Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

You guys really like bats

[Sheilbh]

You guys really like bats

Also newts

Planning regulation is bogged down by newts
It is important to protect endangered species but our system is extreme and badly needs reform
Emma Duncan
Thursday August 08 2024, 9.00pm, The Times

Newts are divisive creatures. Some people are exceedingly fond of them. My colleague William Hague, for instance: his natural modesty prevents him from boasting widely of this, but I happen to know that he is a licensed newt-handler. When he remodelled his garden in Wales he was required to build a newt fence to protect vulnerable residents, and in order to remove those that got caught in it he had to get a newt-handling licence.

This period of enforced intimacy spawned love, so he created newt-friendly nooks and crannies in the garden; and it is a source of quiet pride to him that he is now host to a large and growing population of newts — not just great crested ones but also the smooth and palmate varieties.

Stephen Schwarzman, boss of Blackstone, an American private equity company with $1.1 trillion under management, is less keen on newts. He wants to build a lake on his £80 million estate in Wiltshire, and the resident great crested newts — or, rather, the possibility that there might be some, since none have actually been spotted there — threaten to impede his progress.

A plan designed to avert harm to the hypothetical newts includes timing works to accommodate their breeding season, auditing biodiversity once a fortnight, employing a resident ecologist and scouring the site for newts every day before works commence. Mitigation measures will have to continue for 30 years after the development is completed.

Schwarzman's newt-related problems would not be of general interest, except that, according to the Financial Times, he has bent Rachel Reeves's ear about them. Given that his company has proposed building a £10 billion data centre in Blyth in Northumberland, it would be a shame if he concludes that he doesn't want to tangle with a planning system that can be brought to a grinding halt by a small amphibian.

Since there are quite a lot of newts in this country — 400,000, according to a population survey cited by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, a body that advises the government — the care that we lavish on them seems odd. The explanation lies across the Channel. The great crested newt is rare on the European mainland, so it is among the 1,000 or so species protected by the EU's Habitats Directive.

The Habitats Directive, which requires planning authorities and developers to assess the likely impact of development on said species and mitigate the impact of development on them, is now part of UK law. Case law has deepened its impact. In 2001 a court decided that planning authorities could not give permission for a development to go ahead unless they had established beforehand whether it would have any environmental impact.

This leads to the proliferation of paperwork. The proposal for the reopening of the branch railway line from Bristol to Portishead, for instance, has 17,912 pages on the environmental impact, including 1,174 on bats and 215 on newts. Orsted, the Danish company building a wind farm off the Yorkshire coast, was required to commission 13 wildlife studies, including into the impact it might have on the hazel dormouse, the red squirrel and freshwater pearl mussel — none of which, according to said studies, are found in the areas that would be affected by either the wind farm or the transmission cable. That's great for creating jobs in the growing business of environmental consultancy, but not for any other sector of the economy.

A second consequence is delay. Newt surveys, for instance, can only be carried out during the breeding season, between March and June. Natural England can require six such surveys to be carried out sequentially. Extra surveys may be demanded if the weather is volatile. Delay is in itself expensive and mitigation measures inflate costs further. The development consent order for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset requires EDF to create an acoustic deterrent to discourage fish from swimming into its cooling system. So EDF is installing 288 speakers to save 45 tonnes of fish a year (less than is caught by one smallish fishing boat). That's one of many reasons Hinkley C will be the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.

The government seems determined to tackle this problem. Angela Rayner, the secretary of state for housing and local government, and Steve Reed, the environment secretary, have written to NGOs saying that while they are committed to green stuff, "the status quo is not working. Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure."

One idea for improving things is to get some decent data, which we don't have, about what lives where, and make strategic decisions about what needs protecting in which bits of the country. That would be quicker and cheaper than requiring every developer and householder to survey the wildlife population of every site and would lead to better conservation decisions too.

Another idea would be to reverse the impact of that 2001 case by granting permissions on condition that developers assess and mitigate damage to protected species as they go along. That would speed things up. A third would be to revise the list of species that need protection. Newts are not in short supply, the population of some bat species has more than doubled this century and anybody who has driven down the A40 in the past few years must doubt that red kites need protecting any more.

The care that this country lavishes on newts is endearing and I'm glad I live in a place, at a time, when these things matter. But there must be a balance. Newts are a good thing but we need data centres as well.

[HVC]

It's all fun and game until thousands of train passengers get rabies after an outbreak. Like 28 days later... but with bats and a lot of drooling.

[mongers]

Hiya mongers!

