Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Amazing bat tunnel update - while we were never sure it would work, the Bat Conservation Trust have now said they have concerns.

In particular that the holes in the mesh are too small for bats to fly through, but are big enough for them to crawl into (and not be able to get out again). We may accidentally be building a £100 million bat murder tunnel

[HVC]

Sounds about right. Hope the consultants and lobbyist at least got rich

[Josquius]

Amazing bat tunnel update - while we were never sure it would work, the Bat Conservation Trust have now said they have concerns.

In particular that the holes in the mesh are too small for bats to fly through, but are big enough for them to crawl into (and not be able to get out again). We may accidentally be building a £100 million bat murder tunnel

 

Did we put armando ianucci in charge of this project or something?

[Sheilbh]

On trade-offs government has launched a consultation on its phase out of new petrol and diesel cars, which makes sense. The This Times podcast with Helen Thompson and Tom McTague did a section on this and I'd not quite realised the state of a mess we'd got into on this.

Basically I think under Theresa May or Johnson we committed to phasing out new ICE vehicles by 2030. Amid much controversy Sunak pushed this back to 2035 (which is the same as the EU date). Labour then pledged to restore the 2030 target date. That's basically the high level politics - everyone wants to get to net zero so politicians are bidding with each other over how "stretching" their targets can be.

In terms of how the government's doing this basically they mandate car manufacturers in the UK must sell a certain percentage of EVs and there is a fine for every ICE vehicle sold that is above its percentage. That fine is actually pretty massive - it's about £15,000 per vehicle. The challenge car manufacturers have said is that there has not been sufficient demand, so the proportion of EVs being sold is increasing but not quickly enough so the manufacturers are being hit with big and increasing fines. This was explicitly cited by Vauxhall in shutting down their plant recently.

At the same time the UK is, I think, the last Western hold-out not imposing significant tariffs on Chinese EVs. So Biden imposed 100% tariffs a year or two ago, the EU did a formal investigation of levels of state aid and is imposing tariffs of up to 38% - in both cases I believe this only applies to vehicles manufactured in China. That's been good for Mexico and Hungary as the respective Chinese entrepots into NAFTA and the EU. The UK on the other hand hasn't increased tariffs at all.

The other side is that basically there hasn't been massive state-led investment, or support for infrastructure (e.g. charging networks) and not that much supporting people buying EVs. There are a few tax benefits but they are beginning to be closed down by the Treasury at the minute.

The government says they're consulting on "how, not if" they get to the 2030 target. But the Vauxhall announcement came very shortly after a meeting with the car companies and Jonathan Reynolds (Business Secretary) and Lou Haigh (then Transport Secretary). Reynolds is from Sunderland where there's a big Nissan plant which might be impacted and as gone on, as you'd expect from a Business Secretary, about how the government is pursuing "decarbonisation not de-industrialisation". Haigh was reportedly more committed to the current strategy and left the cabinet a week or so later over a very minor scandal.

But I think this does capture the trade offs that government and politicans just aren't making or being up-front with the public about - and why I think a lot of the challenge with net zero is that everyone supports it but how we get there is going to be difficult and require governments acting to avoid a perception of unfairness.

Basically I think we could probably get to the 2030 target if we kept tariffs low, bought Chinese EVs and there was state support for the network and consumers making the change. Obviously that would probably kill whatever's left of our domestic car industry - I think it would also be challenging with a Trump presidency. Alternatively I think pushing the date back and a combination of state support for consumers and infrastructure, plus penalties for manufacturers could maybe be achievable without destroying the domestic industry. I feel like low tariffs, limited and falling support on the demand and infrastructure side plus high penalty fees is almost tailor-made to just wipe out the industry domestically (although, from a Treasury perspective it has the very real advantage of being cheap and not really intervening in the market/trade which is always their preference).

More broadly Starmer and Reeves seem to be making a big bet on China for growth, particularly in financial services/the City. Big story in Bloomberg in the last few days that the overtures to China are now so strong that they're raising eyebrows in both DC and Brussels, as the UK is moving more out of step (also I can't see Trump not forcing a "us or them" choice at some point - as he did over Huawei). There's also internal criticism. The Home Office is apparently frustrated that China wasn't put into the enhanced tier in terms of foreign influence despite increased support for Russia and their assessment that Chinese espionage activity in the UK is as bad as ever. Instead the formal review of UK-China relations has been delayed until the Chancellor (and, currently, Tulip Siddiq - as City Minister - and no doubt a shedload of businesspeople) visits Beijing the week before Trump's inauguration. Starmer's also doing a big trip with a meeting with Xi.

People in and around the Trump camp apparently already flagged they're not happy with this approach or the Chagos deal (which the newly elected Mauritian government says doesn't go far enough) either. But as I say EU diplomats also had similar comments pointing out that it's incoherent for the UK to hit Chinese companies with sanctions for support to Russia in one month and then have a big business-led trip to China the next. Apparently Japan (who we're building a new jet with and who's been pushing for closer relations) and Australia (who we're building nuclear subs with) also sounding a little alarmed.

Basically the exact same strategy as Osborne/Cameron, but also something Sunak gestured towards - I think it's very much a Treasury preference, which always works out very well for everyone The only difference I suppose is that in opposition Labour absolutely hammered the government over not being tough enough on China which again just seems weird if this was the plan (as with the WASPI women).

[Tamas]

We are going to buy an EV in a few months, but that's because we have a driveway so charging it will be trivial.

Anyone without off-street parking would be foolish to buy an EV, and that's a LOT of people in the UK. Not only there's no easy way to charge but public charging seems no cheaper than using petrol. Plus as a minor point as I understand rapid charging is the most damaging to battery longevity, so not something you want to do if you are not just leasing and dumping your car every 2-3 years.

