Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I imagine once Queen Liz 2 passes on  there will be a general sense we should get rid of the monarchy, but with absolutely no consensus on what to do instead, so we'll just keep muddling along with the status quo.

Will our colonial legacy never end

[Grey Fox]

Its fine. A constitutional monarch is a fine choice for a Head of State.

[crazy canuck]

I imagine once Queen Liz 2 passes on  there will be a general sense we should get rid of the monarchy, but with absolutely no consensus on what to do instead, so we'll just keep muddling along with the status quo.

Will our colonial legacy never end

Unlikely, at least for Canada.  As BB said, it is very unlikely there would be general agreement on how to replace the current deeply entrenched constitutional norms and forms.

[Sheilbh]

I meant more the instinct to muddle along with the status quo

[Jacob]

Yeah, I don't think the Provinces are going find a way to settle the issue without things getting ridiculous. Both Alberta and Quebec are likely to have form on this, and while I can't point to any other province specifically being likely to derail the process neither would I suprised by any of the provinces tried to highjack to process.

And even if the Provinces somehow dealt with it neatly, I think there's about 99% chance that some First Nations band or other (or many of them), would come to the table with "our treaties are with the Queen. You cannot change that relationship unilaterally" in a way that would probably be very inconvenient.

[Josquius]

I want to see King Harry of Canada dammit.

[Sheilbh]

From the Liverpool Echo and I'm wondering if the Sunak shaped hole at the heart of the net zero plans is just very canny expectations management ahead of the budget - also reports of increase in taxes on flights especially for very long haul, but possible reductions for short-haul/domestic - it seems quite driven by that stat that only 15% of people take 70% of flights

Historic £700m boost to expand Merseyrail network
Chancellor to announce massive transport funding injection for city region
ByLiam Thorp

The Liverpool City Region is set to receive a historic £700m cash injection that could expand the Merseyrail network.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak is expected to fund a multi-billion overhaul of local transport in his budget on Wednesday - including £710m for the Liverpool City Region.

The Treasury said that the major cash boost will pay for battery packs and the potential extension of the Merseyrail network.

The funding, which has been warmly welcomed by Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram, is part of the City Region Sustainable Transport settements - which will also see Greater Manchester and the West Midlands receive over £1 billion, West Yorkshire handed £830m and £570m given to South Yorkshire.

Mayor Rotheram has made delivering a London-style integrated transport network in the region one of his top priority and will see this news as a key moment in that journey.

Mr Sunak is also set to announce £1.2 billion of new funding for bus services, which the government said will deliver London-style improvements to speed up journey times, simplify fares and increase the number of services outside the capital.

The government said this funding will deliver integrated fares and ticketing, so that bus users can enjoy simpler, cheaper fares like those enjoyed already by passengers in London, as well as additional services across the weekdays, weekends and evenings, and ambitious new bus priority measures to speed up journeys on busy roads.

Chancellor Mr Sunak said: "Great cities need great transport and that is why we're investing billions to improve connections in our city regions as we level up opportunities across the country.

"There is no reason why somebody working in the North and Midlands should have to wait several times longer for their bus or train to arrive in the morning compared to a commuter in the capital.

"This transport revolution will help redress that imbalance as we modernise our local transport networks so they are fit for our great cities and those people who live and work in them."

As part of the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements, funding will be allocated for projects in Greater Manchester (£1.07billion), West Yorkshire (£830 million), South Yorkshire (£570 million), West Midlands (£1.05 billion), Tees Valley (£310 million), West of England (£540 million) and Liverpool City Region (£710 million).

The government said this funding will enable projects such as cutting-edge carriages for Greater Manchester's Metrolink, an expansion of tram networks in South Yorkshire and the West Midlands, and battery packs for Merseyrail trains to extend its network.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: "We're absolutely committed to building back better and boosting regional economies right across the country, and these investments are a clear example of how we're doing that.

