Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

Not that it is likely that people were conned by the Telegraph shroud waving but the number of private pupils continues to rise https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jun/15/number-of-private-school-pupils-rises-despite-claims-families-priced-out-by-labours-vat-plan

Vikings in Britain really love the Liberal Democrats. Well the Norwegian ones anyway.

[Sheilbh]

Starmer's been attacked a lot from the left a lot for his attempt to reclaim patriotism after the Corbyn debacle. Lot's of stuff about "flag-shagging" and what's the point of Labour if they'll have a big union flag at party conference etc.

Interesting polling in the Telegraph which suggests it's paid off. Of the named politicians, Starmer is seen as the most patriotic - ahead of Farage, Johnson, Blair, Sunak, Corbyn etc.

Partly I suspect it's just generic sense that he's about to be PM so his ratings are generally improving - I suspect there's a bit of respect/goodwill growing to him across parties just because of that expectation. But also that the stuff Starmer's strategy was supposed to do (and which he's been attacked for a lot) has actually had an impact.

Also - I'll believe it when I see it etc etc. But this clip seems positive:
https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1801684277148389650

[Jacob]

Do you have a non-twitter link?

[Sheilbh]

Sorry - yes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c4nnx18jk1do

Edit: And again there is a growth side to this but also, bluntly, 13 years to build and connect renewables does not seem particularly urgent given the need for energy transition.

[Josquius]

It shouldn't be a case of simple "fuck you we blindly drew this straight line on a map so we are plowing through" but the engagement should certainly be a lot quicker and simpler than it currently is. Cut down on opportunities for bad faith complaints. They're what really annoy me.

Like if a guy complains a particular position for a pylon is wrong because it's right in the middle of a fertile field - should be a simple case of running the numbers to see whether it makes sense to adjust the position slightly or if it would add millions to the cost only for the guy to shift his complaint onto something else - his original moan being bad faith and he really wants the whole thing gone.
Make him sign off on a high level sketch, no further opportunity for complaint, it will go a few metres to the north, you'll get 100k compensation, agreed.
This kind of crap was endemic in hs2.

It's on my list of things to put into words and make a video about at some point. Holland and Japan as two extremes on planning both of which have their issues. Too many want to jump from one extreme to the other I find and we so have to be wary of this.

[Jacob]

Sorry - yes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c4nnx18jk1do

Edit: And again there is a growth side to this but also, bluntly, 13 years to build and connect renewables does not seem particularly urgent given the need for energy transition.

Thank you, and yes that seems to be the right attitude. And from what you (and others?) are saying, it seems that Starmer could be the kind of PM who actually affects systemic change like that.

[Sheilbh]

Perhaps.

From the planning/growth people, there is good stuff in Labour's manifesto. For example it refers to a "zero tolerance" approach to NIMBYism through a "builder's remedy". So all councils will have to have a local plan and if they don't Whitehall will impose one on them. Basically use it or lose it in relation to planning powers, but it must be in order to build not just block. The plan (on housing) is 1.5 million homes over 5 years (which is still too low but an improvement). Plus a focus on approving labs, data centres and new net-zero infrastructure (all big bottlenecks at the minute) and an intent to prioritise those over local objections or environmental concerns. Also lots on local design codes and releasing the "grey belt" bits of the green belt etc.

They also keep banging on about growth as absolutely key - which I think is right, especially as public services aren't great but the tax burden is at an 80 year high.

On the other hand the real issue will be political capital and whether they're really willing to spend it. Overruling or imposing plans on local councils will be politically unpopular with vested interests - possibly particularly homeowners. I think that's why I find that answer encouraging but lets see how it holds up after a bad set of local elections.

The other slight worry I have is an element of cakeism in Labour's plans. They intend to significantly increase building and to make it easier as a key lever to increasing growth (and I'm with them as far as that goes), at the same time they're not really proposing (from what I've seen) any changes to the current regulatory burden. So for example they claim they can do all this without having to reduce any of that. Starmer cites one of the nuclear plants that he's said is nationally important for our net zero plans. He's pointed out that there were over 40,000 pages of documents submitted as part of the process of approving that plant but at judicial review the court found the environmental impact assessent was inadequate as it didn't cover connecting the plant to water supply. All of this he's described (rightly) as excessive and ridiculous. The problem is they're also saying there is no need to remove any of the assessment requirements imposed in the last 10-20 years - so there's no current talk of shifting the requirements on all of those impact assessments.

