Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Yes, I think there is plenty of space on government offices, many of which ae big, ugly 60s and 70s buildings ripe for redevelopment.

Interesting. It may be specifically about Whitehall then.

During Rees-Mogg's phase of walking around departments leaving passive aggressive "sorry I missed you" notes I definitely remember reading that the civil service had been mandating WFH way before covid because in many departments there wasn't enough space.

Selling off office space does not mean office space cannot be found. Commercial office space is at historically abundant levels.  It would be a trivial matter to acquire the necessary office space if that was indeed necessary.

Sure - but perhaps not in Whitehall specifically. And I think it's largely been driven for accounting purposes.

I think it much more likely that government, and especially a Labour government, doesn't want to push the issue of workers returning to the office.

Much the same thing is playing out here.  And there is more than enough office space for government workers.

It might change with Labour's workers' rights bill - but I don't really think there's any political angle on WFH here. Rees-Mogg and some Tories tried to make it into a bit of a culture war issue but it didn't land (like a lot of their other attempts) because people don't care.

In office jobs my experience is that basically everywhere is 2-3 days in the office a week and it's not particularly contentious.

Although it probably helps that we're a far smaller country - so I have colleagues who travel into London for 2-3 days  week from the West Country, Leicester and North Yorkshire.

[Josquius]

I've heard from people working in government that they are pretty strict on 3 days in office these days.
One guy basically had to quit as he was London based but lives in rural Northumberland since covid - not sure if he asked about switching to a closer office or if this was possible.
Guess it varies on location/department/boss.

[Tamas]

I checked out a hybrid working government ad recently. You can work from any of their country-wide offices except London. Ergo whatever you will be working on us not tied to the office at all. But you are still required to spend half your time in the office. Ridiculous.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think it will vary a fair bit. I don't think I've ever seen a civil service job that requires London - most have a few different offices around the country.

Now practically if you want to climb the senior leadership ladder that might require working in London - but I think in most industries if you want to reach a certain level you probably need to work in the HQ at some point.

[Sheilbh]

I checked out a hybrid working government ad recently. You can work from any of their country-wide offices except London. Ergo whatever you will be working on us not tied to the office at all. But you are still required to spend half your time in the office. Ridiculous.

I quite like being in the office three days a week

I think that's about the right balance.

[Tamas]

I checked out a hybrid working government ad recently. You can work from any of their country-wide offices except London. Ergo whatever you will be working on us not tied to the office at all. But you are still required to spend half your time in the office. Ridiculous.

I quite like being in the office three days a week

I think that's about the right balance.

But what's the point if there is nobody there you actually work with? Don't say socialise, go socialise on your own time don't force me to sit there just because you need somebody to talk to.

[Sheilbh]

But what's the point if there is nobody there you actually work with? Don't say socialise, go socialise on your own time don't force me to sit there just because you need somebody to talk to.

So I do actually like socialising with colleagues - but I'd almost probably never choose to socialise with colleagues if I wasn't at work. I am, I fear, the problem

Practically I try to schedule almost all my meetings in the days I'm in the office - but also I work in media and (to no-one's surprise) it's a very, very political sector (or as it was described to me when I interviewed "very relationship-driven" ). So an awful lot of being good at your job is knowing who's who and how and when to position things. The in-person stuff helps on that front.

I suspect some of that is true for the civil service - although it's big so it'll also be a lot more process/forms driven etc.

Having said that I fully get that our tech teams and engineers are the ones who seem to most dislike working in the office and often have negotiated specific carve outs so they only need to come in once every six months or whatever

[Sheilbh]

One for Tamas:

Solar farm in Eastbourne approved

It was estimated the solar panels would generate enough energy to power about 6,400 homes annually
Huw Oxburgh
    21 August 2024

Controversial plans for a 78.8-acre (0.3 sq km) solar farm in East Sussex have been approved.

