Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Just to go back to the really, really basic politics I'm still baffled by it. Early in the week Number 10 withdraws the whip from 4 Labour MPs. The line that emerges is this is because of complaints from loyal backbenchers that they kept on being marched up a hill defending really unpopular policies only for the government to give way and the way to influence policy was to rebel. So this was to in effect shore up their loyalty by showing there are consequences for (from one of the briefings on this) "persistent knobheadery".

I randomly caught this interview where at about 7 minutes, Lucy Powell talks about the important of putting legislation through the 'tough test of Parliament' as UK is not a country of 'executive orders' but then Sophy Ridge noted that if testing legislation through Parliament is so important, why did Keir Starmer withdraw the whip from four  for their role in the welfare bill.

https://news.sky.com/video/many-questions-about-how-afghan-data-leak-happened-minister-says-13398196

[Sheilbh]

Yeah in my view Lucy Powell is one of those ministers who have really, really underwhelmed.

On the other hand and to give some credit - I think it shows that previous experience helps as Miliband and Benn are, I think, doing pretty well although I think Miliband is setting up a lot of hostages to fortune and Benn's work on the legacy bill is difficult. Of the new lot only Shabana Mahmood and Jonathan Reynolds have really made an impression. Although I like Rayner a lot and can't help but think she's kept a pretty low profile - and her powder dry - this last year.

[Sheilbh]

God this story's grim and desperately sad

'Missed opportunity' - Radford mum and daughter found dead months after 999 call
Alphonsine Leuga, 47, and Loraine Choulla, 18, likely died 'weeks to months' before their bodies were discovered
By Rucsandra Moldoveanu
 16:23, 21 JUL 2025Updated18:10, 21 JUL 2025

A Nottingham mother had pleaded for an ambulance to attend her address months before she and her daughter were found dead in their home. Alphonsine Leuga, 47, and Loraine Choulla, 18, likely died "weeks to months" before their bodies were discovered inside their council house at 85 Hartley Road in Radford on May 21, 2024.

The mother's provisional cause of death has been established as pneumonia of uncertain cause, while the daughter's cause of death remains unascertained. An inquest into their deaths started on Monday, July 21, at Nottingham Coroners' Court.

The first day of the hearing was told of a missed opportunity from East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) to send an ambulance to Ms Leuga's address. The hearing was told that the mother had been admitted to City Hospital between January 26 and 28, during which she was "critically unwell".

Coroner Amanda Bewley heard that the woman had low iron levels and required a blood transfusion of three litres, but also had a respiratory tract infection. Ms Leuga was discharged "pragmatically", the court was told, as she needed to care for her daughter, who was "entirely dependent" on her.

Ms Choulla had Down Syndrome and learning disabilities. Just a week after she was discharged, on February 2, 2024, at 1.04pm, Ms Leuga made a 999 call asking for an ambulance.

A transcript of the call was read out in court on Monday. During the call, Ms Leuga said: "I need some help please. I need help to my daughter. I feel cold. I am on the bed. I feel cold and can't move. Please send an ambulance. I do not want police, I need ambulance...my daughter. Would you send an ambulance? Please, come, please."

Mumbles and groaning were also heard during the call and Ms Leuga was asked multiple times what language she spoke, as well as where she lived, despite repeating her address a number of times. Susan Jevons, head of patient safety at EMAS, told the hearing that Ms Leuga stated her address "clearly".

The call was cut off, however, and attempts were made to call Ms Leuga back. With the information that was provided to them, the hearing was told EMAS should have rated the incident as category 3, which requires a response time of 120 minutes.

An ambulance did not go to the address because the emergency medical advisor closed the call down because they thought the call was abandoned, Ms Jevons explained. She said: "That should not have happened because we had obtained the address and a disposition from Alphonsine.

"They followed the abandoned call process when they shouldn't have because they had an address and phone number [for Ms Leuga]. The abandoned call process should only be used for hoax calls. We should not have followed this process at all.

"EMAS did contact Alphonsine back to get more information but the call remained unanswered and the call was marked as abandoned which should not have happened." Ms Jevons told coroner Ms Bewley that there was a missed opportunity from the emergency medical advisor to seek guidance from a senior colleague regarding how to proceed with the call after no contact could be made with Ms Leuga.

Had that happened, the call would have remained live. Ms Jevons said: "There was a missed opportunity for an ambulance to attend Alphonsine's address." It was also agreed that an ambulance attending the address could have "made a difference between life and death for Loraine".

The hearing was told staff have since been asked to re-read the protocol for abandoned calls and, since February 2024, there have been no other similar incidents. During Monday's hearing pathologist Dr Stuart Hamilton said that it cannot be ruled out that Ms Leuga died on the day she made the 999 call.

He explained that he identified "significant post-mortem change" during both of the examinations, which "significantly tampered what could be identified in the examination". Ms Leuga's internal examination showed inflammation to the lungs, in accordance to her pneumonia.

Dr Hamilton said identifying when both women died would be "impossible" from the post-mortem examinations. He said: "On the balance of probabilities, it is likely Ms Leuga had been dead for a period of weeks to months based on the extent of post-mortem change."

