Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

Did either of you two listen to the Solent City' podcast? 

[Gups]

Did either of you two listen to the Solent City' podcast? 

I've got it downloaded (on my Mum's recommendation).

One of my first projects in private practice was a light rail project connecting Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham. We got the consents in about 2001 but unfortunately the Government wouldn't fund it.

[mongers]

Did either of you two listen to the Solent City' podcast? 

I've got it downloaded (on my Mum's recommendation).

One of my first projects in private practice was a light rail project connecting Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham. We got the consents in about 2001 but unfortunately the Government wouldn't fund it.

Interesting, that would have been a highly useful scheme, releaving some of the gridlock that develops there.

[Josquius]

BBC cutting the world service et al... Saving 1.2 million by slashing hard talk does indeed seem mad.

I don't think there's another public broadcaster out there quite like the BBC. Thinking of my experience of the Swiss broadcaster for instance- its really dry and dull programmes for a specialist audience that the commercial channels don't touch. The BBC meanwhile is really trying to be this big multi national.

Read an article the other day too about how British drama investment is suffering, the production problems with Wolf Hall series 2....depressing stuff, and the idea about a tax on streamers to fund local shows does make sense.
Big budget drama like Wolf Hall of course. But I'd also like to see more really local shows.

Seems he did 
Can we set a quota on these people in parliament please

Quite sad to see him doing the rounds for these cuts. What I've seen of him previously he really seemed to be someone who actually spoke a lot of sense.

On metropolitan counties and the south coast et al.... Something that came to me a week or two ago and I just remembered. It's weird southampton - Portsmouth was never made a met county.

Oh there was a quite interesting radio programme about 1960s plans to do just that, create a huge urban complex, to be called 'Solent City' , here's the podcast:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00291pq

Shelf might like it, as it involved innovative urban planning on a big scale.

Its interesting, but even shy of big urban planning the conurbation seems perfect to be a met county (weird they say its densest outside London?). There wasn't too much joined up thinking before creating Tyne & Wear for instance.

[mongers]

BBC cutting the world service et al... Saving 1.2 million by slashing hard talk does indeed seem mad.

I don't think there's another public broadcaster out there quite like the BBC. Thinking of my experience of the Swiss broadcaster for instance- its really dry and dull programmes for a specialist audience that the commercial channels don't touch. The BBC meanwhile is really trying to be this big multi national.

Read an article the other day too about how British drama investment is suffering, the production problems with Wolf Hall series 2....depressing stuff, and the idea about a tax on streamers to fund local shows does make sense.
Big budget drama like Wolf Hall of course. But I'd also like to see more really local shows.

Seems he did 
Can we set a quota on these people in parliament please

Quite sad to see him doing the rounds for these cuts. What I've seen of him previously he really seemed to be someone who actually spoke a lot of sense.

On metropolitan counties and the south coast et al.... Something that came to me a week or two ago and I just remembered. It's weird southampton - Portsmouth was never made a met county.

Oh there was a quite interesting radio programme about 1960s plans to do just that, create a huge urban complex, to be called 'Solent City' , here's the podcast:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00291pq

Shelf might like it, as it involved innovative urban planning on a big scale.

Its interesting, but even shy of big urban planning the conurbation seems perfect to be a met county (weird they say its densest outside London?). There wasn't too much joined up thinking before creating Tyne & Wear for instance.

I think that probably only relates to the main central wards of Portsmouth, as it's unusually dense, not because of the concentration of Pompey fans, but being a small island with a long history.

And of course that contrasts with Soton, which is quite spread out for various reasons.

[Gups]

Enjoyed the Solent City thing but thought it was too short. Didn't really get to find out why it didn't happen.

[The Brain]

Solent City is people?

[Josquius]

Down with Nimbys

https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/sustainability/2025/03/has-opposition-to-pylons-been-overstated

If it is an issue, they don't talk about it in here." In a bustling pub on the Kent coast, the manager is telling me about plans for a nearby onshore wind farm as she pulls a half-pint of ale. The regulars, she makes clear, have other things to worry about.

