Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

Yes, I am concerned that the current Vancouver local government is going to turn our public spaces into venues for revenue generating events.  Right now I think we have a nice balance.  There are a few large events a year which close down access - to the general public.  But they are few and far between. Most of our events are open to the public at no cost, like our fireworks displays in English Bay in the summer.  But those events are free to attend (except for the small premium seating areas.

It is an issue well worth fighting (in a civil way) over.

[Josquius]

On the other hand I'm really jealous of European cities like Lausanne that have a calendar of events in the city throughout the year.
We used to have a lot more of this in the UK before austerity.

Sure it'd be nice if it was free and not paid for. But that's the economic setup of this country.

[Valmy]

Congrats on your new 0% tariff trade deal on Rolls Royce Engines.

[Zanza]

From what I found, terms of trade, at least for the UK, will be significantly worse than what the UK and US had before Trump, no?

[Valmy]

From what I found, terms of trade, at least for the UK, will be significantly worse than what the UK and US had before Trump, no?

Yes. Almost everything keeps the 10% tariff.

[Sheilbh]

From what I found, terms of trade, at least for the UK, will be significantly worse than what the UK and US had before Trump, no?

Yes - but I think all the world has significantly worse trade terms with the US than before Trump.

There is something interesting possibly on defence and steel especially which I'm not 100% clear on. I think the gamble is basically to try and freeze things now to avoid future turbulence. Might not work out - but worth trying and probably a base for the future.

It's worth noting that I think the UK government was not prepared for Trump announcing it - Number 10 had to scramble to arrange a press conference, the trade minister was summoned to parliament by the Speaker (despite most MPs being in their constituencies) and basically said he'd only be able to give a short statement and would have to follow up at length on Monday. Not to say it wasn't agreed but I don't think the government internally had sorted out their comms.

I'd add I think there's something a little funny (and I've always thought this was a possibility) that after a trade deal with India yesterday - a Labour government led by a strong pro-Remain leader is using "Brexit freedoms" in ways that will make unwinding Brexit more challenging, while Reform and the Tories are decrying those deals (I basically think they're both good).

[Sheilbh]

This is close to me. I'm with the campaigners. The odd even is OK but a chunk of the park is closed for more than a month and looks dreadful for ages afterwards.

Yeah I am torn. It's why I think it's such an interesting article and micro-example drawing out wider issues - because I do think there's a ownership and generational thing, but also the community of people living in an area v the specific Tcommunity served by these events (and I think it is interesting/important that all of those festivals are basically serving specific tastes).

There's areas where I have more clear views - for example I think huge swathes of City of Westminster should be pedestrianised and late licenses.

[Sheilbh]

From a vicar online, delighted to see that Tamas has joined his local church

Fergus Butler-Gallie
@_F_B_G_
Just heard a sensational story of an unnamed church in the Home Counties which, having failed to be included in his '100 Best Churches', now carries a sign in its porch saying 'SIMON JENKINS NOT WELCOME HERE'.

[Sheilbh]

Two slight media commentary thoughts.

First is it's really weird seeing journalists who have previously scoffed at Trump's whole understanding of trade using exactly those terms to do a quick take on whether the deals with the US or India are "good for Britain". In both cases I've seen journalists (Robert Peston spring to mind) who have been, rightly, critical of the way Trump frames trade then basically do a sum of British imports are likely to increase more than British exports which suggests it may not be "good for Britain". I've just found it very weird - I guess part of it is that Trump's is an intuitively straightforward view of looking at trade and maybe also it's a sign of journalists feeling the need to have a take on this before they've actually had the time to properly read and report it. But I just found the dissonance quite weird.

Other is quite how heavily the Guardian is going in on Blair's "net zero" comments. What has attracted all this attention were from the foreword to a report by his think tank. Full foreword here:
https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/the-climate-paradox-why-we-need-to-reset-action-on-climate-change

The controversial comments from what I can see are:

People know that the current state of debate over climate change is riven with irrationality. As a result, though most people will accept that climate change is a reality caused by human activity, they're turning away from the politics of the issue because they believe the proposed solutions are not founded on good policy.

So, in developed countries, voters feel they're being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal. Whatever the historical responsibility of the developed world for climate change, those with even a cursory knowledge of the facts understand that in the future the major sources of pollution will come principally from the developing world.

