Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

Please tell me this is all part of Seldon's long term plan and everything will work out in the end

[The Brain]

In Swedish Seldon means (typically horse) harness. Makes you thimk.

[Barrister]

Yes. I had literal doorknockers in the locals (wfh when they were here) and have had like three Labour leaflets already, plus a phone call. But I've not been in when those leaflets arrive.

I'm in a very safe Labour area so I assume a lot of the canvassing is just updating their data.

Yeah, in an ideal world, your doorknockers are updating your own database of likely voters.  If you're identified as a likely voter you'll then get called on election day, offered a ride if need be, etc.

[Josquius]

Please tell me this is all part of Seldon's long term plan and everything will work out in the end

Second Britain is AWOL.
So...

[Sheilbh]

Really striking polling variation in this election pointed out by Rob Ford.

The general picture of Labour with a substantial lead is consistent. The big challenge seems to be Reform. Some polls have Reform level with the Tories, other have them 10 points behind; some have them on twice the number as the Lib Dems and others have them level-pegging; some have Tory+Reform above Labour, while others have Labour ten points ahead of Tory+Reform.

I'll add my general comment that in previous actual elections, Reform have underperformed their polling numbers quite significantly. This has happened in both by-elections and the local elections and includes quite Reform-y areas. My general view is that they will underperform in this election (but in part that's because I think if you stepped away from the internet no-one had even heard of them and I think Farage entering the race changes that although possibly a mixed bag for them).

As I say the big picture is consistent but an example of how these differences play out:

Sam Freedman
@Samfr
Three MRPs out today

MiC say Tories win 155 seats and Lab majority 162

YouGov say Tories win 108 seats and Lab majority 200

Savanta say Tories win 53 seats and Lab majority 382

That's basically the spectrum we're looking at. 1997 is now the best possible result.

The difference between the extremes is that Savanta have a 21% lead for Labour and the Tories on 23%, while MiC have a 16% lead and the Tories on 28%. To be nerdy apparently there's a big divide between "squeeze" pollsters who ask "don't knows" responders again how they might vote (low Tory vote) v re-weighters who reallocate "don't knows" based on who they should vote for based on historical patterns (higher Tory vote).

Separately on the ground via the Times (can't actually find the article):

Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
Exclusive from @MaxKendix
 
Rishi Sunak's hyper-defensive election strategy in numbers:

* The prime minister has spent the election campaign visiting seats with an average majority of 11,894

* Over the past 10 days that average has increased to **14,317**

* One in five of the seats he has visited have majorities of more than 20,000

* Just under half of his visit are to seats with 15,000 majorities

And we'll see what happens but Michael Crick says there are rumours that CCHQ will tell candidates tomorrow that they're no longer winnabale seats, so party resources will be moved. Basically fleeing to higher ground - there may be blowback from angry candidates and activists over this. But it makes sense.

[Tamas]

Alastair Campbell mentions Josq on Rest is Politics!

https://youtu.be/oJIcjrKU6pE?t=297

[Gups]

Big decision by the UK Supreme Court (by a 3-2 majority overturning the two lower courts).

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0064.html

In relation to permission for a new oil well, the decision maker must not only assess the environmental effects of the development itself but the downstream uses (i.e. global emissions of the oil produced).

I thhink this kills any new gas/oil production development in the UK absent new legislation but will it also prevent otehr forms of development e.g. does a new shopping centre have to account for the emissions arising from the transport of goods to and within the UK and trips made by shoppers?

Crazy decision in my view.

[Josquius]

Alastair Campbell mentions Josq on Rest is Politics!

https://youtu.be/oJIcjrKU6pE?t=297

Oh. They live in my seat too?
For the record, I decided on this stance before the Greens made it their official approach to the election. Where I lead the country* follows.

Also though this is the approach I'm taking doesn't mean I'd recommend it to most. Its purely long range tactical voting/personal about some local Labour people.


I got my ballot today. I've suitably scrawled my notes and I'm ready to send.


*a small nutty portion of it


Oh. Also. Inflation hits its lowest point in 3 years. I suspect this is why Sunak gambled on the election now. Its not getting any attention at all
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrrk8j7pwxo

[Tamas]

Big decision by the UK Supreme Court (by a 3-2 majority overturning the two lower courts).

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0064.html

In relation to permission for a new oil well, the decision maker must not only assess the environmental effects of the development itself but the downstream uses (i.e. global emissions of the oil produced).

I thhink this kills any new gas/oil production development in the UK absent new legislation but will it also prevent otehr forms of development e.g. does a new shopping centre have to account for the emissions arising from the transport of goods to and within the UK and trips made by shoppers?

Crazy decision in my view.

NIMBYs rejoice!

Sounds like the next step in weaponising climate change in the fight for stagnation and death.

[HVC]

The uk puts in a lot of effort to ensure nothing is ever built

[Tamas]

The uk puts in a lot of effort to ensure nothing is ever built

If we didn't need it in 1890, we don't need it now!

[Sheilbh]

Big decision by the UK Supreme Court (by a 3-2 majority overturning the two lower courts).

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0064.html

In relation to permission for a new oil well, the decision maker must not only assess the environmental effects of the development itself but the downstream uses (i.e. global emissions of the oil produced).