This is one of hundreds of on-the-beat interviews Public First has completed with residents in a wide variety of development hotspots over a period of a few months to find out what they think about new development projects being built locally. Immersive research (which involves speaking to large numbers of people in their everyday surroundings) is the best way to understand the balance of opinion towards hyper-local issues. The conversations hold an important lesson for the Government with regards to its planning reform agenda: keep going.

The UK's coastal regions are hotspots for energy development. If you visit these areas, you will often see campaign signs opposing proposed plans, and it gives a sense that locals all over the country are up in arms about these projects. Based on the debates raging online and in parliament, there is a sense that organised majorities are actively campaigning to stop projects going ahead. On the surface there is definitely an opposition presence in several towns near proposed development sites – posters appear in shopfronts from the south coast of England to West Aberdeenshire. But as we found out, the pub manager's view was shared by the majority. They weren't avidly against development, nor were they particularly for it – they just had other priorities.

On a bright mid-morning in Fife, a young woman sitting on a high street bench made a similar point about a nearby wind farm, casually smoking a cigarette, "Because [it's] far enough away nobody seems to bother about them. I could understand if it was in your back yard. But no, nobody seems to bother about them. I haven't heard anybody say anything about it." Time and again we heard this sentiment; while most residents knew about the biggest local developments and had mixed opinions, usually they couldn't see what all the fuss was about, and thought renewables were important for the future. Polling conducted by Public First last year in partnership with Labour Climate and Environment Forum (LCEF) of adults living in development hotspots confirms this. Seventy six per cent agree that without renewable energy sources in the UK, we are too dependent on Russia and other countries for energy and two-thirds think the rollout of renewables has been too slow.

That is not to say there is no opposition at all. There is. Only it's in far shorter supply than most people think and tends to fall into two distinct categories. Firstly, there are those who are against all forms of clean energy infrastructure. Depending on which polls you read, this is roughly one or two in every ten people 16 per cent in our poll agreed that we "do not need to build more renewable energy sources in the UK". Take, for example, the dogwalker in Kent who thought net zero was the "wrong route" because, in his words, "we're sitting on top of an oil rich country that's got gas, that's got everything that you need to power our electric".

Then there are those who oppose specific energy developments. This latter group tends to live right next to proposed building sites – the "not in my back yard" Nimby – and are the people who tend to respond to planning applications. A short drive from development sites and this type of opposition falls off a cliff. In fact, throughout our research it was clear: for most people when it comes to specific infrastructure developments, it's out of sight, out of mind. This is reflected in our development hotspot polling; only one in ten adults in these constituencies say they've ever been involved in a campaign to oppose a development or infrastructure project, with the same number being involved in a campaign to support one. Three-quarters of people have never been involved either way.

The Government should keep this in mind as it pushes forward its planning reform agenda. As more planning applications ramp up over the next few months and years, the clamours online, in the media and from the backbenches will only grow louder. But Keir Starmer must stick to his guns on his clean power mission and push back on MPs on both sides of the bench who, wary of their majorities, oppose these projects in their constituencies. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which has made it through Second Reading this week, is a good start. As some have suggested, it rightly plans for those who live next to energy projects to be compensated for bearing the brunt of disruption in service of a national good via money off bills, whilst accepting that these projects have to go ahead.


It's an accepted truth that the planning system today has enabled campaigners to stymy vital infrastructure projects for years. But what's less accepted – and more dispiriting – is the scale of the madness: there are far fewer Nimbys out there than is often presented. Opponents of the bill might argue Labour are silencing local voices in their pursuit of planning reform, the truth is that those responding to planning applications do not represent the true spread of local opinion. In reality, our existing planning regime has amplified a small unrepresentative minority for far too long.

