Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Eh, I don't think his ties are that remote. Punjab which is where his family is originally from had historically been well known as a part of "India" regardless of what political boundaries were drawn--until the stark partition of India/Pakistan. Being from a Hindu Punjab family, post-partition they certainly would have felt no ties to Pakistan whatsoever.

In America at least you have plenty of O'Neals and Schmidts who still tout Irish/Germany ancestry, when their family tree might have to go back 150 years to find a person actually born outside the United States; Rishi's grandparents being born in India and emigrating to East Africa seems fairly close an association to me.

Yeah - as RH said it's a very imperial story/background. I suppose the analogy for a German-American would be someone whose family background was from Danzig/West Prussia and whose parents and grandparents spent 30-40 years in Belgium on the way. It would still be a German heritage but one now interrupted or at a remove.

In Sunak's case his family moved to Kenya and (now) Tanzania pre-partition so had already left before partition.

But as I say the wider stuff was interesting - for example, I hadn't heard before that the Imperial War Conference during WW1 discussed East Africa, especially German East Africa, as an "America for the Hindu". Obviously that didn't happen and it was migration not settlement for Indians moving to East Africa. But just really fascinating.

I always thought it was something fairly set in stone.

No - it grew by about 1.5% in the last year. I think they're largely designated by local authorities. Latest map of England's green belt - but in total it's 12.5% of land in England is green belt. Add in the other forms of protections such as AONB or environmental or scientific protections and about 40% of land in England is "protected against development". I imagine if you then include conservation areas which are largely in cities it'll be even higher:


I always find it mad that the area with, proportionally, the most green belt is Greater London where 20% of the land is designated green belt That's actually separate from, say, parks which are actually useful green spaces in a city. It's often just fields, scrubland or golf courses. My (unpopular) view is that we just shouldn't have farmland in Greater London

Worth noting that local authorities can and do de-designate land as green belt too.

Edit: Incidentally I don't think it's coincidental that, outside London, the region with the highest growth is the East Midlands which, as you can see on that map, is the one without any green belt and it's also had 8% population growth in the latest census which is the joint highest with London, East of England and the South-West.

[Tamas]

Its so infuriating and crazy. They keep building all these dams to stem the tide of new housing to protect vested interests and an economy entirely built on ever-increasing property prices. But eventually the dam will break (quite possibly past my lifetime) and then it will be very ugly.

[Sheilbh]

Its so infuriating and crazy. They keep building all these dams to stem the tide of new housing to protect vested interests and an economy entirely built on ever-increasing property prices. But eventually the dam will break (quite possibly past my lifetime) and then it will be very ugly.

Yeah I think it is rent-seeking vested interests.

I've made the comparison before but I think it is like the unions in the 60s and 70s. Labour in the 60s made an effort, led by Barbara Castle, for moderate reform of trade union law and to try to develop more cooperative industrial relations - the unions and union men in the Labour party blocked it. It didn't remove the need for reform it just meant that when it came it was in the form of Thatcherism.

I think there'll be a similar dynamic where current vested interests can work for a compromise reform - I don't expect they will. I expect they'll try to protect their rents. And they'll face a backlash where reform is forced on them that will massively weaken them.

Edit: And I think one of the problems is that it's still perceived as a London problem or a problem for the South-East. But it's really not. All the stories you used to hear from people living in London of nightmare landlords, insane rents etc you now hear from most other cities - Manchester, Leeds etc. I think so much of it is bound up in housing and physical infrastructure and I'm really depressed that even on the left the solution seems to be "skills" (when the UK does relatively well on PISA comparisons) and opening the odd arts/culture centre as their solution which was the New Labour solution too. We might have problems on the "soft" side of this but I think there's far more signs that it's the actual physical envirnoment that's the problem and arguably that's easier to fix than skills or culture - just noone in British politics has any interest in doing it

Via Tom Forth - I don't think this reality and even London's relatively low placing has really hit home with the public:


In my view it's not that we don't have decent, affordable housing and better physical infrastructure because we're poor, but we're poor because we don't have housing and infrastructure.

[Duque de Bragança]

Give it some more time and Frankfurt (am Main) will be ahead of London. 

[Gups]

You're drawing the city boundaries pretty big to get Sheffield, Liverpool or Newcastle to a 1m population. I meant the whole of South Yorkshire only has 1.3m and Rotherham and Barnsley each have about 250K.

[Josquius]

I'm not sure about Sheffield but Newcastle and Liverpool certainly have that much.

This is where another annoying green belt aspect comes into play - making sure there's always a useless patch of grass between tyneside and Sunderland to stop the two urban areas, which very definitely are the same urban area, from physically combining.

And yes. Shitty transport I always point to as the main cause of the UKs failures. Also as I always saying Britain's failures particularly suck because we shouldn't be so shit, we do have so many natural advantages.... But nobody seems to recognise them and instead focusses on irrelevant nonsense like how we are inherently better at building stuff.

