Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Explains why Farage is keeping pretty quiet

Yeah. The public have a very, very clear view on this:


All the polls since about 2015 have shown that the overwhelming majority of the British public detest Donald Trump - and yet right-wing politicians routinely seem to forget this/forget that we're not America.

Also striking just how invested the British public is in Ukraine:


On the other hand - it'd be interesting to see some other Euro-polls on this (and to see the change in Britain in the last ten days), because I'm surprised how low the numbers are here:

[Legbiter]

God help us if our commitment to increasing defence spending requires new factories

We really want to help support European defence and Ukraine, unfortunately there may be bats in the area - soz.

(Total aside - the bat tunnel is overbudget, so it's now £120 million )

 

[Sheilbh]

I'm always saying this.

Separately I think this is interesting - basically push from Labour MPs and peers (but with cross-party backing) to get arms companies within ESG. Especially because lots of big public sector pension funds have commitments on ESG investing which is a big issue for the UK defence sector because many of the biggest institutional investors basically can't touch them.

I've seen some soft-lefties like Polly Toynbee come out and say this is the right thing to do given European defence and Ukraine - however I can't help but think the problem with this and European defence firms generally is you can't conjure up a manufacturing industry very quickly because there's a particular crisis. So I'm not sure moving it from non-ESG to ESG will necessarily help if (God willing) in a couple of years we move it back into non-ESG - it needs sustained, long-term investment and orders.

However I say that having been one of those soft-lefties. Everywhere I've worked and had my pension I've always chosen the ESG funds - and moved them all into general funds in February 2022. There are still some sectors I'd rather not have any savings in but that's tough and it'd probably be an idiosyncratic list:

Treat weapons investments as 'ethical' to help arm Ukraine and UK, MPs urge
More than 100 Labour MPs and peers sign open letter saying ESG policies are holding back defence spending
Jasper Jolly
Thu 6 Mar 2025 13.07 GMT

Banks, investors and pension funds should treat weapons manufacturers as "ethical" investments so that more money goes to the industry to arm Ukraine and the UK, according to a group of more than 100 Labour MPs and peers.

Ninety-six MPs and six peers have signed an open letter calling for financial businesses to "sweep away ill-considered anti-defence rules which are acting as a barrier to doing what is right", in another sign of the backlash against environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies.

Donald Trump's talks with Russia and denial of US military aid and intelligence to Ukraine this week have prompted a scramble by European countries to boost defence spending. Keir Starmer has said the UK will increase spending to 2.5% of GDP, up from 2.3%, and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has pledged a raise, while Germany's incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, wants to loosen strict debt rules to fund an increase.

On Thursday the Italian defence group Leonardo announced a deal with the Turkish drone-maker Baykar to try to rapidly increase the manufacture of unmanned weapons for Ukraine within Europe.

Roberto Cingolani, Leonardo's chief executive, told the Financial Times Trump's verbal "attacks" on Europe had given the region "an unprecedented sense of urgency" to spend more on defence.

The Labour politicians who signed the letter argued that ESG rules adopted by some institutions have held back defence spending, echoing a longstanding gripe from weapons company bosses.

However, it is unclear whether ESG rules have held back investment in defence companies. The industry's stock market value has soared in recent weeks in anticipation of higher spending. The market value of BAE Systems, the British maker of weapons ranging from shells to fighter jets and submarines, has nearly tripled since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.

The huge share-price surge of Rolls-Royce, which makes fighter jet engines and submarine reactors, has also benefited from increased defence spending, while the valuations of the British plane parts maker Melrose and the military services company Babcock International have more than doubled since the start of Russia's invasion.

The peers who signed the letter included George Robertson, a former Nato secretary general who is working on a strategic defence review for Labour.

"There can be no more ethical investment than giving the Ukrainian people every ounce of support that can be mustered by their allies," the letter said.

The letter was led by Alex Baker, MP for Aldershot, known as the home of the British army because it is the site of a major garrison. Baker won Aldershot for Labour in last year's general election for the first time since the seat was created in 1918. That highlighted the scale of the landslide victory, but also the party's renewed support for the armed forces.

Starmer has been a keen proponent of the UK defence sector. His predecessor as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was much more critical of weapons spending after a career campaigning against arms exports to countries accused of humans rights abuses.

