Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

Green Hydrogen has serious questions about its viability and scaling; nuclear has scale problems in the West in that we've spent a generation retiring nuclear plants instead of building them, and consequently we have also seen a generation of trained nuclear engineers and experts age out and retire, without nearly as many coming through to replace them. But on the flipside, nuclear at scale is not even new technology, and is well demonstrated to be feasible, something we can't say for unproven tech.

I think that the recent projects I've mentioned in France, Finland and the UK have possibly resolved the training issues. Certainly it is anticipated that those working on Hinkley will transfer straight to Sizewell (assuming Sizewell can solve its water supply issues).

There's some hope that SMRs will provide a solution but there still pretty much unproven at this stage. 

[The Larch]

Weirdly Janan Ganesh wrote about this today and I think he's probably broadly right:

So what's the point? That Labour should stop being even remotely left wing and move into being a permanently center party?

[Josquius]

The problem with Corbyn IMO, well, aside from him being a bit shit and the various scandals, lets say the problem with a far left leader in general, was that it was putting a far left face on a basic-left party.
As I always say one good thing about Corbyn that his critics just don't want to know is that he was at least a democrat and would, albeit half-heartedly, lead a party with positions at odds with his own views. For instance trident.
In the last election we were looking at electing a really quite sensible social democratic party...with a loony Citizen Smith type as its leader.

The way forward for Labour I believe is the opposite of this. Leave the central pivot of the party as it is. Thats not the problem. People like those policies. Rather, its that you need to put a more moderate centrist face on the left wing policies.
What we need is someone like Corbyn in that they follow the party's average line, albeit from completely the opposite side of the party. Plus, you know, competent.

Basically if we put politics on scale out of 100 with 0 being the ultra far left and 50 the dead centre then Labour on average is at 30 and Corbyn was at 10, which made that 30 seem far lower  than it actually was to those who worry about such things. What we need is someone from the 40s to make the 30 seem less scary.

The risk of course, is we end up with a situation where this centrist actively makes party policy significantly more centrist as part of their leadership. This is something that is not desirable.

[Sheilbh]

I think it should be acknowledged (it kind of already is) that high energy prices are the cost of resisting Russia, a sort of economic war that is going to save a lot of lives and even more money o the long run, not to mention that it's the right thing to do.

But then people shouldn't be left to deal with that cost on their own. Yeah it's not going to help with fighting inflation but, again, we are in a form of war, why only the poorest should pay the price.

Yeah totally agree - and I think politicians should be explicit that they'll help people get through this but it is the price of resisting Russia in Ukraine and it is the price of stopping countries from re-ordering the map of Europe through force. Which is why I think asking people - especially the young and healthy - to make sacrifices like turning down the heating might also work.

So what's the point? That Labour should stop being even remotely left wing and move into being a permanently center party?

It's a bit like Blair's line: a traditional Labour party campaign will deliver a traditional election result - a Tory majority. And I think the 1997-2010 government was good and on the left (to be a little Brown-ish - vastly better public services, regeneration of major cities, millions lifted out of poverty, rough sleeping virtually eliminated etc) although not perfect.

It may be that this time is different and that Truss will be such a disaster that nothing matters. But at some point Labour need to stop gambling on the Tories wrecking the country so much that they can get into office almost passively. It just seems a little bit reminiscent of Kinnock in 1992 which is what panics me.

I don't think they need to imitate New Labour, in fact one of their problems is that's all they seem to be doing. They need an analysis based on where Britain is today for their message - but I think that might lead them to some places that are uncomfortable for the soft left/Labour membership.

For example, I've said it a few times, but I think crime and law and order should be one of the central features of the Labour campaign - which can and should go hand-in-hand with police reform. Similarly I think they might conclude that the economy needs supply-side/regulatory reform around development which is not going to be popular with Labour members.

Also I find it really weird that no-one in any of the parties seems to have a public sector reform agenda - it's just all about money and spending levels - that is, again, something Labour might want to consider because in the short term when we're projected to be in a recession or low growth there might not be much money. So they should be looking at what are the reforms to make public services work better (I can't think of anyone in Labour who's interested in looking at reform and, in the Tories, I think there's basically Gove). For me I think it'd be the priority because the state/public sector is failing to deliver in both services that were largely protected from austerity as well as those that were cut. Making things work will require reform - but it'll be unpopular with Labour members.

