Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Savonarola]

I came across a reference to the book Tides in English Taste by Beverly Sprague Allen in which she noted "A person who chooses bad wallpaper is obviously immoral."  I thought some of our British posters might appreciate that, given Boris Johnson's gold wallpaper.

[Barrister]

Much reaction in the UK on the UK planning to hand over sovereignty over British Indian Ocean Territory (aka Chagos Islands) to Mauritius?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o

One key thing is that Diego Garcia, the important US/UK military bas in the middle of the Indian Ocean, is to be retained under a 99 year lease.

[Tamas]

Much reaction in the UK on the UK planning to hand over sovereignty over British Indian Ocean Territory (aka Chagos Islands) to Mauritius?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o

One key thing is that Diego Garcia, the important US/UK military bas in the middle of the Indian Ocean, is to be retained under a 99 year lease.

People around here don't seem to give a toss about what happens to Northern Ireland, don't think they mind that island.

[Josquius]

Only real reporting I've seen beyond it happening is tory leadership candidate James Cleverly moaning about it and calling Labour weak when he was the one made the agreement as foreign secretary under truss.

[Sheilbh]

Sometimes I am thinking, maybe the Empire hasn't ended in terms of its after effects? Maybe the prosperity and wealth is still from the immense momentum gathered during the Empire's centuries and once that momentum is gone what we now know as the UK won't survive? I could be entirely wrong, really, just a thought experiment.

I think there's a strong argument for that and it's not the only example - I think you could extrapolate out from Britain to most of the West.

Although it is worth pointing out that I think economically the consensus is basically that empire was a wash. Lots of money flooded in, lots of money was spent and also flooded out. A common left-wing anti-imperialist argument in the mid 20th century was actually that capital from the UK was being spent on groundnut schemes in Ghana and railways which could have been more productively used domestically (that is, on the British nation, rather than going for a higher rate of return in the British empire), as was the case in Europe, particularly Germany - it's probably not right (in particular it misses that British trade and capital flows were, as they continued to be, actually far more European, Atlantic and "informally" imperial than imperial), but more a reminder that basically none of this is new But that Hobson/Lenin take on imperialists as being the inevitable high point of capitalism as it needs to literally capture markets and coercively extract goods, I'm not convinced by it in the British case especially (or in the French for that matter). And obviously that's purely form the perspective of the British metropole - for the colonised the experience was profoundly different.

On the one hand I think there is something to Linda Colley's argument that the UK was fundamentally formed over Protestantism, opposing the French in Europe and Empire. Those were the things that bound the (Protestant) elites across these isles together. I think those ideological underpinnings have bit-by-bit come unstuck since that 18th century formation. I think that was possibly replaced in WW2 - where the mythic story is of the end of empire and the birth of a British nation ("people's war", "very well then, alone", the Home Front etc) - with the common struggle and suffering of WW2, and the reconstruction afterwards of a welfare state. The memory of the war is fading, I think it's why the NHS is of such totemic importance for so many. It's the iconic part of that post-war settlement (after all, for example in most European countries education is key in building nationhood - and in Britain there's always been separate education systems in Northern Ireland, England and Scotland). I think part of the challenge for British unionists right now is to be building the argument for the UK.

On the other I think there is something to the infrastructure - our railways, our stations, our sewage systems and many of our old civil buildings are Victorian. And they build on scale, with innovative technology at that time and with ambition that means they have lasted for 150 years and (to look at the sewers) the population increasing massively. But more broadly - again David Edgerton makes this point - there were high levels of investment in this country until the late 1970s at which point those assets started to be sold off. And he argues, I think plausibly, that basically the growth of the 80s-00s was us living off the benefits of the activist investment state of the post-war which has since atrophied and we're running out of road. I'm not sure any part of that is unique to Britain or necessarily because of empire - just look at the 19th century infrastructure of any European city not levelled by the war. And looking round the West I think it's a wider story - I think we've possibly all been living off the capital and assets of the post-war era and is why there is a turn to investment in Western politics, which I think is necessary given the needs of energy transition and an increasingly assertive China.

Much reaction in the UK on the UK planning to hand over sovereignty over British Indian Ocean Territory (aka Chagos Islands) to Mauritius?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o

One key thing is that Diego Garcia, the important US/UK military bas in the middle of the Indian Ocean, is to be retained under a 99 year lease.