Baker said: "The businesses I speak to in Aldershot and Farnborough are ready to step up and help deliver the new defence capabilities this moment demands – but badly composed ESG rules are stifling the innovation we need to fire up our industrial base."

Emily Apple, from the UK-based Campaign Against the Arms Trade, said the manufacturers who would benefit from relaxing ESG rules "make vast profits from death and destruction across the world".

The latest I saw on this was major pension funds saying they absolutely wouldn't change categorisation. And I'm not sure they should. It feels like instead of pretending the arms industry is "ethical" we could possibly do with re-thinking ESG more generally rather than a tick or not (this is a bit like the EU's big fights over what does or doesn't count as "green" energy from a finance perspective).

Also the arms industry themselves say this is absolutely a big problem for them broadly for smaller firms or firms within the supply chains in being able to access capital (and in some cases banking services). I'd imagine it's an issue elsewhere, but not sure.

Edit: In other defence news I see the government is hoping to prioritise increasing the reserves because that's cheaper than actually expanding the armed forces. This comes after the government outsourced recruitment in a multi-billion contract with Capita (who have consistently failed to hit their targets) and they've also eliminated all support and funding for any cadet organisations in state schools. I'm not saying the Treasury is a Russian asset but....

[Sheilbh]

I'll wait for Gups' view - but this sounds pretty promising.

I've mentioned before that Starmer is a quick learner and fairly decisive in changing course. I sort of hope this is of a piece (also plans for civil service reform to be announced this week), that they've worked out issues and realised they need ambition and to be pretty radical:

Councillors to be stripped of powers to block planning schemes
In an effort to push more building and development projects, councillors will be prevented from interfering in the majority of planning applications
Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Friday March 07 2025, 9.40pm, The Times

Councillors will be stripped of powers to block all but the biggest and most contentious building schemes under plans to turbocharge development.

Ministers will next week set out plans to ban councillors from interfering in the vast majority of planning applications in an effort to push through more houses, offices, factories and other large development projects.

Experts said the changes could lead to tens of thousands more homes a year and offer a "holy grail" to developers exasperated with political delays in building projects. But councils warned the changes risked eroding local democracy because residents would be denied the chance to use the ballot box to oppose unpopular schemes.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, will next week publish a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise rules as the government promises to build 1.5 million homes this parliament and speed up infrastructure and other development projects to boost growth.

Sir Keir Starmer has made overhauling planning the foundation of his push for growth, attacking the current rules as "ruinous" and promising to take on "nimbys" who have held Britain "to ransom" and "choked" the economy.

Last year ministers signalled that they wanted to overhaul local authority planning committees, where councillors can take decisions on local applications for development. At present councils can make their own decisions on which projects are decided by such committees, and which by professional planning officers.

Next week, Rayner will promise to go significantly further than originally thought, setting a national rule that would stop committees of councillors playing a role in all but the biggest projects and those that most clearly go against local development plans.

Exact details are still being finalised, but the threshold below which councillors cannot step in is expected to be set somewhere between ten and 100 houses. Once a project has outline permission, councillors will also not be given a say on details of housing style and layout.

Ministers are keen to use the rules to encourage small and medium developers to put forward more mid-sized schemes, and will also set a minimum size threshold for councillors to intervene in commercial development.

"We will modernise how planning committees work, making sure they are focused on key applications for larger developments rather than small scale projects or niche technical details," a government source said. "This is about making sure the right decisions are taken at the right level."

Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said that delegating more applications to officials "helps move us towards more consistent, policy-driven decisions: for many, the holy grail of England's planning system. Some councils already delegate a lot to their officers, but in others, committee members expect even small schemes, and those that have been approved previously, to come before them. This means uncertainty — which is an enemy of investment — delays, some poor decisions, and wasted public money."

While in some councils barely any applications go to planning committees, at others 20-30 per cent of decisions are made by councillors, often including almost all schemes beyond simple kitchen or loft extensions.

Spry said the change "could make a real difference" and mean more and quicker approvals, but said the definition of "major" development to be sent to councillors was crucial. "Ten houses might be a big deal in a small rural council, but is almost de minimis in large urban areas."

Developers complain of having to repeatedly ask local councillors for permission, with their decisions far less predictable than those taken by planning officers. "Every time you have to engage with a committee of politicians is an enormous risk that could end up setting your project back years and costing you millions of pounds," said Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.

