Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Diesels are a real issue with this.

ULEZ isn't really a net zero policy - it is primarily about air quality and microparticles in London which causes a lot of deaths and which were increasing in recent years. A positive side effect has been that it is causing people who can afford it to get a new, cleaner car - I believe it's also part of why the second hand market has exploded in recent years because there's an ULEZ premium for cars that meet that standard in and around London.

Diesel is part of the issue because New Labour under Blair and Brown really pushed diesel for environmental reasons. It emits less carbon, the problem we discovered is that it emits lots of other stuff that is bad for human health particularly for people in congested areas. So there were a lot of tax policies for about 10 years designed to encourage people to buy diesel vehicles (especially when you combine with other policies like Mandy's "cash for clunkers"). There was also a wider EU push towards diesel but a lot I think was possibly based on European car companies lying about the emissions of diesel (I also think this probably delayed European investment in hybrid or EVs).

The extreme example of potential negative politics from climate change that I've seen recently is Ireland proposing a mass cull of dairy cows. Ireland has a big dairy industry and it is a big emitter. I'm not convinced in a country with 50km of electrified rail that it's the only way to get to net zero but it's probaby the quickest for their net zero targets. However I'm not convinced there'll be less dairy consumed, it'll just be produced somewhere else and it feels like something that is bound to kick off an angry reaction in rural communities. Which is the Euro-trifecta at the minute - policies that undermine European production to the benefit of the ROTW, that are mainly aimed at short term targets not energy transition, and that will quite possible cause a political backlash

[Gups]

You've all heard of the London ULEZ fuss going on and how out of Uxbridge the Tories have cottoned onto this sort of thing as a populist drum to avoid losing quite so badly.
It seems I was quite ignorant about just what it meant. Read this this morning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66618564

Key piece.

Petrol cars generally meet the standards if they were first registered after 2005, while diesel cars generally have to be newer than September 2015.

And...Fucking hell. Thats even laxer than I thought.
I already supported it. But with this... The shit eaters continue to insist its hurting the poor to play a false populist game? I wager odds are good there's a lot more rich people with cars older than 2005 than poor people. When cars get that old you're getting into passion vehicle territory rather than money saving.

It's been said a million times before but this country's problem with misinformation and a general lack of facts really needs sorting out.

Except classic cars are exempt.

[Josquius]

You've all heard of the London ULEZ fuss going on and how out of Uxbridge the Tories have cottoned onto this sort of thing as a populist drum to avoid losing quite so badly.
It seems I was quite ignorant about just what it meant. Read this this morning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66618564

Key piece.

Petrol cars generally meet the standards if they were first registered after 2005, while diesel cars generally have to be newer than September 2015.

And...Fucking hell. Thats even laxer than I thought.
I already supported it. But with this... The shit eaters continue to insist its hurting the poor to play a false populist game? I wager odds are good there's a lot more rich people with cars older than 2005 than poor people. When cars get that old you're getting into passion vehicle territory rather than money saving.

It's been said a million times before but this country's problem with misinformation and a general lack of facts really needs sorting out.

Except classic cars are exempt.

Pre 197x (I can't recall the exact year).
As time moves forward increasing numbers of 'classic cars' are from after this date.

[Tamas]

I'm surprised you have a car that old considering you care a bit more about such things than me. Its not like I'm always looking at number plates, but I do this more than is normal (one of the beauties of having a toddler) and its rare that I see anything from the noughties these days.

Diesels are an iffy point for sure. I do wonder there given for a period it was being pushed that Diesels were the more environmental option whether we could learn from the missold ppi situation and have a generous trade in scheme there. Or hell. Maybe they're already doing this.

