Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I mean, the Guardian in proper fashion blames Deliveroo and Uber (not sure what for, for not granting them citizenship, or giving them a livelihood?) but the point is that apparently there's a whole street of illegals living merrily in the middle of Bristol in caravans. I didn't know it was that out in the open.

This is the point the French government always make.

If it's a left-wing minister that Britain has a very open labour market that is ripe for exploitation in the grey market which is a magnet for migration. If it's a right-wing minister that Britain doesn't have ID systems or legal requirements to register residence so the police can't basically do "ID please" sweeps. They're both sort of the same point and sort of true - you can kind of disappear. Which is why Blair, since 2005, has basically seen a national ID card system for everyone is the solution to lots of things

The other side of that - which I still sympathise with more - is that the fewer pretexts we give for the police to interact with people, the better. Especially as it would be in a way that I expect would be wildly racialised (and certainly is in France) like asking for IDs. I think we'd just see people of colour just being asked for their papers at every train or bus station.

Obviously ironic of the Guardian to be criticising Uber or Deliveroo about this - given that forcing employers, landlords, education institutions to do right to reside tests was the core part of Theresa May's "hostile environment" which the Guardian was not a fan of. It was basically privatising enforcement.

I'd add this is one of those things that at a national level is dismissed as a far-right talking point, but at a local level is acknowledged as an issue. A bit like the "Turkish" barbers and weird candy shops that were attacked by Nigel Farage and Richard Tice (for which they were roundly mocked) - but I've since read various Labour local council leaders say that it is an issue and there's a very strong suspicion that a lot of these short-term, revolving door businesses that only accept cash are basically money laundering fronts that councils are trying to now deal with, but don't have the resources for that sort of thing.

But no. It's another story from the 21st century British classic, penny wise pound foolish.
If we just spent the money to have actual asylum accommodation rather than having to go through a multi layered sub contracting system of shitty by to let housing and decayed former hotels...
Of course, any suggestion of doing this would be met by outrage.
Too many people just don't want to think.

To a point. Until the late 90s asylum seekers could work and basically live where they want. Inevitably given that the existence of diasporas in the UK is a key pull factor, many of them lived in London - which is also a place where you can relatively easily find work.

Under New Labour, immigration increases quite significantly and broadly speaking there's a move to increase economic, lawful migration and at the same time a clamp down on asylum. This is particularly the case with the regular high profile problems of people breaking into the Channel Tunnel at Sangatte or being smuggled on trucks (successfully closing that route is, in large part, why we now have small boats).

New Labour bans asylum seekers from working while their case is being reviewed. Partly this is just to try and discourage asylum seekers from coming here, but also to stop people disappearing into the grey economy (which makes them harder to deport because we don't know where they are). However the consequence of not just asylum seekers receiving benefits - but having to receive benefits (including housing) because they're literally banned from working and having their own income.

At the same time as well as some other outlandish ideas, like processing asylum claims in third countries or on barges posted around the country (both studied by David Blunkett's Home Office), New Labour starts "dispersing" asylum seekers. Basically housing costs vary a lot over the country so letting them stay in London is really expensive, even if it's where there is an existing community, network etc. As the state's picking up the housing costs they decide that asylum seekers should be housed more cheaply and outsource this to, I think, mainly G4S (though I've no doubt Carillion and Serco also get involved). In practice this means those outsourcing companies buying dirt cheap terraced housing in deprived post-industrial areas to house asylum seekers. Down to the point of even using the same paint colour for the front doors (because it's a batch job) making it easy to identify.

The consequence of this is that unlike literally every other migrant group in the country, there are very few asylum seekers in London or, indeed most cities with big diaspora communities. Instead the areas with the highest proportion of asylum seekers are, generally, very deprived, post-industrial urban areas often in the North - I think the council areas with the highest proportion of asylum seekers in the country include bits of Liverpool and Middlesbrough.

Again - part of that is cost-saving but part of it is also it makes it easier to remove people if their claim fails. For example New Labour did try asylum centre housing - it was attacked from the left (and no doubt fairly) for inhumane prison-like conditions. But it was also easier to stop people being deported. You can get a rally at the gates of a single centre. Dispersing people across the rougher bits of Merseyside makes for less resistance.

