Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I suppose we could ask the question who drives cars more than 17 years old and diesel powered vans, as they are the people who will have to pay the charge. The answer to that being the poor at a guess; so once again a policy bears down hardest on those with the least wealth.

Yeah and I think we do need to work this out and how to do it. Because coming down the road we've got - transition to EVs and ban on sale of ICEs; replacing gas boilers; new energy efficiency standards and decarbonising homes. A lot of those - like the air quality standard Khan is trying to meet - are already baked in to legislation.

They're all going to be politically difficult as they affect people's lives, homes and can mean a bit personal cost. If we just U-turn on all of them then we'll never get to net zero (far less on target), but if we don't do it in a way that is and is felt to be fair then there's going to be one hell of a backlash.

This is why I think - which you're already seeing - positioning this as culture wars and actually there are no issues it's just people being taken in by far-right culture warriors is a really dangerous comfort blanket.

If only Westminster was willing yo help people...

[Tamas]

It's not like I am losing any sleep over it, but I would say it is hardly surprising that in a country in which you can be denied building permits because a lack of bat habitats cannot be proven (or be subjected to rigorous council interrogation if you dare planning a solar farm for that matter), you find building restrictions based on the amount of "carbon" "locked" into a building.

I think in that case it is not an irrational assumption that a lack of desire to see new things built was the chief motivation behind such legislation, as opposed to the overarching concern for climate change.

[crazy canuck]

It is embedded in the building bylaws in Vancouver. You don't hear much about it because all new construction must have zero carbon impact by 2030.  Embedded carbon of the destruction of the existing structure is part of the calculation.

Building bylaws are the jurisdiction of municipalities, so you will likely not find something like a provincial or federal standard. But from what I understand, it is being implemented in most municipalities, at least in BC and Ontario. I'm not saying it's not being implemented in the other Provinces, I just don't know.

The Brits appear to be ahead of us in this regard, and that is commendable.

Interesting - and good to know.

The thing that confuses me vis-a-vis the British examples is that it doesn't seem to be controversial at all (as far as I can tell) and we have plenty of demolition and news construction. I don't recall any cases where construction projects have been denied for reasons of carbon impact (doesn't mean they haven't, of course, it just hasn't come up in local media that I've noticed).

Is that because our builders are better at carbon neutral construction or because our standards are more lax or less enforced?

The full compliance does not start happening here until 2030. It seems the Brits are well ahead of us.

[Sheilbh]

If only Westminster was willing yo help people...

Yes. For a bit of it at least.

But I think Labour have said a lot about decentralising and I think how different regions meet targets should probably be decentralised as well. Ideally there'd be decentralisation of revenue too so it could be funded in whatever model different regions chose.

The full compliance does not start happening here until 2030. It seems the Brits are well ahead of us.

Labour's even more ambitious - I'm not sure how much is attainable. But their goal is to upgrade 27 million homes by 2030 and re-introduce a zero-carbon buildings standard for all new buildings, install 8 million heat pumps and get to 90% of all electricity from renewable or zero carbon sources by 2030. I think they are scaling back a bit on that given interest rates are higher now.

For all the talk of Starmer not really having an ambitious vision or a theory of growth - I think it basically runs through that (and, obvs I like it because it's more or less totally aligned with my views ).

[Jacob]

It's not controversial here either. Except with Tamas.

That's not what I meant. I meant that it doesn't seem controversial in the UK (as evidenced by this thread), but that I expect it would be controversial here if a new build or demolition + new build was denied for carbon reasons.

I'm guessing that while we have standards they're either light enough that builders can meet them without drastically impacting their business plans, or that the operating environment (in terms of demo + construction methods, or maybe calculation methods) is such that it doesn't adversely impacts the rate of builds.

[crazy canuck]

It's not controversial here either. Except with Tamas.

That's not what I meant. I meant that it doesn't seem controversial in the UK (as evidenced by this thread), but that I expect it would be controversial here if a new build or demolition + new build was denied for carbon reasons.

I'm guessing that while we have standards they're either light enough that builders can meet them without drastically impacting their business plans, or that the operating environment (in terms of demo + construction methods, or maybe calculation methods) is such that it doesn't adversely impacts the rate of builds.

Or, as I have said twice now, our regulations don't come fully into force until 2030.   

[Jacob]

Or, as I have said twice now, our regulations don't come fully into force until 2030.   

For sure.

Which means, I suppose, that they're effectively significantly lighter than in the UK at the moment. It will be interesting to see to what degree they actually stop building from happening - as in the British example that started the conversation.