I get the point on poorer people being hit by these things more. I can't see an obvious way out of many of them really without going down a silly populist deliberately hurt the middle class just for the sake of spite path. Which is of course something the powers that be would love to see support build for- the more the working and middle class can be at each other's throats the better it is for them.
Ideal world in the future I would like to see a situation where cars are basically something you only own if its your passion or your job or by default you're wealthy enough to not have to think about it. I guess like so much it all comes back around to inequality.
The problem isn't climate change policies falling on the poor- its other policies keeping the poor so very poor.

I could have afforded a newer car but not only this works excellent still, but we wanted to save as much as possible for the house deposit. Will look into replacing it / buying a second one next year when the wife will start driving it more often.


The diesel policy 180-degrees turnaround since, what, 2009, is quite a disaster and again it makes me more sympathetic to people's scepticism with these various measures. In a space of a few years I think we moved from subsidising to penalising diesels. Which, again, is fine for people who can just waltz in and buy a new car but when you invested into a diesel van to run your tiny business for example, that must hurt.

[Sheilbh]

The diesel policy 180-degrees turnaround since, what, 2009, is quite a disaster and again it makes me more sympathetic to people's scepticism with these various measures. In a space of a few years I think we moved from subsidising to penalising diesels. Which, again, is fine for people who can just waltz in and buy a new car but when you invested into a diesel van to run your tiny business for example, that must hurt.

I think it's also going to be a feature of energy transition. We cannot afford to wait to develop the optimal policy mix. I don't think we know what that is and even then it'll depend on your wider politics - it's not going to be perfect or smooth.

I think that is fine but I think it requires a degree of humility from poplicy makers and measures to mitigate not just the cost of energy transition but the cost of the cul-de-sacs and the dead ends and the fuck ups that will happen. I don't think that should just sit with people who trusted their government but the policy was wrong.

[Sheilbh]

Rare moment when I think I'm on Braverman's side. I'm not sure it's interfering with the police's operational independence for the Home Secretary to insist that police forces respond to all reported crime - in the same way as it's not micromanagement if my boss tells me to do my job

Also I don't disagree with the point on austerity or Cooper's comments.

But looking at the police chief association's comments that reported crime has increased by 25%, I would ask if if part of that is because of the "difficult decisions" police chiefs have made to not follow up on minor crimes. Also not fully sure what "local priorities" could be undermined by the police investigating crimes where they have a reasonable lead - like CCTV, find my phone trackers etc. Again I agree on the points around the court system and prisons which need more funding and were badly impacted by austerity (and I think the courts particularly badly hit by covid too) - but I'm not convinced the police's line on that, or that it's their decision to make.

Braverman 'interfering with police independence' after crime pledge
The home secretary instructed forces to pursue all reasonable crime leads despite squeeze on funding
Matthew Weaver
Tue 29 Aug 2023 05.00 BST
Last modified on Tue 29 Aug 2023 08.58 BST

Police chiefs have suggested the home secretary is interfering with their operational independence by demanding forces pursue all reasonable crime leads at a time when their resources are being outstripped by a rise in offences.

The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) raised serious doubts about an initiative Suella Braverman used to launch the government's crime week with insistence that there was "no such thing as minor crime".

Braverman instructed forces to follow all evidence such as footage from CCTV, doorbells and dashcams, as well as phone data, to find a suspect or stolen property.

The NPCC responded to the plan in an open letter to Braverman, which pointedly began: "For decades, police forces have had a duty to pursue all reasonable leads of an alleged crime."

On Monday, Braverman said forces had the resources to pursue all reasonable leads, and pointed to the government's restoration of 20,000 officers that were cut between 2010 and 2018.

However, the letter by the NPCC chair, chief constable Gavin Stephens, suggested her plan was unrealistic given the squeeze on police funding at a time of rising crime.

"To see trust in police return to where it used to be, an effectively staffed and properly funded police service is essential," the letter said.

Stephens said that 21 of the 43 forces in England and Wales "still have less officers than in 2010". He added: "It is therefore right that police chiefs have operational independence and are responsible for making difficult decisions around how best to respond to the breadth of priorities of local communities."

