Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

On the independent review of the NHS, it can also be the prelude to some actual reform. If the government want to do meaningful change for better efficiency that will inevitably go against interests which will have a powerful voice, screaming about the death of the NHS. Being able to reference an independent review can help with the politics.

[crazy canuck]

On the independent review of the NHS, it can also be the prelude to some actual reform. If the government want to do meaningful change for better efficiency that will inevitably go against interests which will have a powerful voice, screaming about the death of the NHS. Being able to reference an independent review can help with the politics.

As a practical matter, the incoming government is not going to have any expertise to determine, on a granular level, what should be done.  And so an independent review can be very helpful.

[Sheilbh]

On the independent review of the NHS, it can also be the prelude to some actual reform. If the government want to do meaningful change for better efficiency that will inevitably go against interests which will have a powerful voice, screaming about the death of the NHS. Being able to reference an independent review can help with the politics.

It can provide cover - provided you know it'll give you the right answer - if they're too independent there's a real risk they propose the politically impossible (for example, a European social insurance model). Or it can help build a cross-party consensus on a thorny issue by "depoliticising" it (see: pension age). It can also provide a useful stick for beating the Tories with for the next decade: "we asked x renowned independent expert to review the NHS and they were outraged to discover..."

It can also kick difficult decisions into the long grass (either deliberately or accidentally). I think the risk is you waste the moment when you've got most political capital setting up reviews instead of using it. And, in this context, I think it clashes a little bit with Streeting's message. On day one he gave his speech to Department for Health civil servants and said "from today, the policy of this department is that the NHS is broken." I think that's the right approach and true, I'm not sure commissioning an independent review necessarily matches that urgency.

I think it also might send a message that they don't know what they want to do. The public's biggest issue was the NHS. The focus of Labour's message was economic growth, particularly with planning reform. To then get into office and just commission reviews/inquiries could send a not great message.

Obviously if they report back quickly and give the right answer then it could be very helpful.

[Tamas]

I see your point but I don't see what the other option is if you want to be diligent. Being in opposition for 14 years also means you lacked proper rank and leverage to learn about the true state of things.

[Barrister]

Meanwhile on the legacy left for the government to clean up. The comment from a figure "from the previous administration" (weird phrasing ) is disgraceful:

So look - I can not possibly comment on the state of British prisons.

But I will note that one of the absolute oldest tricks in the political p[laybook is for a new government to come in and say "OMG - the situations is so much worse than we thought!".  It can give cover for things the government might have wanted to do but knew was unpopular (like early prison releases), or cover for the government to not do things they had campaigned on.

Like I said - I can't say that's what's necessarily happening, but something to consider.

[Sheilbh]

So look - I can not possibly comment on the state of British prisons.

But I will note that one of the absolute oldest tricks in the political p[laybook is for a new government to come in and say "OMG - the situations is so much worse than we thought!".  It can give cover for things the government might have wanted to do but knew was unpopular (like early prison releases), or cover for the government to not do things they had campaigned on.

Like I said - I can't say that's what's necessarily happening, but something to consider.

Oh absolutely and I think they will do that on, say, health or the budget.

But I think this is different (it's closer to the water companies being on the brink of collapse). There have been multiple stories about this building for the last 18 months. Basically prison capacity has been running at 99% for over a year, there have been numerous reports that the government would have to release prisoners early over this and that could include violent offenders (this was something Starmer actually used to attack Sunak in the campaign). As well, as noted in the piece, that the previous Justice Secretary repeatedly pushed for something like this to be approved but was overruled by Sunak.

It has even been suggested that this may have been one of the reasons Sunak went for an early election because this would come to a head in the summer.

So there's been lots of flashing red lights about the prison system. I also don't think there's any real appetite in Labour for early releases - they may want a broader package of penal reform (see the Timpson appointment) and Starmer was a human rights lawyer. But Starmer was also chief prosecutor and Labour have pushed really hard on the need for tougher sentences (and more convictions) particularly for crimes against women and girls. It is widely assumed that what Labour is doing now is what the Tories would also have to do. The previous government had already basically told the police not to charge too many people and the courts not to sentence too many to prison.

I think Starmer definitely will want to do quite substantive prison reform. Not least because I think he's personally invested in and understands the issue in the justice system. But I don't think that his intent was a general rule of early releases after 40% served.