So by the late 2000s, claims are being processed quickly and New Labour are pretty efficient at deporting failed asylum seekers (including, at some points, even Afghans and Iraqis...). The overall picture is that the UK system is very open to economic migrants, but bluntly cruel and inhumane for asylum seekers.

Obviously there is a plus ca change element to all of that. The current system is record highs of lawful, economic migration and increasing clampdowns on asylum seekers. The same old ideas of third country or barge-based processing of claims have been regurgitated. Having successfully closed the Channel Tunnel routes, there is now a more perilous route over the Channel instead.

What has changed is that the entire asylum system has broken down. So in the early 2010s, as I say, the New Labour system was cruel - but it was functioning. There was within each a total of about 10-15,000 people waiting for an asylum decision and 90% received an initial decision within 6 months. About 50% were refused asylum and of those 60% were returned (including enforced, facilitated and voluntary returns). The situation now has improved under James Cleverly compared to the peaks under Braverman, but there's about 100,000 people waiting for an asylum decision - almost 40% of those have been waiting for more than two years. The average wait is 20 month (in Europe, only Ireland takes longer to reach an initial decision). The rate of refusal has dropped to 25% at first instance and falls to around 10-15% after appeal. Of those who fail, only about 10% are returned.

(For a little bit of Euro context - Germany, France, Italy and Spain all have bigger backlogs, but make decisions more quickly. Generally all have a lower acceptance rate than the UK, particularly after appeal. Returns varies a lot by country - I think France and the UK are at the lower end).

But all of that is part of why the costs are higher - especially when you add having to pay for housing in the context of an increasingly widespread housing crisis.

Fundamentally (like in so many other areas) it is a broken system.

Had a young white British guy do a delivery the other day and it was genuinely notable for how weird it is.

In a weird way I've also seen the reverse since Brexit. A lot of hospitality roles in London that were basically young Spanish, Polish, Italian etc workers now seem to be young Londoners (and as diverse as London) so I've seen a lot more black and minority waiters, baristas etc. I can only think that a lot of those businesses just really, really like employing white Europeans...and I hadn't fully noticed until it changed.

[Sheilbh]

Oh wow - absolutely huge figure growing up in Scoland in the 90s. Probably one of the most consequential politicians in the country in the last 30 years - up there with Farage (and not the only similarity between them). Also 69 really doesn't feel like much of an age these days:

Alex Salmond, former first minister of Scotland, dies aged 69
High-profile politician reported to have collapsed after delivering speech in North Macedonia on Saturday
Michael Savage and Libby Brooks
Sat 12 Oct 2024 18.49 BST

Alex Salmond, the former first minister of Scotland who led Scotland to the brink of independence, has died at the age of 69.

Salmond served as first minister of Scotland from 2007. He stood down from the role after failing to secure independence in the 2014 referendum, handing over to his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon.

Reports suggested that he collapsed after delivering a speech in North Macedonia on Saturday.

Scotland's first minister, John Swinney, said he was "deeply shocked and saddened".

"Alex worked tirelessly and fought fearlessly for the country that he loved and for her independence. He took the Scottish National party from the fringes of Scottish politics into government and led Scotland so close to becoming an independent country."

The British prime minister, Keir Starmer, said Salmond had been a "monumental figure" for more than 30 years.

"He leaves behind a lasting legacy," he said. "As first minister of Scotland he cared deeply about Scotland's heritage, history and culture, as well as the communities he represented as MP and MSP over many years of service.

"My thoughts are with those who knew him, his family and his loved ones. On behalf of the UK government, I offer them our condolences today."

Sturgeon said: "I am shocked and sorry to learn of Alex Salmond's death.

"Obviously, I cannot pretend that the events of the past few years which led to the breakdown of our relationship did not happen, and it would not be right for me to try.

"However, it remains the fact that for many years Alex was an incredibly significant figure in my life. He was my mentor, and for more than a decade we formed one of the most successful partnerships in UK politics.