Crime and public sector reform were definitely big New Labour things but I don't think they need to be done in the same - I just think they reflect really big issues now (and in the 90s) that no-one is really talking about.

The usual suspects on the left are screaming betrayal and that Labour's now a right-wing party (which is what they do every time Labour comes close to power), but it's also - as he says - the people who thought Miliband was a good idea who need to be uncomfortable. As I say I think Starmer is as close to a default Labour MP as you can get - just very middle of the party, broadly reflects the views of most of the membership - my worry is that isn't enough to win in normal times and it may not be enough to convince people the party's changed after Corbyn (particularly given that Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet).

Edit: And I'd just flag there was a really scathing Substack by a guy on the state of the Tory party (which is really good). It got picked up and re-published in the Spectator. It's been shared by loads of people - especially on the centre-right - as well as lots of people on the left. Even getting this meme


As someone on the left that worries me because I'm slightly concerned that the Tories are closer to renewal than we think.  It concerns me that Tories and the Spectator are already printing pieces that will serve as the post-mortem and what needs to happen now stage if they lose or if Truss is a disaster (or both). There's stuff already out there that will serve the next evolution of the Tory party (and it's not just this article) which is circulating in the Tory press, being shared approvingly by Tory supporters - one of those pieces (again a Substack I think) ended up framing a week of the leadership campaign of doomster v boosters (without actually engaging with any of the points). But there's stuff happening on the right  that I think means they'll have the resources to adapt, again.

By contrast I've yet to see a decent "state of the Labour party" 2010-2022 about what went wrong and what needs to change to win that wasn't just purely factional anti-Corbyn/anti-centrist.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Weirdly Janan Ganesh wrote about this today and I think he's probably broadly right:

So what's the point? That Labour should stop being even remotely left wing and move into being a permanently center party?

I guess the question really is: where is Britain. I've been reading my whole life that the "natural" government in Britain is Tory, if that is actually true (and I don't know that I fully believe it, but a lot of Brits seem to), is the country really the right ground for a true leftist party?

In my mind the core value of traditional Labour, when it had its peak of success, wasn't its socialist behaviors (and there were many), I think it was more its nationalist and protectionist behaviors. I think when Labour became the party that could credibly be seen as globalist and anti-British even in some sense, it started to operate at a divergent set of values from its working-class base. Labour's leadership seems crafted for educated lefties less so than for the people who sweat for a living--the traditional base of the party.

[The Larch]

Weirdly Janan Ganesh wrote about this today and I think he's probably broadly right:

So what's the point? That Labour should stop being even remotely left wing and move into being a permanently center party?

I guess the question really is: where is Britain. I've been reading my whole life that the "natural" government in Britain is Tory, if that is actually true (and I don't know that I fully believe it, but a lot of Brits seem to), is the country really the right ground for a true leftist party?

In my mind the core value of traditional Labour, when it had its peak of success, wasn't its socialist behaviors (and there were many), I think it was more its nationalist and protectionist behaviors. I think when Labour became the party that could credibly be seen as globalist and anti-British even in some sense, it started to operate at a divergent set of values from its working-class base. Labour's leadership seems crafted for educated lefties less so than for the people who sweat for a living--the traditional base of the party.

What do you consider is traditional Labour's peak of success is? Harold Wilson? In my mind it'd be Atlee's post war government, which was extremely socialist-y, and basically the creator of today's British welfare state.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right but I think you're reading the tea leaves wrong. I don't think working class voters care about redistributive projects as much as they cared about a sense that the government was going to make sure they had a job, through control of national industries and essentially guaranteed positions. I think a lefty politician, with a fancy education, probably read that as broad support for socialism. The workers were likely much more concerned with the meat and potato issue of their job and their livelihood.

Most people who care about the Marxist parts of socialism are the highly educated, and the wealthy (who generally oppose it as a class), the proletariats generally care about the kitchen table issues. Labour has frankly remained decently leftist, albeit not as leftist as it once was, but it seems fairly separated from many of the expressed concerns of its historical working class base--and prone to dismissing them entirely when they conflict with how the educated elite who run the party want things to be.