Edit: Separately on the frothy stuff - an MP briefing the Spectator about Braverman: "She's lost all her mates and pissed off the gays so I think she will bugger off to Reform [...] She has no chance of being leader and she thinks she is bigger than she is so what is there left for her?"

Again on just how gay the Tories are, from a lobbyist and former New Labour Spad

For Labour friends who have never spent much time around senior Tories, I'd say "pissing off the gays" was the equivalent political no-no of pissing off UNISON and at least one other big union.
Actually maybe "pissing off teachers".

[garbon]

I see your point but I don't see what the other option is if you want to be diligent. Being in opposition for 14 years also means you lacked proper rank and leverage to learn about the true state of things.

You've lived here long enough to know about endless inquiries.

I don't understand why they can't announce doing some stuff now even if they also want to have someone look through the books.

[Tamas]

I see your point but I don't see what the other option is if you want to be diligent. Being in opposition for 14 years also means you lacked proper rank and leverage to learn about the true state of things.

You've lived here long enough to know about endless inquiries.

I don't understand why they can't announce doing some stuff now even if they also want to have someone look through the books.

It's a fair assumption but toothless paper pushing is hard to differentiate from due diligence at the moment, from where we are sitting at the moment

[Sheilbh]

Well on that front I suppose Streeting has started talks with the doctors' union and the opening meeting was apparently positive so no further strike action proposed. That in itself is a positive shift from the Tories needlessly combative stance (for political benefit) which will have an impact on services.

The other stuff he's spoken about like pharmacists being allowed to do more (like in Europe) and using private sector capacity to get the waiting list down will require a bit of work - and most likely be politically contentious and opposed by the doctors' union so there's a need to get the sequencing right.

I suppose that's another possibility - you know your plans are going to lead to a fight with the unions, so an independent review buys time to settle the existing pay and conditions dispute first.

[Sheilbh]

Totally separately the Tories do seem to have done really well with British Indian Hindu voters - in part Sunak but a swing that was already underway. So I think their best result (only down 1.3%) was in Harrow East which is the most Hindu constituency in the country (about 25%).

I hadn't seen this but the Tory MP there, Bob Blackman, swore into the Commons yesterday on the King James Bible AND the Bhagavad Gita

I think he's the only MP to choose to swear on two holy texts.

Edit: I think this is a new level of Vicar of Brayness.

[Sheilbh]

Only just seen this, slightly disappointed to have gone to sleep before this display from the BBC's election coverage (He did caveat Henderson in 1931):

[HVC]

Don't know about the others, but sunk jumped into the cabin of a crashing plane, so not really his fault I don't think.

[Valmy]

The Liberals were already in third place before 1924 as well

Don't know about the others, but sunk jumped into the cabin of a crashing plane, so not really his fault I don't think.

Well it wasn't not his fault either. He didn't seem to do much to turn the Conservative's prospects around.

[Sheilbh]

The Liberals were already in third place before 1924 as well

I also feel like a Tory PM would instinctively feel that being lined up with Churchill and Disraeli would be a good thing

[Sheilbh]

Separately from the Economist:

Britain's Labour government has declared war on NIMBYs
The battle is likely to define its success
Jul 10th 2024|BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Stand on the bridge where Iver lane crosses the M25 and look north. Eight lanes of traffic hurtle along London's orbital motorway beneath you. Shift your gaze east of the roaring stream, between the motorway barriers and an industrial estate, and you will see a former landfill site that happens to sit in the green belt (protected land that surrounds many English cities).

In 2022 Buckinghamshire council blocked a proposed data centre here, saying it would harm "the ecological value of the site". Last year the Tory government threw out an appeal, in part because the site would have been visible "above the vegetation along the motorway". A smaller scheme was nixed by the council in June.

Bizarre decisions such as these exemplify the paralysing effects of Britain's planning regime. They are now firmly in the cross-hairs of the new Labour government. In her first speech as chancellor on July 8th, Rachel Reeves said that two blocked data centres, one in Buckinghamshire and another in Hertfordshire, would be called in for reconsideration; more projects are expected to follow. She announced that the government had ended an "absurd" de facto ban on onshore wind farms in England and would reimpose housing targets on local authorities. "The system needs a new signal," said Ms Reeves. "This is that signal."

Ms Reeves's speech recalled another, four decades earlier. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher did not consider the main opposition to her economic reforms to be the parliamentary Labour Party, which had been humbled. Instead the prime minister saw her fight as being with hard-left councils and the National Union of Mineworkers, says David Willetts, who worked in her policy unit. In a speech in 1984 she labelled them the "enemy within".