Applicant Low Carbon said the site on land south of Cross Levels Way, in Eastbourne, would generate enough energy to power around 6,400 homes a year.

The plans received at least 114 letters of objection, which raised archaeological, ecological and visual concerns, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

The scheme was approved by Eastbourne Borough Council on Tuesday with conditions to carry out further consultations.

This included discussions with the county archaeologist, as officers said the site likely includes "prehistoric timber".

The council heard this would be an ongoing process, which could result in "significant costs" should further work be required on the site.

The applicant must also join a licensing scheme due to the likely presence of great crested newts on the site.

There was discussion of deferring the scheme until the further consultation was completed, but it was deemed acceptable as long as the conditions were in place.

The site is formed of two fields, classed as "moderate quality" agricultural land, which sit either side of the railway line between Hampden Park and Eastbourne.

The land had been allocated within Eastbourne's local plan as a suitable location for renewable energy infrastructure.

Follow BBC Sussex on Facebook, external, on X, external, and on Instagram, external. Send your story ideas to [email protected] or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250.

On the one hand good to see something like this approved - subject to further consultations, checking whether or not there are prehistoric timbers which may or may not exist and developing a plan to protect newts who may or may not be on the site.

Incidentally the newts could be a rare Brexit benefit as I understand they're listed as an EU wide "species of community interest" in existing law - but are actually doing quite well in the UK. Feels like re-vamping the list of species requiring strict protection to focus on ones requiring strict protection in the UK might be an idea (like bats, perhaps ).

[Tamas]

This included discussions with the county archaeologist, as officers said the site likely includes "prehistoric timber".

The council heard this would be an ongoing process, which could result in "significant costs" should further work be required on the site.

The applicant must also join a licensing scheme due to the likely presence of great crested newts on the site.

 

[Sheilbh]

Not to be too cynical but I wonder how much lifting the word "likely" is doing in those job creation schemes for people running consultations and licensing schemes

[Tonitrus]

Solar farms are nice and all, but then I see all of those buildings in the same satellite photo that could have panels on their roofs...

[Sheilbh]

I thought this was interesting. In part because I've thought for a while that actually it wouldn't take much for Starmer's economic inheritance (and the budgetary implications - given that stuff is all nonsense anyway) to be relatively benign. Not great like 1997 but not a catastrophe and something to build from.

From this a bit of what's needed is another version of the confidence fairy but that stuff feels relatively easy to get right just by being a relatively normal, stable, predictable government:

A positive message would go a long way to helping Labour's task
When key data is mixed, the direction an economy takes next can hinge on the tone adopted by its leaders
Simon French
Monday August 26 2024, 12.01am, The Times

Rachel Reeves has been a member of parliament for 14 years, so she won't be surprised that her political honeymoon at the Treasury has been brief. Events come at you fast when you are a finance minister, events that can quickly swamp any predetermined strategy. Since the chancellor took office on July 5, an in-tray of spending requests has been piling up. Some of them have been predictable, others rather less so.

Speculation is now rife that Reeves's budget on October 30 will have to raise taxes to stick within Labour's self-imposed fiscal rules, rules that were co-opted from the Conservatives. With a manifesto commitment not to raise income tax, employee national insurance, VAT or the headline rate of corporation tax, levies that collectively raise two thirds of the nation's tax revenue, attention is shifting to whether additional taxes on assets such as property, pensions and inheritance are in the pipeline.

Yet there is another way. It was something that Reeves was skilled at in opposition but shows signs of losing in government, namely fostering optimism and confidence. Both are now at risk as she pursues a rather politically motivated line that she has been handed the worst economic inheritance since the Second World War. The prime minister seems set to double-down on his chancellor's line this week by suggesting that things will get worse before they get better.

