Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

How do people in the UK typically prove their ID?

With great difficulty.
You generally need a utility bill... But to get your name on a utility you need to prove your ID.
My gf had an absolute nightmare getting a bank account when she moved over.

And fraud isn't kept in check.
It's an easy solution to illegal immigration too.
But that'd be too easy.

Oh yes, that was so fun...

[Sheilbh]

How is fraud and similar kept in reasonable check (if it is)?

Remote fraud - especially online - basically isn't. It's a common stat the government likes that excluding cyberfraud, crime has been falling for 30+ years. That might have worked at one point, but it's now excluding the crime with the highest number of victims (and about 40% of all recorded crime) which seems like a sub-optimal approach to policing. That's largely things like cold calling for scams like "you've recently been in an accident and are due compensation", fake charities, fake pet sales, phishing etc.

I think stats for the categories that are more focused on, like identity theft or benefit fraud are very low.

My gf had an absolute nightmare getting a bank account when she moved over.

Weirdly I've heard this has got a lot easier because of some education by the state following the Hong Kong BNO scheme and Ukrainian refugees. Basically a big push training banks etc on what they needed to do rather than just a checklist.

[The Brain]

Seems that having a national ID system would indeed be an improvement both for the UK and for individual Brits.

As a sidenote, I seem to recall some UK people talking about what having a national ID card would mean (and maybe confusing this with a national ID system) and worrying about police state aspects. For clarity, Sweden has a national ID card. It is not mandatory to have one, and you certainly aren't required by law to carry around an ID card.

[Sheilbh]

Seems that having a national ID system would indeed be an improvement both for the UK and for individual Brits.

As a sidenote, I seem to recall some UK people talking about what having a national ID card would mean (and maybe confusing this with a national ID system) and worrying about police state aspects. For clarity, Sweden has a national ID card. It is not mandatory to have one, and you certainly aren't required by law to carry around an ID card.

Yeah - this wws the opposition. It was Tony Blair's big idea after about 2005 as a catch-all solution to everything: domestic security/counter-terrorism, immigration enforcement, benefit fraud. Which is why there was a lot of civil libertarian pushback against it.

That's still, to an extent, the argument - especially with the whole idea of the database state. As people rightly point out that basically the state already has all this information - but the point is they can't really link it, which an ID system would.

I do find that argument fairly sympathetic. For example when Darmanin complained that a pull factor for illiegal migrants to the UK was the lack of a national ID system and police couldn't ask people to prove that they have a right to be here, I feel like that's a good thing. I think their could be benefits, I'm not sure it'll be a panacea, I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing to hobble the state in this way and I'm almost certain I'm not someone who'll get asked for my papers very often (and I generally think reducing the opportunities for the police to demand things of people is generally a good thing).

Edit: To be clear Blair's idea was  a mandatory national ID system - though you wouldn't be legally required to carry it.

[Tamas]

With the system (so to speak) in place in the UK, I am pretty sure I have repeatedly given various private and state organisations, or rather their employees, every personal data they'd need to steal my identity online. It is a bit concerning.

Then again that's in part because of the greatest difference between the UK and Eastern Europe: in the UK the default position authorities and organisations take is that you are honest and approaching them with an honest request and that's how you are treated until proven otherwise. That results in lax attitudes and what seems to be a high vulnerability to fraud (and I am not even mentioning things like no ID check and then a use of a PENCIL when voting at an election ), of course, but also results in a quite liveable society.

In Eastern Europe the opposite is true. Not officially of course but in practice - you are assumed to be wasting an organisation's time and/or looking to take advantage of them, until you are able to prove otherwise. It's a very frustrating way to live.

[crazy canuck]

A "six figure salarly" does not mean what it used to mean and especially when the first number in that six figures starts with a 1.

It doesn't mean you're filthy rich.
It does mean you're more than comfortable and wouldnt really be hurt by losing a thousand a month though you would notice it.

