Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Why would a British national need to claim asylum in Britain? 

Modern slavery and asylum are different. Modern slavery is a crime where the victims are exploited, controlled or held captive and coerced in some way (threats or violence) to stop them from escaping or reporting their situation.

So it can include traditional labour - there have been cases of domestic "workers" who are imprisoned effectively, similarly there have been reports in the construction industry. But it could also include sex work or things like county lines (drug trade where vulnerable children are used to carry drugs from cities into nearby towns/villages), or something like cuckooing which is the exploitation of the homes of vulnerable people (for example, mentally or physically disabled) by gangs (you'll see it in Line of Duty).

Those crimes happen to British people as well as migrants - but I think there is a definite link between some of those crimes and trafficking. The current position is if someone has been a victim of modern slavery and trafficked then I think they have almost a default claim to asylum. The government are trying to break that link so the two systems are in parallel - you may have been a victim of trafficking and modern slavery, but from the state's perspective you're just here illegally. It's a traffickers charter.

Edit: And there's two sides to modern slavery - I think one is basically corporate. Every British company of a certain size will have a modern slavery statement and policies on their supply chain which should be removing any forced labour from supply chains in Britain - I am very doubtful that those are policed at all. The other is criminal which is that if you suspect someone is a victim of modern slavery you can report them and it kicks off a set of social work and police investigations/responses (or an individual, if they can break free, can self report - as I think has happened with some of those domestic "worker" cases).

[Admiral Yi]

got it

[Sheilbh]

I see in about as many days a second guest (host? ) on GB News has been racist about Sunak. This time from Calvin Robinson, a man who, in the words of David Aaronovitch, "although the Church of England refused him ordination, likes to dress as a vicar" - and associate with various radical/far right fringe groups like Laurence Fox's lot.

[Admiral Yi]

I suggest to the CoE that they design a new bishop's outfit that makes them look less pencil-necked.

[Sheilbh]

Strong Economist piece on the curious failure of the Tories to really manage to do much v the institutions. The only thing they achieved in that sense was Brexit and they needed a referendum and two elections to do it (and even then CAP is the only bit of existing EU law that I'm aware of the Tories actually changing - though Badenoch is pushing ahead with a far more sensible plan than Rees-Mogg's on wider changes).

On the day this was published the government announced they were shelving the "British Bill of Rights" (which is a bad law) that would reform the Human Rights Act - every election since the HRA was passed the Tories have campaigned for abolishing or significantly reforming it. After 13 years in office they've still got nothing to show for it:

The Tories v the institutions
After 13 years, the Conservatives still have no idea how to reform Britain's institutions
May 4th 2023

From the perspective of the typical Conservative mp, Richard Sharp was a perfect choice as chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation (bbc). A former Goldman Sachs banker and committed Brexiteer, Mr Sharp thought the bbc had a "liberal bias". Mr Sharp was a Tory donor, close to both Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, and Rishi Sunak, the current one. Unfortunately, Mr Sharp was too close to Mr Johnson: he resigned on April 28th for failing to properly declare he had tried to arrange a meeting between the cabinet secretary and a businessman who had offered to financially support the former prime minister.

Mr Sharp's departure is the latest example of an often overlooked Conservative failure. The Conservatives have run the country for 13 years. But they have failed to shape its institutions. The Tories have lost almost every fight they have picked—whether against Whitehall or the bbc or the quangos that run British life. Each Conservative government since 2010 has promised to fundamentally alter how Britain works. Each has failed.

It is not for want of trying. Every one of those governments has pledged to shake up the civil service, for instance. Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson's revolutionary adviser, promised a "hard rain" on the mandarins; he was gone 18 months later. When senior civil servants themselves are hoofed out, they are replaced by more of the same. Rather than rein in the civil service, the civil service has begun to rein in ministers. Dominic Raab resigned as justice secretary last month after being found to have bullied staff.

Taming the Treasury, Britain's overmighty finance department, has been a goal of successive Conservative prime ministers. Liz Truss was simply the most zealous, firing the department's permanent secretary on day three of her ill-fated 45-day premiership. Theresa May's team also wanted to restrain the department. Mr Johnson resented the Treasury as an obstacle to his beloved big projects. Yet today the Treasury is stronger than ever. Mr Sunak, a Treasury alumnus, sits in 10 Downing Street; Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, veers little from the department's orthodoxy.

If the Treasury is still supreme despite the efforts of the Conservative Party, so are the technocrats. Ms Truss had a staring contest with the Bank of England, which refused to blink. Ms Truss lost her job. Conservatives may seethe about Andrew Bailey's performance as the bank's governor. Inflation is, after all, still skipping along in double digits, albeit owing to factors beyond his control. Yet changing the current set-up is beyond the pale. Even rejigging its mandate, once discussed relatively openly by both parties, is seen as excessive radicalism. What the bank says, goes.

