Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Barrister]

I don't think I'm just being biassed....but imo the OS maps are the best in the world 


(Though I do have a 1:50000 map of the Faroes which is of comparable detail and beauty)

When I lived in Yukon, there was this absolutely amazing bookstore on Main Street.  The book store itself was really cool, with lots of local/northern authors prominently displayed - but you could go into the basement where they had maps.  Including 1:30000 topographic maps of different areas in Yukon (for hiking/paddling).  It was glorious.

Shows you the different scale of the countries, here 25,000 and 50,000 are the mass-market consumer maps, anything north of 175,000 is getting too crowded a view to be useful, whereas in Canada that scale would likely help with you planning your morning commute?   

So googling - I think I got it wrong.  Smaller scale is 1:50000, larger scale is 1:250000.

But as I said - a 1:50k map is for hiking or the like.  A 1:250k is a more regional map, but either only covers a tiny portion of the entire country.

[Sheilbh]

Very good piece by John Bew in the New Statesman. He wrote Citizen Clem, the biography of Attlee and is the son of the great Paul Bew a unionist historian of Ireland. He also wrote the strategic review for Johnson (and in my view should have been kept on under Starmer):

The rise of machinepolitik
In this era of raw power, Labour must find a new statecraft.
By John Bew

There is a scene in Gustave Flaubert's novel Sentimental Education that one cannot read without turning one's mind to today. Set against the backdrop of the 1848 revolutions in Europe, it tells the story of the romantic and intellectual wanderings of the earnest but capricious young Frédéric Moreau. In the exhilarating world of the newborn Second Republic, Moreau and his Parisian social circle flirt with high idealism about politics and international affairs while jostling for female attention, intellectual fulfilment, sources of stable income and, of course, their inheritance.

Flaubert has some fun with the character of Moreau's close friend, Deslauriers, a legal clerk and struggling scholar who has strong political views but fails to think things through to the finish. As an ardent republican, he gains notoriety for his passionate but rather blustery "display of virulence [against] those who held conservative views". At one point, he gets so swept up in his enthusiasm for natural law that he claims to have identified the root of all political injustice in the world in the form of an arcane property right. "Abolish it," Deslauriers declares, at the end of a passionate but incoherent ramble to some bemused legal seniors, "and the Franks will no longer oppress the Gauls, the English oppress the Irish, the Yankee oppress the Redskins, the Turks oppress the Arabs..." and so on.

Just as Deslauriers' theories crumble under scrutiny, so the dreams of the Second Republic fell apart due to naiveté, self-deception and vapid high principle – brought to an emphatic end by the coup d'état of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte in 1852.

The collapse of France's second republican experiment was the subject of one of Karl Marx's most famous essays, "The Eighteenth Brumaire", in which he wrestled with the fact that history had not followed the course of successful bourgeois revolutions, as he had predicted. "Men make their own history," as Marx put it, "but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living." Indeed, it was in the opening passage of the same essay that Marx also deployed the famous line, borrowed from Hegel, that all great world-historical facts and people occur twice. Hegel "forgot to add", Marx wrote, with reference to the arrival of a new and much less impressive Napoleon on the scene, "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

It was not just in France where the hopes of dreamers such as Deslauriers were dashed. A similar reckoning happened across Europe, as the liberal constitutional projects of the 1848 revolutions were thwarted. New theories of international law had proliferated in the preceding decade and there was hope that domestic changes could bring about a more civilised intercourse between nations. But the dreams of the republicans and liberal constitutionalists soon fell victim to other forces in politics, such as nationalism, sectarianism, class identity, dynastic politics, the loyalties of the armed forces and the threat of foreign intervention.

What was to be done? In Germany, a young liberal called Ludwig von Rochau coined an entirely new concept to navigate this brave new world – "realpolitik". Crucially, it was not an abandonment of his principles but a cri de cœur for liberals to get real about the world in which they were trying to bring about change.