I think there's a few levels From what I've seen the discourse is basically this is just very sensible/"the grown ups are back in charge" v high Tory imperialists.

The reaction from sort of think tank-y types and academics is very split. Broadly speaking diplomatic types think it's a sensible move and there will be soft power benefits in the UK perhaps particularly being able to leverage this for more African support for Ukraine (Lammy has been talking a lot in speeches on how he is descended from enslaved Africans so knows what imperialism looks like). On the other hand defence and intelligence types think it's insane and are very, very worried - for example we're basically now in a 100 year bidding war with China (who already have a lot of investments and close relations with Mauritius) over Diego Garcia and also that there's a lease on Diego Garcia but Mauritius can do what they want with any of the surrounding islands, again lots of suggestions that we may start to see a fairly big Chinese presence there.

On the actual issue I'm not sure. From what I've read I think Mauritius argument is right legally (to the extent that matters), but it's not great that Chagosians weren't consulted and many if not most don't want this solution. The concerns being flagged by the defence people seem reasonable and the UK's been hiding a lot behind the fact that the US was behind them. But there's been stories today that the intelligence agencies, MoD and (some) US interlocutors asked Number 10 not to go ahead - I think there might be more to come from that. Not sure if there's a similar State v Defense division in the US and different bits of the administration were speaking to different bits of the government. I'm also a little dubious about "soft power" benefits from this - for example since 2010 the UK has reduced emissions more than any other big economy and until 2019 was the only G7 country spending the UN target of 0.7% of GDP on aid (down to 0.5%, or German level of spending now). People point to climate and aid as great for soft power/"British leadership" too and I'm not sure there were really any soft power benefits, the vibes mattered more and they were bad. So I'd just focus on if it's right.

But also politically - I am still worried. On this I do slightly wonder if it's another civil service FCDO thing that a minister should have caught. Legislation and action matters for what they do but there is an educational, comms piece to it, especially for a new government, of setting out its agenda and what it's trying to do. I look at employment rights reform, moving universal to means tested benefits, this and making time for an assisted dying legislation - and I don't see an agenda or a narrative. Maybe it'll change after the budget and that will provide clarity, but at this stage, to be kind the best I'd say is that it's governing like a Guardian opinion page.

The error, I think, is to assume that World Empire is the natural state of affairs and that we have somehow fallen from that high estate. In fact I believe we are returning to the long term norm. Britain is an important European country but is a little bit behind the most advanced parts of the continent. It really is about time we accepted that and enjoyed ourselves a bit more rather than fussing about worldbeating punching above our weight and the illusory special relationship.

Yeah - to a point. I think this can go too far. My default view is what would France do and then do that I can't think of a big issue in the last 25 years where they've not ultimately been right even if us or the Germans didn't listen Always hate the pathetic neediness of "special relationship" discourse though.

An example of going too far is, in my view, Lord McDonald (former Permanent Secretary of the FCO) - who basically argues the UK should accept its position in the world. In policy terms he thinks that should be through nuclear disarmament, giving up the permanent UN Security Council Seat (I think basically the EU and India should be on the Security Council and Russia, France and Britain should have a rotating seat) and the UK should step back from US-Chinese tensions and just work with both. It's why I wonder if the Chagos Islands stuff was basically something the FCDO have been thinking about for a while. But also it strikes me as still as a worldview that is supeficially post-imperial (Britain no longer being "world-beating" or going for leadership etc etc, except in soft power) but seems really imperial to me halfway between if we can't run things then we'll just step back and the only role for anyone but a global superpower is to try and keep out of the way. I also think it's just wildly irresponsible and that we have obligations to allies which means we can't just try to retire.

I've said before but I think the US wants to move on from the Atlantic - whoever wins the election. I think the US has been trying to focus on managing its relations with China and risks in the Pacific since 2008 at least, and I think their patience/willingness is running out. I think the UK is one of the only significant defence and intelligence powers in Europe, with France and Russia. If anything I think we need to do more but I think it needs to be focused - when and where we can, we should continue to work with the US and Pacific allies (AUKUS, Japanese-Italian-British jet project, sending ships with European partners) so they will support Europe when and where they can. But also focus more on how we can help support wider European security - and my instinct is intelligence, navy and the North, with France, increasingly Poland and hopefully Germany buttressing other parts of European security.

