Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

I haven't moved the goalposts at all.
How do you expect people complaining about HS2 are going to be able to stop it with words alone? This isn't Skyrim.
Forcing up the timescales and costs are key intermediate steps. The vastly inflated budget was the main reason for HS2 being cancelled.

You're going in quite a black and white direction here. The options aren't leave everything entirely as it is or nobody gets a say ever.
A key part of what Labour seem to be proposing is to have a lot more done regionally than on a pure local council level, which should encourage thinking far more along the lines of "What is best for the country" than "What will make sure we win the next local election?"
Local communities having a say is fine in theory- in  practice it usually means a small number of dedicated moaners causing massive disruption whilst the majority of the community isn't particularly bothered if something gets built.

I agree with this and have said much the same on this thread many times. Labour isn't actually moving to a regional approach (abolished by Cameron's localism sadly) but is forcing councils to identify housing and other need and allocate land to deliver it. If they fail to do so, national Govt will step in. Once land is allocated, then locals cannot object to the principle of development, only to design etc.

There are various other options available to achieve the same, such a local development orders which are akin to zoning but take up has been slow to date.

[Josquius]

You're as slippery as an eel Jos. You started by saying we needed plannng reform in response to people complaining to the local media about development. When I asked why, you said it was to stop them stopping development and cited HS2 as an example. You now say how can people complaining about HS2 expect to stop it with words alone.

The Chiltern tunnel cost about £500m extra compared to an equivalent railway at grade. Less than 1% of the costs overrun of £70bn. It was not the reason for cancellation.

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0899/161007-Independent_Cost_Review-Hillingdon_Working_Group_Report-Final.pdf

No slipperiness at all. I'm being straight as an arrow here. Did you really think when I said Nimbys are an issue that I meant you just have to say something is bad then automatically a project is stopped? That there's no intermediate steps there of influencing local politicians?

There's not much that is truly impossible. Altering the equation to make it more expensive than its worth however...

The tunnel was a particularly prominent example of HS2's costs being pushed up. Not the only one. Though needs noting more than the cost of the tunnel itself the added disruption, timescales, etc... were key to its increases too.

[Gups]

I didn't think anyone sensible could say it but yes, that is what you did say. It's now down to me to imagine you said something else.

Again, HS2 costs went up largely because they are an incompetent organisation (c.f. otehr public procurement disasters ranging from NHS IT to Royal Navy aircraft carriers) and partly because of construction costs inflation. Nimbys had nothing to do with it.

[Josquius]

I didn't think anyone sensible could say it but yes, that is what you did say. It's now down to me to imagine you said something else.

No I didn't.
This is akin to arguing jumping out of a 50th floor window won't kill you, because just jumping out of the building is harmless....all that speed you build up to hit the ground isn't at all part of the scenario.

Again, HS2 costs went up largely because they are an incompetent organisation (c.f. otehr public procurement disasters ranging from NHS IT to Royal Navy aircraft carriers) and partly because of construction costs inflation. Nimbys had nothing to do with it.

No doubt didn't help.
But again everything I've read on the topic suggests anti hs2 lobbyists were key. The FT for instance.
https://www.britainremade.co.uk/the_nimby_tax_on_britain_and_america?__cf_chl_tk=xU4rr6OvAglgCIEsdgcUw5TBcJX3oDd10u1irq8F0EE-1721660846-0.0.1.1-4244

[Sheilbh]

On this saw some clips of an event recently with Lord Adonis and Dominic Cummings. It was really interesting because they are two people who I think probably profoundly dislike each other. Adonis was a Blair aide who really drove a lot of education reforms, then became a peer and Transport Secretary (and is a passionate transport nerd), he's also a very, very passionate Remainer/Rejoiner.