From this mid-century turning point, the whole science of politics was adjusted to the dispiriting reality that history was not, after all, on a path towards liberal progress. New theories of political change emerged on the left and right. A realist turn followed in European literature, captured in the writing of figures like Flaubert.

For the new realpolitikers, such as Von Rochau, noble principles need not be abandoned. Yet if liberals were to stand any chance of achieving them, it was by coming to terms with the fact that the political arena was not governed by justice or natural law but by contending forms of power.

One could pick many eras in which a nasty reckoning with reality has collided with the sensibilities of the progressive mind – either splintering it or causing it to undergo reappraisal. Indeed, one could say that we are in such a moment now, hastened by the emphatic defeat of Kamala Harris and with plenty of supporting evidence in much of Europe.

For those coming at this from the perspective of Britain's Labour Party, history can be instructive. On the left, the tension between the high-minded idealists and the realists has traditionally played out in a competition between a legalistic form of politics based on the conscience, ethics and rights of the individual; and one that emphasises a duty to the societal collective, including – particularly at times of international competition – an unsentimental defence of the interests of the nation state.

One example is Clement Attlee's falling out with his brother over the latter's pacificism during the First World War, which Attlee regarded as a form of "anarchic individualism". For Attlee patriotism was the glue which held society together. Rights were not natural or inalienable; they were dependent on the faithful rendering duties and responsibilities to the commonwealth.

Another example is Ernie Bevin's barb at George Lansbury, then Labour Party leader, whom he accused in 1935 of "hawking... [his] conscience around" over opposition to rearmament. For Bevin, Lansbury's mistake was to put his faith in a rickety international architecture set up with great intentions after 1918 but which was crumbling all around them. In an increasingly dangerous world, the best way to defend civilisation was not to seek solace in a personal ethical coda or cling to high legalism. It was to mobilise resources in the search for collective security.

It is interesting that Bevin has featured prominently in Foreign Secretary David Lammy's idea of "progressive realism", a concept borrowed from a 2006 essay by the Harvard international relations theorist Joseph Nye (he of "soft power" fame). Bevin's radicalism on class and economic matters would make modern progressives blush. But unlike many modern progressives, he was tough-minded about adapting to the realities of power and convinced of the merits of Western civilisation. As general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, minister of labour and national service during the war and then foreign secretary in the Attlee government, he was an advocate of what I would call "machinepolitik": the harnessing of the modern industrial machine as an instrument of national power. There was no other option as Britain's adversaries used their planned economies to prepare for war. And the international order that Bevin helped build after 1945 was, in the first instance, a great-power peace in which those on the side of liberty had to maintain a balance of power and a technological and security advantage over their rivals.

The conditions that enabled Bevin to pursue this type of grand strategy – Keynesian economics, mobilisation, state control of industry, and the creation of a huge allied industrial and scientific war machine – are not easily replicable today. So where else can we look to help us navigate a more contested world?

In these pages and elsewhere, the eminent barrister and historian Philippe Sands has written a series of elegant essays in which he argues that the organising goal of the new Labour government's foreign policy should be to act as the foremost champion of international law and its associated courts and bodies: the European Court of Justice, International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. For Sands, this would require a great deal of humility. It means coming to terms with our historic double standards and colonial legacy, if we are to achieve greater international influence in places such as the phantasmal Global South.

There is a certain nobility in this argument. Historically, truth be told, there has been a strong element of self-interest in it. It is for very good reasons that Britain has been a champion of a "rules-based international system". It's partly because this system was built in our image, designed to benefit our commercial and diplomatic interests, and enforced by our closest ally, the US. Ultimately, however, Britain cannot afford to bet its future on a retrospective sentimentality in which it is, as Sands writes, "to be held to account, for actions present and past, whether they be historic emissions of greenhouse gases, or slavery and other acts of colonial-era wrongdoing".