[Tamas]

Right but I think you're reading the tea leaves wrong. I don't think working class voters care about redistributive projects as much as they cared about a sense that the government was going to make sure they had a job, through control of national industries and essentially guaranteed positions. I think a lefty politician, with a fancy education, probably read that as broad support for socialism. The workers were likely much more concerned with the meat and potato issue of their job and their livelihood.

Most people who care about the Marxist parts of socialism are the highly educated, and the wealthy (who generally oppose it as a class), the proletariats generally care about the kitchen table issues. Labour has frankly remained decently leftist, albeit not as leftist as it once was, but it seems fairly separated from many of the expressed concerns of its historical working class base--and prone to dismissing them entirely when they conflict with how the educated elite who run the party want things to be.

That's a good summary of the Democrats probably but not the Labour party, I feel.

[Josquius]

Right but I think you're reading the tea leaves wrong. I don't think working class voters care about redistributive projects as much as they cared about a sense that the government was going to make sure they had a job, through control of national industries and essentially guaranteed positions. I think a lefty politician, with a fancy education, probably read that as broad support for socialism. The workers were likely much more concerned with the meat and potato issue of their job and their livelihood.

Most people who care about the Marxist parts of socialism are the highly educated, and the wealthy (who generally oppose it as a class), the proletariats generally care about the kitchen table issues. Labour has frankly remained decently leftist, albeit not as leftist as it once was, but it seems fairly separated from many of the expressed concerns of its historical working class base--and prone to dismissing them entirely when they conflict with how the educated elite who run the party want things to be.

Labour isn't Marxist though. Not many in the party concerned with 'revolution'. Where Labour supports nationalism its out of a genuine well supported belief that this is the way to deliver the best value services possible.

Where Labour struggles is as Sheilbh keeps saying that many people support a platform of "Nationalise the trains and hang the paedos". That is, pretty brown rather than red.
With the conservatives adopting culture war tactics they're able to get people to vote against what is in their best interests in order to chase bigger picture fundamental threats to our way of life like gay people being allowed to look after kids or a balanced view of history where the sun doesn't shine out of Britains arse and slavery might have been a bit of a bad thing that we were very guilty of pre-abolition.

Labour has always been a coalition of working class labour socialism and more middle class academic socialism. Traditionally this has worked well where organised labour communities retained their strength and contained enough people bright enough to recognise say, the civil rights struggle in America as part of the general working class struggle rather than a threat.

These days as many of the working class communities have fallen by various means...its far shakier. With targeted advertising weak links in these communities are easily plucked off by pointing the finger of blame at marginalised groups.
A particular issue around this is the massive demographic shifts in the country as a lot of poor traditional labour seats have become grey- a group more likely to vote tory and to vote overall- with those young who are likely to vote tending to pack into the cities which has lots of issues even beyond this surface level one of how they vote.

The key for Labour in the short term going forward is not to be drawn into the Tories attempts to make the fight about identity politics. They have to keep everyone's focus solidly on jobs, the cost of living, collapsing public services, etc... If they can keep the focus on these issues then even the blackest of browns, if they could overlook tribalism for just a moment, might be swayed, never mind normal working people.

At the same time as doing this however, they can't afford to throw minorities under the bus. The Labour has a disadvantage that the Tories don't have to such a degree that there are various socially liberal parties only too able and keen to take voters from them. Plus, you know, morality and doing the right thing.

In the longer term, its levelling up. Its been revealed that the Tories are all talk on this. Labour have a solid record as the  traditional party of levelling up and they really have to reclaim this. Its the sensible thing to do for the well being of the country, its the moral thing to do, and, its the thing to do in order to ensure right wing populism gets thrown into the sea.

[Gups]

Leaving aside the clear difference in quality between Blair and his shadow cabinet circa 1995 and Starmer and his in 2022, it has to be said that Labour had a lot more options to differentiate itself from the Tories in the mid 1990s (minimum wage, education spending, clause 28, free entry to museums and galleries, Sure Start etc) it didn't have the division between its middle class and working class bases (because the effects of globalisation and the englargement of the EU had not become manifest) and it had a realtively benign economic state to work from.

