Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Redwood aficionados have charted some of the locations, from people's back gardens to parks and suburban streets where homes have been built around the trees. But as the redwoods have grown, so have opportunities for conflict, such as in Canons Drive in Edgware, north London, where some residents are fighting to protect an avenue of giant sequoias under threat from insurance companies concerned about roots undermining the houses.

Thats nice I guess?
Usually it'd be the home owners going "OMG the tree gets leaves on my car. Kill it at once!"

Trees have an enduring appeal to people. Last year, researchers at Derby University found that people value trees more highly than their neighbours, while forest bathing – a western interpretation of the Japanese practice of relaxation known as shinrin-yoku – has grown in popularity.

OK, where did they do this study? I need to live here.
Though Japan isn't a great thing to mention when speaking about tree preservation...They destroyed most of their native forests to replace them with dead and lifeless timber plantations.
Which incidentally I wonder how local species react to these giants. I guess they're probably pretty compatible?

I  do like the potential bio punk vibes...
And how about some propagandising along "Don't let trees win. Lets show them who is boss and build taller!" lines?

[Sheilbh]

Thats nice I guess?
Usually it'd be the home owners going "OMG the tree gets leaves on my car. Kill it at once!"

Is it?

I mean we all like a bit of greenery but not roots that can undermine an entire street rendering it uninhabitable (and these are still babies comparatively, so you suspect it might even affect other streets).

OK, where did they do this study? I need to live here.

You do

Edit: I am very much not surprised to discover that Brits like x random bit of nature more than their neighbours.

Though Japan isn't a great thing to mention when speaking about tree preservation...They destroyed most of their native forests to replace them with dead and lifeless timber plantations.

Same in Scotland. Why I found the panic over the privatisation of the Forestry Commission a bit strange because I don't think they do what people think they do (having lived near Forestry Commission land).

Which incidentally I wonder how local species react to these giants. I guess they're probably pretty compatible?

I suppose we'll find out

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Once you start seeing ewoks then you know the redwoods were too successful.

[HVC]

Givin their long life span and slow reproductive speed I'm surprised they're not ravaged by disease.

[HVC]

People in general suck at ornamental trees. Be it at the personal or city planning level. You have ginko, which either is a super allergen or stinks depending on gender. Some guy wanted fancy Chinese chestnut trees and annihilated the once massive North American population. Death trap Bradford Pears. List goes on. Add giant trees in places giant trees shouldn't be to the list, I guess

[garbon]

Does British breakfast television aim to have same tenor of local news? Like if I look at more local news sites like https://www.mylondon.news/ and https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/ a lot of the articles are all about terrible happenings.

Since WFH, I'ved started seeing a bit more of BBC's and ITV's breakfast programmes. I've noticed they always love to cover some sort of terminal illness, be that MND where we got to see a rugby star degrade in real time as his condition got progressively worse, or the perpetually en vogue topic cancer.

This morning seemed particularly bad as in 30 minutes with BBC breakfast I learned about a man stabbed to death in a club, a woman who died as patients are being mislead as to what physician associates are and can do and then this morning detailed analysis of the bridge collapse in Baltimore. This included a slo-mo version of the footage so they could point out the workers on the bridge that fell into the river as well as cars that had just managed to make it off the bridge before the boat hit.

Not the most pleasant start to a day.

[Syt]

Givin their long life span and slow reproductive speed I'm surprised they're not ravaged by disease.

You mean British people?

[Syt]

Got into a discussion today with my Ukrainian colleague. She's generally well read on politics and current affairs. She argued that on the whole Brexit was good for Britain, as they are now more sovereign, and with the power of their financial markets are now able to secure quite favorable trade deals with other partners and better control immigration.

I argued that Brexit was good - but for the EU, because a member that was a constant naysayer leveraging their veto into ever bigger concession was removed from the scene.

In hindsight, I think we're both wrong.

[Josquius]

Got into a discussion today with my Ukrainian colleague. She's generally well read on politics and current affairs. She argued that on the whole Brexit was good for Britain, as they are now more sovereign, and with the power of their financial markets are now able to secure quite favorable trade deals with other partners and better control immigration.

I argued that Brexit was good - but for the EU, because a member that was a constant naysayer leveraging their veto into ever bigger concession was removed from the scene.

In hindsight, I think we're both wrong.

