Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Two pieces to enrage everyone this morning - the government is anti-growth and planning is to our politics what the unions were to politics in the 70s

First, on the government's decision to avoid onshore wind:

If a mere murmur of dissent can blow the PM off course, he will never get anything done
Robert Colvile
Sunday April 10 2022, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

It's not exactly unusual to see this government making a U-turn. But it's still unusual to see it making a U-turn in the face of largely imaginary opposition. Last week's energy security strategy was all set to recommend a big expansion of onshore wind, championed by the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng — but the final announcement instead restricted itself to milksop language about "consulting on developing partnerships" with "a limited number of supportive communities". No 10 had once more bowed to angry MPs, panicking about the reaction in their constituencies.

So nimbyism reigns triumphant once again? Well, not quite. The bizarre thing about this decision is that onshore wind is hugely popular. Every survey on the matter, every way of putting the question, returns the same findings. Pollsters have broken the results down into old voters, Tory voters, Brexit voters, rural voters, even people who live near existing wind farms. In every group an impregnable majority is in favour of onshore turbines, and in favour of building more of the things.

If nimbyism is bowing to genuine local resistance, then we need a new word for pre-emptively surrendering to a noisy but tiny minority: dimbyism, perhaps?



Still, this episode is a perfect illustration of the strategic dilemma facing the government. Boris Johnson has two overriding priorities: to keep his job and to win the next election. Sometimes, as on getting taxes back down, these imperatives overlap. But on a host of issues they push the government in opposite directions.

Take onshore wind. If you want to win the next election, doing whatever you can to reduce energy prices — or even just showing that you are trying — is a good idea. Putting up more wind turbines is quick, cheap and popular, especially compared with building nuclear plants (although we do need to build more nuclear plants as well).

But there is a folk memory among Tory MPs of the local opposition to onshore wind in the early 2010s, which convinced David Cameron to kneecap its development. WhatsApp groups were starting to form. So No 10 caved, because it wants to keep MPs happy. And it wants to keep MPs happy because happy MPs aren't voting against the government — or, worse, writing letters of no confidence to Sir Graham Brady.

This process has become self-reinforcing. Despite his healthy majority, the prime minister kept getting defeated by his own MPs — and then, of course, faced a near-death experience over the No 10 parties. So it is understandable that he has prioritised rebuilding relationships with his backbenchers. It is telling, and arguably unprecedented, that two of the senior advisers brought in to rebuild Downing Street — the chief of staff, Steve Barclay, and head of policy, Andrew Griffith — are MPs themselves.

For any other leader this might be an uncomfortable adjustment. But among Johnson's greatest assets, and certainly among the most infuriating to his enemies, is his ability to adapt his priorities and his persona to the needs of the moment. If tooth-and-claw Toryism is what it takes to secure his position, tooth and claw is what the troops will get.

But there are four structural problems. The first is that MPs don't always agree with one another, let alone No 10. The second is that MPs don't always agree with the public. The third is that sometimes you may need to do things that are unpopular with both. And the fourth is that sometimes — even often — the things the government ends up doing look contradictory.

For example, last month the chancellor — whose recent experiences serve as exhibit A if you want to explain why so many talented, dedicated people run a mile from a career in politics — rejected Labour's calls for a windfall tax on the energy sector. He made the impeccably conservative argument that if you want more of something, in this case oil and gas investment, it's counterproductive to tax it. Yet Michael Gove's solution to the cladding crisis is to impose exactly the same kind of tax on housebuilding. Even firms that never put up a cladded building, or obeyed all the rules when they did, have been ordered to help cover estimated costs of £4 billion (which could well go higher).

Similarly, this government believes in privatisation when it comes to Channel 4 — which might give the station the financial muscle to upgrade schedules that rely too much on imported pap and homegrown agitprop. But it believes in nationalisation when it comes to chunks of National Grid and the railways.

It fervently supports deregulation — except when it's hiring hundreds of civil servants to check that tech companies are policing with sufficient zeal what we say on the internet, or to scrutinise the details of mergers and takeovers across swathes of the economy. Indeed, the recent white paper on the benefits of Brexit explicitly noted that a tough target for reducing regulation would be a great idea but couldn't be done because of the government's plans for tech and net zero. And of course it believes in lowering the tax burden, except on budget day.