[Sheilbh]

Latest round of allegations around bullying/workplace conduct - this time about Dominic Raab's behaviour towards civil servants.

Thing that strikes me about these is that I'm not sure they're really disqualifying in the way, say, Williamson's behaviour was. He sounds like a dick and not a good boss but I'm not really sure what's described here is a firing offence or utterly unacceptable in a minister to their department - it also makes me think how lucky New Labour (and probably every other previous government) were to happen pre-social media because, for example, Gordon Brown's legendary screaming, shouting, throwing phones would not survive contact with modern culture despite only being 12 years ago:

Dominic Raab calls for inquiry into complaints against him
Deputy PM and justice secretary says he has written to Rishi Sunak to request independent investigation
Peter Walker and Pippa Crerar
Wed 16 Nov 2022 11.12 GMT
First published on Wed 16 Nov 2022 10.16 GMT

Dominic Raab has formally requested an independent investigation into his conduct, after saying he has been told two formal complaints have been made against him in two ministerial roles. He said he hoped to stay in post while this took place.

In a letter to Rishi Sunak, Raab, who serves as justice secretary and deputy prime minister, said he had "just been notified" that two separate complaints had been made against him, one relating to his time as foreign secretary, and his first period as justice secretary, both under Boris Johnson.

It follows a series of allegations, reported by the Guardian and other publications, that a civil servant and others found Raab's manner could be demeaning and overly abrupt, and that this did at the time feel like bullying. Raab has repeatedly rejected any wrongdoing.

At the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, on Tuesday, Sunak said officials with concerns about Raab's behaviour should come forward but reiterated that he was not aware of any formal complaints.

In the letter to Sunak, Raab said following news of the complaints, he was "writing to request that you commission an independent investigation into the claims as soon as possible", adding: "I will cooperate fully and respect whatever outcome you decide."

Raab said he would remain in his posts and had "always sought to set high standards", adding: "I have never tolerated bullying."

Sources told the Guardian that the Ministry of Justice complaint was made in spring this year but had been revived by the individuals in light of the recent allegations.

Their letter of complaint about Raab's alleged behaviour was understood to have been sent by a group of mid-ranking policy officials to the permanent secretary at the MoJ, Antonia Romeo.

Department insiders said she had "acted on" this at the time, by speaking to Raab as well as putting in extra measures and support for the officials.

It is not clear who will investigate the claims, given that Sunak does not have an independent adviser on ministerial standards. The last incumbent, Lord Christopher Geidt, resigned in June under Johnson and was not replaced.

It is also uncertain whether Raab would be sacked even if an inquiry did find he had bullied officials. In 2020, Geidt's predecessor as ethics adviser, Sir Alex Allan, resigned after Johnson took no action against Priti Patel, then home secretary, despite bullying conduct.

A brief letter from Sunak in response to Raab did not set out how the inquiry would take place but agreed one should take place.

"I thank you for your letter and the recommendation that the two formal complaints against you in previous roles are investigated independently," Sunak wrote. "I know that you will be keen to address the complaints made against you and agree that proceeding in this way is the right course of action."

The Liberal Democrats called for a replacement for Geidt to be appointed swiftly. Daisy Cooper, the party's deputy leader, said: "A new independent ethics adviser must be appointed by Rishi Sunak and given this as their first task. If the ministerial code has been broken then the prime minister must sack Raab immediately."

The Guardian has reported that Simon McDonald, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, warned Raab about the way he treated officials in his private office and reported his concerns to the propriety and ethics team at the Cabinet Office.

On Tuesday, Civil Service World cited a series of unnamed officials as saying staff felt Raab was "gaslighting" them after telling a recent all-staff meeting at the Ministry of Justice that he had a zero tolerance attitude towards bullying.

The report said Raab would often interrupt civil servants during briefings and criticise them. One source said: "We just didn't trust that he wasn't going to cut you off after half a sentence and say, 'I don't want to hear that, I don't want to listen to you', which I would never want any of my staff being subjected to."

A spokesperson for Raab has denied this.

Also not sure Labour should push this too much because, while I don't think you need to be a dick to be a minister, I'm not sure that their shadow cabinet doesn't include people who might - to use the examples in that last paragraph - interrupt or dismiss people. It feels like it might be a rod for their own back.

Edit: Separately - hopefully just one MP, but FFS

Jason Groves
@JasonGroves1
Former Tory cabinet minister Esther McVey says she won't vote for Budget tax rises 'unless and until'. HS2 is axed #PMQs

She's even an MP for a seat in the North-West (albeit, Cheshire ).

[Sheilbh]

I know I have the same analysis and cause for everything in Britain - but:
[...]

Penny wise, pound foolish. And the huge issue of social care:
[...]

Just to come back on this about the NHS this is striking from Stephen Bush:

Stephen Bush
@stephenkb
Nov 15
From 1999 to 2009, the number of managers increased from 23,378 to 42,509. In 2021 there were just 33,531. I understand why politicians are reluctant to say the problem with recent healthcare spending is hiring too many medical professionals, but it's true.
I seem to recall a Nuffield (or maybe King's Fund) report into Lansleycare that found the NHS was under-managed even by 2009, but i can't find it online anywhere.
UK healthcare politics is in a doom loop of just chucking medical professionals at the NHS backlog and going 'don't work smarter, work harder'.