[crazy canuck]

Or, as I have said twice now, our regulations don't come fully into force until 2030.   

For sure.

Which means, I suppose, that they're effectively significantly lighter than in the UK at the moment. It will be interesting to see to what degree they actually stop building from happening - as in the British example that started the conversation.

I don't think they will stop building at all. To be built to code the buildings will by definition be more efficient, and therefore carbon neutral.  The only time it would ever be an issue is if the replacement building is not that much more efficient.

[Sheilbh]

Feel like Marie Le Conte's tweet is still proving true:

Marie Le Conte
@youngvulgarian
in many ways this was the absolute ideal night for Labour, one good result but also one bad result meaning that they can self-flagellate and endlessly whinge about each other for one thousand days, which they love doing

After literally the best by-election result in the party's history, Labour has spent the day in internal squabbles over ULEZ with the national leadership now basically criticising it and the Mayor of London defending it. The party's tendency to control freak leaderships is going to be an issue if they actually try to do the stuff they've proposed on decentralisation. Meanwhile you've got the left complaining about the leadership's position on ULEZ and framing it as however much a right wing project Starmer already has - it's only going to get more right-wing. So the maiin story isn't their best result ever but internal rows (again).

I half suspect that if it weren't for the fact that the Tories eventually fuck everything up and the public turn to Labour, that a significant chunk of the Labour Party would actually be happiest if all of their political lives was spent fighting internal factional battles with other people they largely agree with

Uxbridge Labour association chair quits both job and party saying 'politics needs principles'
David Williams, chair of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip Constituency Labour Party, has quit both the party and his job as chair, saying "politics needs to have principles".
Faye Brown
Political reporter @fayebrownSky
Friday 21 July 2023 15:31, UK

The chair of Uxbridge Labour has quit the role and given up his party membership, saying "politics needs to have principles".

David Williams, chair of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip Constituency Labour Party (CLP), wrote in a tweet: "I have resigned as chair of Uxbridge and South Ruislip CLP. I am also resigning my membership of the Labour Party.

"Politics needs to have principles or we end up with people like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss running the country, Jeremy Corbyn gave a huge boost to the Labour Party."

It comes after the Tories narrowly held off Labour in the seat at a crunch by-election, which was triggered by the resignation of former prime minister Boris Johnson.

The swing was 6.7 from Conservative to Labour - but not enough to change the party in charge.

However, the Tories' majority has been heavily reduced - from 7,000 to just under 500.

Responding to Mr Williams' statement, a Labour source said: "This is the closest we've ever run the Tories in Uxbridge and South Ruislip."

And NEC member Abdi Duale sarcastically tweeted: "Famously Jeremy Corbyn won Uxbridge in 2017 and 2019."

Labour had been expected to win the west London seat, with candidate Danny Beales holding an eight-point lead in the polls over his Conservative opponent ahead of the vote closing.

The result is being blamed by both sides on the expansion of London's Ultra-low Emission Zone (ULEZ), being championed by Labour mayor Sadiq Khan.

The controversial policy aims to tackle air pollution and congestion by charging cars that don't meet emission standards £12.50 a day to drive on central London roads.

Mr Khan wants to expand the zone to the borders of the capital, but he's been met with fierce opposition.

The new Tory MP for the area, Steve Tuckwell, who had declared the contest a "referendum on ULEZ", said Mr Khan had "lost Labour this election" as he called for him to change course.

Senior members of the Labour Party have also said it played a significant role in the defeat - while pointing to the fact Uxbridge has always been Tory and did not even turn red in the 1997 landslide election victory.

However, left-wing group Momentum have said the failure to gain the seat goes beyond ULEZ.

There have been reports the Corbyn-supporting Uxbridge CLP supported a different candidate than Mr Beales.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been accused more generally of a purge of the left and of keeping a tight grip on candidate selection processes ahead of a likely general election next year.

Former party leader Mr Corbyn has been blocked from standing for Labour in his long-held Islington North seat as a result of a row over his response to a withering equalities watchdog report into the party's handling of antisemitism complaints during his tenure.

A Momentum source said: "This result should be a wake-up call for Keir Starmer: stop the purges, respect members and offer our core vote some real hope."

The Uxbridge by-election was one of three triggered by scandal and a row over Mr Johnson's honours list - with the Tories suffering two bruising losses to Labour and the Lib Dems in what were considered safe seats.