"Modernising our transport network sits at the heart of our levelling up agenda. This funding will serve as a catalyst for the regeneration of towns and cities by improving infrastructure and ensuring more people have better access to jobs and education."

Also striking that the funding seems to be going to the metro-mayors as I remember reading elsewhere that Sunak was quite keen on expanding the metro-mayor system to other bits of the country (including non-city regions).

[Jacob]

From the Liverpool Echo and I'm wondering if the Sunak shaped hole at the heart of the net zero plans is just very canny expectations management ahead of the budget - also reports of increase in taxes on flights especially for very long haul, but possible reductions for short-haul/domestic - it seems quite driven by that stat that only 15% of people take 70% of flights

Would "very canny expectations management" be true to form?

[Sheilbh]

Would "very canny expectations management" be true to form?

It's difficult to say to be honest. Sunak has come out of nowhere. He only became an MP in 2015. He was appointed as Chief Secretary of the Treasury (basically deputy Chancellor) after the 2019 election and when Javid resigned over the firing of his aide by Number 10, Sunak was promoted. But he has had a good pandemic. The policies he implemented to provide financial support for people and businesses got up and running pretty quickly and generally worked. The thing I've found striking is that he's been very good at branding so everyone associates those (successful and popular) policies with him, I think it's a little dodgy because it looks like party political broadcasts to me but from the official Treasury account, while pretty successful at keeping his fingerprints off less popular policies. I also think - and this may just be my perception - that the Treasury doesn't look very leaky at the minute, which suggests the departments behind him and, again, possibly pretty clever political management.

There's clearly tensions between him and Johnson - there have been reports about it since last summer. He's now clearly a powerful Chancellor as suggested by the Treasury openly briefing against another cabinet minister (in a "spending" department) - and I suspect Johnson couldn't fire him. But Johnson did remove all of Sunak's junior ministers at the Treasury at the last reshuffle and replace them with Johnson loyalists (and according to some incredibly petty gossip deliberately appointed the most tall Tory MP to the Treasury - as Sunak's only 5'6" ).

But having said that all Chancellors like to pull rabbit out the hat on budget day. The Treasury will be very used to doing the rigamarole of stating repeatedly that there's no money to all the departments looking for a budget increase and brief the media that it'll probably be a tough spending review and everyone will need to eat gruel; only to discover a few billion down the back of the sofa to announce on the day.

So maybe - it could be that this is another sign that he's a very good political operator, or it could just be Treasury standard operating procedure. But there's been a few too many stories of "no money for x/going to have to cancel y target" for me to think it's innocent. And if there is more stuff like this in the spending review then he gets to have a lot of the credit because after the 2,000 pages of policy documents on the road to net zero, he gets to claim the credit for funding at least part of it.

Edit: I would add he's the politician with the highest approval rating in the country. No-one knew who he was or had an opinion of Sunak before the pandemic, so he came to the public's attention as a (pretty successful) crisis managing chancellor and there was one point during the first wave when his approval rating was higher than the Queen's, which is unusual for any politician but especially for a Chancellor.

[Josquius]

I've never got merseyrail. Seems very clearly to effectively be the Liverpool metro yet its never advertised as anything like that. It doesn't have the same brand strength or fame as the Tyne and Wear metro for example.
Tis odd.

But more money for trains is always good.
Alas you just know a tonne of it will be skimmed off under the current government.

[The Larch]

Can somebody comment on the raw sewage-gate taking place in the UK in the last few days?

MPs set to reject move to make water firms cut sewage discharges
Government opposes proposed amendment to environment bill designed to protect rivers

The government is to reject calls to place a legal duty on water companies to reduce raw sewage discharges into rivers.

MPs will debate the environmental bill on Wednesday in its final stages through parliament, and clean water campaigners want them to back what they say is a key amendment on sewage that was agreed in the House of Lords.

In 2020 raw sewage was discharged into waters more than 400,000 times over a total of more than 3.1 million hours. Sewage pollution is a key component of what MPs have heard is a chemical cocktail of pollutants going into rivers.