Depends where you live.

Yeah, that would not be accurate in Vancouver.

[crazy canuck]

I thought March 19 would be the more important date for you Sheilbh.

What's March 19?

I believe that was the date they did away with the House of Lords.

[Sheilbh]

Please don't become a #BringPens person

I always think our very highly distributed, entirely paper based check in a box next to the candidate's name voting system is archaic - but actually because of it very secure and probably quite difficult to ever interfere with. Similarly counting votes being done by local council workers in a leisure centre (with party observers) that are announced as soon as the counting is done, is archaic but weirdly I think it's secure. In both cases I think it fundamentally builds trust in our electoral system which is broadly good.

But yeah I think basically despite everything we are fundamentally fairly high trust society and I do wonder if that can survive the internet/de-personalisation of everyday services/life. I hope so because I think there are lots of benefits even if you are more at risk to a bad actor.

I believe that was the date they did away with the House of Lords.

I didn't know.

Although it was (and still is) the right decision I'm not keen on unicameralism, so bring on the House of the Nations and the Regions.

[Jacob]

Germany thought so too until it did a census.

 

[Zanza]

I always think our very highly distributed, entirely paper based check in a box next to the candidate's name voting system is archaic - but actually because of it very secure and probably quite difficult to ever interfere with. Similarly counting votes being done by local council workers in a leisure centre (with party observers) that are announced as soon as the counting is done, is archaic but weirdly I think it's secure. In both cases I think it fundamentally builds trust in our electoral system which is broadly good.

That's what we have too. What's supposed to be the problem with that?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Read an article today about council tax that I found surprising. It seems that in England council tax, which I gather are closely analogous to our property taxes in America, haven't assessed the value of the properties taxed since the early 1990s. That is weird to me, I am guessing maybe they aren't a major funding source? In the U.S. property taxes are the primary funding source for local government services, typically including police, fire, street maintenance and etc. They also are a major portion of local schools funding (schools are typically funded by a 3-tiered system, wealthier districts lavishly fund schools from the high property taxes they collect, and State and Federal funds are supplementary, poorer districts the State and Federal funds are the lion's share of the school funding due to the anemic property tax base.)

It is typical in the U.S. for local government tax assessors to assess the valuation of homes every 3 years or so, and adjust property taxes accordingly.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/bills/council-tax/nearly-half-homes-pay-more-council-tax-buckingham-palace/

Nearly half of homes pay more council tax than Buckingham Palace
Millions of households charged more than £1,828 paid by King's Westminster residence

Madeleine Ross,
 MONEY REPORTER and
Ben Butcher
2 February 2024 • 2:10pm

Close to half of all households are now charged higher rates of council tax than those levied on Buckingham Palace, data shows.

Some 46pc of households, or 11.6 million homes, now pay more than the £1,828 band H council tax rate charged on the King's Westminster residence. This is up from 32pc of households – some 7.5 million homes – in 2011-2012.

Meanwhile a home in the same council tax band in Rutland, home to Britain's highest council tax rates, will pay £4,843 this year – more than double.

Some of the most expensive council tax areas include Lewes in Sussex, Gateshead in Kent, Nottingham, Dorset and Oxford, all of which will pay more than £4,660 on band H properties this year.

Since 2012, the average Westminster council tax has increased by just £211.

The change is dwarfed by the likes of Elmbridge in Surrey and Wokingham in Berks, among others, where the tax has increased by £742 over the same period, according to analysis of Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities figures.

It comes amid calls for the council tax system, which is based on property valuations dating back to the early 1990s, to be reviewed. The regime has not undergone significant reform since, despite vast changes in house prices.

Successive governments have resisted calls to revalue properties for tax purposes, as such a move would likely result in significantly higher bills for many – particularly in London and the South East.

The levy has been described as "indefensible" by the Institute of Fiscal Studies think tank. However, the Government rejected calls for council tax reform on Thursday.

