Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Slightly mad that the vibes of these by-elections is that Labour seem more confident about Selby and Ainsty, which would be their best result ever in overturning a Tory majority. It's very much not natural Labour territory. I mean newspaper articles on this race are illustrated with pictures like this


But they are more worried about Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Johnson's old seat) which is West London Metroland, would require half the swing in the national polling and should be an easy pick-up in this sort of situation.

It seems the Tories have very effectively tried to run the campaign as a "referendum on ULEZ". ULEZ is ultra-low emission zones, which are a policy of Khan that basically imposes a flat daily charge on vehicles that don't meet certain emission standards (basically I think cars that are over 5-10 years old). For cars it's £12.50 a day. It's been running in central London for a few years and Khan is now proposing to extent it to all of outer London too - including Uxbridge. The Labour candidate shifted in the first week and said they opposed the ULEZ expansion, but it's still been the total focus of the Tory campaign on sendng Khan a message.

I think Labour were fairly confident until they started campaigning. There were also some really weird council by-election results in Cambridge (which is a very left-wing city) largely based on campaigns about their council introducing a similar low emission scheme.

Meanwhile the Lib Dems have already said they've won Somerton and Frome (and won decisively) - they are very much back in their happy place of absolutely smashing the Tories in by-elections and particularly in the South-West, which is nice to see. It's been a torrid few years for them.

Edit: And for context on the Lib Dem victory. They'll need to overturn a majority of about 19,000 votes which would be the 9th best by-election result ever, but it's only 6th best achieved by the Lib Dems (and two of the results above it were also in this parliament).

[Sheilbh]

And a recount in Uxbridge - reporter saying the campaign there started as expected on cost of living, crime etc but the last ten days were entirely focused on ULEZ.

It's a good result for the Tories even if they lose given that Labour only need a swing of about 7% to win and on the national polling have a 15% swing for this seat. On the other hand I'm not sure that an issue entirely localised in the outer boroughs of London tells us much about national trends, particularly as they're increasingly confident they will win Selby which needs them to significantly overperform their national polling.

Edit: There is actually an interesting fight on the news between the parties on this.

Labour are pointing out that the government passed a law with targets for local authorities on air quality and that there are basically two options: you charge people, or you subsidise them making a transition to newer lower emission vehicles. The government has only given small subsidies, so all that's left for local authorities is to chaarge. The Tories argue that it's right to have binding environmental targets, but it's not just a choice of charging or subsidies, there are lots of options for local authorities and central government shouldn't dictate (by, for example, creating a subsidy program) and they're dubious about that spending. The Lib Dems pointed out that Johnson introduced ULEZ as Mayor in the city centre and Khan then expanded it (basically to the south circular) but the expansion took 3 years which gave people time to adapt, while this expansion is being done in 9 months which, in the context of general cost of living crisis, is going to hit people really hard (and that people relying on older cars are likely to be on a lower income). The Labour candidate basically adopted the Lib Dem position - it's a good policy but not now and not too quickly.

Reports are that the Tories were about 4-500 votes ahead on the first count and it's very unlikely a recount will change that - so it very much seems like this policy cost Labour this seat (also I know he's going for another term but I'm not sure Khan's been a particularly good mayor which may start to hurt Labour in London - especially if they also win nationally).

Edit: Sir John Curtice the elections expert the BBC always have has also pointed out that Uxbridge is an unusual seat in that Labour's vote has increased quite significantly and counter national trends since 2010 when the constituency was first contested on these boundaries. It's a seat Labour have consistently struggled to win in the last few elections despite making it a bit target with lots of resources and activists going out there to campaign.

Edit: Tories hold by about 500 votes - and the Tory candidate said "Sadiq Khan has lost Labour this election" - there were 17 candidates in total, but top four:
CON: 13,965 - 45.2% (-7.5)
LAB: 13,470 - 43.6% (+5.9)
GRN: 893 - 2.9% (+0.6)
REC: 714 - 2.3% (+2.3)

[Sheilbh]

Now Somerton and Frome - with a returning officer in what appears to be 18th century fancy dress
LDEM: 21,187 - 54.6% (+28.4)
CON: 10,179 - 26.2% (-29.6)
GRN: 3,944 - 10.2% (+5.1)
LAB: 1,009 - 2.6% (-10.3)

So the Lib Dems were right to be wildly confident earlier.

I think Reform actually came fourth but haven't seen their result reported.

Edit: Selby might still be a while away but Labour sound quite confident - that will require overturning a majority of about 20,000 which will be very impressive. But slightly odd when they've failed to overturn a majority of about 7,000 in London But local issues sometimes really do matter.