The letter welcomed the restoration of 20,000 officers cut under austerity as a recognition by the government that "much more is needed to meet increasing and changing demands". But it added: "There is much more that can and should be done. Although the additional officers go some way to support these changes the reality is that since 2010, the number of officers has increased by just 2.6%, while recorded crime has increased by 25%."

Launching her initiative, Braverman repeated the government's claim that crime has fallen in the last decade. This claim has been challenged by many including Full Fact, which said the figure does not include fraud or computer misuse.

The NPCC's letter also said that crime was rising. It said: "In 2022/23, a total of 5.24m crimes were recorded by police – an increase of over 1m since 2010/11, when recorded crime sat at 4.15m. This means there is more recorded crime per police officer."

The letter cited a series of additional pressures facing officers to suggest that the policy of pursuing all reasonable leads would be difficult and a distraction from local priorities. These included the increasing complexity of crime due to new technology and delays in the criminal justice system.

The letter said: "We have backlog in the court system due to increasing caseloads and prisons nearing capacity, placing pressure on police custody cells. We are all working hard to fix this within our own remits, but more needs to be done together."

Braverman said: "The police have made progress in preventing crime across the country with neighbourhood offences like burglary, robbery and vehicle theft down by 51% since 2010.

"Despite this success, since I became home secretary I've heard too many accounts from victims where police simply haven't acted on helpful leads because crimes such as phone and car thefts are seen as less important – that's unacceptable. It has damaged people's confidence in policing. Criminals must have no place to hide."

Labour said Braverman's initiative amounted to an admission of failure.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: "Pursuing reasonable leads like CCTV is what the police should be doing, but – because of abysmal Tory management – over 90% of crimes go unsolved, the proportion of crimes prosecuted has dropped by more than two-thirds and more criminals are getting off.

"The fact that the Tories are boasting about asking the police to do the basic minimum that victims of crime should rightly expect, whilst failing to tackle the underlying problems they have caused, shows how badly they have failed over the last 13 years."

Edit: Although this reinforces my view that politics is part of the problem in the UK but a big issue is vested interests, including within the public sector. I think there still is something to Blair's framing of producer interest v user interests.

[garbon]

I had same thought on article. broken clock.

[Josquius]

I am not with Braverman.
"Investigate all robberies!" she says.
To which a logical police response would be "Aye we'd love to pet but can we have some resources to do that then?"
Someone ought to call her out for giving orders to the police that her party have made impossible for them. Which on the lines but could be stronger.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: "Pursuing reasonable leads like CCTV is what the police should be doing, but – because of abysmal Tory management – over 90% of crimes go unsolved, the proportion of crimes prosecuted has dropped by more than two-thirds and more criminals are getting off.

"The fact that the Tories are boasting about asking the police to do the basic minimum that victims of crime should rightly expect, whilst failing to tackle the underlying problems they have caused, shows how badly they have failed over the last 13 years."

[Tamas]

I am not with Braverman.
"Investigate all robberies!" she says.
To which a logical police response would be "Aye we'd love to pet but can we have some resources to do that then?"
Someone ought to call her out for giving orders to the police that her party have made impossible for them. Which on the lines but could be stronger.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: "Pursuing reasonable leads like CCTV is what the police should be doing, but – because of abysmal Tory management – over 90% of crimes go unsolved, the proportion of crimes prosecuted has dropped by more than two-thirds and more criminals are getting off.

"The fact that the Tories are boasting about asking the police to do the basic minimum that victims of crime should rightly expect, whilst failing to tackle the underlying problems they have caused, shows how badly they have failed over the last 13 years."

Fair, but it reads like the police chiefs didn't say "give us more money for more officers if you want that!" they said "stop telling us what to do!"