Much as we may wish it to be the case, we are not in a rule-of-law era today. Instead, raw power is being asserted everywhere we look.

This expresses itself in three ways that are changing the whole international system. The first is that those who operate on the global stage are wilfully flouting the rules of the post-1945 legal international order.

The most vivid example is Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which is about as flagrant a violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter as is possible to imagine. Britain's comparatively minor historical transgressions on matters such as the British Indian Ocean Territory are highlighted by Sands, but they are negligible in material terms compared to the failure to do anything about Putin's seizure of Crimea in 2014.

The second way this new form of power is expressed is in productive force. And here we really need to pay attention. From armaments to energy to technology, it is in the hands of those nations that are able to harness productive force – either independently or with an allied or cooperative effort – that the future of the world will be held.

Third, it is in the furnace of this era of raw power that new rules and norms will be laid down. To take one pressing example, the raw power game is perhaps most pronounced in the field of artificial intelligence. In the recently published Genesis: Artificial Intelligence, Hope and the Human Spirit, Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt and Craig Mundie wrestle with the vast global implications of this transformative new technology. AI can write its own rules-based systems and the battle to decide which humans and what ethical and scientific considerations shape this agenda has potentially immense consequences for our way of life. Genesis is stark in its assertion that the technological race is already happening much faster than the current order can cope with.

In the era of raw power, a seat at the table has to be earned, just as it was in 1945. Nested in the book is a piercing observation from an earlier work by Kissinger over half a century ago: "A nation which does not shape events through its own sense of purpose eventually will be engulfed in events shaped by others."

These are some of the epochal civilisational and scientific changes that set the backdrop to British foreign policy, just as the UK considers how to adjust to the second Trump administration. Hawking our conscience around, engaging in historical apologia, or merely clinging to our old assumptions will not be a profitable path. Indeed, one is reminded of another memorable Kissinger quote, from 2018, which wondered if Donald Trump was "one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences".

Half a decade ago, when I joined the British government at the back end of the first Trump administration, it was common to speculate on the date when China would overtake the US as the pre-eminent global superpower. Just as we sometimes succumb to backward-looking sentimentality, the trap of teleological thinking in foreign policy is also common. Out with the idea that the end of history meant the steady progression of liberal democracy; and in with the notion that we were in an era of interminable Western decline.

For all the European anxiety about the direction of American politics, the idea of US decline has been quietly parked. Along with it has gone the notion that it is possible for the UK to "navigate US-China competition" by some sort of hedging in which we got rich via the economic relationship with China while depending on the US relationship for our security. The raw reality of American power came surging back into our lives. The fate of Huawei in Britain – ripped out of our telecommunications system to a great extent because of bipartisan American anxiety about China – was a case in point. But there are other examples. For Europe, the war in Ukraine has provided a stark reminder of just how important America is for the security of our continent. Consequently, the great strategic fear gripping European capitals is that the Trump administration will reduce that support.

American choices affect us as much as ever, from trade policy to technological regulation. The US of 2024 has achieved energy independence and is racing ahead in the rudiments of future national power such as quantum computing and AI. That is not to say it has all the cards in its competition with China. There are acute anxieties over the size of its navy, vulnerabilities of its supply chain in advanced chip technology, and its debt. But what we can expect is that – under Trump – its raw power will be asserted with considerable brusqueness and very little respect for the genteel sensibilities of others. Witness the president-elect's threats to impose crushing tariffs on neighbours who fail to get a grip on border security or the Brics nations who play with the idea they can create an alternative international monetary system to the dollar.