"Alex modernised the SNP and led us into government for the first time, becoming Scotland's fourth first minister and paving the way for the 2014 referendum which took Scotland to the brink of independence.

"He will be remembered for all of that. My thoughts are with Moira, his wider family and his friends."

The former SNP leader and former first minister Humza Yousaf said Salmond had "helped to transform the SNP into the dominant political force it is today.

"Alex and I obviously had our differences in the last few years, but there's no doubt about the enormous contribution he made to Scottish and UK politics."

Anas Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, said the "sad news of Alex Salmond's passing today will come as a shock to all who knew him in Scotland, across the UK and beyond".

He described him as "a central figure in politics over three decades" whose "contribution to the Scottish political landscape cannot be overstated".

Tom Tugendhat, the UK's shadow security minister, said Salmond was a "towering figure who shaped our politics for a generation".

Joanna Cherry, the former SNP MP, said: "I am devastated to hear this news. He was one of the most talented politicians of his generation, and by any measure the finest first minister our country has had. He changed the face of Scottish politics.

"Sadly, he was ill-used by many of his former comrades, and I am particularly sorry that he has not lived to see his vindication. Above all, I shall remember him as an inspiration and a loyal friend. My heartfelt condolences go to Moira, his family, and all who loved him."

Salmond began his second stint as SNP leader in 2004, securing power in Holyrood in 2007. That was followed by a sweeping victory in Scottish parliamentary elections in 2011 – the precursor to the independence vote.

Salmond was a huge but divisive figure, gaining criticism for his appearances on the Russian state channel RT. He quit the channel after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

He resigned from the SNP in 2018, after allegations of sexual misconduct during his time as first minister in 2013. After lengthy legal battles, he was arrested in 2019 and charged with 14 offences.

He was acquitted of all charges of sexual assault in 2020, when he was found not guilty of 12 charges of attempted rape, sexual assault and indecent assault after six hours of jury deliberations. The jury reached the uniquely Scottish verdict of "not proven" on one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape. Another charge was dropped.

The subsequent Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish government's handling of the initial harassment complaints led to huge splits within the SNP, with some senior figures backing Salmond, and accusations that he had been the victim of a witch-hunt within the party.

He went on to form the Alba party in 2021, which challenged the SNP on its failure to deliver a second referendum but failed to make electoral headway.

Salmond was rumoured to be considering a return to frontline politics at Holyrood at the next Scottish parliament elections in 2026, with speculation that he might stand for the regional list in the north-east of Scotland.

Reflecting recently on the referendum result, Salmond said he had started to write his concession speech after the first result was declared on the night of the vote. The yes campaign lost the vote, 45% to 55%.

The first result came from Clackmannanshire, often seen as reflecting national sentiment. Voters there backed staying within the UK by 53.8% to 46.2%. "When I saw that result, I started to write my concession speech," Salmond said.

"Nobody gave us a chance at the start. I always reckoned if we got to the positive side of the argument, if we claimed the positive side for 'yes', which in itself is an affirmation, then once we got into the campaign, I thought we'd pick up ground, and so we did."

[Sheilbh]

Really interesting example today of part of the problem with the UK economy and Labour's dash for growth.

Starmer talked about the need for deregulation where "it is stopping us building the homes, the data centres, the warehouses, grid connectors, roads, trainlines, you name it...then mark my words, we will get rid of it."

He cited the example of a wind farm in East Anglia, where regulators required 4,000 documents (not pages!) to assess the proposal. Once it was signed off, there was another two years o judicial review. All of which is reasonable - and, as Eric Schmidt pointed out, on Labour's plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 "the cost of capital and the delay is killing you" and that target isn't achievable without serious reform.

At the same time, there's Martyn's Law.

This is a piece of legislation which has been campaigned for by the mother of a man murdered by terrorists at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. It would require all venues with a capacity of more than 100 to have preventative action plans against terror attacks, all venues with more than 200 capacity have a member of staff with a certificate in terrorism prevention training and for local authorities to also have them in place. The Tories and Labour both backed the campaign.

