Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I think there is a difference between making a serious effort to limit exposure to the constant fossil fuel cost shocks and achieving some kind of pure glowing ball of light state.

Yeah as I say I find it frustrating because I think the debate just polarises into are you for or against net zero.

When I think the actual issues are about base power - and the UK is going for nuclear so the question is how do we speed up and reduce the costs of building nuclear power? Challenges around upgrading the grid and how we ultimately subsidise energy transition for households (plus the question around the trade-off on EVs)?

But my experience (and from what I see in the press) is that if you talk about that or raise the issues around supply of fossil fuels for industry and agriculture, then it's very often read as "I'm opposed to net zero and/or don't think climate change is a thing". It's quite frustrating and I think it's a political problem and why you need, to RH's point, a statesman/woman or leader as teacher - explaining and bringing people along that it's a both/and issue not an either/or.

I'd add slightly aside from the supply shock/security issue, I'm also very unsure on the sort of ethics - I mentioned before that there was huge opposition to a new coal mine being opened (I think it was ultimately blocked). It would only produce coke for steel production. And it was really weird because you had lots of people, politicians, papers who had absolutely backed the nationalisation of the steel industry (as I did) but also totally opposed domestic production of the input into that industry on climate grounds. Which just feels to me a bit weird and almost unethical - that somehow if it's foreigners bearing the carbon "cost" on a spreadsheet (and also the real labour and physical cost of mining) our steel is cleaner. I have moral/ethical concerns aroundan energy transition that is based on the negative externalities of energy in our world just being pushed on other people rather than us assuming responsibility for it. In my view if you think it is necessary for Britain to have a steel industry (and I do) then you should at least be open to the possibility of Britain also producing, if it can, the necessary inputs. Things aren't greener (sometimes they opposite) because they arrive on a tanker.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I get quite peeved about the public whining about supermarket profits; which is in reality an efficient sector of the UK economy. Tesco for example, £2.4bn profit....cue fuming rage....but that is on a turnover of £74bn; in addition, because of the bricks and mortar way it operates, HMRC gets a quarter of that profit back in corporation tax.

[Richard Hakluyt]

To be more positive I like the look of the small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Here is the Rolls Royce spiel on them https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-latest-news. Critically they can provide baseload but also have adjustable power output, which will be a great help in balancing the grid, something that becomes an increasing problem as wind and solar output goes up. The government has ordered an initial three which will be located at the old nuclear power plant site in Anglesey; though I would have thought that it would make more sense to put them in an electricity deficit region such as South-east England....Surrey for example 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

and as a reminder regarding the struggling chemical sector: I will again mention that Antwerpen has the second biggest cluster of chemical industry


in the world!
Despite everything. But it won't last unless, for a big part, those energy prices come down. It would be a disaster if Europe would lose this.

[Sheilbh]

I get quite peeved about the public whining about supermarket profits; which is in reality an efficient sector of the UK economy. Tesco for example, £2.4bn profit....cue fuming rage....but that is on a turnover of £74bn; in addition, because of the bricks and mortar way it operates, HMRC gets a quarter of that profit back in corporation tax.

Yeah they are big employers who pay their taxes and as you say have a tiny margin. I'd also note that compared with most of Europe (and indeed historically) British people pay a very low share of their income on food. It is comparatively very cheap here.

Now I kind of sympathise with European systems which are more expensive and more protective of local farmers and tradition etc. But that argument was lost 180 years ago and British people like cheaper food, don't care where it comes from and hate farmers - so we have the supermarkets we have and they do what their customers want

But I don't think they're massive price gougers and actually I think they're one of the few sectors of our economy that I think performs pretty well. I was really impressed in covid for example.

Also just to be clear I'm not totally opposed to price controls. In fact I think it is going to be an increasingly necessary part of the policy repertoire in an era of climate change and active geopolitics. I think supply shocks are more likely to become an issue. Although, I could be wrong, but I think price controls probably also need to sit around some regime of rationing.