Ms Reeves, too, is focused less on the rump of Tory MPs, more on "voices of local opposition". Where Thatcher singled out Ken Livingstone and Derek Hatton, leading figures at councils in London and Liverpool respectively, Ms Reeves might have mentioned the likes of Martin Tett. As Tory leader of Buckinghamshire council since 2011, Mr Tett has a reasonable claim to being Britain's most successful NIMBY. Responsible for an almost 1,900-square km county nestled between London and Oxford, his administration has turned blocking development into an art form.

The data centre is but one in the catalogue. In May Buckinghamshire blocked a plan backed by Sam Mendes, a British film director, to build a £750m ($960m) studio in Marlow, also on a former landfill site. It was also by far the most obstructive council along the route of HS2, insisting that much of the high-speed railway be buried in tunnels and cuttings and then using legal challenges to hold up the lorries needed to remove rubble. It has failed to produce an up-to-date plan for making land available for housing. All of this goes down well with local voters, of course.

Ms Reeves outlined three ways in which Labour will take on the blockers. The first is the use of "call-ins". The proposal near Iver lane was for a £2.5bn data centre, which the developer argued would bring investment in Britain's tech sector. Ms Reeves says that she and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, "will not hesitate" to review such decisions. The government can simply decide that Britain will start saying "yes". One test will be whether it is as keen to overrule Labour councils.

Data centres are the most obvious big investments that have been gummed up. But in recent weeks Labour aides have been asking around for other blocked projects. According to the British Venture Capital Association, a trade body, there is more than £145bn of "dry powder" ready to be invested in Britain in the next three to five years. Flexing the government's muscles on "call-in" powers offers a boost to developers and a warning to local councils. Decisions on large onshore wind farms will be taken nationally, said Ms Reeves.

The second strand is that Labour will reimpose top-down housing targets on councils. That will reverse the changes brought in under Michael Gove, the former housing secretary, and put more pressure on councils like Buckinghamshire to come up with local plans.

Third is building on the green belt. Labour had already promised to review the policy, which has throttled cities for decades. In her speech Ms Reeves offered little extra detail other than saying that councils would be expected to review green-belt boundaries and prioritise housebuilding on the "grey belt"—low-quality land such as former landfill sites. Labour could overhaul the policy to make councils take "confident bites" out of the green belt, says David Rudlin, a planning expert. Railway stations near cities are often surrounded by empty fields, for example.

One concern raised since the election is that its success in winning seats across the south of England will crimp Labour's boldness. But most constituencies with green-belt land remain Tory-Lib Dem marginals or safe Labour seats, says Sam Dumitriu of Britain Remade, a think-tank. And bluntly, Labour can afford to sacrifice some of its new MPs to achieve its principal objective of boosting growth. The real risk is that a top-down approach—in which ministers browbeat councils into action—relies on spending a lot of political capital. That becomes harder once the shine comes off a new government. Local authorities will return fire with judicial reviews, a way of challenging the legality of official decisions, which can take years. Councils can be steamrollered; courts less so.

Ms Reeves's speech is therefore best understood as a "very well-constructed day-one package", says a former minister. She has pulled together the rapid measures available to her within the existing system. But it is not a plan for building the 1.5m homes over the next five years that Labour has promised. That will require trickier reforms, like adopting a more rules-based approach to planning and tackling knotty issues such as land-value capture and compulsory purchase—areas where Labour has only begun to set out its ideas. The government has fired an opening shot. Its battle with the blockers has just begun.

The reform side is essential in the long-term. But £145 billion worth of blocked projects is a startling stat (admittedly from a partial body) but does track with a lot of the stories I've seen over the last few years - for example reporting in the FT of billions of investment in lab space being blocked, which was in turn a constraint on investment into life sciences companies.

But in immediate steps that can be taken, as well as calling in six separate projects including data centres and housing projects, today Ed Miliband (who I have moaned about ) has approved three large-scale solar farms that can produce 1.5 GW. Many of these have been delayed for years - one has already produced a 15,000 page environmental impact assessment (again - in the context of climate I think the need to get clean energy would outweigh almost anything else, but that's just my view).

Tory MPs are absolutely kicking off "this shows a complete disregard community consent, contempt for human rights, and a complete failure to understand food security as a national issue" and looking to support campaigners in judicial review if possible. Also interesting to see new Reform and Green MPs united in opposing pylons in their constituencies. But it's a good start.