At the other end of the country, in Selby and Ainsty, Labour overturned a Conservative majority of 20,137 - the largest majority reversed at a by-election.

Sir Keir said voters in the North Yorkshire constituency have let out a "cry for change" as he celebrated the win.

On Uxbridge, Sir Keir said: "Uxbridge was always going to be tough. We didn't take Uxbridge in 1997 and we knew ULEZ was going to be an issue.

"And of course we all need to reflect on that, including the mayor needs to reflect on that."

However, Mr Khan has stood by his decision - even as he admitted being "disappointed" in the result.

Still it'll make for an interesting set of interviews in The Wilderness Years Part II

[Sheilbh]

Day three of focusing on Uxbridge and South Ruislip - the Labour candidate spoke at the party's National Policy Forum who he told "ULEZ is a bad policy, it must be rethought" and there's now a group of Labour MPs and candidates for outer London seats lobbying Khan over this (apparently with the sanction of the media).

There's a serious bit to this which is that I worry about what this means for devolution. It is impossible to imagine the leadership supporting groups of Scottish Labour or Welsh Labour lobbying their respective leaderships. Khan isn't a leader of London Labour but I think this is part of the problem we'll have - especially with Labour - with decentralising. I can easily imagine the national leadership getting into rows with, say, Burnham or Rotherham as well or - as they did in the North-East - blocking candidates who aren't perceived as loyal to the leadership. Which I think is going to present a challenge in decentralising, which we really need to do.

The frothy bit is the same point as yesterday, via Lewis Goodall:

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
Explains a fair bit of British political history that Labour can turn the day after one of their biggest ever victories to a period of nervy self-incrimination and the Conservatives can quietly move on from two of their worst ever defeats, and convince everyone it wasn't too bad.

People will point to the media but I think that's unfair. The media were challenging Sunak and Tories on their big losses and they just had the discipline to keep coming back to Uxbridge. But separately the number of quotes from "Labour sources" I saw to different journalists (largely ones with good connections in the Labour party) is a bigger part of the "media" problem.

And now you have numerous reporters getting hold of what's being said inside the (behind closed doors) National Policy Forum (including some....interesting lines from Starmer) And that's fine everyone knows it will leak so no doubt they will have drafted everything with that in mind. But I wish they hung out less dirty laundry

[Gups]

Or, as I have said twice now, our regulations don't come fully into force until 2030.   

For sure.

Which means, I suppose, that they're effectively significantly lighter than in the UK at the moment. It will be interesting to see to what degree they actually stop building from happening - as in the British example that started the conversation.

In the British example, there are no such regulations (just policy) and did  not stop the building from happening. Try he rejection was for heritage reasons not carbon.

[Jacob]

In the British example, there are no such regulations (just policy)

I'm not too conversant with the difference between policy and regulation, I confess.

and did  not stop the building from happening. Try he rejection was for heritage reasons not carbon.

I see. I misunderstood then. Thanks for the clarification.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not too conversant with the difference between policy and regulation, I confess.

Gups will know about planning more and it could be different, but in my area regulation is the law while policy guidance is about how it is interpreted by decision makers (which could be wrong and subject to judicial review).

So regulation will say things that the decision maker, whoever that is, must consider or "have regard to" or what factors matter. But there's no legal "right" way to answer that. So they'll issue policy documents basically saying how they assess those factors and how they balance them - that can be challenged at judicial review not because policy is law but if a rational public body has explained how it reaches decisions then it has to follow that. In planning my understanding is this why projects require lots of supporting "assessment" documents on all sorts of points (including embodied carbon) to address factors the planning inspector has to look at.

It's also relevant for example around laws that are more principles based (which is a big stream of influence from our time in the EU where all law is principles based). Because the regulation/law will often be a pretty vague principle. So you will need policy guidance from regulators/decision makers on how to interpret it - crucially because that's how they do. So while you can disagree and take your own approach that's probably risk based and you need to build a defensible position in case you're challenged.