Also the Somerton and Frome result visualised

[Gups]

The embedded carbon thing is weird to me. Wouldn't a new building of the same footprint sequester an equal amount of carbon?

I don't understand this.

A building has embodied carbon because it has already been constructed. Building a new one emits carbon through the construction process (e.g. production and transport of concrete and steel).

[Jacob]

I don't think the concept of embedded carbon is particularly widespread or has much currency in North America. The concept makes sense I think, but I don't believe I've come across it until this thread right now.

The idea that there needs to be a careful evaluation of carbon impact on an individual structure level for demolition and/ or new builds is not something I've come across before locally, even as an aspiration.

Is this a UK thing or a wider European thing? Does it have much currency elsewhere?

[Tamas]

I don't think the concept of embedded carbon is particularly widespread or has much currency in North America. The concept makes sense I think, but I don't believe I've come across it until this thread right now.

The idea that there needs to be a careful evaluation of carbon impact on an individual structure level for demolition and/ or new builds is not something I've come across before locally, even as an aspiration.

Is this a UK thing or a wider European thing? Does it have much currency elsewhere?

It's an item on the long list of BS British excuses to prevent building stuff.

For example when the decision is made to (not) build residential buildings in the place of a disused parking lot, nobody is calculating the positive carbon impact of a whole bunch of people being able to live closer to their jobs and thus commuting less. That doesn't matter. The one-time "carbon cost" of constructing a building, though, oh no, the fate of the planet hangs on that one.

[Gups]

I don't think the concept of embedded carbon is particularly widespread or has much currency in North America. The concept makes sense I think, but I don't believe I've come across it until this thread right now.

The idea that there needs to be a careful evaluation of carbon impact on an individual structure level for demolition and/ or new builds is not something I've come across before locally, even as an aspiration.

Is this a UK thing or a wider European thing? Does it have much currency elsewhere?

It's an item on the long list of BS British excuses to prevent building stuff.

For example when the decision is made to (not) build residential buildings in the place of a disused parking lot, nobody is calculating the positive carbon impact of a whole bunch of people being able to live closer to their jobs and thus commuting less. That doesn't matter. The one-time "carbon cost" of constructing a building, though, oh no, the fate of the planet hangs on that one.

A disused parking lot does not have (much) embedded carbon and development would not be prevented on embedded carbon grounds.

According to Wiki, there is legislation in place sn several US states, Toronto and in some European countries. There's no national policy in the UK but some local policies including Westminster (where the M&S building is located) which requires developers to demonstrate that retrofitting or refurbishment could not achieve the same objectives.

[Tamas]

A disused parking lot does not have (much) embedded carbon and development would not be prevented on embedded carbon grounds.

Sure this is why used it as an example, since I cannot recall that carbon benefits FROM construction were ever cited to be considered, although maybe they are.

[Gups]

A disused parking lot does not have (much) embedded carbon and development would not be prevented on embedded carbon grounds.

Sure this is why used it as an example, since I cannot recall that carbon benefits FROM construction were ever cited to be considered, although maybe they are.

Of course they are. Any environmental statement (required for lareger projects) will refer to things like the energy efficiency of the new building, modes of trasnport.

None of this is relevant to the M&S case in any event, which was not a residential scheme and was not refused on embedded carbon grounds. From the decision:

"For the reasons given at IR13.42 and IR13.89, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR13.89 that there are benefits of developing at one of the most sustainable locations in the country. He agrees with the Inspector in giving substantial weight to the advantages of concentrating development in such a highly accessible location. However, given that there is no empirical evidence before the inquiry relating to a possiblereduction in pressure for development elsewhere, the Secretary of State gives that consideration no weight....

The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR13.43 that there should generally be a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, as reflected in paragraph 152 of the Framework. In the circumstances of the present case, where the buildings in question are structurally sound and are in a location with the highest
accessibility levels, he considers that a strong reason would be needed to justify demolition and rebuilding. owever, he agrees that much must depend on the circumstances of the case, including how important it is that the use of the site should be optimised, and what alternatives are realistically available."

[Josquius]

It's weird. The results should be a win given Selby but with Uxbridge it feels like a loss.

Climate change seems another area connected to culture war stuff where the tories really have labour. Labour have to do the right thing and look out for the poorest which means trying to cut emissions... But the tories score big points banging the drum against this.

[Richard Hakluyt]

ULEZ is a bit of a misnomer imo with something like 90% of cars meeting the standard https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

Labour might have done a better job in explaining how few people would have to pay the charge; I was surprised myself when I looked it all up.