What was really striking was how much they agreed. There were slightly different emphases - so Cummings was more that you need reforms of the system to do away with a lot of the process and things that can block or really slow down reform and make it very difficult for government to deliver. Adonis didn't entirely disagree but did say that actually you can do an awful lot of that without having to do reform if you have leadership form a minister who is willing to take decisions, take the risk - and they're backed by the PM.

But also Blair did an interview recently which said something basically similar. He said the main challenge was making the transition form an opposition leader/politician to an executive and not everyone who has the skills for one is good at the other, but then went on:

Of course, you do have a situation with the system as a system. It's not that there's this great deep state theory. We can talk about that but that's not the problem with government.

The problem with government is not that it's a conspiracy, either left-wing or right-wing. It's a conspiracy for inertia. The thing about government systems is that they always think, "we're permanent, you've come in as the elected politician, you're temporary. We know how to do this and if you only just let us alone, we would carry on managing the status quo in the right way." That's the toughest thing, making that transition.

I'm not sure how it'll play out with the new government. But I think it's going to be the key of whether they're successful or not.

[Gups]

On this saw some clips of an event recently with Lord Adonis and Dominic Cummings. It was really interesting because they are two people who I think probably profoundly dislike each other. Adonis was a Blair aide who really drove a lot of education reforms, then became a peer and Transport Secretary (and is a passionate transport nerd), he's also a very, very passionate Remainer/Rejoiner.

What was really striking was how much they agreed. There were slightly different emphases - so Cummings was more that you need reforms of the system to do away with a lot of the process and things that can block or really slow down reform and make it very difficult for government to deliver. Adonis didn't entirely disagree but did say that actually you can do an awful lot of that without having to do reform if you have leadership form a minister who is willing to take decisions, take the risk - and they're backed by the PM.

But also Blair did an interview recently which said something basically similar. He said the main challenge was making the transition form an opposition leader/politician to an executive and not everyone who has the skills for one is good at the other, but then went on:

Of course, you do have a situation with the system as a system. It's not that there's this great deep state theory. We can talk about that but that's not the problem with government.

The problem with government is not that it's a conspiracy, either left-wing or right-wing. It's a conspiracy for inertia. The thing about government systems is that they always think, "we're permanent, you've come in as the elected politician, you're temporary. We know how to do this and if you only just let us alone, we would carry on managing the status quo in the right way." That's the toughest thing, making that transition.

I'm not sure how it'll play out with the new government. But I think it's going to be the key of whether they're successful or not.

Last week, three large solar farms which has been sitting on Claire Cotinho's desk for ages were approved by Milliband. There's no reason for the process to be slow - for nationally significant infrastructure projects, a statutory consultation lasting a month or two is required and then the process is supposed to take one year - six months examination by a panel of inspectors and six months for a report and a decision by the Secretary of State. It's the latter bit that has been taking far longer recently thanks to inaction by Tory miniisters.

Judicial review is a problem for big projects, especially linear ones. Environmental challenges (by pressure groups such as Greenpeace, Freinds of the Earth and the Good Law project rather than Nimbys) are the most common and most likely to succeed. Despite Brexit we are, for example, still protecting species common in the UK but rare on the continent.

And as I've said before, the biggest single difference between UK and contintental projects is that they do detailed design before authorisation and we (the public sector at least) do it the other way round. The latter gets an early  political soundbite without having to earmark funding, the former attracts far more opposition, takes longer and costs more money because the decision-maker has to assess a wide range of possible effects.

Unfortunately no indication yet that Labour understands that, although I'm pretty sure that Peter Hendy does. Whether the cabinet are willing to give up the sugar rush that its predecessors were addicted to for the sake of better, less controversial, cheaper and faster projects is another matter. Much easier for politians/journos to blame nimbys, greater crested newts, environmental campaigners, net zero etc than actually think about the underlying causes.