Hello HVC, hope you're doing well.

[Sheilbh]

Always interested in Maguire's column as I think he is one of the best connected into Labour - so interesting on the lessons Labour will be drawing:

What Labour must learn from Harris's loss
Economic growth alone won't cut it: if voters feel poorer they will punish incumbents in favour of extreme alternatives
Patrick Maguire
Thursday November 07 2024, 6.00pm, The Times

Contrary to what you might have read a couple of weeks ago, what just happened in America is not primarily a story about Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party. That legal complaint from the Trump campaign about holidaying door-knockers and the British centre left's limitless capacity for solipsism may have given you the opposite impression. But no, sorry guys, for once this isn't about you.

Where the Democrats did actually take their cues from Starmer, it did not work. Harris struck the same notes on migration — she was a prosecutor who banged up people smugglers too, you know — but failed to convince. What flies over here does not necessarily fly over there. Different countries, different systems, different electorates: easy to forget if you work for a party suffering from what one weary cabinet adviser derides as "West Wing-itis". The fatal symptom: "Here is a tweet I saw about Michigan that perfectly explains my pre-existing views on the red wall."

Yet this week Westminster is looking to America and obsessing over questions that already have obvious answers. Will Starmer find it difficult to do business with the once and future President Trump? Maybe, but then everyone does — and just look at what he's already said. Is it all too difficult for David Lammy, the foreign secretary who once called Trump a Nazi sympathiser? Lammy asked himself that question a while ago and concluded the answer was regular conversations with Condoleezza Rice and Mike Pompeo, and a lingering hug with JD Vance.

The diplomatic posture adopted by the government this week is not especially interesting because it's what Labour prime ministers tend to do when Republicans are in power. Ramsay MacDonald and Herbert Hoover, Tony Blair and George W Bush — we've seen this film before. Most leaders on the British centre left find it surprisingly easy to embrace American right-wingers, even the really nasty ones: consider Harold Wilson entertaining George Wallace in Downing Street in 1975.

None of that stuff is up for debate. Trump won. That's it. The British state adjusts accordingly. What will really reveal the political priorities of this government is how Labour adjusts to the Democrats losing. Before July, Starmer's strategists spent much of their time studying how unloved parties of the centre left managed to win. This week is merely another data point for their emerging theory of why so many of them are now losing. Here it is: if voters feel poorer and mainstream politicians haven't fixed the problems that make their lives shorter and meaner, they will punish the incumbent and entertain more extreme alternatives.

We know from the choices Rachel Reeves made in the budget No 10 is already alive to the first risk. Labour MPs most exposed to the populist right now want a message that is even more reductive. If the left is losing in the United States because of living standards — Germany and Canada will be next — that's all Starmer should be thinking about.

The first of the prime minister's five missions for government is a case in point. It was announced, last January, like this: "Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7." Let me introduce you to the guy whose government won that badge this year: Joe Biden. It meant nothing electorally because the voters who mattered did not feel the benefit of those impressive statistics. So expect a push from Labour MPs, particularly the sharp-elbowed Growth Group of backbenchers elected for the first time this year, to shift the focus away from GDP to living standards. "We need to ditch the mission," says one. "Or rather, evolve it."

Backbenchers facing Reform and the Tories, together with some in Downing Street, no longer speak of the missions at all but, instead, three things. Living standards is the first. Small boats, another lesson from a Democratic administration that woke up to the toxicity of its own record on the border too late, is the second. The third is NHS waiting lists. These are the things that voters will notice and feel, and by their ruthless logic little else is worth wasting time on. "We can judge the government on these three metrics," says one Growth Grouper. "That's it. Nothing else matters."

How do they do that if, as expected, Europe now has to step up and pay up on Ukraine? Call that the Attlee test. When Britain went to war in Korea, the additional cost to the exchequer was passed on to the public via prescription charges on NHS dentures and spectacles. It split Labour and Nye Bevan quit the cabinet with a young Harold Wilson in tow. Hard and expensive choices await, and voters will not be grateful for the bill.

What does that mean for the rest of the agenda? Nothing happens anywhere in the world without someone in the cabinet hopefully suggesting that it's bad news for Ed Miliband. There's a school of thought that believes, more in hope than expectation, the rejection of Kamala Harris should doom the energy secretary's green agenda, inspired as it was by President Biden's $1 trillion Inflation Reduction Act.