David Cameron proposed a "bonfire of the quangos", the independent bodies that controlled everything from water regulation to Britain's charities. They are more powerful than ever. The establishment in 2013 of nhs England, which oversees £160bn of spending ($200bn; about 7% of British gdp), effectively stripped the health secretary of a say over the day-to-day operations of the health service. The Office for Budget Responsibility, a quango that monitors government spending, now has a near-sacred position that belies the fact it is barely a teenager.

Brexit was supposed to create a leaner, more efficient British state once the shackles of EU law had been removed. Parliament, rather than officials, would dictate policy. Instead, European red tape has been replaced by British red tape, with EU law effectively copied and pasted into domestic statute. Plans to repeal these laws en masse have been scrapped. This may be wise. But it was not what the Conservatives promised. Rather than strip down regulation or remove legislation, as is supposedly their bent, the Conservatives are much more likely simply to gripe about it. It is easier to complain than to achieve anything, even in government.

Yet an advantage of the British system of government is that quick, sweeping change is possible. Armed with a majority and competent leadership, a government can do what it likes. It took New Labour little time to fundamentally alter the country's institutions. Within its first few years Labour had passed the Human Rights Act and given the Bank of England its independence. It pushed through devolution to Scotland and Wales. New quangos, such as Ofcom, which regulated broadcasters, were created.

Labour managed to change both the shape of Britain's institutions and the people running them. At the start of the Blair era, the establishment was still filled with patrician Tories. British society would have been recognisable to Peter Cook, a 1960s satirist who mocked the reactionary tendencies of its pale, public-school elite. By the end of the New Labour years, the people at the top of Britain's institutions were, on the whole, far more liberal and diverse.

Skip forward 13 years and the Conservatives oversee institutions that are largely unchanged from the Blair era. Conservative mps seethe about the influence of European judges on the country's laws. But they do little about it. Attempts to put their own people into positions of power have largely failed. At least Mr Sharp actually made it into his post. The Conservatives have repeatedly botched plans to install Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of DMG Media, which publishes the Tory-supporting Daily Mail and other titles, as head of Ofcom. The Conservatives still live in New Labour's world, however much they may hate it.

Cheers, Gramsci's crying

The Tory party has no excuses. New Labour knew how they wanted Britain to work. The Conservatives have produced no such vision. Conservatism is in general allergic to big ideas and systemic thinking. Most Tory MPs are happier moaning about institutions than altering them. Instead of learning from its mistakes, the government has given up. Mr Sunak has neither the time nor the inclination to radically alter British institutions between now and the next general election. After more than a decade in power, the Conservatives have not figured out how to reform the state. They may not get another chance for a while.

Two things strike me, one is that I sympathise, especially with cultural and social conservatives because a lot of the insitutions which govern huge swathes of British life are run by people who could have been appointed by New Labour, Cameron, May or Johnson more or less indiscriminately. In some cases they are the same person - you think of Matthew Taylor who was a Blairite spad, then Chair of the Royal Society of Arts and sitting on various inquiries or reports during the Cameron years, before being appointed by May to do a big report on the gig economy (he likes it, it may surprise you to discover ) and then most recently appointed to be CEO of the NHS Confederation.

I think it points to the lack of seriousness/grip of all recent Tory PMs (I think possibly Sunak and May might have done better at reforming the institutions, under different circumstances). It is difficult to see even a short-lived government led by someone like Blair or Thatcher leaving institutions they opposed so untouched.

The other is that while I broadly back most of the New Labour reforms I do find it a bit weird how they've already assumed this strange untouchable constitutional position. I find it particularly problematic with the OBR which I think is a really bad institution with a bad mandate which needs to be removed entirely - but apparently Labour will keep it as an essential part of our fiscal architecture, despite being invented by George Osborne

[Tamas]

Oh no:

Time stands still at Westminster as Big Ben fails to chime
Clock dials atop Elizabeth Tower in London briefly stopped at 12.55pm on Wednesday

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/10/time-stands-still-at-westminster-as-big-ben-fails-to-chime

[Tamas]

I'll reluctantly admit Gove would have gained a lot of plus points with me if he managed to do this, but apparently vested interests won out again and leasehold will remain our other medieval LARP thing beside the monarchs: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/may/10/plans-abolish-feudal-leasehold-system-england-wales

[Josquius]

Sounds alright to me. A complete abolition was always going to create a heap of issues. But fixing the rules and cracking down on exploitative leaseholders fills most of the same purpose.
There absolutely is a need for leasehold with flats. Someone has to maintain the lifts, corridors et al.

[Sheilbh]

I'll reluctantly admit Gove would have gained a lot of plus points with me if he managed to do this, but apparently vested interests won out again and leasehold will remain our other medieval LARP thing beside the monarchs: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/may/10/plans-abolish-feudal-leasehold-system-england-wales

Given that Gove's been pretty effective at multiple departments - including education and justice which are not easy - I feel like this and his reversal on housing targets is a sign of just how strong vested interests are in housing.

As I say I think there's actually a lot of consensus around this and change is coming. But it's going to be a hell of a fight.

[Josquius]

I wonder what the vested interests are. Who is making big money out of leasehold.