 

[Sheilbh]

Last week, three large solar farms which has been sitting on Claire Cotinho's desk for ages were approved by Milliband. There's no reason for the process to be slow - for nationally significant infrastructure projects, a statutory consultation lasting a month or two is required and then the process is supposed to take one year - six months examination by a panel of inspectors and six months for a report and a decision by the Secretary of State. It's the latter bit that has been taking far longer recently thanks to inaction by Tory miniisters.

But isn't this where the NIMBYism, campaigners etc come in.

There was the (very weird and I think tone deaf) clip of Kemi Badenoch doing the rounds last week basically saying Rayner and Reed were going to fail. A large problem for them would be that Labour now have lots of seats with Green Belt and all their plans will fail because those backbenchers and ministers will be lobbying against building. I think she's wrong - different voters and this is key to Labour's plans - but I think that was revealing of the dynamic in the last government. See also Theresa Villiers.

Isn't that because of those MPs hearing from local campaigners and NIMBYs - and local councillors no doubt also hearing the thing? They're not necessarily the cause but they're a squeaky wheel.

Judicial review is a problem for big projects, especially linear ones. Environmental challenges (by pressure groups such as Greenpeace, Freinds of the Earth and the Good Law project rather than Nimbys) are the most common and most likely to succeed. Despite Brexit we are, for example, still protecting species common in the UK but rare on the continent.

Yeah and I think that environmental piece is going to grow. It is something I worry about with Labour adding more and more statutory considerations/take account of which can form grounds for judicial reviews.

But again I think those groups are used by NIMBYs - and I suspect environmental etc concerns will grow as an area of focus because that's something Labour cares about and will get sympathetic Guardian coverage.

On the Brexit point I saw that Reed and Rayner had sent a joint letter to environmental groups which seemed to be saying that environmental assessments, case-by-case negotiated mitigations and compensation are seen as blockers and want something quicker and more certain. Not sure what that would look like though.

And as I've said before, the biggest single difference between UK and contintental projects is that they do detailed design before authorisation and we (the public sector at least) do it the other way round. The latter gets an early  political soundbite without having to earmark funding, the former attracts far more opposition, takes longer and costs more money because the decision-maker has to assess a wide range of possible effects.

I wonder how much of that is driven by the Treasury and not wanting to earmark funding for things in advance?

I feel like it might also be why things go overbudget - just thinking that you go in low to get the Treasury to sign off and then as costs increase they're kind of locked in. A bit like, despite years of saying they'll do otherwise, most government procurement ends up going for the cheapest even in the long run it turns out to have lots of costs due to service failures.

[Gups]

But isn't this where the NIMBYism, campaigners etc come in.

There was the (very weird and I think tone deaf) clip of Kemi Badenoch doing the rounds last week basically saying Rayner and Reed were going to fail. A large problem for them would be that Labour now have lots of seats with Green Belt and all their plans will fail because those backbenchers and ministers will be lobbying against building. I think she's wrong - different voters and this is key to Labour's plans - but I think that was revealing of the dynamic in the last government. See also Theresa Villiers.

Isn't that because of those MPs hearing from local campaigners and NIMBYs - and local councillors no doubt also hearing the thing? They're not necessarily the cause but they're a squeaky wheel.

I don't really see why. Yes, of course politicians care about what voters think but that doesn't stop them from making decisions. HS2 had huge opposition across 100 constituencies but the Bills passed through Parliament with majorities of 400+. A cabinet minister isn't going to really care that much about pissing off a MP or two by forcing a local council to obey the lawy in allocating housing to met local needs or for a wind farm to be built.

I think we've all be traumatised by the lat few years where Government has given into backbenchers for internal party political/factional reasons. That is not standard and it is no longer true.

People are always going to campaign against things. The question is whether we have sound policy and due process in applying it.

And Nimbys are often right - we'd have motorways running through central London if it hadn't been for them. They deserve to be listened to rather than dismissed.

Yeah and I think that environmental piece is going to grow. It is something I worry about with Labour adding more and more statutory considerations/take account of which can form grounds for judicial reviews.