[Sheilbh]

Steven Swinford, Political Editor of the Times reporting trade deal with the US is basically ready to go - all this sounds sensible and in line with what Starmer's been talking about:

Here's what we know about the UK's economic deal with the US so far:

* It's on the table and ready to sign. There's broad agreement, although some details are being finessed. But US is refusing to sign it until after hitting UK with tariffs on April 2, aka Liberation Day

* The focus is on AI and technology. The Digital Services Tax, which hits silicon valley giants, will be dropped and ultimately replaced with a tax with a broader base

* Sounds like UK has made specific commitments on a light-touch approach to AI regulation, specifically around AI Security Institute

* There are concessions on agriculture. Sounds like tariffs on imports of US beef, chicken and other meat will be lowered, but SPS checks - animal welfare and hygiene standards - will not change

* It means that the current ban on hormone-treated beef and chlorine washed chicken will remain in place

The things I find interesting is the bit about the US not wanting to sign until after Trump's "Liberation Day", I assume so they can present it as a win/country conceding to tariffs despite it being stuff agreed before and broadly things UK governments have wanted from the US over the last several years. That feels very like Trump's first term in terms of what really matters is being able to present something as a victory/amazing achievement for Trump.

Other thing is the agricultural stuff. This has always been a sticking point in UK talks with the US (and Canada). We have European standards on various things like hormones - where there's been divergence recently normally we're going stricter (especially on animal welfare). Again it feels very Trump that it sounds like the US is basically conceding on no changes to those standards, but the actual tariff rate coming down - the standards are more of a barrier for US agriculture than tariffs. So again it feels very much driven by appearance and Trump's particular focus/care about tariffs rather than anything else.

I'd add that I always thought there would never be a UK-US agreement of any type because the chlorine chicken/hormone beef stuff would just unite a politically very difficult unholy alliance of Guardian readers, Daily Mail readers and Countryfile watchers. And, for Americans, agriculture, farmers and rural states would always matter too much to park that stuff. So getting an agreement that, by the sounds of it, primarily focuses on tech and services feels like it's pretty good by the government.

Also not too worried on the AI side of things - I'm very dubious on the need for AI specific regulations (beyond maybe some very broad stuff on AGI). I find it very strange. To me it seems like spending the 1980s regulating personal computers or Word Processors. We've got lots of existing laws on healthcare, personal data, financial services etc - I think all the time and brainpower that's being spent on "how to regulate AI" could be far more helpfully used working with those regulators on how to regulate and use AI in their specific sectors (plus I'm always dubious about technology specific regulations v uses of technology - I think it's part of the problem with Europe's "cookie laws" for example).

[mongers]

Steven Swinford, Political Editor of the Times reporting trade deal with the US is basically ready to go - all this sounds sensible and in line with what Starmer's been talking about:

Here's what we know about the UK's economic deal with the US so far:

* It's on the table and ready to sign. There's broad agreement, although some details are being finessed. But US is refusing to sign it until after hitting UK with tariffs on April 2, aka Liberation Day

* The focus is on AI and technology. The Digital Services Tax, which hits silicon valley giants, will be dropped and ultimately replaced with a tax with a broader base

* Sounds like UK has made specific commitments on a light-touch approach to AI regulation, specifically around AI Security Institute

* There are concessions on agriculture. Sounds like tariffs on imports of US beef, chicken and other meat will be lowered, but SPS checks - animal welfare and hygiene standards - will not change

* It means that the current ban on hormone-treated beef and chlorine washed chicken will remain in place

The things I find interesting is the bit about the US not wanting to sign until after Trump's "Liberation Day", I assume so they can present it as a win/country conceding to tariffs despite it being stuff agreed before and broadly things UK governments have wanted from the US over the last several years. That feels very like Trump's first term in terms of what really matters is being able to present something as a victory/amazing achievement for Trump.

