Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Yeah although as the second bit points out, it's not a wildly unconventional background for a Tory MP/leadership contender. It makes about as much sense as, say, Rory Stewart's. Although I think it still overemphasises Johnson as an individual - I think it's a little Johnson as Trump which I think is totally wrong.

The really simple reason why he could rise to that place is that the Tories wanted someone who could win an election and Johnson, because of his two terms in London and position as a big state, socially liberal/relaxed Tory, had a reputation as someone who could reach voters normal Tories couldn't. Today is the fourth anniversary of the 2019 European election which had the Brexit Party on over 30%, with the Lib Dems, Labour and Greens under 20% and the Tories under 10%. It wouldn't happen in a general election but it shows how febrile politics was in the closing months of Corbyn and May's leadership. So they put aside their misgivings to gamble that he could win them a majority - as it turned out, both the misgivings and gamble were correct. They won a the strongest majority a Tory government's had since 1987 - and wasted it because their leader wasn't up to the job.

Edit: Although I suppose looking at the UK - if I was doing "great man"/figures who "broke" Britain or got us here I think I'd focus on Alex Salmond and Nigel Farage. I think their impact on shaping our politics now has been vastly larger than several PMs.

[Admiral Yi]

So I'm watching Last Tango in Halifax like I mentioned, and the two principals get to talking politics.  They run through the PMs (he's Labour, she's Tory) and it struck me that David Cameron is the George Bush Sr. of Britain.  A decent person who tried to do right but some on the left hate him just because they think they're supposed to hate everyone on the right.

[Sheilbh]

So I'm watching Last Tango in Halifax like I mentioned, and the two principals get to talking politics.  They run through the PMs (he's Labour, she's Tory) and it struck me that David Cameron is the George Bush Sr. of Britain.  A decent person who tried to do right but some on the left hate him just because they think they're supposed to hate everyone on the right.

No. Although I dislike him more than any of the PMs who's followed him.

Bush Sr is Sir John Major (although, like Bush Sr, he's now very well regarded especially for his opposition to Brexit). Follows an iconic conservative leader who defined a decade and had far more charisma. Signs of future splits/issues in the party were already starting to emerge - Pat Buchanan, or the Maastricht rebels. Broadly now perceived as moderate and leaving a good inheritance for his successor - a slick, media trained reforming centre-leftie that even (some) southern voters could get behind. The main difference is that Major won an election (in fact in terms of just votes, Major won more than any British leader before or since). Although I'd argue that Major is both more significant and less moderate than people now fondly remember (largely because of Brexit) and that he really cemented Thatcherism as the basis of consensus in British politics mainly by beating Kinnock who would've been a very different PM than Blair, but also by completing the privatisation program: finally selling off the end of British Coal, energy generation and the railways.

Cameron came into power by winning an election (enough) after a long period in opposition. He was responsible for the longest and deepest period of austerity in modern British history: there was fiscal tightening for 9 years following Cameron's election, a significant fall in the structural deficit and a fall in public spending per person, all of those were longer or deeper than in comparable periods of austerity in the 80s or the 30s. He also played fast and loose with the constitution - three referendums in his 6 years in office with, in each case, him arguing for the status quo. And I think it's fair to say he didn't leave a great inheritance for his successors.

I'd add to that that a lot of the policies I find most objectionable and that I think have done most harm over the last 13 years were brought in under Cameron: the benefit cap, the bedroom tax, hostile environment and huge cuts to capital spending and local councils in particular. Plus I think his foreign policy decisions were bad - both the Golden Century with Xi and the indifference over the 2014 invasion and openness to Russian oligarch money (but he's not unique on those mistakes).

There aren't many real positives I can think of. Maybe metro mayors (which were really Osborne's big idea) - but again while I think they're good you could add that to the fast and loose with constitutional reform while not really thinking through how it all works. Or perhaps most strongly, education (Gove) both in terms of the reforms to the education system, but also to what's taught and how - so the UK has fairly consistently improved on international education league tables over the last 13 years. The issues now are really more pastoral - it's about recruitment, retention and valuing schools and teachers more. Arguably also climate the UK has cut our consumption or production carbon emissions pretty significantly in the last 13 years.