The Democrats lost even in states where it built factories and created jobs. Labour's version won't be ditched, not least because so much of the budget was about creating the fiscal framework to make it happen. Miliband's own argument is that the inflation that ultimately did for the Tories was driven by rising energy prices and that domestic renewables are the best insurance against a repeat. Political economy has always come before environmental evangelism for Miliband and, as such, he will speak even more loudly of high-wage jobs than of anything else. They will need to come quickly.

The ultimate test of all of this will be how repetitive the prime minister sounds over the next year. Despite appearances, Starmer instinctively understands the lure of populism because he shares much of its critique of Westminster politics himself. Peter Hyman, the man who wrote his five missions, said this to Alastair Campbell, an old colleague from Blair's No 10, on Wednesday: "There is a swamp, and it does need draining. The left finds that impossible to understand. In other words, government hasn't performed for about 20 years, hasn't performed on the economy for working people. It's done what people see as unnecessary wars."

It was a striking admission for one architect of New Labour to make to another. I suspect the prime minister agrees. Can he make living standards great again? That's the challenge his sister parties are failing. He still has time to rise to it.

I think Hyman's point is absolutely right and that's the lesson that needs to be internalised if you're opposing "populists", which is how Starmer frames everything. And I think that agenda of living standards, controlling the border (I mean we're an island ffs) and the NHS is right.

On the actual Trump stuff - Starmer's job is to get on with Trump now. Lammy had very good ties with the Democrats but he's also studied and lived in the US and is apparently just quite good with American politicians - in particular he's built a good relationship with Vance.

The challenge may come - which I've seen a few people say they've heard rumours of something along these lines - if there's a choice between Europe and the US if there's more trade tension and particularly targeted at China. I suspect the UK will do everything it can to avoid that - but if it comes I suspect we'll follow the policy we have for 70+ years and stick as closely as possible to the US (I think this would also be the right choice).

[Josquius]

On the controlling the border side I'm skeptical.
Obviously there are things that can be done to make the situation better.
But it's like with Camerons eu reforms before brexit - give the hard right what they want and they just shift onto demanding more.

Given the small boats crossing the channel thing is in reality such a minor issue that affects such a tiny propertion of the population, I'm dubious whether Labours efforts would amount to much in the perception of those who think it's an important issue.
To them even a hundred coming over in a year would still be a terrible failure. Slash it to zero then why aren't we deporting the foreigners already here?

It's something labour should seek to solve. The whole system of how we do asylum is ridiculous.
But they won't be winning many votes doing that.


There is a swamp and it needs draining... Yes. This is a problem with so much of this far right populist stuff. Whether it be brexit or Andrew tate.
They latch onto very real problems and have a foundation, like quarter of what they say, which is hard to disagree with. Very true....
But then they point fingers in completely the wrong direction and present a solution which will only make things worse.

They don't want to drain the swamp to eliminate corruption and make a more efficient and representative democracy.
They want to drain it so they can refill it again with their own swamp which is far worse than the one that was there before.


But yes. On reflection about the US election. As said in the threads there though many are keen to rewrite history and present this as some kind of victory of the silent majority against a woke obsessed campaign or Harris was just targeting the rich or something-her policies were spot on for what she should have been doing.
She just communicated them terribly. And an awful lot of people aren't interested.
Biden has done miracles with the economy but it's still fundamentally trickle down liberalism, and this takes quite some time to reach those on the bottom.
More needs to be done to speed up the flow of how quickly any new wealth reaches those who really need it.

[Valmy]

Economic growth is not a very good statistic for governments to obsess over. I am not saying they shouldn't care about it at all or anything but it can be misleading. I think I have covered this in my concerns over Ireland. They had all this economic growth but little of it seems to have filtered down to the average Irishman. The average person now has a hard time finding housing and living in this booming economy because it is not booming for them, only the giant corporations that Ireland sold out to.

So if Labour wants to show they are doing good things economically they need to find stats that demonstrate the median Briton is prospering, not that the overall economy is growing. That is not sufficient.

[Sheilbh]

I still largely disagree over the case in Ireland. The life of the average Irish person has been transformed in my lifetime - it's a thing that comes up so often with Irish comedians, Irish writers, film etc. In the 80s it was not guaranteed that you'd have an indoor toilet, central heating was not common, foreign holidays were rare, the average house size per household was four rooms, it's only in the 80s that colour TV becomes more common than black and white.

There are many negative aspects of the Celtic Tiger economy - and challenges for Ireland now - but it's a profoundly better place to live for the vast majority of Irish people because of that growth and prosperity than it was just 40 years ago. And that's why for the first time in centuries there are more people trying to move into Ireland than leave it.