[Josquius]

I am not with Braverman.
"Investigate all robberies!" she says.
To which a logical police response would be "Aye we'd love to pet but can we have some resources to do that then?"
Someone ought to call her out for giving orders to the police that her party have made impossible for them. Which on the lines but could be stronger.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: "Pursuing reasonable leads like CCTV is what the police should be doing, but – because of abysmal Tory management – over 90% of crimes go unsolved, the proportion of crimes prosecuted has dropped by more than two-thirds and more criminals are getting off.

"The fact that the Tories are boasting about asking the police to do the basic minimum that victims of crime should rightly expect, whilst failing to tackle the underlying problems they have caused, shows how badly they have failed over the last 13 years."

Fair, but it reads like the police chiefs didn't say "give us more money for more officers if you want that!" they said "stop telling us what to do!"

Yeah, the police definitely missed an opportunity there.
Maybe that was the trap?- OMG the police wading into politics and telling the government what to do, in the pockets of lefty lawyers , etc....

[Sheilbh]

Fair, but it reads like the police chiefs didn't say "give us more money for more officers if you want that!" they said "stop telling us what to do!"

I don't think it is entirely fair.

There is an impact of austerity but it has largely been unwound in police funding. As noted there are now 2.5% more officers than in 2010 but crime's up 25%. It isn't true across all constabularies (although it'd be worth seeing how that tracks v population changes), and the big decline in response rates and charging rates seems to have happened in the last 7 years - so at the exact point austerity was being unwound.

I think a big part of the issue is leadership. Some of that is political - there are many issues with her but under May this wasn't an issue in the way it is now (she also challenged the police on race and reformed stop and search in a way that transformed the racial imbalance there). But also I think some of that is the leadership of police forces. I've mentioned before but Dick's whole strategy in the Met was moving away from neighbourhood beat policing and responding to "minor" crimes to prioritise police in cars and vans and responding to "major" crimes. I don't think she was alone in that and I think we can say that experiment's failed.

I've posted the article earlier that mentiond the Chief Constable in Greater Manchester who got the force pulled out of special measures in record time by a "back to basics" approach. The revolutionary idea he had was announcing that "officers would investigate all crimes and follow up every reasonable line of inquiry" (so basically what Braverman has said should be the approach nationally). Since then they've increase charges for burglary by 40%, for robbery by 20-25% and for vehicle theft by 50-55%. It turns out that investigating crimes gives you a better chance of solving them.

I think there will be impacts from spending cuts and the decisions made about that. But I think a big part is that we've had the combination of police leadership getting invested in a failed strategy (exemplified by Dick's theory of policing) and political leadership that was primarily a cheerleader for the police rather than challenging them to deliver.

Also I feel like we get this with lots of vested interests in the British system. The police are failing, so the elected politician responsible for policing proposes a change in strategy and it's an attack on operational independence. You see ridiculously short sentences for some crimes and half of legal Twitter logs on to explain why it's actually in line with sentencing guidelines, an elected politican proposes changing sentencing guidelines and it's an assault on the rule of law. There are lots of people and institutions that are very comfortable and don't really want to change even if they're demonstrably failing. I think you see it across every part of British life at the minute - it's one of the reasons why I'm not as negative on Starmer talking up reform rather than just increasing spending, whether he has the appetite to spend political capital on it is another question.

[crazy canuck]

Increased charge rates does not mean more crimes are being solved.  It just means more people are being charged.  Which is highly problematic given the increased changes were a result of political pressure.

[Sheilbh]

Increased charge rates does not mean more crimes are being solved.  It just means more people are being charged.  Which is highly problematic given the increased changes were a result of political pressure.

Sure - but they have a better chance of being solved if the police investigate them enough to charge someone. Although the Manchester ones weren't - they were under regulatory pressure.