The bill will govern environmental policy ranging from rivers to waste to air now that the UK has left the EU. Surfers Against Sewage, part of a coalition of groups pushing for the amendment to be accepted on Wednesday, said it was crucial to ensure action to tackle sewage pollution started now.

But the environment secretary, George Eustice, has recommended MPs reject amendments to the bill.

Other amendments include strengthening the independence of a new watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which will enforce laws on air, water and waste. Before Brexit these laws were policed by European courts, which prosecuted governments that breached them.

Ministers have said the OEP will be similarly independent, but the bill allows them powers to "advise" the new body.

Hugo Tagholm, of Surfers Against Sewage said: "In this most important of environmental decades, it's shocking that the government is recommending that MPs reject progressive and ambitious amendments that would protect water, air and nature.

"Why wouldn't they want water companies to have a legal obligation not to pollute our rivers and ocean with sewage, for example? It beggars belief and hardly shows a commitment to be the greenest government ever. It's time for more ambitious thinking and law that builds protected nature back into public ownership rather than leaving it to the ravages of shareholder interests."

The government has accepted an amendment extending powers to set charges for single-use items so it includes all materials, not just plastic, something Ruth Chambers of the Greener UK coalition said was welcome.

But Chambers said: "The decision to reject almost all of the improvements made in the Lords is hugely disappointing, particularly on the eve of Cop26. It seems the government is still determined to pass a bill that will see weaker domestic protections for people and nature, and particularly in the way that crucial environmental laws are upheld and enforced."

A government spokesperson said: "Our landmark environment bill will transform how we protect our natural environment, make better use of our resources and clean up our air and water. We have listened very carefully and we're now bringing forward changes which improve the bill and demonstrate our global leadership ahead of Cop26."

Just to namedrop, I personally know Hugo, the Surfers Against Sewage spokesman quoted in the article.

[Sheilbh]

It's a good campaign

There's legislation passing which broadly tightens the rules on this. It includes of amendments from the House of Lords which the goverment have accepted. They are rejecting one opposition amendment (they say it's badly drafted and would be incredibly expensive; opposition MPs say it removes the effectiveness and makes the entire bill worthwhile).

There's a Tory backbench amendment the goverment have now adopted that would basically require government to reduce discharges from storm overflows and a costed plan by next year on how to eliminate them plus monitoring by a committee. The opposition amendment from the Lords calls for a complete ban on storm overflows which would just need to be implemented now.

So it's an argument over not very much but being played very effectively.

Separatey the Speaker (sort of) calls for Rishi Sunak to resign for how much briefing is going on from the Treasury before the budget:
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1452649726004838400?s=20

Lots of journalists saying it all reminds them of Brown in his pomp. Everything pre-announced and repeate announcements of spending to make it sound more impressive But Brown was probably the most powerful Chancellor this side of Gladstone, so not a bad comparison

[Tamas]

Owen Paterson, who served as Northern Ireland secretary and environment secretary when David Cameron was PM, repeatedly used his position as an MP to help two companies that were paying him, a report from the Commons standards committee says.

The committee has described this as "an egregious case of paid advocacy" and recommended that Paterson should be suspended from the Commons for 30 days. Its recommendation is almost certain to be adopted by the Commons as a whole.

The committee accepted that Paterson did not think he was doing anything wrong and that he thought his lobbying on behalf of the two companies he was working for - Randox, a clinical diagnostics company, and Lynn's Country Foods, a processor and distributor of meat products - was in the public interest. But the report says he was still breaking Commons rules, which say MPs must not lobby on behalf of a paying client.

This is pathetic. He was literally getting paid to use his position as MP to benefit these companies. Randox, incidentally, is the test company I am paying 50 pounds per PCR test everytime I take a flight, in the public interest.

[The Brain]

The committee appears to be less than sharp.

[Tamas]

The committee appears to be less than sharp.

They are probably hiding their "sponsors" better than this guy but still wary of creating precedents