch]

I looked it up and York is younger than the national average age. It has a university so about 10% of the population are students.

Yes, but as the article says they're transient, since they can't really stay in the city once they finish university because there are no affordable houses or good jobs.

[Sheilbh]

Yes, but as the article says they're transient, since they can't really stay in the city once they finish university because there are no affordable houses or good jobs.

Yes.

But I think York is an odd case. It's a beautiful, historic city. It's about 25 minutes from Leeds by train, Leeds is only 30 miles away. So I suspect it's a bit of a posh commuter town because it is very pretty and very nice - plus there's a university. I think it's one of the richest cities in the country.

I don't want to do York down, but it strikes me as a bit of a Northern version of Bath - which is similarly gorgeous, lots of people commute to Bristol but there's a university which keeps it a bit young. Similarly huge resistance to literally any development in Bath or new building in Bath.

But I think that's probably as the article says the choice the local council and people have made - because they're very comfortable. They'd rather stay a small, pretty, expensive commuter town to Leeds than actually try and grow like Leeds.

It's why local people shouldn't make decisions