I'm not sure who the comparison with Cameron is in the US, but again I think if you look at what he left his successors and measure what he achieved against his goals it's hard to say he was anything but a disaster.

[Admiral Yi]

We've disagreed about the necessity for austerity before, and I'm sure there are many on the left in the US who could write a similar essay about Poppy. 

[Josquius]

We've disagreed about the necessity for austerity before, and I'm sure there are many on the left in the US who could write a similar essay about Poppy. 

Seriously? In 2023 you still think austerity was sane?

[Gups]

So I'm watching Last Tango in Halifax like I mentioned, and the two principals get to talking politics.  They run through the PMs (he's Labour, she's Tory) and it struck me that David Cameron is the George Bush Sr. of Britain.  A decent person who tried to do right but some on the left hate him just because they think they're supposed to hate everyone on the right.

No. Although I dislike him more than any of the PMs who's followed him.

I agree that Cameron was a disaster with austerity implemented in an ideological way rather than on the basis of economic good sense and of course the self-harm of the Brexit referendum for party management purposes. Still struggling to dislike him more than Johnson or Truss though.

[Sheilbh]

I agree that Cameron was a disaster with austerity implemented in an ideological way rather than on the basis of economic good sense and of course the self-harm of the Brexit referendum for party management purposes. Still struggling to dislike him more than Johnson or Truss though.

I mentally did a list and actually forgot about Truss

Which is crazy because she's had the most direct impact on me as I was buying a flat on a pre-Truss mortgage and pulled out for reasons, now I'm buying on a post-Truss mortgage and there is a fairly big difference.

With Johnson I think it's possibly more that Cameron was a more effective PM and was in power for longer. I think the impact of austerity - but especially forcing those cuts on local authorities, particularly the authorities most dependent on central government funding, is something we're still living with. And also possibly just that on a personal level the thing most angers me most about the last 13 years have been the changes to the welfare/benefits system and the vast majority of them were passed by Cameron/Osborne.

I find it pretty unforgivable that they let IDS have a go as DWP Secretary for five years, especially when (reportedly) they thought he's not up to the job/not smart enough. Aside from austerity and education, a lot of Cameron's reforms have been unwound by subsequent governments - I think welfare is the big exception because (like Gove at education) the changes were quite substantial and complicated in an already very complicated bit of government. I'm not sure that Universal Credit is, on its own, a dreadful idea but getting IDS to deliver it was, especially taken with Osborne's decisions like the benefit cap, two child limit etc.

Having said that since IDS we've had 8 secretaries of state in DWP which also isn't great.

We've disagreed about the necessity for austerity before, and I'm sure there are many on the left in the US who could write a similar essay about Poppy. 

Sure - but I still think Major's the better comparison

[Tamas]

So when did it happen that energy providers started offering only variable rates and no fixed contracts? What the hell?

[Josquius]

So when did it happen that energy providers started offering only variable rates and no fixed contracts? What the hell?

A while ago. Lines up with the Ukraine war. How've you missed it? It's been big news for a while and had quite the impact on people's bills.

I do read things are expected to get back to normal in a few months though. Can't wait to get shot of freaking shell.

[Tamas]

So when did it happen that energy providers started offering only variable rates and no fixed contracts? What the hell?

A while ago. Lines up with the Ukraine war. How've you missed it? It's been big news for a while and had quite the impact on people's bills.

I do read things are expected to get back to normal in a few months though. Can't wait to get shot of freaking shell.

We started a 3-year fixed contract in September 2021.

[Josquius]

So when did it happen that energy providers started offering only variable rates and no fixed contracts? What the hell?

A while ago. Lines up with the Ukraine war. How've you missed it? It's been big news for a while and had quite the impact on people's bills.

I do read things are expected to get back to normal in a few months though. Can't wait to get shot of freaking shell.

We started a 3-year fixed contract in September 2021.

Jammy
Mine ended just as things went to shit.

[Gups]

Why would you want a fixed price tariff when prices are high but falling rapidly?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah same

I know someone who fixed in April 2021 and has just missed it all - sadly they're now discovering what went on in the last two years. I think I saw a Martin Lewis piece saying that there's an expectation with things returning to more normal market pricing that fixed deals will be returning to the market in the next few months. But, at the moment, there are zero fixed deals being offered.