But for that developing world, there is an equal resentment when they're told the investment is not available for the energy necessary for their development because it is not "green". They believe, correctly, that they have a right to develop and that those who have already developed using fossil fuels do not have the right to inhibit them from whatever is the most effective way of developing.
[...]
So, the movement now needs a public mandate, attainable only through a shift from protest to pragmatic policy. Too often, political leaders fear saying what many know to be true: the current approach isn't working. But they mustn't be silent – there's a new coalition to build; one that unites disillusioned activists with technologists and policymakers ready to act.
[...]
These are the inconvenient facts, which mean that any strategy based on either "phasing out" fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.

It is important to be clear where this argument leads.

None of this invalidates the inconvenient truth that the climate is changing, and to our detriment – or that this is one of the fundamental challenges of our time.

Nor does it mean we shouldn't continue to deploy renewable energy, which is both necessary and cost effective.

But it does mean we need to alter where we put our focus and resources.
[...]
Which brings us to the way the politics of the climate-change issue has played out over the years. Political leaders by and large know that the debate has become irrational. But they're terrified of saying so, for fear of being accused of being "climate deniers". As ever, when sensible people don't speak up about the way a campaign is being conducted, the campaign stays in the hands of those who end up alienating the very opinion on which consent for action depends.

Since that foreward was issued at the end of the month, the Guardian's done a long-read ("After Blair's bombshell, will Labour stick with or abandon net zero?") multiple articles ("How 'out of touch' Tony Blair became a serious threat to climate action", "Climate experts and politicians round on Tony Blair for 'wrong message'"), opinion pieces ("It's the anti net-zero, anti-woke Tony Blair - how was this man ever considered a progressive?", "Should anybody listen to Tony Blair?") and this cartoon:


I mention it because I keep being surprised at yet another piece of content about it every time I visit the Guardian - but also because reading his foreword it appears to be confirming his point. Slightly worried that this might be another area where the liberal left decide that certain things cannot be said because of the possible political consequences, which just gifts the issue to the right (see, for example, Biden's health)

Again just as the background reminder for this when Blair is calling the area irrational - the government's stated pledge is to decarbonise the grid by 2030 which literally everyone in the industry says is impossible and even government officials describe as "very stretching". I get the point of targets as a way of directing policy but I think they have to be attainable and it's not a good idea to set impossible targets that you will, inevitably, fail to hit.

[Admiral Yi]

Too many people on the left act as if they would rather keep the problem so they can keep on bitching about it than solve the problem.

[Sheilbh]

I mentioned before about this with the Greens but I really think it's part of why the Greens struggle to break through with the national media. They do a leadership election every two years and not long ago actually had an internal referendum on whether they should have a party leader at all.

They have two co-leaders Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer (the Greens have a gender-balanced or all female dual leadership) who've just led them to the most successful election ever and Denyer, having built up a bit of a media profile, is deciding to stand down to focus on being a really good local MP. In the nicest possible way - and I fully get the Greens do deep local politics and activism and that's their strategy - but that just seems mad

Ramsay is now running with Ellie Chowns who is another Green MP. I wonder if that might be a little imbalanced because part of the reason Denyer and Ramsay worked well, in my view, is that Denyer is an urban MP for Bristol (won her seat from Labour who were previously on about 60% of the vote), while Ramsay is a rural MP for Waveney Valley (won his seat from the Tories who were previously on about 60% of the vote). It was quite balanced and spoke to both areas the Greens are making progress in - his new running mate is also a rural MP who won her seat from the Tories.

They're being challenged by one of the deputy leaders who is a member of the London Assembly who is calling for "eco-populism" (which I think might actually be a smart idea) and gesturing at a broad front with Corbyn and the Gaza independents - not sure who his running mate will be or if he has one. But it's fair to say that I'm not sure a London-led "eco-populist" party allying with Corbyn and the Gaza independents will necessarily help the Greens in those rural 60% Tory seats they've been making progress in.

I think it's really interesting because it is the opposite strategy and philosophy of how to do politics than Reform. Reform know that Farage is their best media performer and they focus on him as leader and basically national media attention - there's a lot of "air campaign". They're now trying to recruit activists and councillors to build a party which I think they need and is the next (terrifying) step. The Greens fundamentally disagree with the very idea of "leadership" so regularly change leaders and go through sometimes divisive party contests (I think this year's will be divisive) every two years that can result in the party leader being a councillor, not one of their MPs - but have deep activists roots in local areas. It's a really interesting contrast of strategies and philosophies of politics. I think in achieving rapid breakthrough Reform's is right - I wonder if for long-term, sustainable success the Greens might not be on the right path?