Other thing is the agricultural stuff. This has always been a sticking point in UK talks with the US (and Canada). We have European standards on various things like hormones - where there's been divergence recently normally we're going stricter (especially on animal welfare). Again it feels very Trump that it sounds like the US is basically conceding on no changes to those standards, but the actual tariff rate coming down - the standards are more of a barrier for US agriculture than tariffs. So again it feels very much driven by appearance and Trump's particular focus/care about tariffs rather than anything else.

I'd add that I always thought there would never be a UK-US agreement of any type because the chlorine chicken/hormone beef stuff would just unite a politically very difficult unholy alliance of Guardian readers, Daily Mail readers and Countryfile watchers. And, for Americans, agriculture, farmers and rural states would always matter too much to park that stuff. So getting an agreement that, by the sounds of it, primarily focuses on tech and services feels like it's pretty good by the government.

Also not too worried on the AI side of things - I'm very dubious on the need for AI specific regulations (beyond maybe some very broad stuff on AGI). I find it very strange. To me it seems like spending the 1980s regulating personal computers or Word Processors. We've got lots of existing laws on healthcare, personal data, financial services etc - I think all the time and brainpower that's being spent on "how to regulate AI" could be far more helpfully used working with those regulators on how to regulate and use AI in their specific sectors (plus I'm always dubious about technology specific regulations v uses of technology - I think it's part of the problem with Europe's "cookie laws" for example).

So abject surrender to Trump?

[Sheilbh]

I'd be arguing the exact opposite

Although separately I think there's a bit of a risk in basically letting Trump be too much of a main character in our politics as well as America's. You already see it in the Guardian where I've recently seen countless articles describing Starmer as having a "populist", "Trumpian" or "Muskian" term. If you oppose Trump and that type of politics, it is lethal to let urgency, reform, change become "Trumpian".

Similarly I think working with the US right now becomes abject surrender to Trump which I think is mad. Keir Starmer is not a Democrat or the Senate Majority Leader. He has to advance British interests obviously - but we're not America. It's not the job of the British government to be fighting or opposing Trump - we're not actors in America's domestic politics however much it's on our news. There are some issues where the UK should be very robust - issues of sovereignty like Canada and Greenland - and pushing back quite hard. Others where we'll need to try and cajole/wheedle to get what we want out of the US, like Starmer's diplomacy with Macron on Ukraine. And others where we should be trying to take advantage - I think trade as Trump's more willing to concede on some issues than Biden, but also I think we should be making a big pitch to US higher education/research institutions.

But we're not and we shouldn't be the international wing of the Democrats - obviously the embassy should be building relations with Democrat leaders as they always have with both parties. I wish them a lot of success, I hope they recover and win. But it's their country not ours, and we have to deal (and get the best we can) with whoever's in charge. That's not surrender, it's always the way with foreign policy - same with having to work with MBS and Netanyahu and Modi and Xi.

[Gups]

I agree Shelf. Too many people have a fantasy of a British PM sticking it to an American President Love Actually style. They need to grow up.

[PJL]

I'd be arguing the exact opposite

Although separately I think there's a bit of a risk in basically letting Trump be too much of a main character in our politics as well as America's. You already see it in the Guardian where I've recently seen countless articles describing Starmer as having a "populist", "Trumpian" or "Muskian" term. If you oppose Trump and that type of politics, it is lethal to let urgency, reform, change become "Trumpian".

Agreed. Arguably we need to be more like Trump in this respect. It is clear that voters do not care that much for establishment norms and precedents. So there is politically little to lose to be more radical in how the centre left does things to achieve desired outcomes.

[Valmy]

I agree Shelf. Too many people have a fantasy of a British PM sticking it to an American President Love Actually style. They need to grow up.

In order for that to happen, the American President has to hit on a woman the PM has a crush on. I have a hard time imagining Keir Starmer having human emotions like that.

[Tamas]

I agree Shelf. Too many people have a fantasy of a British PM sticking it to an American President Love Actually style. They need to grow up.

I remember May's visit to Trump, the British press was clearly expecting her to tell him off and set him straight.