It's hardly unusual for a government to contain multitudes: conviction politicians such as Thatcher who chart a firm course for the whole of government are a sad rarity. Nor is it unusual for there to be a mid-term reset: the streamlining of the legislative agenda that Barclay is leading, and Griffith's attempt to refocus minds on the 2024 election, have strong echoes of Sir Lynton Crosby's attempt to "get the barnacles off the boat" under Cameron, which steadily turned a large Labour lead in the polls into a surprise Conservative majority. The prime minister has even brought in one of Crosby's closest allies, David Canzini, as his deputy chief of staff.

But the point of hiring Crosby wasn't just that he got the barnacles off. It was that he helped Cameron and George Osborne point the boat in the right direction — and then made sure the passengers and crew were crystal clear about what that direction was. The government does need to keep MPs onside. But voters will judge the Tories at the next election on whether growth is rising, cost of living pressures are easing, NHS backlogs falling and the opportunities of Brexit are being taken. If ministers allow themselves to be wafted hither and thither by every gust of parliamentary indignation, over wind turbines or whatever else, they shouldn't be surprised if they end up being blown off course.

@RColvile

And then on shortage of lab space holding back life sciences companies:

Cash pile of £20bn ready for lab space
Tom Howard
Monday April 11 2022, 12.01am, The Times

Investors have £20 billion ready to spend on building the laboratory space that the UK is fast running out of.

Availability of lab space is at record lows across the UK. Leasing agents in Cambridge said recently that there is no space left at all in the city, one of Europe's big life sciences hubs.

Developers have placed much of the blame on the slow planning process which has limited supply, but a boom in life sciences start-ups in recent years has increased competition for space.

Between 2016 and 2020, 681 life sciences businesses were started, according to a report by We Are Pioneer Group, a builder and operator of labs, and JLL, the property agent, 24 per cent more than in the previous five-year period.

The number of start-ups is expected to have grown in the past year, driven by the desire of investors to pour money into the life sciences sector in the wake of the pandemic.

Investors backed life sciences businesses with about £2.8 billion in 2020, but this almost doubled to £4.5 billion last year, according to data from the BioIndustry Association.

London, Oxford and Cambridge, known as the Golden Triangle, remains the heart of the country's life sciences sector.

Glenn Crocker, executive director of venture capital investments at WAPG, said: "The availability of suitable lab and office space is already at all-time lows, and record-breaking funding levels and the significant growth in the number of start-ups will only fuel demand for life sciences real estate and exacerbate the issue of under-supply."

"If the UK is to become the scientific powerhouse that ministers are pushing for as part of the government's innovation agenda, then we need to ramp up the delivery of start-up space to ensure the unicorns of tomorrow are not priced out."

JLL and WAPG estimate that there is £20 billion of capital waiting on the sidelines, looking to invest in UK life sciences real estate.

Investors are keen to cash in on the supply and demand imbalance, which has sent rents and capital values climbing sharply. By contrast, rents in other property markets, notably retail and office, have fallen quite sharply.

They are also attracted by the reliability of the income, with laboratories relatively unaffected by the work from home trend.

Again if we had a rational, or competent government they'd be looking at energy and realising the transformation necessary for net zero - as well as the opportunity for domestic industry - and endorsing on-shore wind. Instead we have a net zero strategy that is incredibly hand-wavey on onshore wind and solar, very committed on offshore wind (though that won't be enough) and very long-term on nuclear

Similarly after Brexit you'd look at where the UK has comparative advantage and lean into those sectors to support them through changing regulations - and making sure they have enough space. Life sciences is absolutely one of the sectors the UK should be leaning into. Instead there's companies wanting to start, investors wanting to plow money into them and we aren't building enough labs for them - and we've just cancelled the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.

It's just managed decline because NIMBYs

[Tamas]

managed decline

I have been wondering if that's what we are living through indeed. I mean, there's been what, 70 years since the British Empire properly started to fall apart? Who can say the process isn't still ongoing, on a historic scale of time-tracking? For the casual observer it could seem EU membership boosted life into a declining country, but now inertia from historic issues have once again overtaken, and the last golden age is about to fade.

[Tamas]

Also I am highly skeptical about the onshore poll. It's the kind of question you risk being an evil heretic if you say "no" to. I highly doubt a lot of people would be thrilled at the thought of having to look at gargantuan windmills from their now-half-a-million worth property.

[Sheilbh]

I have been wondering if that's what we are living through indeed. I mean, there's been what, 70 years since the British Empire properly started to fall apart? Who can say the process isn't still ongoing, on a historic scale of time-tracking? For the casual observer it could seem EU membership boosted life into a declining country, but now inertia from historic issues have once again overtaken, and the last golden age is about to fade.