But as I say I suspect this one will be a little divisive given Zack Polanski's critique as part of his leadership bid. At best the current leadership ticket wins - but I think even then Ramsay has been less successful in building a media profile than Denyer (in part because, as a rural MP, he spends a lot of his time opposing green energy projects which has caused some quite tough interviews). At worst, a year after their best ever election result they get a new leader with basically no media profile (outside of, say, Novara), who isn't an MP and is calling for an entirely new strategy that would probably cost Ramsay (and Chowns) their seat.

(I should say the party membership have never done it but the Green leadership elections also have an option to vote to "re-open nominations" and reject all the candidates )

[Tamas]

From a vicar online, delighted to see that Tamas has joined his local church

Fergus Butler-Gallie
@_F_B_G_
Just heard a sensational story of an unnamed church in the Home Counties which, having failed to be included in his '100 Best Churches', now carries a sign in its porch saying 'SIMON JENKINS NOT WELCOME HERE'.

 

[Tamas]

Thanks for quoting Blairs piece I thought he was writing something much more radical. Like you said, all the Guardian outrage over it just proved the point he was making.


Also, what do we think of Starmers crackdown on immigration as an effort to neutralise Farage?

[Sheilbh]

I think it's right - I personally think recent years of around 1,000,000 net migration is too high. I think it is unsustainable in a lot of ways and - as Starmer pointed out - at the same time our economy has stagnated. I believe the OBR and ONS have noted this is not how they would expect things to go so are analysing, but the working assumption is that it is perhaps lower productivity immigration - I think there's been similar issues in Canada recently.

I also get his "island of strangers" point:

Let me put it this way: Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.

Most of that immigration has been legal because of Johnson's liberalisation. His reforms had a points based system so if you had the points and a qualifying job over you could obtain a visa and made around 50% of jobs being advertised eligible for someone to apply from overseas (and removed the requirement to show the job couldn't be filled domestically, or in Europe). That means the only solution is really to tighten the rules on lawful migration and a lot of what Starmer has done is actually just return them to what they were before Johnson (for example, except in certain shortage sectors, moving the minimum qualification from A-level back to a degree).

I also broadly support English language requirements. I think that's a sensible thing.

Politically I don't know. I think there's something to the "you can't out-Reform Reform" but, on the other hand I think (especially with net migration running at close to 1,000,000 per year) there is a stage at which that becomes "no compromise with the electorate". I'd add that I always find Denmark an interesting comparison because they are one of the big exceptions in Europe where the centre-left vote has held up and they have some of the most hardline immigration policies in Europe. I'm not sure on that.

If I were a Tory I'd be furious that despite all the bluster on immigration they massively liberalised the rules and then staged a series of stunts to perform a restrictionist attitude while Starmer has shown the actual policy levers they could have used had they wanted to.

Final thought on the politics is that I do think Starmer's honesty is going to become a problem. I have no issue with politicians changing their mind, though I think they should probably explain it. But I can't think of any politician who in office is so radically different from how they campaigned in the leadership. Starmer's leadership pitch was Corbynism without Corbyn and on this - and every other issue - he is miles from that. This was his leadership pledge on immigration:

Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl's Wood.

It's mainly been an attack from the Corbynite left who never liked Starmer - but I didn't vote for him as Labour leader because I disagreed with that Corbynism without Corbyn strategy - and I think the criticism is spreading to soft left types who feel a bit duped, as well as the Tories. I think it's an issue that's going to grow and even as Starmer wants to boast that he's delivering on promises I think the gap between his campaign and his premiership will corrode that because, it's not clear that what he promises or campaigns on really matters.

I think it is one of Starmer's strengths as a PM and leader that he is so rudderless to an extent and willing to ruthlessly change direction to what he thinks will work/ditch strategies that don't. I think at a certain point it will become a profound weakness as a politician if he becomes perceived as fundamentally untrustworthy/nothing he says really means anything.

[PJL]

So basically Starmer's turning into Macron then.