When I worked at a housing association leasehold was a big problem department. Worth about 15% of the customer base and covering everything from the poshest flats around down to ex council decrepit shit heaps.
There was this constant idea from residents they were seen as a cash cow from which the HA was profiting big... One particular block threatened to break free and form a residents association unless some demands were met -they were told they were free to and the HA would help. No profits were coming out of leasehold, most places were paying just barely enough to keep the lights on in their building which meant when a bit repair was needed, hilarity ensued.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think vested interests necessarily means people making loads of money. When Blair moaned about scars on his back from pushing public sector reform it wasn't because there were loads of people making money. It was resistance to change, inertia, small c conservatism of every institution.

I suspect with this the article is probably right. Sunak's got at most 18 months left. Does he really want huge chunks of parliamentary time taken up with a complicated reform of title? My guess is that's why Gove has been told to focus on the meaningful bits of the reform (from the article: "a cap on ground rents, more powers for tenants to choose their own property management companies and a ban on building owners forcing leaseholders to pay any legal costs incurred as part of a dispute"). My suspicion is Number 10 are telling all minister to focus on laws that can pass between now and the next election and that have a high/visible impact early. Abolishing leasehold seems like very much a year one project for a government, not year four.

[Sheilbh]

Oh no:

Time stands still at Westminster as Big Ben fails to chime
Clock dials atop Elizabeth Tower in London briefly stopped at 12.55pm on Wednesday

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/10/time-stands-still-at-westminster-as-big-ben-fails-to-chime

Incidentally on incredibly on the nose metaphors for modern Britain, I'm thrilled to discover that the Edinburgh Trams Inquuiry has sent their final report to the printers!

They were set up to investigate why building the Edinburgh Tram system cost double the initial cost estimate, at about £800 million, and taking twice as long as planned to build, ultimately taking 6 years from contract.

The Inquiry, of course, has taken 9 years to report and cost 6 times their original budget

[Josquius]

I'm curious to see what they have to say.

That's a sadly forgotten "what if" of Blairs time in power. He promised to build so many light rail systems but Edinburgh seems to have killed off any further progress on that front.

As mentioned before I am increasingly building a theory that there are 3 things.
Tough green belt controls.
Tough urban development controls.
Building stuff.
You can only have 2 of these and this automatically excludes the 3rd.

The tough urban development controls are the obvious ones that need to go.
Protected areas should remain protected, no 60s style vandalism of glorious old treasures with brutalist monstrosities, but we need to stop being so precious over community character in a interwar suburb.

[Sheilbh]

Brutalist monstrosities everywhere, concrete the green belt

I would accept far denser city centres in the interim. No idea why the Tories never forced this given that it'd be building, which is unpopular, but in areas that vote Labour - so, from a Tory perspective, who cares.

Edit: Also. Bring back neon.

[Sheilbh]

Latest in Pestminster stories and the ongoing failure (in all parties) to really deal with (generally) men in power committing sexual crimes. This particular report to the police was apparently prompted after Labour decided to keep employing a senior aide despite two complaints about him groping junior members of staff, which were upheld in the internal investigation:

Female Labour MP accuses shadow minister of sexual assault
Accuser concerned about 'wider pattern of behaviour' of Labour MP and reports 2021 incident to police
Aletha Adu Political correspondent
@alethaadu
Thu 11 May 2023 15.19 BST
Last modified on Thu 11 May 2023 15.40 BST

A female Labour MP has reported a shadow frontbench MP to the Metropolitan police, claiming he sexually assaulted her.

The alleged incident is said to have taken place after a summer party in London in July 2021. But the MP decided to approach the Met in recent weeks, according to Tortoise.

She is said to have been reluctant to make a formal complaint, although she was encouraged to, as she felt his popularity within the party would not help her case, the report claims.

Keir Starmer's spokesperson said on Wednesday that the party leader took a "zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment" and was "confident the process is independent, thorough and robust".

A Labour spokesperson said: "We take any allegations of this sort very seriously and would always encourage individuals to go to the parliamentary process, the Labour party process or the police.

"In terms of the Labour party process, it is a thorough, robust and independent process that we believe individuals can have confidence in."

The female MP is said to have spoken to Labour whips over safeguarding issues and concerns about a "wider pattern of behaviour".

The Guardian has approached the Met police for comment.

As well as the issues I've posted about before with senior SNP, Tory and Lib Dem figures, Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price has had to resign after a damning report on the culture within the party - particularly serious allegations of misogyny and bullying at all levels. I saw one pereson say Price was a nice guy but "dining with predators".

Separately on, in many ways, the ongoing, rolling "Me Too" reports in every industry/sector the lead British business lobby has been hugely rocked by reports of serious sexual misconduct, including allegations of rape, and, again, a generally toxic culture. I think in the end there were six reports of serious sexual assault or rape which I believe has now been reported to the police by the CBI because it turns out there were complaints made at the time, and ignored. Various FTSE 100 companies announced they were withdrawing so I think basically the entire leadership has been replaced to try and rebuild the organisation but there is talk that it's just so toxic business needs to start again.