To be more positive I like the look of the small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Here is the Rolls Royce spiel on them https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-latest-news. Critically they can provide baseload but also have adjustable power output, which will be a great help in balancing the grid, something that becomes an increasing problem as wind and solar output goes up. The government has ordered an initial three which will be located at the old nuclear power plant site in Anglesey; though I would have thought that it would make more sense to put them in an electricity deficit region such as South-east England....Surrey for example 

Agree and Ed Miliband is pushing on this which I think is good - I have questions about his policies but I think he is probably the most effective minister in this government.

Edit: And I kind of get it on location. I grew up near a nuclear plant and the community was very pro-nuclear, hostile/disappointed in decommissioning the plant. I think that probably makes it a lot easier to build new nuclear on the site of old nuclear.

I'd add on positive policies that Reeves has pushed a couple in the last day or two. One basically devolving a lot of decision making powers about local transport infrastructure to Metro-Mayors and the other limiting all judicial review (except in relation to human rights) for critically important national infrastructure projects. Both of those sound very, very positive to me.

Although I saw Faisal Islam spot that lots and lots of policies were being announced by ministers in the last few days presumably to try and get stuff done before they're potentially replaced if Burnham comes in or Starmer is removed. I only wish they'd had a similar sense of urgency for the previous two years

[Sheilbh]

A crypto fascist in the Reform Party of all places. What an unexpected development.

As I say I suspect there will be more to come.

However the Greens have picked a candidate and then had to have him withdraw within a matter of days apparently for "personal reasons". I assume unrelaed to those reasons he shared posts describing the attack on Jewish ambulances as a "false flag". He has shared by a British ethno-nationalist, Hugh Anthony, saying the response to attacks in Golders Green makes "no sense" - Anthony has backed "remigration" and said it needs to cover "all Jews living in Britain". The Green candidate also shared an Instagram video relating to the arrest of two men in relation to arson attacks on Jewish community buildings as "total bullshit to keep the false flag flying".

As good an example of horseshoe theory of politics as you're ever likely to see.

It's a real problem for Reform and the Greens - their brand and their wings of politics tend to be excitable and more likely to attract fringe characters. In a way I suspect that's part of the appeal for a lot of people. But they just don't have anything like the vetting procedures or experience that the established parties do to try as best they can to keep nuts and crooks out. I suspect there's probably a balance between some level of vetting and not just recreating the types of controls and command in the established parties that can turn people off.

[Josquius]

It's a shame Your Party was such a damp squib really. Would be nice for those people to have their own play pen rather than crapping on the Greens floor.

I know the Greens have hyper local candidate selection, which makes them particularly suseptable to candidates like this.
I don't think Deform does it that way? Their central part very much has chosen bigots by design?

[Sheilbh]

It's a shame Your Party was such a damp squib really. Would be nice for those people to have their own play pen rather than crapping on the Greens floor.

Well I think if Your Party had succeeded - which was possible - then the Greens would not be in the position they are. I think there was space for a party to the left of Labour to breakthrough but probably not two (although who knows, perhaps Restore UK suggests a different possibility).

And I'm not really sure what the right answer is on this for the Greens. But I think there is a strand of the party that has a standalone environmental pitch - and there is a version that basically sees themselves as the left of Labour (and a lot of Corbyn-backing former Labour members who have joined the Greens recently are in that camp).

I also think that more than any of the other parties - Labour leaves its institutional, organisational, factional imprint on former members/activists.

I know the Greens have hyper local candidate selection, which makes them particularly suseptable to candidates like this.
I don't think Deform does it that way? Their central part very much has chosen bigots by design?

So all parties have similar processes at the start which is people expressing an interest/applying to become a candidate. There is then a vetting process and normally an interview stage - with special training and development for star candidates/target constituencies. I think in both cases the Greens and Reform ae struggling with the vetting stage because the scale is different to anything they've previously experienced. Also I sort of think they lack the negative experience that shapes what vetting they do. For example, Labour are obsessive about preventing entryism (and it also provides a useful alibi for blocking candidates - e.g. Starmer's HQ blocking candidates for liking tweets by Nicola Sturgeon).

But the two parties have very different challenges/trajectories.

Reform basically did not exist until the 2024 general election. They are built around Farage and are very focused on the air war/media and digital side of politics. They now need to build an actual party - it looks like they are, on the other hand Farage has tried before and always fails at this stage because he doesn't like tall poppies.