The options available to Starmer are really limited where effectively the most important aspect of Government will be crisis management.

[Gups]

Weirdly Janan Ganesh wrote about this today and I think he's probably broadly right:

So what's the point? That Labour should stop being even remotely left wing and move into being a permanently center party?

I guess the question really is: where is Britain. I've been reading my whole life that the "natural" government in Britain is Tory, if that is actually true (and I don't know that I fully believe it, but a lot of Brits seem to), is the country really the right ground for a true leftist party?

In my mind the core value of traditional Labour, when it had its peak of success, wasn't its socialist behaviors (and there were many), I think it was more its nationalist and protectionist behaviors. I think when Labour became the party that could credibly be seen as globalist and anti-British even in some sense, it started to operate at a divergent set of values from its working-class base. Labour's leadership seems crafted for educated lefties less so than for the people who sweat for a living--the traditional base of the party.

What do you consider is traditional Labour's peak of success is? Harold Wilson? In my mind it'd be Atlee's post war government, which was extremely socialist-y, and basically the creator of today's British welfare state.

But which fundamentally lost (and was out of power for 13 years) initially because of an attack from the Bevinite left and thereafter because it was divided between left and right.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. It's more constrained for Labour on what they can do both just because of the economic reality and budget they're going to be handed if they win. But also the political issues.

I think in part that's why I think Starmer needs to set out more - I don't think he needs to give policies necessarily but just some sense of what his vision is and what those policies are for. In part that might just reflect the quality in shadow cabinet too - Blair, Brown, Cook, Dewar etc were very big figures to work out a program and a strategy for government. Except for Reeves I'm not sure Starmer trusts/works with any of the shadow cabinet particularly closely - but then I'm not sure who he would. I like Lisa Nandy but she's the only one who springs to mind.

I guess the question really is: where is Britain. I've been reading my whole life that the "natural" government in Britain is Tory, if that is actually true (and I don't know that I fully believe it, but a lot of Brits seem to), is the country really the right ground for a true leftist party?

I don't know if it's about Britain. It's absolutely true that most Tory leaders become prime minister because they're in power or they win it - I think only three leaders who faced Blair didn't become PM. At that point people were writing about the "strange death of Conservative England". I think a big part of the problem is the Labour Party - and it reminds me of when I read Canadians here posting about their Tories/right wing because so much of it seems very recognisable.

Labour is ideological. It isn't just about winning power, it's about building a new Jerusalem and there's a section of Labour that I genuinely think is happier in opposition going on protest marches. When Labour wins power it normally achieves things, but every time as soon as they lose the party goes into a factional meltdown over the failure of that Labour government. There's a massive fight because it was too timid, cautious and, actually, basically right wing.

It happened for about a decade in the 50s, in the 80s and in the 2010s (and a bit in the 70s). And if a main party is tearing itself apart and arguing about how awful they were in government, I don't think you can blame voters for taking them at their word and voting for the other guys.

The fights seem particularly vicious in the Labour party as well - maybe again because it is about ideology/core beliefs rather than just political advantage. But it's incredible for example to this day to hear any moderate Labour grandee from the 80s, like Lord Kinnock or Roy Hattersley, talk about Tony Benn because they clearly still loathe him. And I think in 30-40 years there'll be an elderly Keir Starmer or Wes Streeting speaking with real detestation about Corbyn or, say, Richard Burgon (or whoever the next generation leader of the hard-left is).

[Tamas]

Brexit benefits quickly becoming a religion

Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, remains the frontrunner and this morning her camp is launching a fresh line of attack against her rival Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor. In an article for the Daily Telegraph two leading Truss supporters, Simon Clarke, the chief secretary to the Treasury, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, accuse him of frustrating government attempts to realise the benefits of Brexit. They write:

[Sunak] talks about cutting EU regulations, yet dug his heels in as chancellor against efforts to do exactly that and realise the benefits of Brexit. We both saw it in cabinet, including resisting reforms to the EU's Solvency II regulation – making it harder for pension funds and investors to invest in British business and infrastructure – and being backward-leaning on moving ahead with legislation to fix issues with the Northern Ireland protocol.