A similar conclusion was drawn regarding Ms Choulla. The teenager was entirely dependent on her mother to meet her hydrational and nutritional needs.

The hearing was told she could fill a glass of water if prompted but would not do it on her own. Dr Hamilton added that her stomach was empty at the time of the post-mortem examination in May 2024, when she weighed 59kg, compared to 108kg recorded on February 24, 2023.

He explained that the significant loss of weight could be partly due to post-mortem change. He said: "There is nothing in my findings suggesting that dehydration as a cause of death would be incorrect. Dehydration causes death more rapidly than malnutrition."

A cause of death was proposed by coroner Ms Bewley as 1a dehydration and 1b Down Syndrome and learning disabilities. This will be officially established at the end of the coronial proceedings, however, on Friday, July 25.

The inquest continues.

Saw something similar last week about someone helping a stranger who'd collapsed on the street and was non-responsive. Called 999 and were told the case would be logged and referred to a clinician and they'd hear back in the next 4 hours. It was resolved when a second person called and they said an ambulance should have been sent and the first call had gone through the wrong procedural guidelines. Just very "computer says no", going into the wrong flow chart.

And "missed opportunity" and re-reading the guidance just seems so inadequate.

I'd add specifically in the context of Nottingham that at the bottom of the Guardian article on this story the related stories indicate something very wrong in healthcare in Nottingham. The police launching corporate manslaughter inquiry into Nottingham hospital trust, which was fined £1.6 million over maternity care failures and the death of three babies. Families of the Nottingham stabbing victims responding after reports that an NHS doctor warned the stabber could kill three years before he went on a spree and an inquest into a woman who died in A&E despite two "missed opportunities". All in the last year or two - all in the same trusts from what I can see.

[Josquius]

Yes, big shades of that guy and toddler that died a year or two ago.
Though that she called an ambulance here also... Can't help but wonder if there's some racism at play too.

[Grey Fox]

Are all these systems running on SAP?

[Josquius]

Are all these systems running on SAP?

Probably capita.

[HVC]

Whatever runs on dos

[Sheilbh]

Yes, big shades of that guy and toddler that died a year or two ago.
Though that she called an ambulance here also... Can't help but wonder if there's some racism at play too.

No doubt about it - although I think given those stories about Nottingham it's not necessarily determinative. As in, I think it's absolutely a factor but with those other stories in Nottingham I wouldn't rule out this happening to someone else regardless of race.

Yes, based on what you wrote, if they fold on planning reform as well, we need to face reality: they do not have the talent (mostly the determination) to make their time in government a success.

I'd add on this that planning reform would be a big supply side reform. That's the sort of thing you need to do in year one because it takes a lot of political capital and you won't see the results until year 4-5 of a parliament.

On everything, I find the gap between the government's rhetoric on how bad things are etc v the urgency of doing anything pretty striking. "Everything is terrible and on the state of collapse - which is why we're commissioning a 12-18 month review, to be followed by two rounds of extensive stakeholder consultation"

Relatedly I saw Liz Kendall announcing the review on the state pension age (to increase it). Kendall also flagged the key (and admittedly increasing) issue of housing for pensioner poverty - basically because at the minute over 75% of pensioners own their homes. It's a key bit of household wealth/saving in the UK. So, inevitably, it's out of scope of this review

Questioned after her speech at a south London community centre, Kendall acknowledged the role in pensioner poverty of high housing costs after retirement.

"My big worry is, so many young people have not even got a hope in hell of getting on the housing ladder, they're being absolutely killed by their rent, and if you are paying off your mortgage in retirement, or still renting in retirement, that is what is driving this sort of tsunami of pensioner poverty that is coming our way," she said.

The commission will not be asked to look at housing policy but Kendall pointed to other Labour policies in this area, including increasing housebuilding.

Edit: Also I feel like a really common theme in British discourse - especially Guardian-y/liberal-left sort of stuff is about the need to look beyond "simple solutions" for problems to the "root cause", except for housing (which is actually a root cause of a lot of problems)

[HVC]

One of the reasons government don't want lower housing prices can be seen in Toronto. Theres going to be a 70 million shortfall because the market slowdown has lowered prices and the volume of overall sales.

[crazy canuck]

A shortfall going to the provincial government through land transfer taxes?

If so, that has little to do with the price of property and more to do with the volume of sales.  If volume remained constant, then you could claim the reduction in revenue was related to price. But that is a scenario that is unlikely.

[HVC]

A little from column a, mostly from column b (volume). Yes it's from land transfer taxes. 5% split between province and municipality. A little less then half way (i think city gets 2.2). So yes the volume effects it much more, but price a factor.

Another way they're getting hit is development fees. Condo market is down from the uncertainty (and thus lesser profit on speculation). Not sure the hit there though.

*edir* overall point i was trying to make, badly, is that the higher housing the more governments make.

*edit 2* I remembered the rates wrong. It's sliding. That 5% is bracket for price of houses over 5 million... so only half of the toronto market ( only sort of kidding)

[crazy canuck]

Another way they're getting hit is development fees. Condo market is down from the uncertainty (and thus lesser profit on speculation). Not sure the hit there though.