But I think my view is basically that I think it's less about Britain's place in the world than we need seriousness - and not the performance of it, not, say, Merkel or Obama with their legacies. That may involve trade-offs. I think it's maybe tied to the Edgerton point of us living off the assets of the post-war. I can't help but look at leaders of the 70s and 80s and think they were profoundly aware of the material reality of our societies (particularly energy and industry) and the material investment in defence required to support it from hostile actors like Russia or, say, the Houthis being able to close a major channel of trade into Europe (God help us if things escalate more in Iran). I think in the same way as we've lived off the assets an earlier generation built, I think that's also true of our security and economic infrastructure - it wasn't the result of a battle of ideas or soft power and I think our leaders have been a bit high on their own supply about that for the last couple of decades.

[Tamas]

Nice one, thanks Sheilbh.

Meanwhile, I was reading that plans to scrap non-dom status may be scrapped over worries it would inconvenience rich people, and introduction of VAT to private tuition may be delayed over worries that doing it hastily may inconvenience rich organisations.

[Sheilbh]

Sue Gray has stepped down as chief of staff, still going to have a role coordinating with the nations and regions. It's probably a sign of how things have been going that Starmer's losing his chief of staff within 100 days of taking office. But is, I think right - and I think he needs someone political to their bones in that role.

Sir Simon Case also, as expected, stepping down as Cabinet Secretary by the end of the year.

On the tax issues with the non-doms, there's been projections and modelling that the change would end up bringing in less money which seems plausible.

With private schools there's some special pleading from the schools. Slightly more worrying I think is unions, education bodies who support the tax and tax experts are all saying they think there isn't enough time to implement it by January. All largely in response to the Treasury's consultation on the subject.

Various points being made some of which seem fair and others less so. Obviously starting in January will mean it'll be during a school year and the organisations can't register until the budget on October 30. Plus HMRC haven't issued any guidance and lots of people like the unions and the Chartered Institute for Taxation calling for proper impact assessments to be prepared and published (we do love an impact assessment ).

The thing that concerns me is this has been Labour policy for a long time. They've had a long time to prepare for it. They won a 170 majority on a manifesto including this policy and it is, in many ways, one of the simplest policies Labour backed. And yet it is having trouble (this doesn't bode well, say, for Ed Miliband's pledge to decarbonise the grid by 2030 which literally everyone in the industry says is not possible). It could be Labour's fault that they hadn't done the preparation necessary, haven't briefed HMRC properly etc - or it could just be a fresh manifestation of (some of) the problems the Tories faced in government and there's really structural challenges in Britain of a government being able to govern.

This was, incidentally, the point of Sue Gray - that she knew the civil service inside out.

[Sheilbh]

Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's campaign chief and Comms Director, has replaced Sue Gray. So certainly someone more political

Edit: And given lots of reports of disagreements between him and Gray (including Gray moving his desk further away from the PM's office), I guess we know who won. At least for now.

Edit: Also now being reported that "the grid" will be handed over to the comms team (run by an ex-journalist) as it was previously in Gray's hands which does sort of explain a lot. "The grid" is the name in Brit politics for basically the schedule of government activity making sure that each day has a "theme" - there will be a minister doing a speech, or making an announcement, or legislation being tabled on that day and that's the topic government will be talking about that day. Something started by Alastair Campbell under Blair as spin to try and structure the government's plans, create narratives and always make sure the press had something to talk about - then key in subsequent Tory governments (Cameron and Osborne especially obsessed).

The fact that was being run by a former civil servant with no political or comms experience does provide at least some explanation of the last few months It certainly explains some of the more basic errors like two cabinet ministers making announcements on different subjects on the same day (meaning neither got much coverage) - or weeks of a government media void which the press filled, as is their wont, by looking for (and finding) scandal and personal stories instead.

Separately saw a comment online that Sue Gray built her credibility negotiating with paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and has decided, after a year of working in the Labour Party, that life's too short

[Gups]

Separately saw a comment online that Sue Gray built her credibility negotiating with paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and has decided, after a year of working in the Labour Party, that life's too short

Hmm, I don't think it was her decision.

