Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

I'm very suspicious about this "Birmingham is the largest local authority in Europe" claim 

Paris, for example, the one of the arrondissements, has a lot more people and is both a commune and a department administered by a common council. Even Kent county council has a larger population to administer than Birmingham council; though I suppose the argument there is that there are lesser councils underneath the county level.

May be because Birmingham is a unitary authority while the others have several layers.

Kent County Council for example has no planning powers and in fact hardly any powers at all in the Medway part of the county (population around 275,000) which is governed by a unitary authority.

Agree about Paris though - at least twice the population of Brum.

[Sheilbh]

I'm very suspicious about this "Birmingham is the largest local authority in Europe" claim 

Paris, for example, the one of the arrondissements, has a lot more people and is both a commune and a department administered by a common council. Even Kent county council has a larger population to administer than Birmingham council; though I suppose the argument there is that there are lesser councils underneath the county level.

Yeah I find it a bit baffling too. But I'm assuming there's some explanation (it's possibly something, on some basis that Birmingham City Council has been putting in their own PR ).

My guess is that it's the largest lowest level of government? There's nothing underneath it like boroughs, or district councils etc. So I think arrondissements are a bit like boroughs in London with their own councils and sometimes mayors.

Manchester has importance putting it a few notches up as the biggest city in the north vs second in the south.

As a country we really do ignore the Midlands

And yes. Clever politics to do what they did. But no less despicable for it.
Core reason I could never go into politics. I don't give a shit about power and winning for winnings sake. I see it as the duty of governments to do the smart thing and what is best for the country, not stupid shit that they can get to appeal to a few idiots as happened in Durham..

I think basically everyone in politics thinks their ideas are the smart thing that's best for the country. But politics is about creating the conditions in which you get to do those ideas which can definitely be a bit despicable.

Although there's a lot of overlap on winning for winnings sake and what's best for my country as I think both start with the Tories always losing

Why didn't women move over to the higher paying male dominated jobs?

I don't know. Not sure that's relevant to whether an employer is breaking the law by underpaying women.

Somewhat surprised they didn't have a question specifically on Brexit/EU relations. 

It's just not an issue. Settled for the foreseeable, but I think about 60-70% now think it was a mistake so my guess would be people probably broadly trust Labour more on that too.

[Sheilbh]

Saw this from John Burn-Murdoch:

John Burn-Murdoch
@jburnmurdoch
I think this article officially marks Ultra-Processed Foods™️ graduation into full-blown pseudoscience.

Not sure if my fave is

"A red flag for UPF is if it's made by a multinational company"

or

"Plain salted crisps are not UPFs but flavoured ones are"
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/sep/06/ultra-processed-foods-the-19-things-everyone-needs-to-know

It's absolutely wild having watched science reporters at various papers push back against the claims in the book, Ultra-Processed Food. The wildest claim is the author (who is an infectious diseases doctor) basically doesn't think exercise burns off calories and that was a myth invented by the soft drinks industry.

Obviously "ultra-processed food" is also a fairly contentious definition which covers everything from, say, e- numbers to MSG or emulsifiers to common preservaatives and the scientific evidence is shonky at best. Despite this we've had the author suggesting they shouldn't be labeled or sold as food but "food-like substances". It is, as one science reporter put it, "a media scare, not a scientific discussion – and it relies in large part on an irrational, Luddite fear of the "unnatural"."

Despite this the author's written numerous pieces, often for the Guardian who have done many stories on it. Striking that the one Burn-Murdoch shared is by a travel and feature writer whose other recent articles include a weekend in Shrewsbury, 10 of Britain's best vintage caravan stays and advice on holidaying with friends. The book is a bestseller. And it reminds me of the Guardian's stance on the weight loss drugs, which I think some started recording and there'd been an article a week for the last year and all of them were negative but in loads of different ways.

This is one of the reasons I'm always a little dubious about the whole "epistemic" theory of politics. You are a conspiracy theorist throwing ungrounded accusations at the World Economic Forum/Davos, I am merely asking legitimate questions about whether our entire democratic system has been undermined by a dark money cabal orchestrated by the Kremlin, property developers and The Spectator. In this house we believe in science* (*not availiable in relation to GMOs, "ultra-processed foods", nuclear power, or Wegovy). It just always seems to me like it's primarily about identity and signifying your identity but is disconnected from politics or reality - it's all pure discourse.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know. Not sure that's relevant to whether an employer is breaking the law by underpaying women.

It's relevant to whether the law is dumb.

[Jacob]

Basically "it's not underpaying women because the women in traditionally female jobs could just have gotten better paying traditionally male jobs."

[Sheilbh]

Basically "it's not underpaying women because the women in traditionally female jobs could just have gotten better paying traditionally male jobs."

Yeah I'm not sure what it really adds.