Today the government released the civil service impact assessment. In the best case scenario the costs are 70 times greater than the benefits, in the worst case scenario it's about 500 times greater. Most of the benefit is from basically every venue in the country having to install CCTV for terrorism prevention and that reducing crime.

It'll be interesting to see if the government goes ahead (as I say, backed by Tories and Labour at the last election) - or decides that this might be over-regulation (I'd note that the night time economy, especially in London, is on its arse and this would have a big impact). Politically it is difficult to reject a campaign by a grieving mother (though I feel like at other points Labour and Tories have rejected X's Law campaigns before), but that is the cost of trying to deregulate for growth.

Also as a regulatory lawyer (and this is true across Europe in my experience) - this is another example of how the UK is really, really heavily regulated if you're a good actor and try to follow the law. If you don't give a shit, then you can get away with a lot and the risk of actually being enforced against is pretty low because many regulators/enforcement agencies have nowhere near the resource (or skill) - they're not set up to investigate everything they're asked to do and when they do they're not ready or able to litigate appeals effectively. Again my experience is the US is the opposite - there's fewer, more specific regulations but companies absolutely do not want the FTC or SEC to ever investigate them.

[Zanza]

Defining not adding additional regulation as deregulation already tells you the problem. We face the same here.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Defining not adding additional regulation as deregulation already tells you the problem. We face the same here.

It's a western european/eu problem, with both politicians, administrators and citizens alike. It's why, for example,
The US invents, the Chinese produce and the EU  outlaws.

[Josquius]

Defining not adding additional regulation as deregulation already tells you the problem. We face the same here.

To an extent.
It is important not to fall into the trap of just cutting red tape and calling it a day. You do need to set up new regulation to replace the old- rather than saying you need a 500 page binder on local bat's mating habits say you need a one pager (not how things actually work, but just for example).
Rather than shooting for heaven or accepting hell, put in place the bare minimum that does 70% of the perfect one with a few hours of work.

This is where Labour being the ones to do this is promising whilst the Tories doing it would be frightening.

This is the point the French government always make.

If it's a left-wing minister that Britain has a very open labour market that is ripe for exploitation in the grey market which is a magnet for migration. If it's a right-wing minister that Britain doesn't have ID systems or legal requirements to register residence so the police can't basically do "ID please" sweeps. They're both sort of the same point and sort of true - you can kind of disappear. Which is why Blair, since 2005, has basically seen a national ID card system for everyone is the solution to lots of things
The other side of that - which I still sympathise with more - is that the fewer pretexts we give for the police to interact with people, the better. Especially as it would be in a way that I expect would be wildly racialised (and certainly is in France) like asking for IDs. I think we'd just see people of colour just being asked for their papers at every train or bus station.

He's correct.
Again I do think this is something that needs to come from the left. Its about making sure random black people on the streets of London get less hassle by the police not more and that sort of thing.
It could even be framed in terms of being a positive for foreigners- the absolute nightmare my GF had getting proof of address.... She needed a utility bill for the bank but she needed a bank account for the utility bill.

I'd say the ability for the police to do random "ID please" is certainly a concern many have which should be tightly controlled. But at least having this standard ID card for doing basic stuff like working, renting, opening a bank account....seems so sensible.

But there's another oddity in the UK- you don't particularly need to register where you live. Everywhere else I've lived when you move you need to register with the government where you are.
Its quite the PITA in some places. Needs improvement. But again it just seems sensible for many reasons.

At the same time as well as some other outlandish ideas, like processing asylum claims in third countries or on barges posted around the country (both studied by David Blunkett's Home Office),

Rwanda in the Tory sense was idiotic in the extreme.
Though I do think allowing applications from third countries is definitely something we should look at.

Fundamentally (like in so many other areas) it is a broken system.

You mean the UK as a whole or the asylum system?
As yes.

In a weird way I've also seen the reverse since Brexit. A lot of hospitality roles in London that were basically young Spanish, Polish, Italian etc workers now seem to be young Londoners (and as diverse as London) so I've seen a lot more black and minority waiters, baristas etc. I can only think that a lot of those businesses just really, really like employing white Europeans...and I hadn't fully noticed until it changed.