I thhink this kills any new gas/oil production development in the UK absent new legislation but will it also prevent otehr forms of development e.g. does a new shopping centre have to account for the emissions arising from the transport of goods to and within the UK and trips made by shoppers?

Crazy decision in my view.

Yeah - I think Labour have already ruled that out. I get that it's not directly about Scope 3 but I think this is even wider than that. Possibly not just downstream but upstream emissions too:

The appellant's counsel framed their submissions with reference to the concept of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. This calls for some explanation. The terminology of scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions is taken from the GHG Protocol developed to assist companies to understand and report on their greenhouse gas emissions. The first edition of the GHG Protocol was issued in 2001. It defined three "scopes" of greenhouse gas emissions for accounting and reporting purposes. Scope 1 is direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company, for example emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles etc. Scope 2 is "electricity indirect [greenhouse gas] emissions" from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company within the organisational boundary, for which the company should account even though the emissions physically occur at the facility where the electricity is generated. Scope 3 is all other indirect greenhouse gas emissions, an optional reporting category under the GHG Protocol that covers emissions which are a consequence of the activities of the company but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. This is a very wide category which covers both emissions which are "upstream" from the company's own activities but to which those activities give rise and emissions which are "downstream" from the company's activities.

I normally agree with Lord Sales - and I thought this was interesting in light of the recent ECtHR judgement. Possibly trying to lay down a marker now:

For the reasons given above, which differ from those given by the majority in the Court of Appeal but accord with those given by Holgate J, by the Court of Session in Greenpeace and by the Supreme Court of Ireland in Kilkenny Cheese, I would dismiss this appeal.

In relation to the attempt in Kilkenny Cheese and in the present case to enlist the EIA Directive in the worthy cause of combating climate change, by seeking to press it into service in relation to requiring EIA in respect of downstream or scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, it is relevant to bear in mind the cautionary words of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681, 703, quoting from Hamlet in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights:
    "The Convention is concerned with rights and freedoms which are of real importance in a modern democracy governed by the rule of law. It does not, as is sometimes mistakenly thought, offer relief from 'The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to.'".

As Lord Bingham pointed out, that Convention had to be interpreted according to its terms, not in an effort to produce a remedy for every problem which might be identified in a particular situation. So, in the present context, the EIA Directive, interpreted according to its terms, has a valuable role to play in relation to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects for which planning permission is sought, but it should not be given an artificially wide interpretation to bring all downstream and scope 3 emissions within its ambit as well. That has not been stipulated in the text of the EIA Directive, is not in line with its purpose and would distort its intended scheme.

In Brussels Airport, the CJEU observed (para 29) that "a purposive interpretation of the Directive [in that case the 1985 Directive, now the EIA Directive] cannot ... disregard the clearly expressed intention of the legislature". In my view, in the present case both the clearly expressed intention in the text of the EIA Directive and a purposive interpretation of that Directive point to the same result.

There are issues but with the ECtHR ruling in Switzerland and also the recent Dutch Supreme Court take on human rights and wealth taxes, I'm a little concerned where the courts are going on this stuff.

Ideally there would be legislation to remedy this (even if still banning new oil and gas licenses) - I also think this sort of stuff is the proper realm of the democratic legislature.

[crazy canuck]

Wow, that seems an impossible regulatory burden

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it's focused on downstream - so Scope 3 isn't directly relevant, but it was also how the submissions were framed so it feels likely that we'll return to that (and particularly in relation to upstream emissions).

This does draw attention to, I think fair, centre-right complaints.

One that this is a decision after 14 years of Conservative government. There's been lots of progress on net zero under the Tories and they have passed lots of laws on it - but there is a slightly wider thing that this is the state of regulation after 14 years of Tory government. I can understand why centre-right types are a little frustrated by this.

Secondly that the case itself turns on a European directive, implemented by the Tories. And gives a fairly good example of British governments (and courts, if inadvertently) gold-plating European law to make it more onerous than strictly required. Because I'm willing to bet no other EU member state ended up with this interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

[Sheilbh]

Slightly enjoyed the Reform candidates - and a reminder they're not really very conservative. After Britain should have been neutral in WW2 last week, this week we've had "Thatcher was to blame for the Falklands which was a mistake" and we should abolish the monarchy because the royals are "benefit scrounters"

Reform have blamed the fact that they outsourced vetting their candidates to a third party company who let them down I think they've already disowned 100+ candidates.

On a broader perspective the media really should push Farage on his past praise for Putin as that is a million miles from the country and the Tory party (the issue they have strongest approval ratings on is support for Ukraine and defence). And they should also push, say Braverman, or anyone else open to letting him in the Tory party.

Also pleased to see Steve Baker - who is very much a hard-line Brexiteer - say Farage has no place in the Tories "while he speaks of minorities in the way he does", noting that he toxifies the debate and has "tarnished" British Muslims. (Baker is interesting - one of the most openly devoutly Christian MPs who has done a huge amount of work on Islamophobia and engaging with the Muslim community in his constituency - I think from that position of the experience of having faith in a pretty secular society.)