On the controlling the border side I'm skeptical.
Obviously there are things that can be done to make the situation better.
But it's like with Camerons eu reforms before brexit - give the hard right what they want and they just shift onto demanding more.

Given the small boats crossing the channel thing is in reality such a minor issue that affects such a tiny propertion of the population, I'm dubious whether Labours efforts would amount to much in the perception of those who think it's an important issue.
To them even a hundred coming over in a year would still be a terrible failure. Slash it to zero then why aren't we deporting the foreigners already here?

It's something labour should seek to solve. The whole system of how we do asylum is ridiculous.
But they won't be winning many votes doing that.

I don't think any of this really matters.

I think this year there's 30,000 people arriving via small boats - I think it's an issue of state capacity and control. The public expect, as one of the fairly bare minimum jobs of the state (particularly on an island) that the government is able to control who comes in. It's significantly lower than experienced by, say, Italy but I think it's more an issue that undermines confidence in the state's ability to do its basic jobs which increases the sense that it's profoundly broken and needs a radical fix.

As someone who believes in a strong state doing a lot, I think it's difficult to make that argument if people don't think it can do the basics - maintaining infrastructure, controlling the frontiers of the state, law and order (all stuff that even an early modern statesman would recognise).

[garbon]

I think this year there's 30,000 people arriving via small boats - I think it's an issue of state capacity and control. The public expect, as one of the fairly bare minimum jobs of the state (particularly on an island) that the government is able to control who comes in. It's significantly lower than experienced by, say, Italy but I think it's more an issue that undermines confidence in the state's ability to do its basic jobs which increases the sense that it's profoundly broken and needs a radical fix.

As someone who believes in a strong state doing a lot, I think it's difficult to make that argument if people don't think it can do the basics - maintaining infrastructure, controlling the frontiers of the state, law and order (all stuff that even an early modern statesman would recognise).

How American Republican of you.

[Josquius]

I still largely disagree over the case in Ireland. The life of the average Irish person has been transformed in my lifetime - it's a thing that comes up so often with Irish comedians, Irish writers, film etc. In the 80s it was not guaranteed that you'd have an indoor toilet, central heating was not common, foreign holidays were rare, the average house size per household was four rooms, it's only in the 80s that colour TV becomes more common than black and white.

There are many negative aspects of the Celtic Tiger economy - and challenges for Ireland now - but it's a profoundly better place to live for the vast majority of Irish people because of that growth and prosperity than it was just 40 years ago. And that's why for the first time in centuries there are more people trying to move into Ireland than leave it.

I think what he meant he was Ireland since 2008.
As you say it you want to argue Ireland isnt better off than 50 years ago you need your head checking. I can only think culture warrior types attempt this.
But compared to 20 years ago.... I've seen that argument a lot. Ireland has become too dependent on shadowy economic trickery rather than a real economy and things are increasingly not great for normal people with this, their housing issues, and so on

I don't think any of this really matters.

I think this year there's 30,000 people arriving via small boats - I think it's an issue of state capacity and control. The public expect, as one of the fairly bare minimum jobs of the state (particularly on an island) that the government is able to control who comes in. It's significantly lower than experienced by, say, Italy but I think it's more an issue that undermines confidence in the state's ability to do its basic jobs which increases the sense that it's profoundly broken and needs a radical fix.

As someone who believes in a strong state doing a lot, I think it's difficult to make that argument if people don't think it can do the basics - maintaining infrastructure, controlling the frontiers of the state, law and order (all stuff that even an early modern statesman would recognise).

It Matters in the context of winning elections. Labour is never going to please the people who vote based in refugee paranoia. It doesn't really matter in terms of doing the right thing.

Being an island it could be argued makes things a bit more difficult. You can't just build a fence and patrol it. As an island stopping people forcefully at the border means they drown.
This relatew to what was historically quite a problem for Britain in pre modern times: being an island invaders could just sail to basically wherever they wanted in the country. Physically stopping them at sea wasn't a particularly practical and reliable idea.
Quite different to continental lands where they had this issue with their coasts and rivers but otherwise men on foot and horse moved a lot slower and more predictably.

Anyway. The actual solution to this is something unlikely to please the xenophobes even if it wasn't coming from labour. We need to make applying for asylum in the UK easier and not having a ridiculous situation where you must risk your life and enter illegally to make a claim.

[Sheilbh]

How American Republican of you.