A little from column a, mostly from column b (volume). Yes it's from land transfer taxes. 5% split between province and municipality. A little less then half way (i think city gets 2.2). So yes the volume effects it much more, but price a factor.

Another way they're getting hit is development fees. Condo market is down from the uncertainty (and thus lesser profit on speculation). Not sure the hit there though.

*edir* overall point i was trying to make, badly, is that the higher housing the more governments make.

*edit 2* I remembered the rates wrong. It's sliding. That 5% is bracket for price of houses over 5 million... so only half of the toronto market ( only sort of kidding)

*edir* overall point i was trying to make, badly, is that the higher housing the more governments make.

*edit 2* I remembered the rates wrong. It's sliding. That 5% is bracket for price of houses over 5 million... so only half of the toronto market ( only sort of kidding)

Yeah, government revenues definitely increased as prices increased rapidly over the last three decades. development cost charges are supposed to be an offset charge for the cost of putting in the infrastructure to support the new development, and so shouldn't really be considered as going into the general revenue pot.  But government accounts for it that way, and it is a bit telling.

[Sheilbh]

Separately with all the troubles the government is having, some interesting stuff going on on the rest of the left.

Andy Burnham today doing an exclusive with the Times accusing ministers and civil servants of deliberately misleading the public with "false" and "unfounded" briefings about the proposed Hillsborough Law. He says that they are "fighting hard to preserve the status quo" which is what's led to scandals like infected blood, Post Office and, obviously, Hillsborough. The main thrust of the law is to introduce a legal "duty of candour" with criminal sanctions for state employees. The KC who wrote the draft legislation and has been involved in talks between government and the families has said some civil servants are trying to "subvert and destroy the entire process".

Meanwhile Unite, the second largest union in the country, has suspended  Angela Rayner the Labour deputy leader. The General Secretary, Sharon Graham, ran on a very workerist/industrial focused campaign and, by all accounts, has almost no interest in being a big player in Labour party politics. But Unite are a very significant funder for the Labour party (about £350k in 2024) so she matters even if she doesn't want to play the typical "union baron" role.

However she's on the left and was the only union boss who wouldn't endorse Labour's manifesto in 2024. Her unions equal pay claims are causing government a lot of problems in Local government (this was the issue Rayner was suspended over as her department covers local government). She's also just given an interview saying Unite may vote to disaffiliate from Labour - meaning no more funding.

FWIW it isn't just a standard left critique and I have a lot of sympathy with her comments (which are what you'd expect from a union boss representing these workers):

Then comes a critique to confound the stereotypes that still shape perceptions of the union movement at Westminster: that some of its leaders are unreconstructed Corbynites more comfortable addressing the Cuba Solidarity Campaign than the country at large. On the contrary, says Graham, this Labour government isn't patriotic enough: "You have to believe in Britain." She wants ministers to change the law so that all major infrastructure projects are built with British steel. "Taxpayers' money is building these projects, building hospitals. Why are they not using UK steel? Ministers say, well, look, Sharon, there would be a difficulty with that. But not if you made it a critical infrastructure area of the economy. That's what other countries do."

Graham says the same of the defence industry, many of whose workers pay their dues to Unite. "I spend a lot of my time at the moment with defence companies, pushing the government in terms of spending more on defence. I am very vocal about the fact that we need to spend more money on defence, but then you need to buy British. We are hugely skilled at this."

No arm of the state escapes her criticism: this time it's the RAF, whose orders for Eurofighter Typhoon jets built by BAE have dried up. "How can we sell British Typhoons to the world if we don't buy British Typhoons? It's a no-brainer, and equally, it's good for national security." Whatever this is, it definitely isn't the Corbynism some lazily assume to be the default worldview in offices like this one.

Next up is Ed Miliband, the energy secretary. Like Gary Smith, the GMB union leader, Graham thinks his net-zero policies are putting workers out of jobs. As long as oil remains in the North Sea, Unite thinks it should be drilled. "I think people are going to think the net-zero plan is a joke," says Graham, who is careful to clarify that she isn't a climate sceptic. "We can't offset our carbon responsibility to other countries and say, well, we're all right because we've given away all our jobs over here. It's not a serious plan to me. And they're going to have to get serious on it. Ed Miliband needs to change pace." Nor does she share Starmer's evangelism for AI, which she describes as theft of intellectual property from workers, be they a creative or a Unite bus driver whose routes train automated vehicles.

Interestingly some other Unite NEC members were at an online event with Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn last night - and there's some who are talking of disaffiliating with Labour in order to fund their party. Corbyn and Sultana both want union involvement. But, as I say, Graham is very workerist so she's quite dismissive of that idea.

[Neil]

'Theft of intellectual property from workers'?  That's a pretty rich statement. 

Still, at least she's critical of the RAF.  There's an organization that should never have existed.

[crazy canuck]

'Theft of intellectual property from workers'?  That's a pretty rich statement. 

How would you describe the unauthorized use of intellectual property?