It said that changes would be expensive and would penalise pensioners on low incomes, who might not be able to afford to remain in their homes if council tax bills were increased.

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, said: "Any sort of fundamental reform at this stage would probably risk a level of instability in the system that would not justify any of the potential benefits."

It is in stark contrast to Wales, where properties are to be revalued for council tax purposes for the first time in close to 20 years. The Welsh government announced in November it was consulting on potential overhaul of the outdated system "designed to make the tax fairer".

The main body of Buckingham Palace does not attract council tax, but rather pays business rates. However, several properties within the palace pay band H council tax, according to the City of Westminster Council.

These include the Royal Lodge and the Gardeners Lodge, found within Buckingham Palace's gardens, as well as apartments within the Crown Equerry's House, located within the Royal Mews.

Other properties within the mews, including the Chief Clark's apartment and the "Surgery Flat", fall into council tax bands G and F respectively.

'I'm a plumber – so why do I pay more than the palace?'
Richard Smallwood, a plumber from Lewes, said he had been shocked by the increase in his council tax when he moved from Westminster to the East Sussex town in 2009.

He said: "We moved from London, from Westminster, so we were paying hardly anything. The services there, I took it for granted, having lived there for ages.

"I never really thought about it being an unmanageable cost or not good value, because it is such good value there. If anything, we probably didn't need the services as much there."

He now pays more than £2,000 on his band E, four-bedroom house.

John Stevenson, Conservative MP for Carlisle, said: "The current system does seem to be unfairly affecting those who live in more modest homes and have more modest incomes. There is an inequality in the council tax system that does need a fundamental overhaul."

He added that on his home in his constituency he pays £266 a month, or nearly £2,700 a year – almost £1,000 more than the rates charged on the palace.

Andrew Dixon, chairman of campaign group Fairer Share, said: "People up and down the UK are sick to the back teeth of council tax. They overwhelmingly want a fairer system in its place that reflects the true value of their homes."

Buckingham Palace was contacted for comment.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - it is a major source of revenue for local government. It's one of the problems in the UK is that local government basically depends on money from central government and then two highly regressive property taxes - one is council tax and the other is business rates. Both are basically tied to property value of bricks and mortar spaces. Council tax in general is about half of council's revenue - with the other half being split between central government funding and business rates.

The context of council tax in particular was that it was a replacement for Thatcher's poll tax which millions of people refused to pay, caused riots and ultimately was a bit contributing factor in the party getting rid of her.

The way it works in theory is that you basically have bands which move from, I think, 50% of a full rate for the lowest valued properties up to 200% full rate for the highest valued (with various exceptions - like students). And the intention was that there would be regular re-valuations with properties moving up and down bands. The problem was it was introduced in the early 90s and between it being introduced in the early 90s and the next re-valuation in the early 2000s, this happened:


Re-valuing was going to be unpopular and it would be a massive ask that would probably involve having to fully re-assess all properties and re-basing all of the bands, which no-one wanted to do.  And a massive job. I think the council tax came in in 1993-4, but the vluation was 1991 because there was just a lot of work involved. The solution, for councils, was regular above inflation rises to council tax rates - obviously that also became very unpopular so in 2010 the coalition basically capped how much councils could raise taxes (they could go higher but would need to hold a local referendum). They also cut central funding for local government in half. So we ended up in the worst of all worlds with the historic (and often fictional bands/valuations) and also fairly frozen rates.

It does mean we have the weirdness of new build properties having to be valued to work out what they would have cost in 1991 so they can get allocated into a council tax band.

There is a need for big reform in local government finance - in my view the priority should be making it less dependent on the whims of local government and based more on income so there's an incentive in encouraging growth (and less punishment for small businesses that have physical premises). But it's going to be a massive task (at least a couple of years of a minister's time), it has history of toppling one of our most successful PMs because she got it wrong/it was perceived as unfair, it's quite nerdy and doesn't really move voters in the way, say, the NHS does. But it will need to happen at some point.