[garbon]

ULEZ is a bit of a misnomer imo with something like 90% of cars meeting the standard https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

Labour might have done a better job in explaining how few people would have to pay the charge; I was surprised myself when I looked it all up.

I wasn't as I'd looked it before when Guardian and BBC had run vox pop articles about people talking how it was going to destroy their livelihoods.

I think hard to message around as nuanced to say this is of vital impact for people's health but will really only mean charges to a small subset of people.

[Tamas]

ULEZ is a bit of a misnomer imo with something like 90% of cars meeting the standard https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

Labour might have done a better job in explaining how few people would have to pay the charge; I was surprised myself when I looked it all up.

Yeah I have a 16 years old 2 liter petrol engine that is being hit with a punitive tax of circa £350 a year, yet I am free to enter ULEZ zones with it.

[Tamas]

BTW I guess this does support my earlier point in the climate change thread about our general chances.

[Sheilbh]

ULEZ is a bit of a misnomer imo with something like 90% of cars meeting the standard https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

Labour might have done a better job in explaining how few people would have to pay the charge; I was surprised myself when I looked it all up.

Yeah so I think this is also where the local context matters. Uxbridge and South Ruislip is in Hillingdon which is the borough with the highest rate of car ownership in London and the lowest score on access to public transport.

I'd imagine the proportion who'd have to pay is a little higher just because ULEZ hasn't actually arrived yet and 10-20% of people can be significant in a by-election. Worth noting that North-West London (Hillingdon, Harrow etc) is an area that seems to be bucking the London trend generally and seems to be trending Tory - I think those have been the areas where the Tories have done best in recent local elections and it's very much going against the national swing. It's an area with a large Indian population so it might be less that there's a big swing to the Tories - but that the Tories are doing better with minority voters (particularly British-Indians) than they did historically so it may be a bit of a normalisation?

I live in an area already covered by ULEZ but if I open NextDoor or local paper letters page I'd say 90% of the chat is either about ULEZ or crime. This is a safe Labour area, but there is real dissatisfaction with city hall. I think Sadiq Khan has underwhelmed as mayor - if the Tories had a better candidate I think he'd be vulnerable despite London trending more and more Labour in recent years.

BTW I guess this does support my earlier point in the climate change thread about our general chances.

It's a really difficult issue because I think there are costs and there will be losers who bear those costs. It needs to be allocated in a way that is perceived to be fair and I think that's the challenge. It was the issue with the gilets jaunes which has scared most European countries off that sort of approach, but also with ULEZ - a point that is often made is that the people who are least likely to have already bought an ULEZ compliant car are the people who aren't able to afford a new car. Which I think is probably true.

I suppose this links to the embodied carbon piece too because I sympathise. Barnabas Calder is really interesting on this - and also author of a really good book Architecture: Pre-history to Climate Emergency which is strongly recommended on buildings and climate. But I am more sympathetic to you - I think in practice it will be an excuse not to build and, in my view, energy transition is as significant a shift in the way our built environment works as the industrial revolution or the emergence of the car - except for degrowth, there is no way to it without large amounts of building. I feel there is similar on climate policies - I don't think policies based on a significant proportion of people's lives getting worse and more expensive is viable in a democratic society. So if that's your route to net zero either it'll fail or you need to stop people voting. I think the only way is one that is based on more and improving people's lives - but that will require new infrastructure and an awful lot of money.

To an extent I think positioning it as a culture war issue will make it into a culture war issue with goodies and baddies. There are real losers from policies if we don't develop enough mitigations - people in the Netherlands being forced to close family farms built on industrialised agriculture (as part of Dutch national economic strategy and encouraged by the state) because of the impact of industrialised agriculture; people unable to afford homes because of restrictions; and people in very suburban and rural areas having to pay a daily charge or an increased petrol tax. It's not that these are necessarily the wrong policies, but it's also not that they're just people being bamboozled into a culture war - there's real material issues that need to be addressed in a way that is (and that seems) fair.

Separately just to confirm, Labour did take Selby and Ainsty and I thin this is the biggest swing in any seat in Labour party history:


From a national perspective I think Selby and Somerton tell us more about the picture in the country. I think Uxbridge is a bit of a warning sign (and in its way a positive one) about some local issues in London, but also there are similar issues in a few other areas with Labour councils. Doesn't tell us much nationally but is relevant locally and also maybe a sign of the sort of challenges Labour (and all parties will face) if Labour successfully decentralises more after the next election as they've promised.