She's read all right, but I wouldn't say "well"

[Sheilbh]

I think both of those points are probably right, but that (in both cases) the positives, or potential positives, don't outweigh the negatives (although I am more convinced by the upside for the EU).

I'd slightly quibble on the description of UK-EU relations though. The UK was not Hungary, for a start it was a net contributor - but it didn't constantly veto or cause issues on day to day European business to leverage concessions. There was a rebate negotiated by Thatcher 40 years ago and opt outs (for UK and Denmark) in Maastricht 30 years ago. The only veto I can think of was Cameron during the Euro crisis - the UK didn't often use it's veto. Not least because EU decision making normally doesn't go into that yes/no division by design.

Having said that in the last 4-5 years since Brexit I think there's stuff the EU has done that would have been impossible with the UK in (or that the UK would have opted out of) - particularly vaccine procurement (the EU in our precious NHS ), or covid recovery fund with the first EU debt issuance for example. On the other hand the EU has become far, far more inter-governmental in decision making in the last few years, I think mainly driven by the Eurozone crisis (I think there's something like a European Council a week now), and far, far less Commission driven as in the 80s and 90s, which was always the UK's preference.

I've no doubt that the UK would have rejected the European constitution and Lisbon if they'd have gone to a referendum. But they didn't because the constitution was scapped after the votes in the Netherlands and France. Lisbon was rejected and re-written following the Irish vote.

I think that points to what I think is a bigger issue which is that I think the EU is at the edge of what it can do on its current model (and I think legally it is at the very edge, or over the cliff, of what's possible under the treaties). The next step would be more fundamental reform which would require a treaty change - but, no-one wants to do a new treaty because of the trauma of the Dutch and French rejections. Recalcitrant member states are, I think, less of an issue than the institutions at the edge of their power and the governed not having confidence that they'll have the democratic consent of the governed for the next stage. The EU can always (and normally does) get around an unhappy member state - the nerves about re-opening the treaties is, I think, deeper.

[Josquius]

Good words from Gordon Brown. Major unfinished business vibes from the man. Wonder if he feels partially guilty for failing to call an election at the right time and opening the door to the last decade and a half of misery?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/27/britain-seems-stuck-in-a-doom-loop-of-poverty-i-have-a-plan-to-raise-billions-to-address-that

Britain seems stuck in a doom loop of poverty. I have a plan to raise billions to address that
Gordon Brown

With will and ingenuity, communities, charities, companies and government could work together to rescue millions of people

An election year is the time to confront the paralysing gloom and declinist thinking besetting our country and, by rediscovering our moral compass, inaugurate a new age of hope.

The British people long to feel part of a shared national endeavour. But instead, near-zero growth is giving birth to a zero-sum mentality, a belief that you can only do better if at someone else's expense. Young people – historically the most optimistic about the future – yearn to believe in something bigger than themselves, yet this generation is fast losing faith in the very idea of progress. But the most devastating twist in this doom loop is the one created by rising poverty, the despair and divisions it causes, and the mounting public concern about its impact on our social cohesion. To break out of this downward spiral, Britain needs a reason for optimism – and a good starting point is a new partnership to end destitution and poverty that, by bringing charities, companies, communities and government together in a common national project, shows the United Kingdom can be united in more than just name.

For these are desperate times for today's poor children. That 4.3 million children – a number equivalent to four cities the size of Birmingham – were last week declared to be below the official poverty line is shameful enough, but on the ground we are now witnessing types of penury we once imagined we had consigned to history. Children now form 1.5 million of the 6 million people enduring 'very deep' poverty, living not only below the standard breadline, drawn at 60% of the typical income, but below 40%. One million children are thought to have had a recent brush with 'destitution', defined as being without the absolute basics: keeping warm, dry, clean, housed and fed.

Last night, 140,000 children were homeless, and 1.1 million youngsters tried to go to sleep without a bed of their own; it is estimated that 2.6 million children are missing out on meals. No society can or should be at ease when children are being brought up in houses without heating, kitchens without cookers, bedrooms without beds, floors without floor covering, or toilets without toilet roll or soap. And all the evidence is that, unless we act, things will get even worse.