Although obviously it's a gamble. It'd be fixing at a very high level and it feels probably more likely that gas prices in Europe will fall more as moving away from Russian gas entrenches a bit/there's less panic buying?

Separately too nichely British (bats that might or might not exist!) for the general city planning thread but enjoyed this piece. Needless to say lots of commentators - over 500 but from the few I saw I think there are maybe just a few more builders than blockers:

Our planning nightmare shows why Britain can't build houses
Martina Lees and her family are stuck with a 1930s one-bedroom bungalow instead of a spacious eco build. What will it take to reform the system?


The council rejected plans to replace the riverbank bungalow, left, of Martina and Daniel Lees
VICKI COUCHMAN FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES
Martina Lees
Saturday May 20 2023, 6.00pm, The Sunday Times

As Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak fight over who gets to be the party of housebuilding, my children do not have bedrooms. After two years, seven planning applications and £40,000 in expert fees, we are still not allowed to build a home where my son, seven, and daughter, nine, can have their own rooms. Ours is the story of everything that is wrong with planning in Britain.

Last week the Labour leader broke a political taboo. Starmer promised more homes on the green belt, where suitable for the area.

We live in the green belt and have been trying to build on it, so the argument has a direct impact on us, but it also cuts to the heart of a problem that could decide the next election: a good home that you can afford is increasingly elusive for anyone under 45. (I'm 43, straddling the divide.)



During 13 years in power, the Conservatives have failed to fix this. Sunak says he is determined to protect the "extremely precious" green belt and scrap housebuilding targets — the big stick forcing councils to permit enough new homes — while Starmer promises the opposite. While Tory rebels bicker about becoming the "party of nimbyism", their policies are making it even harder for families to own a home — let alone build one, as we are trying to do.

The four of us live in a one-bedroom Surrey bungalow (or glorified shed, as we often joke) that we want to knock down. It is an eyesore, with the highest flood risk, and has an "F" energy efficiency rating, the second-lowest. Our walls have almost no insulation. We still need the heating on in May.


A new house, seen on the right, was approved for the next-door neighbour in the place of a similar small bungalow — one of several such replacement homes on the street
VICKI COUCHMAN FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES

In its place, we want to build a zero-carbon, flood-proof three-bedroom house designed by an award-winning architect. Solar metal cladding would make all our energy from the sun. Our neighbours support it. It is exactly the sort of new home the government says Britain needs more of: a climate-proof, beautiful family home in a housing crisis.

Yet Spelthorne borough council won't let us build it. Instead, it leaves us no choice but to extend. That will make a bad house bigger. By 2050, when Britain is legally bound to reach net zero emissions, our extended bungalow will have pumped 50 tonnes of unnecessary carbon into the atmosphere.


The house that the Leeses want to build would be flood-proof and far more eco-friendly than the existing property


The new house would have three bedrooms for the couple and their two children, who are forced to sleep in a tiny former kitchen at present

Why have we set out on this quest? Having covered housing and planning over the past decade for The Sunday Times, I knew that, by building our own home, we could get up to 30 per cent more house than by buying one.

We had outgrown our first home, a two-bedroom Victorian terrace in southwest London. Upsizing in the area was out of our budget. In 2021, we sold and, for almost the same price, bought our bungalow further out of the capital. It was a once-in-a-lifetime find after putting a letter under the owner's door. Directly on the river, our children can wild-swim from the bottom of the garden. We could afford it only because it is so small and dilapidated.

We knew building would not be easy. My work, and that of my husband, Daniel, who owns a property management agency, taught us that. Yet we took a calculated risk. Because the plot had a house on it, we knew that — in principle — we could build here. We did not expect it to take seven planning applications (and counting).

Unlike most countries, Britain has no fixed rules on what you must do to gain the right to build. Instead, consent is granted on a case-by-case basis under complex and contradictory policies. Council planning officers and local politicians, often elected on an antidevelopment platform, call the shots. This lottery requires deep pockets — in our case, £40,000 so far, including for reports on non-existent bats.



It leaves Britain beholden to large developers that build big schemes slowly to keep prices (and profits) up, often far from infrastructure and with bland design that enrages the nimby ("not in my backyard") brigade. Less than 16 per cent of homes are built by small firms or for individual households, compared with more than 60 per cent in Germany, where a zonal system provides certainty. New design codes here aim to help but only scrape the surface.