In a way it's not unlike getting rid of national insurance which basically everyone thinks will be a good idea but no-one really wants to do because it's difficult, complicated and no-one'll thank you for it. Arguably that's the problem with a lot of reform.

Edit: Although local authorities aren't that involved in funding schools. Education is largely funded centrally on a per pupil basis (with bonuses, for example, for kids who need free school meals or have SEND). But they fund lots of other stuff - most importantly social services/social care for the elderly and children, as well as, as you say, roads, bin collection, parks, libraries etc.

The other side of this is that council tax hits people and businesses as a proportion of income more in poor areas. This is somewhat mitigated by transfers - comparison with Germany below showing quite the extent to which we have lots of fiscal transfers to try to equalise results. The argument that author (and I) would make is that's probably all tied together - we have large fiscal transfers to offset the impact of inequality because regions aren't empowered and don't really collect revenue from growth - in a vicious cycle:


Edit: And we'll see but the next Labour government might try to pick this up because they have been talking a fair bit about local government reform and decentralisation. Problem I suspect is that it's easy to talk about politicially, but Whitehall (and especially the Treasury) will be less keen on actually losing any of the power and control they have.

[Sheilbh]

Mentioned in the Canadian thread, but this columnist is very, very well connected into Starmer's team so thought this may be of interest there given interest Labour are now taking in Poilievre.

Struck again by the outsize influence of Australian politics in the UK though - interesting to see Labor big wigs helping Labour refine their message, while the Tory campaign chief is again (as in every election since, I think 2005, Australian):

Why Labour's drawn to a Canadian conservative
As centre-left leaders around the world are toppled or weakened, the party is finding inspiration in surprise quarters
Patrick Maguire
Thursday February 01 2024, 9.00pm, The Times

Last month a small group of Sir Keir Starmer's parliamentary candidates took a trip to the United States. In time Westminster will come to know these people as the rising stars of Labour's 2024 intake: Zubir Ahmed, the consultant cardiologist from Glasgow; Lucy Rigby, the City solicitor in Northampton; Kanishka Narayan, the Old Etonian scholarship boy and civil servant in the Vale of Glamorgan; Kirsty McNeill, the charity executive and adviser to Gordon Brown in Midlothian; Hamish Falconer, son of the New Labour grandee Charlie and a Foreign Office diplomat in Lincoln. As Clive Tyldesley said of the young Wayne Rooney, remember the name.

Accompanied by minders from party HQ and the Blairite ginger group Progressive Britain, they went to see what they might learn about winning elections and running governments from President Biden — from inside the beltway of Washington DC to the Bible belt of Kentucky.

The Progressive Policy Institute, favoured think tank of the White House, put them in front of members of Congress. These influential Democrats and MPs-to-be discussed infrastructure investment, housing and childcare. But looming over every round-table chat was an inconvenient truth. If the polls and presidential primaries are to be believed, Donald Trump is returning to the White House. Bidenomics may have delivered $1 trillion in subsidies for industry in swing states, hundreds of thousands of new jobs and 3.3 per cent GDP growth but it won't deliver its namesake a second term.

Everywhere Starmer looks, his lodestars are fading. Much of Labour's own economic thinking is predicated on the assumption that Biden has a winning formula. Who could say that with any certainty now?

Olaf Scholz, Germany's social democrat chancellor, convinced Team Starmer that they too could win an election — and lure voters cut adrift by globalisation — with a candidate low on charisma. Respect, the watchword of Scholz's campaign, now punctuates Starmer's speeches. But German voters are not repaying Scholz in kind. The economy has flatlined, farmers are protesting in the streets, the courts have nixed the government's green budget and his party is a distant third in the polls.

Australia's Labor prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is another poster boy for Starmerism but he too would be likely to lose office were an election held tomorrow, as would Canada's Justin Trudeau. And in October, New Zealand's Labour Party lost by a landslide.