[Josquius]

Seeing lots of this type of story lately.

https://www.smry.ai/proxy?url=https%3A%2Fwww.thenorthernecho.co.uk%2Fnews%2F24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham

Single mum and baby being 'forced' to move to County Durham

A single mother with a baby boy who has lived in London her whole life faces being "forced" to move up to County Durham or become homeless.

Demi Longworth, 23, has spoken exclusively to The Northern Echo about her terrible experiences of being told to move more than 250 miles from her home to Horden.

Ms Longworth was evicted last week and was moved into emergency accommodation for a few days by Hillingdon Council, finally finding stability.

Then the single mum received a phone call from a housing officer that felt like her heart was "ripped" out of her chest as she was told she had a choice between moving 250 miles north or becoming homeless again.

Grahame Morris, the town's MP, has confirmed that this is not an "isolated incident" and branded it a "shameful practice".

This comes after The Northern Echo revealed that large numbers of refugees and vulnerable people are being moved up North by southern councils due to a lack of social housing.

The North East is already in the grip of a housing crisis with 75,000 families stuck for months waiting for social housing, more than 300 homeless children, and County Durham rent rising 7% in the last year alone.

He has reached out to Durham County Council and Hillingdon Council in the hopes that Ms Longworth receives the help she needs and is not forced to relocate against her wishes.

Cllr James Rowlandson, Durham County Council's Cabinet member for resources, investments, and assets, confirmed that the council was aware of the situation and that nobody, especially a single mother and her baby, should be moved 250 miles from support.

Ms Longworth reached out to The Northern Echo within hours of being phoned to tell her of her relocation.

She choked up as she described how she had been born in Hillingdon hospital and always lived in the area, her friends and family are all nearby.

She said: "I explained my situation and they said if we were offered a house outside of the borough how would we feel about that.

"I said I have no support network and I can't live far away from my son's GP. Everything in my life is around here. I can't just leave for somewhere five hours away that I have never heard of."

The 23-year-old explained that when she expressed how scared she was by moving away that was when it became more "threatening".

She continued: "I am currently in emergency accommodation. It's not perfect but it's liveable. I have been here for two nights and this is my third day.

"I woke up to a phone call from a new housing officer. He said if I didn't take this place they would discharge me. I would then be homeless without support and we would have to fend for ourselves.

"I asked what were the other options and he said either we have to leave (for Horden) or we would have to live on our friends sofas otherwise."

Growing more emotional the single mother described how awful the experiences have been and the "shock" she is in.

She said: "I feel absolutely depressed. As soon as I got comfortable here I am being told I have to move. My heart dropped.

"I am in so much shock I don't know how to react. It was like they ripped my heart out.

"My son and me are going to be alone."

"This shameful practice places additional strain on our already overstretched and underfunded public services in County Durham, while leaving vulnerable homeless families abandoned and isolated.

"I have raised this case with Durham County Council and Hillingdon Council and hope that Miss Longworth receives the support she deserves and is not forced to relocate against her wishes."

On one level it makes sense. The housing crisis on a national scale isn't that bad. There should on paper be enough homes in the country for the population. The issue is more that theres a finite supply in places where people want to live.
Moving out of London and going somewhere there's housing available- sure. On paper definitely makes sense.

But this...Its literally half the plot of Ken Loach's latest. London councils are unilaterally doing this and dumping needy people on poorer parts of the country. Here its a single mother- lots of other stories have some serious undesirables being shifted up and bringing their drug issues with them.

But still. If it was better organised with actual funding from the sender and support available then sure. Could see a case for doing it with single folks or anyone who actually volunteers.
But when its a mother and her kid being moved away from their support structure...that's really not cool.

Horden incidentally- there was a show on BBC3 a few years ago called "Canny Cops" about the place. Still maybe on iplayer or floating around somewhere. Its an infamous shit hole. Much of it ranks in the top 1000 areas nationally (out of nearly 33,000) in the poverty stakes.

[Tamas]

The pattern in terrible news I have noticed recently is vulnerable people collapsing, well, dying, because of lack of support. There was this schizophrenic deaf lady who thought her family was after her so wouldn't talk to them, she was discovered dead in her flat after 3 years or something.