But how to fix it? Three seismic shifts have unfolded over the last decade. First, the welfare safety net has been systematically shredded, with the government abandoning responsibilities taken for granted since 1945. Second, charities and food banks, which have taken over from universal credit as the last line of defence, are exhausted and justifiably angry about having to pick up the pieces with insufficient resources. They even fear their desperate relief efforts could provide cover for the government walking further away. Third, unsure how they fit into a poverty-free, pollution-free future, the corporate sector has in the last decade donated less, not more. Yet the many business leaders who are now championing a greater sense of environmental and social responsibility know they can, and should, play a bigger role.

With Jeremy Hunt now hinting at an autumn mini-budget, this government has a last chance to break with the past decade and offer hope to millions by setting out a firm timetable for abolishing destitution and ending extreme poverty.

There can be no ducking the changing nature of the poverty we are addressing. A generation ago, worklessness was the overwhelming cause. Today, nearly three poor children in four live in a working household and no government can perpetuate the myth any more that the majority of our poor people are workshy or part of a dependency culture. Alongside a root-and-branch review of universal credit to reflect this, we should be raising the pay floor, creating new opportunities to climb the career ladder including through better skills (today only one in six on low pay ever escape low pay), and rewiring the various markets – for utilities, travel, rented housing and childcare – that are currently skewed against poorer families. We should offer NHS help to those who are sick and economically inactive to restore their fitness before delivering any lectures on laziness.

But action cannot await reviews and phased reforms, however necessary. Were the government to declare the end of poverty to be a national goal and set clear deadlines, there would be a way out of the current emergency. Then it could credibly invite charities, corporations and community and civil society groups to join a time-limited partnership to alleviate poverty now. Only then will it be understood that the shared goal is not to for ever fall back on food banks in place of the necessary long-term solutions, but to create immediate breathing space as government transitions us away from mass poverty.

Within the bounds of the fiscal envelope, government can build on the £1bn a year that has until now been allocated to the household support fund. A start could be made with between £1.3bn and £3.3bn found by imposing a similar reserve requirement on banks that the European Central Bank, the Swiss and others currently do (and we once did), thus hypothecating for poverty eradication a small fraction of what banks currently receive in interest payments on their balances at the Bank of England.

By simplifying the Gift Aid system, £700m of ancillary relief, which currently can end up being back with higher-earning donors, can go straight to good causes. And the Chancellor's autumn statement could also offer additional time-limited tax incentives to encourage more giving. The top 1% donate overall just 0.2% of their income – that's just £538 a year from average incomes of £271,000. But if that top 1% were incentivised to donate just 1%, £1.4 billion a year could be raised for good causes.

Some companies take corporate philanthropy seriously, but overall their donations represent just 0.8% of the pretax profits of FTSE 100 companies. But even if the real value of their donations had remained at its level of ten years ago, good causes would now be at least £5bn better off.

For the period of this current emergency, companies should consider donating more of their surplus products – and so reduce pollution as well as poverty. But if they cannot give free of charge, they should offer to sell to charities essential goods – toothpaste, nappies, toilet rolls, soap and shampoo, as well as food – at production cost or less.

If we share the discounted cost, and if families are referred through social workers, teachers, health visitors and GPs as well as food banks, we would be getting vital goods to those too impoverished to buy, and doing so in the most cost-effective way. Indeed, in the pilot phase of the new Multibanks – which sit alongside food banks and are food, clothes, bedding, toiletries, furnishings, and baby banks rolled into one – every £1 donated has procured supplies worth £5 in value.

This partnership is not a permanent or comprehensive solution. It would be a one- or two-year transitional arrangement, which would only succeed if the government offers benefit improvements that exceed the value of what others provide in kind. It would not be the end of poverty, but it is the signal the whole country needs: the beginning of the end. It would address the costs crippling families now, and create the headroom in which to fix our welfare safety net. With communities, charities, companies and government working together to deliver a shared national goal, we can rapidly banish destitution, and support the 2,600 food banks in their ambition to make themselves redundant – and a divided country can find unity, and hope, again.

[/quote]

[Sheilbh]

That strikes me as very Brownite

Profound and clear-eyed moral righteousness, big, strong ambitions - all delivered through minor tweaks/complications and, in part, relying on a prosperous City of London. Not against it but very on-brand.

I'm not sure he would have won in 2007 either, but agree on the sense of unfinished business - it's arguably always been his problem. He had a sense of unfinished business even while he was Chancellor.