The downside risks are therefore considerable. But opportunities may present themselves too, notably to the UK. The rough and ready reality of American power means we pore over the appointments made by the incoming Trump administration. In the national security space, there are people with whom the UK can and will work very well – such as Michael Waltz as national security adviser and Marco Rubio at the State Department. Officials will be examining the Ukraine policy report written by General Keith Kellogg earlier this year for the America First Policy Institute now that he has been appointed Trump's special envoy for Ukraine. It is primarily a critique of what he says were the weaknesses of the Obama and Biden administrations in dealing with Russia, combined with a belief that a deal – including one short of Ukraine's war arms – could be done. But there isn't yet much detail for how to get to that point, and an opportunity for the UK to play an important role.

Some of the economic appointments are even more pregnant with opportunities – and, in equal measure, some hard dilemmas and trade-offs. Neither Trump's picks for treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, nor US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, are zero-sum believers in trade wars. They both have expressed an interest in reshaping the international economic order to one in which security and trading relations are more closely linked. They both articulate a critique of full-scale globalisation that is not too dissimilar from that recognised by many British voters (and to which Republicans have spoken far more deftly than Democrats). Amid all this, they have both expressed an interest in forming a bespoke economic relationship with favoured nations, including the UK. Is there a deal to be done, on technology, defence and services, for example? Could that be combined with a smoother arrangement on trade in goods with the EU?

In this era of raw power, one thing is certain: fortune favours the brave. It is an era in which muscles will be flexed but deals may also be made. For that, we need a statecraft that goes beyond the maintenance of a rules-based international system, which has been the main business of our foreign policy for many years. That work remains vital, of course, and it matters deeply to the future of Ukraine and other parts of the world where revisionism risks global instability on a scale that surpasses anything we have yet seen. But we must be able to walk and chew gum with a bit of spaghetti-western swagger. And so the national interest of the UK – which I would define as improving the security, and social and economic life of the British people – requires us to get down to work to seek hard economic and security outcomes, rather than the sentimental education of those whose world-view does not exist in perfect sympathy with our own.

John Bew is professor of history and foreign policy at King's College London and distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served as the chief foreign policy adviser in No 10 for more than half a decade

[Tamas]

The Russians are mapping out British undersea cables under the North Sea in preparation of their merchant ships suffering anchor incidents there.

Royal Navy ships mobilised to respond to Russian spy ship in North Sea, defence secretary tells MPs
Royal Navy ships have been mobilised to respond to a Russian spy ship in the North Sea, John Healey, the defence secretary, told MPs.

In a statement to the Commons, he said he wanted Vladimir Putin "to hear this message – we see you, we know what you're doing and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country."

Describing what happened, Healey said:

The foreign ship Yantar is currently in the North Sea having passed through British waters. Let me be clear, this is a Russian spy ship used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK's critical underwater infrastructure.

Yantar entered the UK exclusive economic zone about 45 miles off the British coast on Monday. For the last two days the Royal Navy has deployed HMS Somerset and HMS Tyne to monitor the vessel every minute through our waters.

I changed the Royal Navy's rules of engagement so that our warships can get closer and better track the Yantar. So far, the ship has complied with international rules of navigation.

Healey also said this was the second time the Russian spy vessel had entered UK waters in recent months. He said it was closely watched in November, when it was spotted "detected loitering over UK critical undersea infrastructure". He went on:

To deter any potential threat, I took measured steps then as part of a clear direct response to the Russian vessel. RAF maritime patrol aircraft alongside HMS Cattistock, HMS Tyne and RFA Proteus were deployed to shadow Yantar's every movement.

Today, I also wanted to confirm to the house that I authorised a Royal Navy submarine, strictly as a deterrent measure, to surface close to Yantar to make clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move. The ship then left UK waters without further loitering and sailed down to the Mediterranean.

Healey added:

I also wanted President Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you're doing and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country.{/quote}

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Less monitoring, more swordfishes with torpedoes

[Neil]

... and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country.

[  ] BELIEVE
[X] DOUBT

[Tamas]

... and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country.

[  ] BELIEVE
[X] DOUBT

 

 

[Sheilbh]

The Russians are mapping out British undersea cables under the North Sea in preparation of their merchant ships suffering anchor incidents there.