I am quite excited to switch to an EV and can't wait, but a ban on new ICE 5 years from now seems insane.

[Sheilbh]

I am quite excited to switch to an EV and can't wait, but a ban on new ICE 5 years from now seems insane.

We are also going to be moving to a decarbonised grid in 5 years, despite literally everyone in the sector saying that's impossible. (I'd add we're already currently operating at close to capacity on the grid and there are more "events" since the Russian invasion where we've come close to needing blackouts to manage capacity.)

Two absolutely unrelated, equally challenging or "stretching" policy targets that I'm sure won't interact in challenging ways

[Grey Fox]

Sheilbh, how do I parse entrepot in British english?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it's not quite right

But basically gateways to and from different markets places Canton before Hong Kong and then Hong Kong, Venice, Istanbul.

[mongers]

Sheilbh, how do I parse entrepot in British english?

A teenager's first hesitant toke of a spliff.   

[mongers]

Thinking of starting one or two UK politics thread, titles sofar:

Status Quo Lib Dems?

Caveat Emptor Starmer's Labour party?

[Tamas]

OMG I have had my first brush with NIMBYism.

I read that a development has been approved a few months ago to build 1200 flats between two roundabouts where I enter/leave town, about 10 minutes walk from our home. The thoughts I had were: "that's a ridiculously small area for this (they'll have two 8-stories and two 4-stories buildings)", "those rondos get clogged up already during rush hour, they are building this at the one exit that hasn't been busy" but worst of all, they are going to build a new elementary school and now I am worried we'll be in the catchment area of 3. One of which is extremely close and convenient for us, the other two (the future one and a third) far less so.

[HVC]

Your assimilation is moving at pace. Once you attain a unhelathy attachment to bats you'll truly be a brit

[Barrister]

One can be overly critical of NIMBY-ism.  There is a real sentiment at work here.

I mentioned a development in my neighbourhood.  It took a site reserved for a new catholic school and build townhouses on it.  Problem is - in the nearly 20 years since the neighbourhood was built, that area had been soccer fields for kids.  Those are now gone.  Now, if the kids are playing soccer, they have to go to different neighbourhoods even for "home" games.

So I guess I'm not a full-blown YIMBY.

But reasonable objections can very easily translate into being opposed to any and all developments all the time.

[HVC]

It's like cigarettes. First one doesn't kill you, but starts the habit that will

[Sheilbh]

So I guess I'm not a full-blown YIMBY.

But reasonable objections can very easily translate into being opposed to any and all developments all the time.

I'm a full-blown YIMBY and YIYBY too - my end goal is Blade Runner

Although my favourite recent decision that everyone went mad about was planners refusing permissions for a 15m 5G mast as it would cause "unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area." The area is an industrial estate

Separately Labour apparently setting up an independent commission on social care reform which has now been pushed back to 2028. I can sort of see the case for that in social care specifically to try and build cross-party consensus and both May and Brown tried to propose some reforms in their election manifestos and it was a big attack.

But I am again very concerned at the lack of/narrowness of action. The flipside of Labour's attack line of "you had 14 years in government to fix this and didn't", is that they've had 14 years in opposition to work out what they'd want to do in power and, apparently, haven't.

So far there seems to be an awful lot of noodling around the edges of things (while making increasingly radical noises). A lot of departments were held back by the decision not to hold a budget until October - but that only produced a one year spending settlement and announced a spending review for Spring. So my understanding is most departments weren't able to plan much and they're now being held back again while the Treasury goes through their multi-year budgets until Spring. My fear is we'll have another multi-month policy void until that's complete.

I'd add that we're six months into a government led by a party that's been out of power for 14 years - and (to much hilarity/despair on the right) Starmer, Reeves and the Business Secretary have just written a letter to regulators asking for them to propose ideas to help promote growth. I also find this really weird - we have election for political leaders to set the policy direction for the state, including regulators. We don't elect administrators to shepherd the policy priorities of state institutions

But so far it still seems like lots of commissions and reviews and not much activity. I also worry that there's a few areas the government just aren't ready for contact with reality. For example, I could be wrong, but a lot of the government's hopes on growth seem to be pinned on China which I don't think will survive long in a Trump presidency and is attracting criticism from the EU too. The other big growth idea seems to be closer relations with Europe which I think is substantively very difficult when Labour have ruled out anything approaching free movement or customs union-y. Again I think it's the more pro-EU softer Brexit side of politics that is cake-ist - or unable to realise there is a trade-off and if they want more than the third country trade agreement approach we currently have, they need to make the case politically and deliver on things like free movement, customs union or alignment. That's not because the Tories were rude about Europe and can be fixed, that's just the way the EU works. (Though I think the security and foreign policy stuff work with Europe is separate and can and should be improved - both parties wanted it but ruled it out at different stages of Brexit for negotiating purposes.)

I remember briefings when Sue Gray came into the Labour team in opposition about how few concrete plans there were for government and how unprepared they were. I thought at the time it was self-serving briefings to the media - similarly I wasn't sure about the press coverage worrying that Starmer not really having a clear idea of what he's for. I think, in retrospect, both were probably right and I was wrong. On the latter though it reinforces the point I always have with politics that I think clear, effective comms reflects a clear strategy/idea of what to do and aren't just easy slogans you can throw on anything.

Edit: I suppose it's all of a piece in a way - I worry that a lot of Labour thinking really does seem to be that the last government's issues were basically because the Tories are bad and nasty. So Labour are good and nice so everything should now be fine. And I think the Tories were bad and nasty - but also that a lot of the issues are pretty deep (an awful lot unresolved since the global financial crisis really) and structural and require deep, structural change.  And again my fear is that like Labour in the 70s (and arguably like Jimmy Carter) if the left can't find a way to deliver it then the right might