"The fundamental problem is that the way the system is set up at the moment is that if you're bringing forward a new scheme of development of any sort you have to run it through a democratic process with input from local politicians multiple times.

"In the meantime you can have a change in administration and it's the members who were running in opposition to the [previously approved] plan who are now judging the outline application."

He said the proposed change would be "enormous because it would give us more certainty", potentially leading to tens of thousands more homes. But he said "it will be incredibly important where they set the threshold".

However, the Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already "larger or more controversial schemes" that are taken over by councillors.

"This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded," it warned.

"Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself."

[Sheilbh]

Also important - the unions will obviously fight for their members. But also I think in the last month this is the second time I've seen someone in the Guardian describe Sir Keir Starmer as "Trumpian" (first time in relation to planning reform)

Unions on alert as Labour prepares to unveil 'Trumpian' plan for civil service
Performance-related pay, exit process for poor performers and more digitalisation among proposed measures intended to revolutionise Whitehall
Toby Helm
Sat 8 Mar 2025 22.30 GMT

Highly controversial plans to revolutionise Whitehall by introducing performance-related pay, an accelerated exit process for under-performing mandarins and more digitalisation will be announced this week in what ministers say is a programme to "reshape the state" so it can respond to a new "era of insecurity".

The proposed changes, to be announced by Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden, will inevitably provoke alarm and resistance from civil service unions, and be seen as the government using the current wave of global uncertainty as cover to drive through radical modernisation of civil service methods and culture.

They will also be seen as following Donald Trump's decision to set up a Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) run by the billionaire X owner Elon Musk to reduce spending and increase performance.

McFadden will say that the public does not believe that the British state, as currently configured, is able to fully and efficiently respond to modern challenges and the new need for beefed-up national security. As a result he will say that civil servants' performance and pay will be judged on the extent to which they deliver on key priorities such as national security and key government missions.

While Whitehall departments have substantially grown in recent years – increasing by more than 15,000 since the end of 2023 – McFadden is expected to say working people have not seen improvements in their job opportunities, the safety of their neighbourhoods or the length of time they have to wait for NHS treatment when they are sick.

Indicating the scale of potential reform being considered, sources stressed that "delivering national security" could only be done with a full "renewal of the state".

Most controversially, McFadden will set out a new "pay-by-results system learning from the best civil services globally, making sure the most senior officials responsible for the missions have their wages linked to the outcomes they achieve", a government spokesperson said.

McFadden will also outline plans to speed up the removal from the service of civil servants judged as unable to meet current needs. A system of "mutually agreed exits" will be introduced to bring the civil service "more in line with the private sector".

"Civil servants who do not have the skills or can't perform at the level required to deliver the government's plans will be incentivised to leave their jobs, as an alternative to lengthy formal processes," the spokesperson said, adding that the plans would also allow ministers to "quickly weed out underperformance among the highest paid civil servants – the senior civil service ... those who do not meet the standards required will immediately be put on a personal development plan, with a view to dismiss them if they do not improve in six months".

Echoing the language of Trump, McFadden said the government is willing to "disrupt the status quo as part of its pursuit of an active and productive modern state.

"The state is not match fit to rise to the moment our country faces," he added. "It is a too common feeling in working people's lives that the system doesn't work for them. With our mandate for change, this government will fundamentally reshape how the state delivers for people.

"Our plan for the civil service is one where every official is high performing and focused on delivery. To do this we must ensure we go further to ensure those brilliant people who can deliver are incentivised and rewarded, and those who can't are able to move on."

Late last year Dave Penman, the head of the senior civil servants' union (the FDA), wrote to Keir Starmer urging him to rethink his "frankly insulting" criticism of Whitehall for being comfortable with falling standards. Penman suggested Starmer had invoked "Trumpian" language by saying that "too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline".

Responding to the government's latest announcement on the reshaping and renewal of the state, Penman said: "If the government is serious about transforming public services they must set out what the substance of reform looks like, not just the retreading of failed ideas and narratives. In the absence of big ideas, we have seen previous governments peddle the narrative that public services are being held back by a handful of poor performers in the senior civil service."

Incidentally this from the Guardian is part of the problem I think identified in that Ben Ansell piece I posted - it cannot be allowed to be "Trumpian" to want change. If it all boils down to basically status-quo preserving conservatism v Trumpianism then we're fucked