I'd add to this that the Royal Navy (and RAF) also basically provide security for Irish waters. Three quarters of the Northern Hemisphere's sub-sea cables pass through or near Irish water and the IDF have eight ships, two of which are mothballed.

But we're seeing this increasingly in the Baltics, in the South China Sea too - it's a vulnerability that is being targeted.

I'd add this is why I'm also a little uneasy on moving from a baseline energy (like gas or nuclear) to focus primarily on renewables with lots of interconnectors. There's domestic challenges with those interconnectors in the producer countries (because British demand has an impact on domestic prices), but also I have no objection to an interconnector to solar farms in Morocco - however we're relying on that then it's a big target and we need to be able to secure it.

To tie into that energy point again - we're having another no wind no sun day so over 60% of our energy is gas. We have three pipelines and three LNG portal providing that.

My worry is we're not really making it difficult for hostile states.

[mongers]

The Russians are mapping out British undersea cables under the North Sea in preparation of their merchant ships suffering anchor incidents there.

I'd add to this that the Royal Navy (and RAF) also basically provide security for Irish waters. Three quarters of the Northern Hemisphere's sub-sea cables pass through or near Irish water and the IDF have eight ships, two of which are mothballed.

But we're seeing this increasingly in the Baltics, in the South China Sea too - it's a vulnerability that is being targeted.

I'd add this is why I'm also a little uneasy on moving from a baseline energy (like gas or nuclear) to focus primarily on renewables with lots of interconnectors. There's domestic challenges with those interconnectors in the producer countries (because British demand has an impact on domestic prices), but also I have no objection to an interconnector to solar farms in Morocco - however we're relying on that then it's a big target and we need to be able to secure it.

To tie into that energy point again - we're having another no wind no sun day so over 60% of our energy is gas. We have three pipelines and three LNG portal providing that.

My worry is we're not really making it difficult for hostile states.

A couple of decent onshore oil fields would help as a last ditch reserve or failing that increased oil storage facilities at refineries, to compliment a  handful of mothballed oil-fired power stations.

[Sheilbh]

I'll believe it when I see it (but the right sort of ideas and fights to be picking). Although I'm not sure league tables will help speed up the courts as opposed to fixing 15 years of chronic underfunding:

Keir Starmer vows to override 'the whims of nimbys'
The prime minister plans to curb legal challenges against big building projects in order to boost economic growth
Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Thursday January 23 2025, 12.01am, The Times

Sir Keir Starmer has promised to override "the whims of nimbys" by curbing legal challenges against big building projects.

The prime minister said he would no longer let the courts be "abused by pressure groups to frustrate critical infrastructure" as he changes the law to restrict campaigners' and residents' rights to bring judicial reviews.

League tables of court delays will be created to encourage faster decisions, in reforms designed to speed up decisions by about a year and save hundreds of millions of pounds for the taxpayer.

While Starmer is likely to face accusations that ministers are riding roughshod over environmental concerns and protests from local residents, the prime minister is unrepentant about the need to end "challenge culture" which now sees most big projects taken to court.

In some of his strongest comments yet against those opposed to building projects, Starmer, himself a former human rights barrister, said that "our courts shouldn't be abused by pressure groups to frustrate critical infrastructure".

He told The Times that he would put "the country's future prosperity ahead of the whims of nimbys who have been holding us back for too long".

Starmer has made planning reform a key driver of his dash for growth and has vowed to end the "nonsense" of key infrastructure projects repeatedly held up by legal and environmental challenges.

Citing the need for HS2 to build a £100 million "bat tunnel" to avoid risks to legally protected species, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday: "We've got to make it easier for businesses to get things done and not get caught up in regulatory systems or stuck for years in planning systems with judicial review after judicial review."

Campaign groups and residents currently have three opportunities to apply for judicial review, which will be reduced to at most two by scrapping an initial "paper permission" stage before oral hearings.