Sunak, of course, voted for Brexit in 2016, when Truss was supporting remain. But part of the reason why she appears to be so much more popular with Tory members (who are overwhelmingly pro-Brexit) is that she has managed to portray herself as a Brexit evangelist, while depicting Sunak as someone who has been captured by remainer, Treasury orthodoxy.

[Tamas]

I must admit I am starting to become fond of the Ryanair owner.  Couple of months ago he had an epic name-calling battle with the government of Hungary, after the latter introduced a "windfall" tax on airlines (and he rather bluntly highlighted the lack of logic behind claiming airlines had a windfall during the pandemic years).

And now this:

Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, told Radio 4's Today programme this morning that the next prime minister should negotiate free movement of labour between the UK and the EU to help industry with labour shortages. He said:

I think the first thing they should do to boost the British economy is prioritise a trade deal with the European Union – a good starting point for that would be to open up the free movement of labour between the UK and Europe once more.

But he accepted there was no chance of Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak proposing this during the Tory leadership contest. He said:

You have to accept that you're not going to get elected by a very narrow 180,000 electorate of the Tory party membership if you advocate common-sense policies.

But once you do become prime minister, you should have enough backbone to lead the UK economy forward and the starting point for that should be a free trade deal with the European Union.

(There is also no chance at all of Truss or Sunak backing this if they do become PM. Even the Labour party is not advocating a restoration of free movement, and Brexiters view the UK gaining fuller control of its borders as one of the chief benefits of leaving the EU. It has coincided with public concern about high levels of immigration being a problem falling.)

[Sheilbh]

So it looks like Labour is preparing to announce some proposals on cost of living ("perhaps as soon as Monday"). Which is good - but the details in the piece just add to my worries about Starmer:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-to-make-series-of-cost-of-living-interventions

First is the point that they've apparently been working on it with Miliband and Reeves and experts for months - but have been holding off announcing the policy for various forecasts. I think there's a benefit to stress-testing your ideas and waiting for situations to develop. But as an opposition party I think one of the few ways you can get the news to pay attention to you is by moving quickly with your announcement so you're first and other proposals are measured against that - the Lib Dems did it with their "energy furlough scheme".

But second is their apparent attack line on the Lib Dems: "They've used forecasts that were out of date before the ink on their press release was dry. They want to break numerous taxation treaties with their plan to unilaterally tax the profits of companies twice." From what I understand the Lib Dems are proposing windfall taxes just like Labour so I'm not quite sure what the point is. But also I really don't think appealing to "taxation treaties" and the risk of taxing the profits of energy companies twice is quite the killer line Labour think it is given that they're briefing it. I can't work out who that's supposed to appeal to - it might be a sensible point in a technical committee amending a proposal but if that's the best you have to attack a policy then you're not on solid ground.

But also this point about Truss: "People will have solidified their views and thought 'she doesn't give a shit'. So, that'll be too late on public perception. And where's the fiscal headroom?" I get the first point - although I'm not sure it's true. The expectation is for an emergency budget on 21 September so a fortnight after Truss, if she wins, becomes PM. If the measures can be delivered quickly (like furlough) then I'm not sure a fortnight of becoming PM is too late - if all they're announcing are measures that'll be delivered in April then I agree. But also as with the Lib Dem point - who is Labour trying to appeal to with "where's the fiscal headroom"?

Again my sense is this is going to require something like covid first wave level emergency spending (and possibly rationing in industry). I'm just not sure that fretting about the fiscal headroom, taxation treaties or profits being overtaxed is meeting the moment in the way Labour seems to think it is. I think this shows a risk of building your political image and message around being a very serious person. Because the Lib Dems have announced something radical, Gordon Brown is publishing articles on something bold (freezing the energy cap and temporarily nationalising energy companies that go under - a la temporary nationalisation of banks in the financial crisis), my suspicion is the Tories (whoever wins) will also do somthing big - that's because it's a crisis and what is required (as with covid). If your focus is on just on what's credible, tested with experts for months etc I think in the context of a crisis it will lookin incredible and insufficient.