The Greens have been around for fifty years, they're hyper-local, very decentralised and have build a party infrastructure designed to last basically forever. Until now they've deliberately not engaged in that media and digital side of politics and prioritise (excuse the pun) more organic growth - Polanski's changed that. And suddenly their brand and appeal is vastly bigger than it has been historically. They're attracting new types of people (including many exiles from Labour's hard left) and they need work out how they expand but also, I think, how they avoid it being a reverse takeover.

It was interesting to read recently that the Greens are starting to consider how they change their policy making process. I think I've mentioned before but I have a friend who is very involved in Green politics. They go to conference, they've proposed and had successful motions at conference. And their view is Green policies are a disaster waiting to happen as soon as the media pays any attention. It's very decentralised and slow - which is what Polanski wants to change, but also they have a "living manifesto" so policies approved by a party conference are permanently in the Green manifesto until another party conference removes it. So they've got some mad stuff in there. Some of it was just trendy in previous eras. So even aside from the leave NATO stuff which tends to get attention there's some very dodgy things about population control particularly in the developed world that was very of the moment for a (white, European) environmentalist in the 70s but now reads a little differently. My friend's a barrister so has read the entire thing and their view is the second there's a general election and the Greens are polling well someone in the media is going to actually read their whole manifesto and it'll be a disaster - not least because, to Polanski's point, it's quite difficult and cumbersome to change policy.

Edit: I'd add on the actual process it varies. The Greens are local but it's from an approved list with "development" candidates/constituencies who've received training. Reform also have training (which has leaked and seems to me pretty self-aware as it's basically: "stay off social media, focus on local issues and let Nigel talk about national issues") but they are still writing the party rulebook (I think this started at a recent conference and is partly why they're doing local conferences) so the actual process hasn't been formalised yet. Labour and Tories both have local constituency parties voting - Labour intervene more on this both through things like imposing all women shortlists but also procedural dark arts that allow them to impose a shortlist on a constituency. The Tories place a lighter thumb on the scale. I think on this as on most things, the Lib Dems are actually the most genuinely party democratic (which is why they're ripe for entryism and I don't understand why no-one's done it ).

[Sheilbh]

Couple of interesting pieces given all the attention on Burnham.

First a really good longer read on Substack about Manchester and what might be meant by "Manchesterism" - in particular the legacy that Burnham inherited:
https://jamesbreckwoldt.substack.com/p/how-manchester-turned-its-economy

To be clear Manchester is still not reach enough to be able to properly redistribute within its own region or to be a "net contributor". The wider picture on that is that there is more regional re-distribution within Britain than there was in Germany during reunification - and yet that has become ever more re-distribution from London and the South-East to the rest of the country as the rest of the country falls further and further behind. Having said that Manchester's story is of genuine, significant progress in that time - it is one of the only regions closing the gap. In 1990 there were 500 residents living in the city centre, it's now around 100,000. Manchester's growth is now at about twice London's (and is growing faster than the rest of the country on a per capita basis, outside of London it is the leading city for FDI (and at a European level is on the same sort of level as Barcelona and Dublin), it has the fastest growing productivity in the country.

Some of it from stuff that appeals to the left of Burnham's pitch such as hugely improved public transport on his watch (but again building on a legacy established by Leese and Bernstein) or public ownership of the airport development (and Manchester Airports Group, majority owned by Manchester region local councils, now owns and operates London Stansted Airport and the East Midlands Airport). Some of it, frankly, the sort of thing Labour and Greens don't like hearing, for example a focus on attracting investment from international capital or this from Sir Richard Leese on complaints about a lack of affordable housing:

"Some people would argue developers are pulling the wool over our eyes but we are a developer ourselves so we know exactly how much development costs. That claim is just bollocks. If we'd done what our critics wanted us to do, it wouldn't have delivered affordable housing, it would have delivered no housing at all, zero. If we'd tried to impose 20% affordability on it, it wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't have got 20% affordable housing we would have got nothing."

Which reminds of Bernstein's comment that he's a committed socialist and very interested in the distribution of wealth - but if you're not generating any it's a bit of a pointless discussion.