Ministers will also change the law so that where a High Court judge deems a challenge "totally without merit", claimants will not be allowed to appeal.

"For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges — using our court processes to frustrate growth," Starmer said. "We're putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation."

Consenting times for big projects have increased by two thirds in the past decade and now stand at over two years. Rising rates of judicial review now see 58 per cent of big projects challenged in court.

It is understood that Starmer is accepting all the recommendations of the senior planning barrister Lord Banner KC, who last year urged a series of reforms signed to speed up major infrastructure projects by six to 12 months.

Banner's review warned of a "chilling effect" as government became increasingly cautious to reduce the risk of decisions being overturned in the courts. Legal challenges to big road schemes cost taxpayers £66 to £121 million each, he reported.

A series of measures to speed up court proceedings will also be made after Banner found cases ranged from between five and 61 weeks. Such delays are then amplified by the need for wildlife surveys, for example of migrating birds, to be carried out during particular seasons.

Both sides will be required to commit to a clear timetable in advance to reduce delays. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court will also be given time targets for deciding cases, bringing them into line with the High Court.

Courts will also be required to publish data on how many of their proceedings have been completed within target timescales, in order to create public pressure to get through cases promptly.

Banner said there was "broad consensus from claimants to scheme promoters that a quicker system of justice would be in their interests" and that delays to big projects "cause real detriment to the public interest".

Welcoming government action, Banner said that "reducing the number of permission attempts to one for truly hopeless cases should weed out the worst offenders" and the reforms could "help to deliver a step change in the pace of infrastructure delivery".

The changes will apply to the "nationally significant infrastructure" regime which allows ministers rather than local councils to make planning decisions over big projects such as motorways, rail lines, power stations and pylons. Onshore wind farms are now included in these rules, after a change in Labour's first days in power.

It remained unclear whether ministers would make similar changes to the rules for bringing judicial reviews in other areas of the planning system. Last week the government was forced to promise a fresh consultation on welfare cuts after a court found savings worth £2 billion were unlawful.

It comes after The Times revealed that ministers will strip environmental quangos of their power to delay major housebuilding and infrastructure developments. Regulators will no longer be able to demand that developers mitigate the environmental damage caused by new buildings before construction can start. Instead, they will be required to pay into a new national "nature restoration" fund to "offset" any potential damage while projects go ahead.

[crazy canuck]

The CBC did a profile type story on Carney. A fair amount of time was spent on his adventures being the head of your Bank.

I didn't know the Conservatives (well at least the Brexit Conservatives) hated him so much. The upshot of the story was if Liz Truss hated him so much, he can't be all bad.   

[Sheilbh]

Did they have any details on that? Because I've no idea what they're talking about.

I mean after he left the BofE, Boris Johnson appointed him as financial advisor to COP26 in Glasgow.

[Gups]

I'll believe it when I see it (but the right sort of ideas and fights to be picking). Although I'm not sure league tables will help speed up the courts as opposed to fixing 15 years of chronic underfunding:

Keir Starmer vows to override 'the whims of nimbys'
The prime minister plans to curb legal challenges against big building projects in order to boost economic growth
Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Thursday January 23 2025, 12.01am, The Times

Sir Keir Starmer has promised to override "the whims of nimbys" by curbing legal challenges against big building projects.

The prime minister said he would no longer let the courts be "abused by pressure groups to frustrate critical infrastructure" as he changes the law to restrict campaigners' and residents' rights to bring judicial reviews.

League tables of court delays will be created to encourage faster decisions, in reforms designed to speed up decisions by about a year and save hundreds of millions of pounds for the taxpayer.

While Starmer is likely to face accusations that ministers are riding roughshod over environmental concerns and protests from local residents, the prime minister is unrepentant about the need to end "challenge culture" which now sees most big projects taken to court.