It's not from some new or exciting law, it's about 50 years old. It bans employers from having different payment or conditions/terms for men and women in equivalent roles.

I'm not really sure what the possibility of obtaining another job adds to that.

[Sheilbh]

Doing the rounds tonight as this is quite significant - first time Scottish Labour are level pegging with the SNP since 2007:


We'll see if it holds but Scottish Labour's been clearly doing better under Anas Sarwar since he became leader a couple of years ago, but also the SNP have self-harmed (and it's not clear the divisions and factionalism recently revealed have gone). This has also been visible in some old Brown era stalwarts of Scottish Labour returning to run again. From a Westminster perspective it's a huge deal because if Scotland's in play for Labour, then it makes everything a lot easier (not least because Scotland's the area where FPTP has the most distorting effect).

But it's interesting with the Red Wall poll. As pointed out by many online, so much of the discussion of politics in recent years is around polarisation and also new certainties ("Labour will never win in Scotland again"/"the Red Wall's gone") but that isn't true. I was always a bit more dubious about the Tories permanently winning Red Wall seats and thought they'd borrowed those votes and needed to win them, and that levelling up was the right idea, but would require actually delivering - but I really thought Scottish Labour was pretty much done for until the least year or so.

I've said before but would roll Scotland into this but I actually think our politics are moving in the opposite way to the US', even though that's where we look for lessons (and I think is true across Europe). The US has deep and entrenching polarisation, but I think the story in the UK is a very fluid, very volatile electorate that is actually quite responsive to scandals and delivery. I think what's happening here (and in some way across Western Europe) is that the traditional political identities (Labour, Tory, Liberal) are dying and the new political identities (Remain/Leave, Indy/Unionist) are actually still pretty shallow, possibly ephemeral.

Not sure where it'll ultimately leave us. Negatively, the area where UK is different from the rest of Europe is obviously our electoral system which makes it very, very difficult for new parties to break through. So that combination of dying political identities and an electoral system that prevents the emergence of something new may lead to more and more morbid symptoms piling up. As I say I was doubtful the "re-alignment" under Johnson was permamnent without actually delivering (which was always unlikely because it was under Johnson), but I'm still not sure the electoral map or voters are just going to return to their old blocks. I think the electoral map is still open and in flux and I'm not sure where it ends up...

The fluid electorate helps explain why it's plausible for Starmer to take Labour from it's worst result since 1935 to a potential landslide in one term - very much aided and abetted by the Tories and SNP But I think it also means there's a risk. If there's a very strong showing for Labour, you'd assume the Tories would be out of office for probably at least 3 terms again (like 79-97, 97-2010, 10-23/4) but maybe not. A lot depends on who the Tories pick as leader of the opposition but it feels like Starmer needs to deliver or the Tories could perhaps also go from dreadful result to victory in one term (although I think the country is tired of them, they feel like they've just given up etc - so who knows?)

Oh meanwhile in everything's going wrong - a British army soldier who was being held on remand for breach of the Official Secrets Act and terrorism offences has escaped prison

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah I'm not sure what it really adds.

It's not from some new or exciting law, it's about 50 years old. It bans employers from having different payment or conditions/terms for men and women in equivalent roles.

I'm not really sure what the possibility of obtaining another job adds to that.

The possibility of finding another job allows the signalling function of labor prices to be maintained. "Job X pays more than job Y because there is less labor supply for job Y.  If you want to make more money you should apply for job Y."

[Sheilbh]

Right but the law prohibits employers from paying people differently on the basis of sex, which is what was happening. So I don't really get how it either makes that law dumb or is relevant to it?

Factually I'd also add that my understanding is the issue wasn't base pay but perks, in particular bonuses and time off. Those types of perks aren't necessarily advertised. Most public sector jobs have fixed paybands which are advertised and they are in the same payband as they are equivalent roles in terms of advertisements, skill levels, qualifications etc. So the actual underlying labour price may be different than what's typically being advertised (a banded, publicly available payscale) - in this case it was and the difference was overwhelmingly going to men.

Although I'd add that I wish there was any signalling of labour prices in private setor roles as everything I see is something along the lines of a "competitive pay package" or "market rate pay" etc and it's normally a bit of a kabuki dance while you're being interviewed. It might be more common in the US to have transparency on pay but here except for entry level positions or the public sector, that's not the norm.

[HVC]

In Canada most posting for jobs have a salary range "based on experience" listed. But those ranges are getting larger and less meaningful.

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf

You're describing the law two different ways, one of which I think is dumb and one of which I think is not.

If the law says men and women have to be paid the same for the doing the exact same job, that's great.  No reason they should be paid differently.

Earlier you said the law was that jobs which are similar in terms of qualifications blah blah have to be paid the same.  That's what I think is dumb for the reason I already mentioned.