But again I think those groups are used by NIMBYs - and I suspect environmental etc concerns will grow as an area of focus because that's something Labour cares about and will get sympathetic Guardian coverage.

On the Brexit point I saw that Reed and Rayner had sent a joint letter to environmental groups which seemed to be saying that environmental assessments, case-by-case negotiated mitigations and compensation are seen as blockers and want something quicker and more certain. Not sure what that would look like though.

Local opponents to projects tend to set up their own organisation but may well ally with campaigners. The groups can be very sophesticated. This is an example of a group who opposed one of the solar farms approved by Milliband last week.

https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/

I wonder how much of that is driven by the Treasury and not wanting to earmark funding for things in advance?

I feel like it might also be why things go overbudget - just thinking that you go in low to get the Treasury to sign off and then as costs increase they're kind of locked in. A bit like, despite years of saying they'll do otherwise, most government procurement ends up going for the cheapest even in the long run it turns out to have lots of costs due to service failures.

Yeah, probably. I think Treasury are pretty wise to the underbudget approach which is the oldest trick in the Moses book. BUt other countries have tight arse finance ministries - I genuinely don't know why we are different.

[Josquius]

And Nimbys are often right - we'd have motorways running through central London if it hadn't been for them. They deserve to be listened to rather than dismissed.

This is where it gets into my professional domain.
"If I'd asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses" - that old unsourced Henry Ford quote applies here.

You listen to them when they say "Don't build houses on that field. Its where my kids play football. And it floods"  but only insofar as you do your flood studies (should be done anyway) and check on the apparent lack of leisure areas nearby.

What they actually say they want is pretty unimportant. Its the reasons why they're saying this that matter.

You should also take note of the fact these people who care enough to speak up have a special interest- most people in the area you're looking at building the housing probably say there's a shortage of housing and more needs to be built but they don't care enough to go to all the effort of being a YIMBY. These people's views matter too.

Yeah, probably. I think Treasury are pretty wise to the underbudget approach which is the oldest trick in the Moses book. BUt other countries have tight arse finance ministries - I genuinely don't know why we are different.

I'd guess its a product of history and the UK parliament being a pretty organic outgrowth of historic "the king wants money for another war", very loosely called a  'government' parliaments, whilst much of Europe has had far more traumatic day zero state founding events in more recent times?

[garbon]

Purge of the Corbynites continues with Rebecca Long-Bailey and John McDonnell losing the whip.

[Sheilbh]

I don't really see why. Yes, of course politicians care about what voters think but that doesn't stop them from making decisions. HS2 had huge opposition across 100 constituencies but the Bills passed through Parliament with majorities of 400+. A cabinet minister isn't going to really care that much about pissing off a MP or two by forcing a local council to obey the lawy in allocating housing to met local needs or for a wind farm to be built.

I think we've all be traumatised by the lat few years where Government has given into backbenchers for internal party political/factional reasons. That is not standard and it is no longer true.

This is very true.

It's something I wonder if we're underestimating with Starmer is actually the extent there will be a honeymoon simply from being able to do things governments are supposed to be able to do like propose and pass legislation because party discipline hasn't totally collapsed and they're not fighting each other constantly like rats in a sack. Again I was struck in the clip of Badenoch how much she seemed to think that the very unusual failures and weaknesses of the last government were structural.

And Nimbys are often right - we'd have motorways running through central London if it hadn't been for them. They deserve to be listened to rather than dismissed.

I suppose it varies. But you're right that is the great example of distant planners with an idea of what the future would be getting it catastrophically wrong and thank God for the NIMBYs - I think it was the start of organised NIMBYism around the country.

And I do think the other side of this is that especially with unpaid councillors or local cabinet members for things like planning there is often a conflict or low level corruption of a revolving door between planning roles and development companies which I think does cause and justify suspicion.