Well managed decline was also what Thatcher said she was fighting against in the 70s - when we had the IMF in, three day week, winter of discontent etc. And, in her view, even Tories were looking at how to just manage things rather than change them. I'm not sure what you mean by the ongoing collapse of empire though because it doesn't exist anymore or what that historic inertia means in this context.

And I think that is the better comparison - I think by the late 70s the unions were basically extracting rent from the British economy. The Labour attempt to reform them ("In Place of Greater Strife") was blocked by Jim Callaghan in the late 60s, which meant we ended up with Tory "reform" which was to break their power utterly.

I think property owners are now playing the same role of extracting rent from the British economy (literally as well as figuratively in this case). I think we're at the similar point where we either need to reform their power or break it utterly. My slight concern is that I'm not sure I can see Starmer doing either which means it may be another Tory PM with another bout of shock therapy in the future

Also I am highly skeptical about the onshore poll. It's the kind of question you risk being an evil heretic if you say "no" to. I highly doubt a lot of people would be thrilled at the thought of having to look at gargantuan windmills from their now-half-a-million worth property.

Maybe - you could be right. Although I've not noticed much rectitude in British people responding to pollsters and not wanting to look evil

Edit: And on this - this chart is incredibly grim on how we still haven't recovered from the financial crisis. On the 2010s:


The key challenge of government - whoever wins - is to avoid this being the story of the 2020s too:


Edit: And this is where my inner Blairite comes out because he keeps talking about three revolutions: energy, tech and Brexit and the need for government to have a strategy to respond to them. But in true Blairite fashion it's always to embrace them and their consequences and try to accelerate them. I basically still find that analysis right now quite convincing

[Tamas]

I'm not sure what you mean by the ongoing collapse of empire though because it doesn't exist anymore or what that historic inertia means in this context.

We still have Northern Ireland. And, very different situation, but also Scotland and Wales as well. All similarly setup European countries have collapsed into their smaller states, I don't know what precedent we can go with to assume the UK will survive.

[Sheilbh]

We still have Northern Ireland. And, very different situation, but also Scotland and Wales as well. All similarly setup European countries have collapsed into their smaller states, I don't know what precedent we can go with to assume the UK will survive.

That's fair there's not many multi-national states left. Although I don't think the language of empire really works for Scotland (however much the SNP might like to pretend they were the first victims, rather than most enthusiastic perpetrators of the British Empire ) - less sure about Wales but Wales is more integrated to England.

The thing I find striking about Scotland though is the persistence of unionist opinion. It's very close if there was a referendum, but the polls don't really justify another referendum (https://sotn.newstatesman.com/) - and there won't be one this side of 2025. My view is if the union can survive Boris Johnson and Brexit, I'm not sure it's likely to end any time soon. And currently it looks like it will survive.

On Wales I think there's been one outlier poll where "yes" got about 40% but generally support for Welsh independence is about 25%. Plaid Cymru are the third party in the Senedd behind Labour and the Tories - it's just a very different environment than Scotland.

I agree on Northern Ireland but ultimately a majority still support staying in the union and when a majority supports joining Ireland that's what'll happen. The really sad and broadly true thing with Northern Ireland are the polls that show that basically only 55% of unionists think London wants Northern Ireland in the union (v 35% of nationalists) - the numbers are basically reversed so only about 55% of nationalists think Dublin really wants Northern Ireland (v 35% of unionists). I think that ambivalence is, sadly, probably true

Although I'm not sure too much of the economy is constrained by the UK being multi-national - especially because England is so dominant in terms of its economy. I mean the English economy is, I believe, a little bigger than Italy's while Scotland's economy, which is the next biggest, is around the size of Greece's. The vast majority of the decisions around this is within the control of any English government.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting move - UK's announced sanctions on Dodik and Zeljka Cvijanovic for "their attempts to undermine the legitimacy and functionality of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina".

I think the US has sanctioned Dodik already. No idea if this is a good idea - though people I follow who know the Balkans are quite keen on it

[Sheilbh]

Tory MP for Wakefield (a red wall seat that went Tory in 2019) convicted of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in 2008:

Imran Ahmad Khan: MP guilty of sex assault on 15-year-old boy

Imran Ahmad Khan was alleged to have assaulted a 15-year-old boy at a party in 2008

A Conservative MP has been found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy at a party.

Imran Ahmad Khan, who represents Wakefield, had denied groping the teenager at a house in Staffordshire in January 2008.

Southwark Crown Court heard Khan forced the youngster to drink gin, dragged him upstairs and asked him to watch pornography before assaulting him.