In some of his strongest comments yet against those opposed to building projects, Starmer, himself a former human rights barrister, said that "our courts shouldn't be abused by pressure groups to frustrate critical infrastructure".

He told The Times that he would put "the country's future prosperity ahead of the whims of nimbys who have been holding us back for too long".

Starmer has made planning reform a key driver of his dash for growth and has vowed to end the "nonsense" of key infrastructure projects repeatedly held up by legal and environmental challenges.

Citing the need for HS2 to build a £100 million "bat tunnel" to avoid risks to legally protected species, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday: "We've got to make it easier for businesses to get things done and not get caught up in regulatory systems or stuck for years in planning systems with judicial review after judicial review."

Campaign groups and residents currently have three opportunities to apply for judicial review, which will be reduced to at most two by scrapping an initial "paper permission" stage before oral hearings.

Ministers will also change the law so that where a High Court judge deems a challenge "totally without merit", claimants will not be allowed to appeal.

"For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges — using our court processes to frustrate growth," Starmer said. "We're putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation."

Consenting times for big projects have increased by two thirds in the past decade and now stand at over two years. Rising rates of judicial review now see 58 per cent of big projects challenged in court.

It is understood that Starmer is accepting all the recommendations of the senior planning barrister Lord Banner KC, who last year urged a series of reforms signed to speed up major infrastructure projects by six to 12 months.

Banner's review warned of a "chilling effect" as government became increasingly cautious to reduce the risk of decisions being overturned in the courts. Legal challenges to big road schemes cost taxpayers £66 to £121 million each, he reported.

A series of measures to speed up court proceedings will also be made after Banner found cases ranged from between five and 61 weeks. Such delays are then amplified by the need for wildlife surveys, for example of migrating birds, to be carried out during particular seasons.

Both sides will be required to commit to a clear timetable in advance to reduce delays. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court will also be given time targets for deciding cases, bringing them into line with the High Court.

Courts will also be required to publish data on how many of their proceedings have been completed within target timescales, in order to create public pressure to get through cases promptly.

Banner said there was "broad consensus from claimants to scheme promoters that a quicker system of justice would be in their interests" and that delays to big projects "cause real detriment to the public interest".

Welcoming government action, Banner said that "reducing the number of permission attempts to one for truly hopeless cases should weed out the worst offenders" and the reforms could "help to deliver a step change in the pace of infrastructure delivery".

The changes will apply to the "nationally significant infrastructure" regime which allows ministers rather than local councils to make planning decisions over big projects such as motorways, rail lines, power stations and pylons. Onshore wind farms are now included in these rules, after a change in Labour's first days in power.

It remained unclear whether ministers would make similar changes to the rules for bringing judicial reviews in other areas of the planning system. Last week the government was forced to promise a fresh consultation on welfare cuts after a court found savings worth £2 billion were unlawful.

It comes after The Times revealed that ministers will strip environmental quangos of their power to delay major housebuilding and infrastructure developments. Regulators will no longer be able to demand that developers mitigate the environmental damage caused by new buildings before construction can start. Instead, they will be required to pay into a new national "nature restoration" fund to "offset" any potential damage while projects go ahead.

The Charlie Banner proposals are completely sensible and easy to implement. They won't make a huge difference but will help.

That offset idea would make a massive difference but will need a lot of work, legislation etc. Presumably will be in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to be published in March but that will only establish the principle.

Elsewhere teh Govt set to approve the lower Thames Crossing and the Universal Studios development near Bedford. Also support for Heathrow 3rd runway but we really have heard all of that before and personally I think it's unnecessary, far too expensive and far too disruptive (diverting the whole of the M25 for years!) and the Gatwick proposal is much better.

[crazy canuck]

Did they have any details on that? Because I've no idea what they're talking about.

I mean after he left the BofE, Boris Johnson appointed him as financial advisor to COP26 in Glasgow.

Then you get to learn something too

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/front-burner/id1439621628?i=1000685131854