These are salutary lessons for a Labour Party that makes much of what it learns from sister parties abroad. Last year Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, met her Democratic opposite number, Janet Yellen, and set out her plans for a Labour Treasury. Starmer sent staff to campaign with Chris Hipkins, the vanquished Kiwi prime minister. Albanese's advisers are helping to hone the combative Labour lines you will hear on your doorstep and read on your social media feeds when the general election comes. Trudeau's campaign manager visited London this week.

Starmer's inner circle describe their counterparts as "the best in the world" when it comes to selling social democracy to sceptical voters. But what do they do now voters disagree?

That question weighs heavily on the anxious minds of Starmer's own strategists who insist, despite nearly 800 days of evidence to the contrary, that the opinion polls here are volatile. To win once and then lose badly would be no victory at all. The waning fortunes of their faraway friends are warnings from the future, of which two are receiving close attention.

The first, unsurprisingly enough, is America. Biden's failure to generate electoral returns from his investments in industrial policy is one of the things last month's Labour delegation discussed. Back at home, the leadership has reached a conclusion that is, at first reading, difficult to reconcile with its now relaxed attitude to bankers' bonuses (tax raids on private schools and private equity funds will still go ahead). Those shaping Starmer's own electoral offer believe Biden has not done enough to redistribute wealth. Impressive growth figures mean little, they argue, unless workers feel the benefit. Instead it is really only American executives and shareholders who are feeling flush with the fruits of state stimulus and many billions more from private investors.

Once you crack that, it is easy to understand why planning reform is the one Labour policy that has not died by a thousand cuts. Strip away Starmer's commitment to housebuilding and he has very little to say. It was the centrepiece of his speech to Labour conference in October and again when he addressed business leaders yesterday. Rising house prices have made asset millionaires of the middle classes in London and the southeast. Where house prices and with it household wealth are lower, voters have moved right. Labour wants mass housebuilding to arrest that trend.

While its leadership is now prepared to speak favourably of the record of the divisive Ramsay MacDonald and his mayfly government of 1924 — distinguished only by its housebuilding programme and unusually praised in presentations at a Labour staff awayday last month — Starmer's housing developments will primarily be private and not social. This stuff is about bank balances as much as bricks and mortar.

And that is a lesson the Labour leadership is learning from Canada: not from Trudeau, but from his Conservative opponent. Pierre Poilievre, a libertarian culture warrior whose answer to energy insecurity is to drill more oil than ever, would appear to be a strange bedfellow for the British centre left. When Canada's Conservatives are invoked in Westminster it is usually to predict the sort of apocalyptic fate for Rishi Sunak that befell the prime minister Kim Campbell in 1993, when she lost all but two of her seats.

Today their leader is a gifted communicator who speaks incessantly of his lower-middle-class upbringing in an unfashionable Calgary suburb, the cost of living, and "building homes, not bureaucracy" — a slogan that has influential admirers in Labour HQ. Most often seen in his shirtsleeves, his rhetorical style is somewhere between that of a YouTuber and a televangelist. This sort of line is his stock in trade: "When the people who build our houses cannot afford to live in them, we have a fundamentally unjust economy, my friends." Today his poll lead stands at 15 percentage points.

Starmer is likely to spend the next election following Poilievre's example. He has never been a confident stump speaker but I hear he is now asking his aides for lists of bullet points to be delivered off the cuff, not reams of paper at a lectern. So the leader of the British left will go to the country doing the same thing as the firebrand of the Canadian right: speaking from the heart about housebuilding.

I am always surprised by how few people in Westminster know of Pierre Poilievre. But Labour is taking note of his success. Remember the name.

[Josquius]

1: Blairite ginger?
2: So this Canadian guy is a nutty libertarian yet he goes on about house prices and the economy being unjust?
Those things don't seem to connect.

[Admiral Yi]

How is a tax on property regressive?