[Sheilbh]

It's the latter - the law says you're entitled to the same pay and terms and conditions if you're doing "like work" which is where the job and skills are the same or similar, "work rated as equivalent" normally following a fair job evaluation or "work of equal value" which looks at skill, training, responsibility etc.

Edit: I'd add that while that's 50+ year old law, there's also mandatory gender pay gap reporting for most large employers - and I've seen that actually have more of an effect than I expected.

[Sheilbh]

To go with the vertical approval rating, Liz Truss here still discovering new polling depths. For context about 15% of Brits think the moon landings were definitely or probably faked - or another way of looking at it, about the same proportion of Brits think Liz Truss did well as believe they've seen a UFO

[Syt]

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/09/prince-andrew-government-files-secret-until-2065

Prince Andrew's Government Files Will Remain Secret Until 2065: Report

As the controversial royal appears to get closer to Prince William and Kate Middleton, public information requests on his official position have been rebuffed.

Prince Andrew, the royal family member whose decades of troubling behavior would take too much time to recap in full here (though properties like this are certainly a start), has had less of a public presence since a catastrophic interview about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and subsequent settlement of a sex abuse claim by one of Epstein's alleged victims. But journalistic efforts to seek answers about his tenure as Britain's trade ambassador have been stymied by public information laws that offer special dispensation to members of the royal family—and as those investigative doors slam shut, Andrew appears to be returning to his family's good graces.

Biographer Andrew Lownie has written books on (among other topics) the Windsors, Soviet spy Guy Burgess, and the Mountbattens, a pursuit that's involved oft-expensive efforts to access archived and/or public documents as a basis for his reporting. For his latest book, on Andrew, Lownie submitted a Freedom of Information request to the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as well as its Department for Business and Trade.

His goal, Lownie said via X (formerly Twitter), was to gain insights into Andrew's decade-long role as UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, a position the royal held from 2001 until mounting scandals seemingly spurred his departure in 2011. "Many questions remain about his role as trade envoy, a public appointment paid for by the taxpayer," Lownie told the Daily Mail, but Lownie's requests were officially denied.

The reason, it appears, involves special rules that pertain only to official documents related to the royal family. While most government papers are available via the country's National Archives after 20 years, things are different for the royals: Per the Times of London, the king or queen, the heir, and whoever is second in line for the throne are exempt from any public information requests.

Other members of the immediate family, such as Andrew, have a slightly smaller shield: all files on them "must remain sealed until 105 years after the individual's birth," Tatler reports, which means Andrew's work correspondence, travel arrangements, and other activities will remain under wraps until 2065.

Lownie is apparently crossing his fingers that the ascension of King Charles might prompt a change to the longstanding rule, news of which has infuriated Britons. "I would hope with a new reign that only pertinent FOI exemptions such as national security, relations with another country, information given in confidence etc. will be applied alongside data protection considerations," he told the Telegraph. "The delays in release create a vacuum for speculation and fantasists; their release would go some way to restoring trust in institutions, not least the monarchy."

News of Lownie's request comes as royal-watchers speculate that, after a few years on the outs, Andrew is returning to the bosom of his family. On Sunday, Andrew attended church in Balmoral with other members of his family, even riding to services with Prince William and Kate Middleton. But while some caution that the family carpool plan shouldn't be read as a sign that Andrew is going to resume his public duties, others point out how jarring it is that Andrew remains part of the Windsor unit, even as Prince Harry's invitations to family events seem to be lost in the mail.

[Sheilbh]

Good on Lownie for spinning it into a story. The rules that apply to the royal family continue to apply. Although I'm not quite sure what these rules are that he's referring to - I think royal records become historical records (so National Archives) 5-20 years after their death under FOIA. However some documents can be accessed under FOIA, for example, famously, Prince Charles' "black spider" memos to ministers were provided to and published by the Guardian.

I suspect the real challenge on uncovering what Prince Andrew was doing as "international trade envoy" is the bit about "pertinent FOI exemptions such as national security, relations with another country, information given in confidence etc". Because from my understanding he basically spent a lot of time in the Gulf or, say, Kazakhstan encouraging those governments to sell us oil and gas and buy weapons from British companies. He was the front man for British diplomats and government on that (particularly selling arms) to countries who wanted to meet a royal - particularly Gulf monarchies (who I think are possibly the British equivalent of France-Afrique) but also more broadly in MENA and Central Asia.

That's mainly based on years of reporting by Private Eye and there may be other stuff but I think a lot of it would be squarely within those FOI exemptions - and, fraankly, be the shadier side of the British state in any event. Which is probably why they used Andrew in the first place. He's a royal, but minor. Which means the core family in the line of succession can focus on things that are more domestically and internaionally palatable like climate change, rather than glad-handing, say, Colonel Gaddafi to ensure that British weapons are used to prop up autocratic regimes. It'd probably have ended up being Harry's role if he hadn't got out and I imagine will be for one of William's kids.