Then from Joshi Herrmann who founded the (fantastic) set of hyper-local new media brands, starting with the Manchester Mill - which has been a gamechanger for local press in recent years. Anyway he has a slightly critical take on Burnham from his experience covering him as mayor:
https://manchestermill.co.uk/stop-looking-for-burnhamism-in-six-years-ive-never-found-it/

I would slightly push back on this piece - I think there's lots that's interesting and valuable in it. But I think it replicates in reverse the problem with our national media. So our national media is profoundly uninterested in what is happening in the country. I think this piece seems to be almost too Manchester focused as if Burnham is gunning to become PM from his position as Greater Manchester Mayor and may be in for a shock when he brings his skillset to Westminster. He had bad leadership campaigns (both of which I backed ). But he's not a neophyte in Westminster. He was Tessa Jowell's SpAd, Blunkett's protege, Secretary of State for Culture, Secretary of State for Health (slightly mixed record in both) and Chief Secretary at the Treasury (so deputy in the most important department in government) under Alastair Darling. So I think he's got a good sense of Westminster (albeit acknowledging there have been changes in the 9 years he's been in Manchester).

And the conclusion that he maybe doesn't have that killer instinct strikes me as slightly insane given that he's doing something absolute unprecedented. From outside Westminster he's built a base of support in the parliamentary party to mount a leadership challenge, he's basically made clear he's out to replace Starmer and got to a position that the party are basically clearing a way for him to do it. If that's not a killer instinct I'm not sure what is. Although I think it doesn't say a great deal about the quality of Labour's 400+ MPs that they can't really find an alternative among their number...

Harold Wilson famously talkd about the parties and their leaders saying that "the Labour Party is always talking about getting rid of its leader and it never does. The Conservative Party never talks about getting rid of its leader and then, suddenly, there's a flash of cold steel..." I think the Tories talk about it quite a lot now - but it's still true on Labour. The last time Labour removed a leader was in 1935 when the unions removed George Lansbury (Dame Angela's grand-dad) because he was a pacifist who was "hawking [his] conscience around from body to body asking to be told what to do with it". Labour does not replace leaders easily and to see the first removal in 90 years come (interestingly, again) from outside the parliamentary party it seems a bit odd to say the leader of that isn't sufficiently ruthless.

[Sheilbh]

So some interesting stuff happening with Reform right now.

Again - all of this could be absolutely blown out the water if they win the by-election so handle with caution.

But there was a constituency poll that showed Burnham winning (43% to Reform's 40%). Basically they are squeezing the Tory, Lib Dem and Green vote out of the picture. However there is a complication for Reform as Restore Britain are running.

I haven't posted much about them because I'm not really sure there's much there there. But Restore Britain are basically a party further to the right than Reform. They were founded by a Reform MP, Rupert Lowe (previously chairman of Southampton FC), who fell out with Farage - Lowe has also received some fairly vocal support from Elon Musk. Basically they're more "based"/aligned with the online right talking about things like "remigration" and playing footsie with Tommy Robinson - both of which Farage won't do (and has been criticised for not doing by Musk, Bannon etc who are convinced Robinson speaks for England). The kind reading is the one that Farage always gives which is that he's effectively a one man cordon sanitaire policing the populist right from stuff like Robinson or "remigration" - the more cynical is his ambition is to replace the Tories as the dominant party on the right and Robinson and "remigration" will cap your vote (see also his refusal in the European Parliament to join a party that includes the Le Pens or opposing burqa bans).

There's some evidence Restore Britain might be a bit more of a real thing. They have bussed in many activists into Makerfield. At the local elections they won every council seat in Great Yarmouth (Lowe's constituency). Journalists covering the by-election say they are there. And that poll showed them on about 7% - not massive but presenting the same challenge for Reform/Farage as he presents to the Tories or Polanski does to Labour. Which is really interesting. If you extrapolate from that one constituency poll and it were to be replicated in a national election then it would cost Reform 100+ seats (Restore wouldn't actually win any more).