On Canada 93 interesting to see Farage reportedly talking about whether the Reform Party can actually function like the Reform Party did in Canada - presumably imagining a future merger with himself in charge. I think if he were to get involved and lead Reform it would transform their chances and impact - add that to the risk of Lib Dem tactical voters in Tory heartlands. I know there are many differences but there's more and more talk of it as a genuine possibility.

All of which is possibly why there's reports that Number 10 is actually considering a summer election - apparently Sunak among those arguing that they can't carry on like this and that actually the longer they hold on the worse the results are likely to be. I think one of the best arguments for a May election (from a Tory perspective) was that it would coincide with local elections. Local councillors and activists might not be particularly enthused about campaigning for an unpopular, doomed government but they would get out there for each other at the local level. As it is, currently likely to have an autumn election - so unpopular government, bad weather, loads of councillors who've lost their seats (because of the government's unpopularity). It could get even worse (God willing)

[Sheilbh]

Well I'm glad feminism has finally won - on the all male, elite Garrick Club:

emily m
@maitlis
BREAKING : I've been given sight of a formal letter proposing the names of several women to become the first female members of the Garrick club - inc former Home Secretary Amber Rudd. This comes ahead of a crucial club meeting April 4th  -which will bring this matter to a head 1/
Also on the proposed Garrick members list:
actor Juliette Stevenson, classicist Dame Mary Beard, broadcaster Ayesha Hazarika, broadcaster Cathy Newman, Globe Theatre Chair Margaret Casely-Hayford, former Court of Appeal Judge Elizabeth Gloster...2/
Among those Garrick members proposing the first female members are: Jeffrey Jowell KC, Sir Simon Jenkins, Anthony Peto KC, Andrew Green KC, Lord Andrew Tyrie, broadcaster Matt Frei, broadcaster James Mates, Prof Simon Heffer and actor Stephen Fry . 3/
The letter to the Garrick chairman, the general committee and the Garrick trustees states that the women candidates' forms are being 'prepared and signed as soon as possible so that their candidacies may be processed in the usual manner'. The letter goes on......
'Please confirm that they are eligible for membership (of the Garrick) and that they will be considered on the same basis as men. ' ENDS

Those new members would fit in, as the list of the current members makes clear.

Said on this earlier but thing that struck me was how old school establishment this is. Only 10 MPs, but multiple judges, over 100 KCs, senior civil servants, MI6 chief, heads of quangos, arts bodies (including ones that are meant to be the more radical space - like ENO or the Royal Court), luvvies. In a way it's strikingly non-political.

Also loved the gossipy bit on this all being published in the Guardian:

>> OnlyMans <<
Sinking the membership

The Guardian's really been gunning for the Garrick Club this week over their refusal to admit women, even going so far as to name and shame a long list of the private club's most prominent male members.

One name absent from the list was ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger's – but that's probably because he already rescinded his membership in a fit of pique. Not over the membership panel's treatment of women, but because of their treatment of one of his nominations: Lord Myners.

Alan put the former chairman of the Guardian parent group forward for membership but the panel rejected him. They were unimpressed with Lord Myners' apparent involvement in a £100m offshore tax dodge, and very disapproving of his favourable handling of Fred "The Shred" Goodwin during his time as Gordon Brown's City Minister.

So they do have some decency.


FYI: One Garrick Club member who appears to have been spared the naming and shaming is Stanley Johnson. Who just so happens to be the father-in-law of the aptly named journalist leading the Guardian's coverage... Amelia Gentleman!

Only real answer is burn it all down

[PJL]

I think a June election is most likely, my guess is that Sunak will call an election before the end of April, or at the latest the week after the local elections.

Alternatively I reckon he'll resign as PM/Tory leader after the local elections, but only if he feels that there is a consensus for a caretaker PM to lead the final 6 months or so to at least steady the ship and least recover something from the inevitable defeat. My money is Gove being that caretaker PM, Nobody likes him, but he fits the bill as being somewhat competent and a safe pair of hands to lead the party. Furthermore he didn't contest the last leadership election and hence has no permanent ambition to be PM, and also he has a safe seat.

As for Farrage leading Reform, I think he needs to decide on this very quickly, latest next week to fully capitalise any possible gains in the locals and a springboard for the general election.

[Admiral Yi]

What political space is Farrage trying to occupy now that Brexit is done?