Yeah, probably. I think Treasury are pretty wise to the underbudget approach which is the oldest trick in the Moses book. BUt other countries have tight arse finance ministries - I genuinely don't know why we are different.

It might be that we should separate out the finance from the economics.

I think there is an institutional culture there (a bit like the Home Office). From everything I've read the Treasury are allergic to anything involving up-front capital spending, even if it means higher current costs or higher costs down the line. The idea of a return on investment or value of assets just seems alien to their mindset.

It's like the worst company CFO/accountant you've ever met.

Purge of the Corbynites continues with Rebecca Long-Bailey and John McDonnell losing the whip.

Yeah. The decision on that strikes me as not great.

It's not a manifesto pledge. From what I've seen (eg from Jess Elgot) the Labour whipping operation was basically sticks only. It feels like it was all to beat up the remaining left again and send the rest of the new MPs a warning not get into the habit of rebelling.

But the policy is bad and no-one thinks it will last this parliament. It's something that even many Tories (including Suella Braverman!) are now saying was a mistake.

Just seems very dick-swingy for the sake of it. It already seems like the worst habits of New Labour. Perhaps relatedly also a sign that in government as well as opposition either Starmer or the people around him are very factional.

[Gups]

nites continues with Rebecca Long-Bailey and John McDonnell losing the whip.

Yeah. The decision on that strikes me as not great.

It's not a manifesto pledge. From what I've seen (eg from Jess Elgot) the Labour whipping operation was basically sticks only. It feels like it was all to beat up the remaining left again and send the rest of the new MPs a warning not get into the habit of rebelling.

But the policy is bad and no-one thinks it will last this parliament. It's something that even many Tories (including Suella Braverman!) are now saying was a mistake.

Just seems very dick-swingy for the sake of it. It already seems like the worst habits of New Labour. Perhaps relatedly also a sign that in government as well as opposition either Starmer or the people around him are very factional.
[/quote]

Maybe. You could also say that deciding to rebel on the first vote of the new Government in the Kings Speech is pretty much asking for it and very dick-swingy in its very own way. It's not like this was a u-turn from thr campaign.

[Tamas]

Maybe. You could also say that deciding to rebel on the first vote of the new Government in the Kings Speech is pretty much asking for it and very dick-swingy in its very own way. It's not like this was a u-turn from thr campaign.

This. The door hasn't even closed behind the Tories and they are going against their government already.

EDIT: They didn't really leave Starmer with an option. Suspend them or look weak and open the door for the Corbynites to start pushing.

[Josquius]

Maybe. You could also say that deciding to rebel on the first vote of the new Government in the Kings Speech is pretty much asking for it and very dick-swingy in its very own way. It's not like this was a u-turn from thr campaign.

This. The door hasn't even closed behind the Tories and they are going against their government already.

EDIT: They didn't really leave Starmer with an option. Suspend them or look weak and open the door for the Corbynites to start pushing.

To be fair I don't think they were really left with an option than to vote the way they did too. Its whats right and what they believe in....as much as the party had tactically decided it wasn't the time.

Cunning SNP tactics to damage Labour or just trying to make themselves look good that happened to have this side effect?

[garbon]

Maybe. You could also say that deciding to rebel on the first vote of the new Government in the Kings Speech is pretty much asking for it and very dick-swingy in its very own way. It's not like this was a u-turn from thr campaign.

This. The door hasn't even closed behind the Tories and they are going against their government already.

EDIT: They didn't really leave Starmer with an option. Suspend them or look weak and open the door for the Corbynites to start pushing.

To be fair I don't think they were really left with an option than to vote the way they did too. Its whats right and what they believe in....as much as the party had tactically decided it wasn't the time.

Cunning SNP tactics to damage Labour or just trying to make themselves look good that happened to have this side effect?

Well they could be better politicians and not be rigidly inflexible. I took from this that Rebecca Long Bailey is an exceptionally bad politician being smacked down twice by Starmer.