Again it's pennywise and pound foolish. This was in response to someone querying what's going on with the NHS given that from pre-pandemic levels NHS spending is 12% higher (in real terms), there are 13% more doctors (including 10% more consultants), 11% more nurses and 10% more clinical support staff.

Part of its underinvestment but I think this is another part of the problem and something that affects all public services in the UK - many are chronically mismanaged. We go through cycles of increasing spending on management/admin which is normally positioned as "freeing up" frontline staff to focus on their work and then slashing management/admin because it's perceived as bloated and wasting money that should go to the frontline. It's also, like capital spending, more easy to cut politically than actual numbers of nurses, doctors, police, teachers etc.

So it's equally true of police (though numbers are generally down there) having to spend more time on paperwork because various support roles have been slashed. But I think part of the problem is that simply spending money hiring medical professionals and throwing them at the waiting list without increasing management/admin around them probably won't cut waiting lists.

I think more generally there is something fairly ingrained in the British mindset (because I'm not even sure it's just the public sector) that views investing through capital spending or management/staff as basically wasteful.

[Josquius]

I always treat moans about bureaucracy and managers in the NHS with a huge pinch of salt.
Its the same kind of shit as the "We spend 350 million a week on the nhs! thats the price of 2 hospitals!"; common sense applied without having a grasp of the relevant facts.
Its particularly painful as the same people who moan most about this usually then turn about to moan about doctors having to spend a lot of time on paperwork.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Some of the issues in the UK with the parliamentary parties becoming more difficult to govern tracks with my personal theory that you can understand a lot about British politics if you take American politics on like a 10-year delay, slightly moderated and watered down.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - as I say I think it's a cycle of wasting money on bureaucrats not the frontline to why are the frontline spending all their time doing paperwork. Rinse and repeat.

As I say I think there's something ingrained - I can't remember which book but I remember reading about post-war Britain and in the private sector the consistent themes were underinvestment and really bad management (plus during industrial conflict).

I think management's got a lot better than it was, say, 20 years ago - but I think there's still a general suspicion of investing in private and public sector settings.

And I think in a weird way our politicians - especially those who've only been in politics or the media - have this very strange Musk-y, Wall Street-y view of how the private sector works which I just don't think matches reality in most companies. But it shapes the view of those politicians when they either try to apply lessons to the private sector, run their own offices or work with business.

It makes me think of the really good Guardian long read on binmenism (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/nov/15/who-remembers-proper-binmen-facebook-nostalgia-memes-help-explain-britain-today).

[Gups]

Some of the issues in the UK with the parliamentary parties becoming more difficult to govern tracks with my personal theory that you can understand a lot about British politics if you take American politics on like a 10-year delay, slightly moderated and watered down.

I don't know. The most important single change in US politics in the last 20 years has been the rise in partisanship in the bed rock solid base of each party irrespective of its ctions. That's just not happened here. Hard to imagine either GOP or democrats polling 20-30% as the Toris have been this year and Labour were under Corbyn.

Guns and abortion aren't issues here either and that makes a big difference.

Brit politicians and nerds love American politics and take far too many lessons from it than are due.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know. The most important single change in US politics in the last 20 years has been the rise in partisanship in the bed rock solid base of each party irrespective of its ctions. That's just not happened here. Hard to imagine either GOP or democrats polling 20-30% as the Toris have been this year and Labour were under Corbyn.

Yeah and I think that Times piece flagged how important volatility has been in the UK over the last twenty years. It's routine now - since 2005 over 60% of voters have voted for multiple parties in general elections. I think there's also something to the old theory that the left is more fragmented than the right so that churn maybe disproportionately hurts the left. They just split their vote more.

But I think that's a really important difference with the US where it seems like the partisanship has been almost digging in. In the UK (and I think the rest of Europe and Australia too) the story is of the collapse of traditional party loyalties and voter churn; while in the US it feels like it's reinforcing those loyalties which are maybe shifting a bit.

In the UK voters are shopping around for options more than ever - I think there's been some polling and about 70% of voters think it's likely that they'll vote for more than one party in the future.

Edit: And in fairness I'm as guilty as everyone - I think I've voted for at least three parties since 2005

Brit politicians and nerds love American politics and take far too many lessons from it than are due.

Yes. You just need to look at British politics Twitter during, say, the midterms to see it

[Gups]

And to add to that, partisanship gives American politicians cover for bad behaviour that they just wouldn't get away with here. The constitutional differences are huge too. The tolerance for gerrymadering in America simply bemuses me.

[Valmy]

The tolerance for gerrymadering in America simply bemuses me.

Since it is named after a signer of the Declaration of Independence you can see it has been institutional to our country for hundreds of years. Something like that is very difficult to change.