Police forces (like schools, fire brigades or NHS trusts) have a regulator/inspector. It placed Greater Manchester Police under special measures. Police forces are assessed from outstanding, good, adequate, requires improvement on various points. If it falls below even those minimum standards it's placed in special measures which basically means enhanced inspections and an improvement plan etc - it's basically the regulator saying they do not trust the organisation to improve itself. There's normally a bit of churn with that and the new Chief Constable came in with his ground-breaking strategy of investigating all crimes and they have been moved out of special measures. Though Manchester's highest rating is "adequate" for recording data about crime and is still inadequate on "investigating crime", "responding to the public" and "developing a positive workplace".

Although fundamentally I don't have an issue with police or any public sector body being subject to political pressure. They are monopoly service providers, they're normally arms length independent bodies with technical regulators and there's no market to respond to - so how else does public dissatisfaction feed into the system? That's part of what elected politicians (and the press) are for. In this case it's Braverman telling the police they need to start investigating all crimes, in May's case it was reform of stop and search and confronting the police over racism, before then it was Labour Home Secretaries pushing on treating victims with more respect/taking a more "victim-centred approach". Politicians can fiddle with the regulatory framework, but they can and should also push publicly.

The most obvious example was Cressida Dick who is, I think suing, because her dismissal was political which it was - but fundamentally that's because she'd absolutely lost the trust of the people of London who she was policing, and the Mayor of London and Home Secretary who she is ultimately responsible to. She might be right legally but it was absolutely the right decision because she didn't have the decency to resign and wasn't capable of leading the Met. When you've lost the confidence of the Mayor, Home Secretary and public I don't think you can actually continue to serve as Met Commissioner, even if your contract runs on for another 3 years. I would be more sympathetic to a hands off approach if we had an accountability culture - but as shown by the executives in the Letby case, or Dick's behaviour and examples in the civil service and armed forces of people failing upwards after their career should have ended, we don't. I've said it a million times before but on Dick - she should not have been in the police after being Gold Commander for the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes and cover up. Instead she moves sideways into counter-terrorism for the intelligence agencies, returns to the police as Commissioner.

And for what it's worth I also think that goes for politics - I am pretty sympathetic to a feral press hounding out ministers because I think things that should be resigning matters are ignored. I think a personal data breach in the PSNI causing police officers to have to move their families for safety reasons should have been a resigning matter at a political level. But we've unfortunately largely got rid of ministerial responsibility as well as responsibility of some public sector bodies to the minister (or mayor) and the public.

Edit: Also what Braverman is saying isn't necessarily to increase charge rates, but that the police should follow up all reasonable lines of inquiry and not ignore "minor crimes". That seems perfectly justifiable for a Home Secretary to do - I think it is likely, as in Manchester, to lead to increase charge rates and probably increased convictions too. And I don't think it's an interference with operational independence.

[mongers]

I'm surprised you have a car that old considering you care a bit more about such things than me. Its not like I'm always looking at number plates, but I do this more than is normal (one of the beauties of having a toddler) and its rare that I see anything from the noughties these days.

Diesels are an iffy point for sure. I do wonder there given for a period it was being pushed that Diesels were the more environmental option whether we could learn from the missold ppi situation and have a generous trade in scheme there. Or hell. Maybe they're already doing this.

I get the point on poorer people being hit by these things more. I can't see an obvious way out of many of them really without going down a silly populist deliberately hurt the middle class just for the sake of spite path. Which is of course something the powers that be would love to see support build for- the more the working and middle class can be at each other's throats the better it is for them.
Ideal world in the future I would like to see a situation where cars are basically something you only own if its your passion or your job or by default you're wealthy enough to not have to think about it. I guess like so much it all comes back around to inequality.
The problem isn't climate change policies falling on the poor- its other policies keeping the poor so very poor.

Tyr's transformation from social/class warrior to a member of the comfortably off middle-class is complete.

[Josquius]

]

Tyr's transformation from social/class warrior to a member of the comfortably off middle-class is complete.

This is the distinction between a working class tribalist (/fascist) and a socialist

Specifically trying to hurt the middle class as the goal in itself is dumb.