Separately some of the Reform candidate's "cleaned" social media posts have re-emerged - nothing particularly racist but a lot in very bad taste and a lot are quite sexist. Also Reform were on the campaign trail and got wind that Burnham was doing a thing at a local cafe. Reform had the Daily Express accompanying them and decided to go to that cafe (this in itself is not too bad - campaigns sometimes do try to cross each other's paths but do it in a public space like the street, if it's at a private space like a cafe you clear it with the owner first). Burnham confronted them "angrily" and apparently told them off that they need to show some respect and have boundaries. This was initially spun by the Daily Express as "Angry Burnham".

Burnham then released a statement that he wasn't there on a campaign event. The cafe was run by a charity that provides services for adults with learning difficulties and the event was about a group of those young adults getting their Gold Duke of Edinburgh awards which he was there to celebrate. The cafe ownr published a similar lesson. Reform have since been going on the attack against a local charity and local cafe that works with adults with learning difficulties. (This is a bit of a theme - Reform are very happy dishing out attacks, they really can't deal with pushback).

With all of that context - you've now got some slightly wild stuff. Farage launching attacks on Musk, Danny Kruger (a Reform MP) saying he won't defend their candidate's social media candidates, Matt Goodwin (online/media outrider who was their candidate in Gorton and Denton) tweeting that unless "all patriotic voters unite behind Reform [...] then Andy Burnham will win, call an early snap generatl election and put Britain under a hard left government until 2031". It looks and feels like a bit of a meltdown right now.

Again, all of this could be nonsense if Reform win (and they may well do so) and there are weeks to go. If they won the narrative would change and a lot of this would stop mattering. But with their poll numbers declining, their national vote share in the local elections actually falling from previous local elections and this - I wonder about their direction of travel. I've mentioned before but Farage has never previously managed to set up durable, self-sustaining national party - some of these challenges (candidate selection), lack of professionalism etc - are very reminiscent of previous Farage attempts. Others - particularly being outflanks from the right - are new and interesting.

Edit: Incidentally this is part of the reason I'm not totally sold on the idea that Britain's main parties are going to get replaced - in part they have the activist, financial, organisation base which is really important. But also I think they kind of have the actual experience of ups and downs politically. They've got a store of institutional memory. It might still happen - Labour replaced the Liberals etc - but I'm wary of writing off established organisations and all the advantages they bring (which are also their problems creating an opening for new entrants). One quick example on the institutional memory point is Reform are absolutely dreadful at expectations management - they've had a really bad habit of over-hyping every election and often falling short which produces more disappointment than if they'd maaged expectations properly.  I think with both Reform and the Greens (under Polanski) we may see a bit of political sugar rushes and crashes.

[Sheilbh]

By the by - Nicola Sturgeon's husband (I think possibly now ex-husband) has been found guilty of embezzling £400,000 of SNP party funds when he was CEO of the party and Sturgeon was leader (and First Minister of Scotland).

The list of things he was spending money is kind of extraordinary. As well as the £150k camper van and the Jag, there was a £2,500 salt and pepper set from Lalique, the £150 very special edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism () and a £20k very expensive pen habit.

I'm not really sure Sturgeon's line that she is shocked by this, had not realised it was happening and didn't know really holds up when she was apparently married to Holyrood's Imelda Marcos.

[Tamas]

I mean, did he actually buy those things or had somebody write the invoices for him?

[Sheilbh]

He seems to have been buying it. From my understanding the police have been seizing stuff - certainly the motorhome and the Jag.

He also appears to have been a gamer - he bought PS and GTA, plus some other gaming equipment. A fancy coffee machine, lots of Le Creuset, several boxsets (including shows Sturgeon had mentioned being a fan of) - but also this covers like hand cream and super glue.

He basically seems to have treated the SNP's money - donated by members and supporters - as his own and just used the party credit card for everything.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder what kind of salt and pepper he put in that set?

[mongers]

So some interesting stuff happening with Reform right now.

...snip...

With all of that context - you've now got some slightly wild stuff. Farage launching attacks on Musk, Danny Kruger (a Reform MP) saying he won't defend their candidate's social media candidates, Matt Goodwin (online/media outrider who was their candidate in Gorton and Denton) tweeting that unless "all patriotic voters unite behind Reform [...] then Andy Burnham will win, call an early snap generatl election and put Britain under a hard left government until 2031". It looks and feels like a bit of a meltdown right now.

...snip...

Couldn't happen to a 'nicer' bunch of people.