Had Britain built at the rate of the average European country since 1955, we would have 4.3 million more homes, the think tank Centre for Cities found in February. Those homes were not built because our discretionary planning system has rationed land since 1947, researchers said. That is what drives vertiginous house prices.

The green belt makes it worse. These protected areas are not green idylls, but no-build collars designated in 1947 to prevent urban sprawl. Nor is it being concreted over. In fact, more land has been allocated as part of the green belt. Its area has doubled since 1979 to take up more than ten times the land occupied by buildings (1.1 per cent). Removing just a sliver of green belt could allow the creation of new homes around, for example, the outer stations of London's £18.9 billion new Elizabeth line.

Our bit of the green belt is not open countryside but a row of what were originally 1930s weekend huts. Most have been replaced with bigger houses or extended over the years. Except ours.

Policy allows you to replace a home in the green belt with one that is not "materially larger". But the rules don't say what is too big. That is at the discretion of the council's planners. In February, they rejected two applications for our new house because it would "cause harm to the green belt". They deemed our new house too big compared with the existing one — ignoring the fact that it would be smaller than our next-door neighbour's new house, which was approved in 2017 — and smaller than the extensions we can lawfully build.


The dilapidated bungalow has planning approved for extensions that would give it a larger footprint than the house the couple wish to build
VICKI COUCHMAN FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES

Extending has always been plan B. Spelthorne has granted us (after four such applications and a barrister's letter) a certificate that side and rear extensions are "permitted development". We will now start building these. It is far from ideal, but my children need bedrooms.

At present they are sleeping in a former galley kitchen of 4.8 sq metres. That is smaller than a prison cell.

We are also appealing against the rebuild being rejected at the government's planning inspectorate. That will take another year. Only 30 per cent of appeals like ours succeed. If we win, my daughter will be a teenager when we move into the new house. She was seven when we started trying.

What we have come up against is the same thing that many other councils have implemented; a blanket antidevelopment approach. As the foreword to our council's new local plan says through gritted teeth: "No Spelthorne councillor wants to build on our green belt, nor do we want to populate our town centres with sterile, high-rise blocks. But that is what Westminster is demanding." It is fantasy to think — as many Tory MPs do — that local councils like this will permit enough new homes without being forced to. They seem to want homes where no one will notice them.

Meanwhile, our neighbours — who are almost all a generation older than us — have been nothing but supportive. One built us a door. Another stores our belongings in their garage. Five wrote to the council in favour of our new house. The planners ignored them all.

The council also disregarded a law designed to help people like us build their own homes. Councils are legally required to keep a register of people who want to build their own home and permit enough self-build plots to meet that demand within three years.

Seventy-seven households, including us, have signed up in Spelthorne. How many self-build plots have been permitted? None. That means the council is breaking the law, but the law has no teeth.

A council spokeswoman insists: "We have this register and we comply with the act." She says planners "did consider" unmet self-build need in our case, but the applications were "unacceptable" due to harm to the green belt and area character. Over and over again, ministers have promised to make building your own home a mainstream choice. It is anything but.

Worst of all, our zero-carbon design carried "no weight", Spelthorne found, even though the borough has declared a climate emergency. Indeed, low and zero-carbon design has no weight in national planning.

Unbelievably, as the world stares into the abyss of climate change, the planning system still has no carrot or stick to stop us from falling in.

The day after our house was refused, I explained this to Lord Deben, the chairman of the UK's Climate Change Committee, which advises the government. He said: "One story can change the law." That's why I'm telling mine.

I think it's really interesting and useful to draw those dots between a less predictable system meaning that only big developers can bear the risk/legal costs which means we don't have loads of small developers (as is common in other countries) and also means there is a same-y-ness to a lot of new builds, which in turn makes them less popular.

[Admiral Yi]

Seriously? In 2023 you still think austerity was sane?

Certainly.

I'm curious what you think has transpired in the intervening years to demonstrate it was not sane.

[Jacob]

Certainly.

I'm curious what you think has transpired in the intervening years to demonstrate it was not sane.

I'm under the impression that the economies that went with stimulus rather than austerity performed better.