Wonder if this is an actual thing that has been noted in London.
I would be suspicious of Brexit as a cause-  maybe in stopping a revolving door of people coming over for a year meaning they have to hire people that stick around? Another possible reason may be the ever increasing house prices meaning working in a bar in London is increasingly impossible unless you're still living with your parents?
Anyway. Absolutely not the case here. I'd say covid stands out as a bigger date for more noticable foreigners at work. There seems to have been a rush of people getting over just before it as the brexit door slammed shut and then covid massively increased the gig economy and destroyed a lot of established businesses, with some of those that have since taken their place being foreign owned.

[Zanza]

Foreigners would not have a British ID card anyway or would you assign one to everybody that enters your fair island?

[Tamas]

Foreigners would not have a British ID card anyway or would you assign one to everybody that enters your fair island?

Something like a residency card would make more sense I guess. Especially since I find it juvenile to prove my address with utility bills and such.

[garbon]

Foreigners on visa do have an ID card. However that is going away as from start of next year everyone has to be on an e-visa as cards going away.

I'm still uncertain how that will work as I guess it means they will just look up in their system? Otherwise problematic if I need to have wifi/mobile connection to login to website to prove status.

Personally and thankfully, I should be on to ILR by Q2.

[Sheilbh]

Defining not adding additional regulation as deregulation already tells you the problem. We face the same here.

Yes. I find a problem here is that all parties are against "over-regulation" in general, but also in favour of lots of specific regulations

In a way my big issue (and I think this is a Europe-wide problem) is that in certain areas especially there is so much regulation that it is very difficult for regulators to meaningfully police and enforce.

You know I see a wind farm project requiring 4,000 documents and I'm not sure what sort of decision-making process that could reasonably inform - it seems almost designed to lead to further appeals or, in that case, judicial review. I support a well-regulated economy but for me I do sort of think that regulations should be things that have teeth, are enforced and introducing more certainty to the economy, not less.

As I say I think it's not just economics but - if you try to follow the rules and do the right thing there's a lot of rules (the anti-money laundering and anti-fraud steps I had to go through with the bank I've used my entire life as part of the mortgage process ). If you don't care, there's a pretty good chance you'll get away with it.

[Sheilbh]

I've said before - but there's no better example of some of the problems in the UK than that we're having to start rationing water. In Britain

I think there's been over 25 proposals for reservoirs in the last thirty years and none was able to get regulatory and planning permission, until the last year when facing imminent water shortages one was approved (unrelatedly, I see the government's had to launch "black-out prevention" measures this winter :ph34:):

Water firm blocks drinks-makers in Suffolk from expanding supply
Small businesses voice frustration as Essex and Suffolk Water puts lid on new mains connections until 2033
Alex Lawson
Mon 14 Oct 2024 06.00 BST

Small companies in Suffolk that manufacture drinks have been told to keep a lid on their water usage for most of the next decade, amid concerns at their supplier that it will be unable to meet rising demand.

Essex and Suffolk Water has imposed a "moratorium" on new mains-water connections for non-domestic use until 2033 and told small businesses it would be unable to increase their usage above existing levels through their current connections.

In a letter to small companies, seen by the Guardian, the water company told recipients: "You should not plan to increase your mains water use if it is for non-domestic purposes."

"Without the moratorium we will not have sufficient water to meet all existing and new mains water demand until we have developed the new water supplies."

Ryan Luke, managing director of the Heart of Suffolk Distillery in Bacton, which received a letter, said: "Water is fundamental to the production of our spirits. We are constantly increasing the number of distillations we carry out ... and will be using more water to match our growth."

The limits could force him to move the company, he said. "We love where we are and have spent a lot of money and time building the distillery up. To relocate would add financial pressures."

Alan Ridealgh, who runs the Humber Doucy Brewery with his son John, said: "I'm extremely frustrated. We would have to close – if we can't have more water here, then we will not reach the point of profitability. Or we would need to move.

"We had committed to expansion to put in new vessels to expand our production before we received the letter.