Khan, 48, was found guilty after a week-long trial.

Prosecutor Sean Larkin QC previously told jurors Khan had gone to the boy's bed and "reached in and touched his legs, reaching for, or actually touching, his groin".

The complainant, now 29, said that the attack had left him "scared and shocked".

In evidence he said Khan had started "slow caressing" him and continued despite being asked to stop.

"His breathing was getting quite heavy and I kept pushing his hand away and pushing it back and it would keep coming," the man said.

The court was told that police were called at the time but the teenager did not want to pursue the case.

The man, who cannot be named, contacted the Conservative party in 2019 after learning Mr Khan was standing in the general election. He then called police after Mr Khan was elected to Parliament.

Jurors also heard from the complainant's older brother, who said the MP had asked if he was "a true Scotsman" and lifted his kilt, before "lunging" at him at the same party.

Another witness described waking to find Khan performing a sex act on him after a party in Pakistan in 2010 where the pair had drunk whisky and smoked marijuana.

As is so often the case with these guys who sexually assault others - it looks like there's a pattern. Shame the boy didn't feel comfortable proceeding in 2008 though I can't imagine how difficult that would be for a 15 year old kid

[Josquius]

Sad. I actually liked what I heard the other week and made a lot of sense - discounts for local communities electric bills with onshore wind.
Seemed to be drawing close to proper community renewable supplies.

And yes. The UK is definitely in decline. Wouldn't say its particularly managed however.

Also I am highly skeptical about the onshore poll. It's the kind of question you risk being an evil heretic if you say "no" to. I highly doubt a lot of people would be thrilled at the thought of having to look at gargantuan windmills from their now-half-a-million worth property.

Why? They look quite nice I think. Certainly far better than other examples of necessary modernity like industrial chimneys, pylons, etc...

And I think you over estimate the strength of green thinking in the UK. I'd say more likely the opposite here - more people are actually fine with them but knee jerk own teh libs, green stuff bad, turbines are woke.

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile - the Met has lost the appeal against the finding that they got the law wrong in policing the Sarah Everard vigil. No doubt they'll try to appeal again (though I'm not sure if that's possible) - and probably lose, again while moaning that they've got a difficult job to do and the courts are against them

High Court judges throw out Met Police's 'hopeless' attempt to appeal Sarah Everard vigil judgment
Vigil organiser says police should 'finally admit they were wrong' to claim vigil was illegal
Lizzie Dearden
Home Affairs Editor

Judges have thrown out a "hopeless" attempt by the Metropolitan Police to appeal against findings that its handling of the Sarah Everard vigil was unlawful.

Organisers of an event on Clapham Common in March 2021 won a legal challenge after they were threatened with arrest and £10,000 fines under Covid laws.

The Reclaim These Streets group cancelled their planned vigil as a result, and hundreds attended an unorganised gathering that ended with several women being arrested amid allegations of heavy-handed policing.

Last month, the High Court found that Scotland Yard had breached the organisers' rights with their handling of the event, and had made "errors of law" concerning Covid regulations.

The claimants - Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler - won their case that decisions made by the force in advance of the planned vigil amounted to a breach of freedom of speech and assembly, and that police did not assess the potential risk to public health.

The force announced its intention to appeal against the ruling, saying: "It's important for policing and the public that we have absolute clarity of what's expected of us in law.

"This is why we feel we must seek permission to appeal the judgment in order to resolve what's required by law when policing protests and events in the future."

On Friday, judges refused permission for the case to be taken to the Court of Appeal.

"The court applied and followed principles laid down by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal," the ruling said.

"We do not believe there is a need for any further or more authoritative guidance for the purposes of lawful policing of protest in such cases."

Ms Birley told The Independent: "The Met were wrong last March to ignore women's right to protest, and they were wrong to try and appeal the court's judgement too.

"It isn't just us saying that their case is misguided, but the judges themselves have described their arguments as hopeless and incoherent too. Now, instead of wasting public money on a pointless battle against women's rights to protest, I hope they'll finally admit they were wrong and invest in measures to tackle misogyny and male violence."

A judgment by Lord Justice Warby and Mr Justice Holgate, which was made public on Monday, said the attempt had "no reasonable prospect of success" and there was no "compelling reason for an appeal to be heard".

After considering Scotland Yard's formal application to appeal against the High Court's decision, and written submissions by both sides, they said it was "not arguable" that the court had made an error.

Judges said some arguments made on the police's behalf were "unarguable in law or involve selective and misleading analysis of aspects of the judgment".