A single mother of a severely disabled girl took both their lives, the Guardian story made it sound like she tried but couldn't cope with making a living and taking care of her on her own.

Then these 4 kids who died in a fire. The mother was careless to leave them alone but apparently she had been raising them (two sets of twins) alone, social workers did notice the squalor they lived in and the mother was known to have mental troubles but she refused help and the kids weren't taken from her.

[Barrister]

The pattern in terrible news I have noticed recently is vulnerable people collapsing, well, dying, because of lack of support. There was this schizophrenic deaf lady who thought her family was after her so wouldn't talk to them, she was discovered dead in her flat after 3 years or something.

A single mother of a severely disabled girl took both their lives, the Guardian story made it sound like she tried but couldn't cope with making a living and taking care of her on her own.

Then these 4 kids who died in a fire. The mother was careless to leave them alone but apparently she had been raising them (two sets of twins) alone, social workers did notice the squalor they lived in and the mother was known to have mental troubles but she refused help and the kids weren't taken from her.

So from my own brief experience in the child welfare system - the problem is that as bad as any number of parents can be, the prospect of putting kids into foster care is just as bad.

With so many of these kids there's just no good options - just a series of bad options.

[Josquius]

Yes... I've heard awful things of the foster system. My gf has a friend who signed up for being a foster carer and was landed with a kid basically within hours of putting through her application - she's a nice woman so this is fine, but if she can do it, and considering the financial incentives....

Anyway. This kid she got was lovely. They really got on. But then they sent another kid her way who was an absolute shit and picked on the first one. The foster system said they could only take the first one away, she had to keep the second.

She wanted to adopt the first kid even, but was told this wasn't possible since she'd fostered him or some nonsense.

In seperate news.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/12/uk-overseas-aid-budget-faces-900m-raid-to-pay-for-housing-asylum-seekers

On the surface typical grumble grumble asylum seekers bait. Doubtless how this will be reported in less reputable media than the guardian (...).
But the bit that stood out to me

Analysis suggests that Britain spends vastly more of its aid budget on hosting refugees and asylum seekers than any other rich country: about £20,000 per person, according to the thinktank's researchers. That is more than 30% higher than Ireland and 150% higher than the next G7 country, Canada.

Questions have already been raised around the value of contracts awarded for housing asylum seekers. Sir Mark Lowcock, the ex-UN official who was the most senior civil servant in the former Department for International Development (DfID), told the Observer recently that a further forensic analysis of the deals should take place.

We spend so much per person on refugees? Outrage. Look after our own. I worked all my life. Where's my free 20k. Etc... Etc...

But no. It's another story from the 21st century British classic, penny wise pound foolish.
If we just spent the money to have actual asylum accommodation rather than having to go through a multi layered sub contracting system of shitty by to let housing and decayed former hotels...
Of course, any suggestion of doing this would be met by outrage.
Too many people just don't want to think.

My gf looks at local fb groups sometimes and the latest is lots of angry gammon at the ymca on the local shopping street wanting to make some accommodation for a small number of teenage asylum seekers.
The sheer ignorance and hate spewing forth about this...

[Tamas]

Funnily enough I was just thinking about how the UK's illegal immigrants are on a smaller scale like the USA's (although it was the cheap hand car washes that made me think that) - everyone's like oh gosh this is terrible/outrageous/etc but then proceed to make full use of them by getting car washes and cheap deliveries:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/12/calls-for-investigation-of-uber-eats-and-deliveroo-after-raid-on-bristol-caravan-camp

I mean, the Guardian in proper fashion blames Deliveroo and Uber (not sure what for, for not granting them citizenship, or giving them a livelihood?) but the point is that apparently there's a whole street of illegals living merrily in the middle of Bristol in caravans. I didn't know it was that out in the open.

[Josquius]

It always shocks me how brazen the car washes and uber eats et al are.
Maybe im just a racist. But I do find it hard to believe all these guys have the right to work.
Had a young white British guy do a delivery the other day and it was genuinely notable for how weird it is.

I do think it's worth blaming the companies though. It should be on them to do proper checks of the right to work-though this could then be looped back to our lack of ID cards.