"This has come as a bolt from the blue to us. I completely understand why we need to manage water but this is just ridiculous and there has been no real consultation. They clearly don't realise how much water small businesses use. To make one pint of beer you need about three and a half pints of water – and the extra water isn't wasted."

Nondomestic users – which also include charities and schools – are facing price rises for water of nearly 30% by 2030, according to the industry regulator, Ofwat. Unlike small firms, large industrial users typically negotiate cheaper rates for using greater volumes.

Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, said water companies needed to "accelerate" progress on tackling leaky, "underinvested" infrastructure after a 2019 commitment by water firms to increase supply and decrease demand.

"The water moratorium in Suffolk shows there is still a long way to go before achieving that. Water efficiency can be improved without preventing small firms from growing," she said.

Kieran Ingram, water director for Essex and Suffolk Water, apologised to businesses and said the decision had not been taken lightly.

The company is part of Northumbrian Water, owned by the US private equity giant KKR and investment firms controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. In the most recent financial year, Northumbrian paid out £108m in dividends and proposed a further £37m payout.

The Environment Agency has classed Suffolk as "water stressed" and the company has agreed to curb the amount of groundwater it abstracts.

Ingram said: "While we sympathise with affected businesses, we are forecasting business demand for water to double in our Hartismere area, which covers Eye and surrounding villages. We have to protect water supplies to our existing customers, especially to household customers who we have an absolute legal requirement to supply."

He said improvements were being made to install new pipelines and boost water supplies. "While we still have more work to do, we are definitely improving the amount of water lost to leakage and our operation teams work tirelessly attending reported bursts to fix them as soon as possible."

(Also I do fully get the need for fixing leaks and water efficiency - but I feel like if there's one thing that, as a country, we can afford to be a bit wasteful with it is water...)

[Josquius]

We have trouble building anything so there's that.
But with the amount of disused quarries about you'd think building new reservoirs would be fairly easy.
Retro sci fi enthusiasts are primary objectors?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah sci-fi enthusiast and Dr Who location scouts.

But you're right I always see that in the US there is a racialised element to the debate there over building - or at least it is framed in racial terms around a lot NIMBYism actually being about the type of people who would live in housing say.

And I think in the UK that could well exist but it's really quite far downstream of the wider problems. We can't even build necessary basic infrastructure or (and I know I mention this example a lot) you have people objecting to a GP's surgery being built because of the noise from people opening and closing car doors. It is more all encompassingly hostile to everyone else.

[Sheilbh]

In slightly concerning but I suspect a new pattern in British politics - having spent its time in opposition accusing the Tories of being soft on China, Labour have now cancelled a trip by former Taiwanese President Tsai for fear that it would cause a negative impact on Lammy's trip to the PRC.

And in opposition having backed a formal recognition of there being a "genocide" in Xinjiang (and criticising the Tories for not pursuing that approach), in government Labour have backtracked. There are lots of gains from a Treasury and net zero perspective from a close working relationship with China.

As I say I suspect it'll be a new pattern (not unlike what used to happen with Russia pre-invasion) where opposition parties will criticise the government for being soft on China. Then in power they'll hear from the Treasury and Energy Department civil servants how important working with China could be for our economy and meeting net zero targets - until they go too far and piss off the US at which point they'll have to try to unwind it all.

(Again - very little about Britain that's exceptional and not the same as most other European countries...)

[Josquius]

Yeah, it's tough I imagine. A balance really has to be struck but China throws a fit at the slightest accusation.


A big local  news event of recent days that has hit the national news is 6 flats randomly exploding.

BBC News - Boy who died in house explosion named
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vk40xn936o

Really sad and worrying stuff. My GF knows some folk running a non profit in that end of town and they've been asked to help a family from up the street who have had to leave their home in the middle of the night and can't go back for anything - the kids aren't allowed to go to school without a uniform

More importantly people dying in this.. It's worrying stuff. No reporting of a smell of gas or anything. And not the first time we've seen this in the UK. Seems to have been a few lately.

It's weird in the talk of decarbonisation and a move away from gas this "not randomly exploding" point isn't mentioned.