They found a new objection raised by the Metropolitan Police had "no merit", and other parts of its case "lack coherence".

Judges found that arguments about what vigil organisers were told amounted to "hopeless attempts to challenge reasoned factual conclusions".

"It is not permissible for the [Metropolitan Police] to re-argue the same points in order to submit that it is highly likely that the outcome would have been the same," the ruling added.

Ms Everard was kidnapped, raped and murdered by serving armed officer Wayne Couzens, whose arrest was announced on 10 March 2021.

Later that day, newly-formed women's group Reclaim These Streets called a vigil on Clapham Common, where Ms Everard disappeared, for her and "all women who feel unsafe, who go missing from our streets and who face violence every day".

Organisers liaised with police and Lambeth Council so the vigil could be managed safely and with a reduced risk of coronavirus transmission, but Scotland Yard "effectively vetoed" the event by declaring it illegal under Covid laws.

Scotland Yard told organisers the vigil would be "illegal" and that organisers could be fined £10,000 for organising a large gathering and arrested for assisting an offence. It later issued a statement warning people not to attend any vigil for Ms Everard, making clear it considered them unlawful.

As a result, Reclaim These Streets cancelled its Clapham Common vigil and more than 30 linked events that were to be held at the same time in different cities.

The original High Court judgment found that Metropolitan Police letters and statements "reflected a misunderstanding of the law", and that the officers responsible had failed to understand the "reasonable excuse" provisions that meant all protests were not banned.

Judges said Scotland Yard had "mis-stated the legal position" under Covid regulations and made "errors of law".

"In the name of equal treatment and 'consistency', the Met refused to take account of the nature of the claimants' cause, and the attitude of the public to that cause," said Lord Justice Warby. "This was wrong."

[Sheilbh]

Erm. WTF

Statement by Tory MP Crispin Blunt (who is also gay) on the conviction of Imran Ahmad Khan of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy:

Statement on the Conviction of Imran Ahmad Khan MP
Monday, 11 April, 2022

I am utterly appalled and distraught at the dreadful miscarriage of justice that has befallen my friend and colleague Imran Ahmad Khan, MP for Wakefield since December 2019.  His conviction today is nothing short of an international scandal, with dreadful wider implications for millions of LGBT+ muslims around the world.

I sat through some of the trial. The conduct of this case relied on lazy tropes about LGBT+ people that we might have thought we had put behind us decades ago.

As a former Justice Minister I was prepared to testify about the truly extraordinary sequence of events that has resulted in Imran being put through this nightmare start to his Parliamentary career. 

I hope for the return of Imran Ahmad Khan to the public service that has exemplified his life to date. Any other outcome will be a stain on our reputation for justice, and an appalling own goal by Britain as we try to take a lead in reversing the Victorian era prejudice that still disfigures too much of the global statute book.

[Tamas]

  Maybe he is worried about his teenage-groping incidents?

[Josquius]

I haven't followed the case at all. Seems feasible there could be truth in that. But also very feasible it's nonsense trying to hide behind a fake homophobia shield.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe he is worried about his teenage-groping incidents?

Yeah that was my initial reaction too

Edit: Apparently Crispin Blunt has form for offering defences of MP friends of his who are accused of sexually exploiting their position - noted by Kate Maltby of The I. It does feel like if that's something you become known for there are probably questions to be asked.

Separately piece on Khan in the Guardian saying he was basically a little bit of an oddball - my favourite detail:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/11/imran-ahmad-khan-tory-mp-in-sexual-assault-case-had-oddball-reputation

After becoming Wakefield's first Conservative MP since 1932, Khan, a keen Brexiter, quickly garnered a reputation as an oddball with a questionable grasp on reality. One Conservative MP recalled an early meeting of the 2019 intake in Downing Street, where the new MPs were being briefed on the Brexit negotiations.

"My overriding memory of Imran is him piping up: is there no chance we could threaten to close the straits of Denmark [which connect the Baltic Sea to the North Sea] as a negotiating position? The Spad there wrote it down and made a note to never trust this man with anything ever again," the MP said.

The whole story slightly reminds me of some of the Labour MPs elected in 2017 when it's clear they were selected in seats no-one expected them to win and there hadn't been a massive amount of vetting. I wonder if something similar happened here given that Wakefield had been Labour since 1932 and if there again maybe wasn't much vetting.

[Sheilbh]

Amazing - court reporter noting the line that he sat through "some of the trial". To be precise, he sat through the defence but didn't attend for any of the prosecution. A former justice minister there