I think doing that would require confronting another vested interest - which is perhaps people like Starmer Lawyers, public sector workers, Guardian readers, left-wing voters who broadly support the idea of x assessment and lots of process (as one, I'd add, they're also the people paid for producing and reading assessments). I think they are seen as a frictionless good when there is a cost and a trade off and I think the UK is approach license raj levels of paperwork in planning.

So what he's saying is good, there's lots of ideas out there about this and Labour have picked up many of the. The intent is good. The question is whether he's willing to spend political capital passing reform that will probably involve a fight with politically powerful interests and parts of his core coalition.

He will likely have the majority to do it and I hope he does. The Tories failed on this and Labour now have a chance to solve the problem forcefully from a left-wing/Labour perspective. But as with union reform in the 60s, I think if Labour fail then it'll be open for the right to solve when they win again possibly in a more radically, root-and-branch deregulatory way than Starmer etc wouldwant.

[Josquius]

I'll need to find a decent summary on labours planning plans.
Leaving stuff down to local councils still sounds iffy to me. It should be a lot more holistic with rural counties serving people who work in the nearby cities.
We've mentioned a bunch before but building around rural stations is key.

[Sheilbh]

Separately just seen the first comments about Starmer's age

He'll turn 62 this year, so 66-67 at the end of his term which would put him third behind only MacMillan and Churchill in age of post-war PMs (they were 69 and 80 when they left office). Obviously it is a different job than it was in the 50s and 60s.

But I hadn't quite clocked and it feels unlikely that he'd do two full terms. In the modern world I can't see a PM in his 70s. Which means I'd expect a lot of succession talk quite early.

And, I'm sure it's totally unrelated, reports in the Guardian that people around Starmer are planning to change Labour's constitution so that, if the party is in office, then the selection of a new leader is made by MPs only (no role for the unions or party members). I think that's a very sensible choice. But also definitely feels like trying to future proof a Labour government from members choosing a leader like Corbyn while Labour's in government.

Edit: Slightly disappointed that Labour have ruled out re-banding council tax - so it will continue to be set based on the price of properties in 1991 or, for new builds, attempting to work out what an estate agent would have thought it was worth had it existed in 1991

Unless by ruling out re-valuation, they're leaving the door open to a bigger reform.

[Josquius]

Given the Tory attack line is all lies about Labour raising tax, it does seem wise not to wade into the already messy area of council tax quite yet.

[Tamas]

Labour party reform: sounds good, last thing we need is Corbyn or somebody worse pulling off a coup while having a historic majority

Starmer's age: we just HAD to mimic the US of A no matter how irrelevant, didn't we?

[HVC]

Labour party reform: sounds good, last thing we need is Corbyn or somebody worse pulling off a coup while having a historic majority

Starmer's age: we just HAD to mimic the US of A no matter how irrelevant, didn't we?

You can't have young politicians. They might go out and dance like the Finnish PM. How scandalous.

[Valmy]

We wish we had a youthful politician like Starmer.

RFK, Jill Stein, Trump, and Biden are all 70 or older.

[Sheilbh]

I was struck that both Biden and Trump are about the age Churchill was when he left office in 1955.

And it's the opposite of the US

I think the expectation (certainly mine) of Starmer was that an 80 seat Tory majority was too much to overturn in one term, so he'd be a transitional figure like Kinnock. He's been more effective and the Tories worse. But given that can't help but wonder if journalists have started wondering about Starmer's age having chatted to Labour politicians with a lean and hungry look who expected to run for the leadership in 2029, thanking Starmer for moving Labour towards electability?

[Tamas]

I was struck that both Biden and Trump are about the age Churchill was when he left office in 1955.

And it's the opposite of the US

I think the expectation (certainly mine) of Starmer was that an 80 seat Tory majority was too much to overturn in one term, so he'd be a transitional figure like Kinnock. He's been more effective and the Tories worse. But given that can't help but wonder if journalists have started wondering about Starmer's age having chatted to Labour politicians with a lean and hungry look who expected to run for the leadership in 2029, thanking Starmer for moving Labour towards electability?

OR journalists felt left out with no "is he too old" discussions to copy-paste from American politics, no matter how stupid it is.