I see. I misunderstood then. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure if there have been many if any, but I think it's one of the first big projects which had to do an embodied carbon assessment (more of new construction rather than anything else) so it has attracted attention. I found this piece by Barnabas Calder and Florian Urban really interesting both on this project but also the wider thinking of what decarbonising buildings, design and architecture means:
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/ms-oxford-street-vs-the-baths-of-caracalla-energy-profiles-compared

Having said that I also think there is a challenge even if we think retrofitting is best of how we do that. Oxford Street and other big shopping destinations can keep a department store going but in almost every provincial town in the UK (and I imagine it's similar in North America) the old department stores are at best barely surviving and at worst abandoned. They're a really difficult space to retrofit for anything else but I think demand for that type of shopping particularly has moved online. I think some have been successfully converted into food halls and event spaces but again I think there's a limit on how much of that type of space smaller cities can sustain. I think department stores are one example but there will be others - perhaps some of the office blocks in the near future - which are simultaneously difficult to convert and less desirable. Not sure that there's an easy answer for those spaces which, as I say, I suspect will pepper our cities. Those changes of uses and changes in cities always happened just in the past we were less squeamish about just demolishing and starting again

[mongers]

Having said that I also think there is a challenge even if we think retrofitting is best of how we do that. Oxford Street and other big shopping destinations can keep a department store going but in almost every provincial town in the UK (and I imagine it's similar in North America) the old department stores are at best barely surviving and at worst abandoned. They're a really difficult space to retrofit for anything else but I think demand for that type of shopping particularly has moved online. I think some have been successfully converted into food halls and event spaces but again I think there's a limit on how much of that type of space smaller cities can sustain. I think department stores are one example but there will be others - perhaps some of the office blocks in the near future - which are simultaneously difficult to convert and less desirable. Not sure that there's an easy answer for those spaces which, as I say, I suspect will pepper our cities. Those changes of uses and changes in cities always happened just in the past we were less squeamish about just demolishing and starting again

And as a result a huge amount of commercial property 'debt' hanging around in the UK.

[Sheilbh]

One final point on ULEZ - I mentioned that Hilingdon borough (which includes Uxbridge and South Ruislip) has the highest car ownership rate in London and scores lowest on the availability of public transport. I found this from a Hillingdon Labour Councillor interesting - I mentioned before the constituency is right at the very edge of London and this emphasises that:

Cllr Peter Curling
@PeterCurling
Read various "analysis" of the by-election and ULEZ. Most fail to understand Uxbridge is NOT London, its semi-rural Middlesex. Transport links within Hillingdon are poor. To get from Hayes End to Harefield it's 16 min by car, 52 mins by bus or 54 mins by cycle. 1/6
On that 16 min car journey, you pass 5 farms, 3 woods and a riding stables.  Car travel in the borough is virtually essential.  We have care workers, food bank volunteers etc. Who are on low incomes, with Diesel cars that are not compliant.  Also small businesses with vans. 2/6
The ULEZ issue is nothing to do with any "culture wars" its something that places a heavy financial burden on those who are dependend on their cars but on the lowest incomes.  In a cost of living crisis, an extra £4k a year for a care worker to find, so they can do their job 3/6
Is just out of reach.  Its also out of reach for them to find the money to replace their cars.  Plus there are many families that live around the Greater London border, in places like Iver and Denham, their kids go to school in Uxbridge, they may have family in Uxbridge 4/6
So the imaginary line on the map that says 100 yards from Uxbridge Town centre is Buckinghamshire is meaningless to people's every day lives, they just see that they now have to pay £12 per day to get to their kids school, or they have to buy a new car.
So all the post election analysis, seems to base that analysis on Uxbridge being part of a London Borough, but they fail to realise its a semi rural borough with lots of green spaces, woods and farms, right on the western out-skirts.  Closer to Bucks than it is Ealing. 6/6

Separately apparently are signs there - and this may explain the general shift in North-West London - of British Indians basically now displaying the same voting behaviour as White British voters. Race isn't a predictor - but the predictors for White British votes age, education, home ownership etc are in the same way. I think with British Indian voters especially this has been a trend since about 2010 - and no doubt Sunak's had an impact.

There are early signs that British Bengali and African voters are also trending in a similar direction (but from a very, very low base). On the one hand I think it's probably a positive sign that race is possibly and in general becoming less of a defining characteristic of how voters behave. On the other British Indians are about 20% of all BME voters - so it feels like another reason to doubt whether "demographics is destiny".

Edit: And on the ULEZ point - that councillor's points are going to apply even more in, say, Greater Manchester or Merseyside. Admittedly they'll probably not have as bad air quality as London - as worth pointing out that while it's helped encourage a switch to EVs and other lower emission cars in London, it's primarily driven by the air quality impact diesel vehicles have on health. Diesel vehicles were subsidised because they had lower carbon emissions (though unsure how much that's true given the car companies were lying), unfortunately the other particles emitted from diesel but not petrol were really, really bad for people's lungs, especially children.