Although first popular victory in 20 years lots to learn about even if in a negative way of knowing what space not to create.

But also I am for a liberal immigration system - but I don't think you can get political consent for that if people also feel you aren't able to control your borders. I think those two go hand in hand (I think it's also why white progressives are often surprised at how strongly anti-immigration some recent migrants can be because I think it's about perceived fairness: I followed the rules, others aren't).

I think what he meant he was Ireland since 2008.

Ireland since 2008 has not had massive growth (well sort of with GDP but that's a fiction for Ireland). The 8 years or so following 2008 were really, really tough (and led to a return of mass emigration, especially of young people). There's been a solid recovery since (although I'd note that unemployment only returned to pre-crisis levels after the pandemic) - and there's lots of challenges like housing and redistribution. But, bluntly, they're a lot easier to solve when you've got solid growth, increasing revenues and healthy state finances.

[Valmy]

I still largely disagree over the case in Ireland. The life of the average Irish person has been transformed in my lifetime - it's a thing that comes up so often with Irish comedians, Irish writers, film etc. In the 80s it was not guaranteed that you'd have an indoor toilet, central heating was not common, foreign holidays were rare, the average house size per household was four rooms, it's only in the 80s that colour TV becomes more common than black and white.

There are many negative aspects of the Celtic Tiger economy - and challenges for Ireland now - but it's a profoundly better place to live for the vast majority of Irish people because of that growth and prosperity than it was just 40 years ago. And that's why for the first time in centuries there are more people trying to move into Ireland than leave it.

Yes. Economic growth is great and I am not saying Ireland was much better than back in the potato famine or whatever you think I am saying.

I only bring up Ireland because it is shocking. This should be a golden age for the Irish by any measure. So the revelation they are having a cost of living crisis is shocking.

But it is also instructive, because I am seeing things similar to that all over the world. That economic growth can actually be bad for some people, and that is perverse. A rising tide sinks some boats and that is a problem.

So sure more people may be trying to go to Ireland than leave it, but from what I understand a lot of people are still trying to leave it because they cannot afford to live there anymore. Of course being forced from your home because the country is too rich is much better than being forced from your home because of desperate poverty, but it is still being forced from your home.

It is just an extreme example of a problem I think governments need to keep in mind. I think most economic statistics should be tracked that more accurately reflect the state of the economy for most people, not just the investor classes.

[garbon]

How American Republican of you.

Although first popular victory in 20 years lots to learn about even if in a negative way of knowing what space not to create.

But also I am for a liberal immigration system - but I don't think you can get political consent for that if people also feel you aren't able to control your borders. I think those two go hand in hand (I think it's also why white progressives are often surprised at how strongly anti-immigration some recent migrants can be because I think it's about perceived fairness: I followed the rules, others aren't).

I think what he meant he was Ireland since 2008.

Ireland since 2008 has not had massive growth (well sort of with GDP but that's a fiction for Ireland). The 8 years or so following 2008 were really, really tough (and led to a return of mass emigration, especially of young people). There's been a solid recovery since (although I'd note that unemployment only returned to pre-crisis levels after the pandemic) - and there's lots of challenges like housing and redistribution. But, bluntly, they're a lot easier to solve when you've got solid growth, increasing revenues and healthy state finances.

I think it is a bit of an albatross. I'm not sure the UK will be able to "solve" illegal immigration.

[Valmy]

But also I am for a liberal immigration system - but I don't think you can get political consent for that if people also feel you aren't able to control your borders. I think those two go hand in hand (I think it's also why white progressives are often surprised at how strongly anti-immigration some recent migrants can be because I think it's about perceived fairness: I followed the rules, others aren't).

Here in the US former illegal immigrants are also often hilariously anti-immigrant. Because I got mine, fuck you. As a white progressive I am never surprised people suck, I am a white person after all.

But either way any government that wants to survive these days must be militantly anti-immigration, legal or not.

[Josquius]

How American Republican of you.

Although first popular victory in 20 years lots to learn about even if in a negative way of knowing what space not to create.

But also I am for a liberal immigration system - but I don't think you can get political consent for that if people also feel you aren't able to control your borders. I think those two go hand in hand (I think it's also why white progressives are often surprised at how strongly anti-immigration some recent migrants can be because I think it's about perceived fairness: I followed the rules, others aren't).

I'm broadly on board with saying the rules should be followed.

But in the case of channel boat crossers they basically are following the rules. The rules are so fundamentally broken there is no way to do things "right".

I'm all for following the rules... Unless the rules are stupid.