Let's give Reeves a bit of latitude, though. The inheritance she has received is far from golden. The public sector debt-to-GDP ratio is at its highest level since 1963. Recent real income growth has been its most sluggish since the early 1950s. Public service productivity remains lower than it was in 1997, despite the extraordinary advances in labour-saving technology over the intervening period. The economy is having to adapt to trade frictions resulting from Brexit and the energy market fallout from a war in Europe. And while Jeremy Hunt, the former chancellor, may contest it, some of the legacy bills he left at the Treasury were not appropriately accounted for. A 1997-style legacy this is not.

But to stop there with the economic scorecard would be incomplete. Household balance sheets are, in aggregate, in rude health, the unemployment rate is lower than in 44 of the past 50 years, inflation is now close to its 2 per cent target and interest rates are set to fall further. Business confidence is at an eight-year high, consumer confidence at a three-year high. Economic growth in the first half of the 2024 was faster than in any other G7 economy. The pound is at an eight-year high. I get that politicians don't do nuance very well, but this is a decidedly mixed inheritance.

When economic data is mixed, the direction an economy takes next can hinge on the tone adopted by economic leaders. In 1997 the New Labour government helped to channel these "vibes" in what became known as the era of Cool Britannia. With many of the same people from that era now back in Westminster, should they try to dust off the script? Is this not just an invitation for superficial boosterism?

In my opinion, there is merit in a much more upbeat message. Three reasons support the idea that a more constructive tone from the Treasury, the chancellor and the cabinet can have positive economic impacts.

First, when looking across data from all big economies since the end of the pandemic, it is in the UK where consumers have shown the greatest caution. In the first quarter of the year, the British household savings rate was more than 20 per cent higher than its long-term average. Among other G7 economies the savings rate was 26 per cent lower than its long-term average. Given a choice between saving and spending, UK consumers remain disproportionately cautious of what is to come. With more confidence, particularly among more affluent and older households where much of this additional saving is concentrated, higher consumer spending can fuel a rise in growth and tax receipts that will help to offset the need for immediate tax increases.

Second, business investment remains subdued with the fallout since the 2016 Brexit referendum, meaning a loss of £35 billion a year in additional productive assets. Bank of England research released last week suggested that the hurdle rate for investment, the return that companies require to justify an investment, is an eyewatering 16 per cent. This is even though additional capital to fund investment remains widely available at single-digit interest rates.

This suggests that embedded caution remains prevalent across businesses. The confidence to lower this hurdle rate and increase total investment will come from a sense in boardrooms that things are getting better. The importance of sentiment should not be overlooked by policymakers who may be tempted to look at everything through a tax, subsidy or regulatory lens. Research by Apella Advisors in May found that only 39 per cent of new intake Labour MPs had private sector experience. This lack of applied experience of what is needed to increase risk appetite and to pursue profit threatens good judgment on how to increase business investment.

Third, perhaps most intriguingly, the recovery in economic confidence since the 2022 mini-budget has been uneven. According to a recent GfK survey, consumers are now upbeat, relative to history, about their own finances and the economic outlook. However, when people are asked about their appetite to make a big purchase, they remain cautious. Similarly, while business confidence is at an eight-year high, according to Lloyds Banking Group, finance directors are cautious about levels of discretionary spending and are sitting on significant amounts of cash. This all suggests that the corporate and household sectors are nervous about potential tax increases and a resurgence of inflation. Shifting this mindset is key for a recovering economy to kick on from a strong start to 2024.

These three points suggest that the Labour Party's central mission to accelerate UK growth to the highest in the G7 is within its grasp, but also that it needs careful curation. The doom and gloom of recent messaging is not a costless narrative, even if it fulfils a political purpose. With the honeymoon now over, it's time to move on to a positive, more confident message. Done effectively, it will help, if certainly not eliminate, the financial challenges mounting up in the chancellor's in-tray.

Simon French is managing director, chief economist and head of research at Panmure Liberum

I'd read before that UK households basically used covid to build up savings (in the aggregate - on a personal level, this was not my experience ) so interesting to see that we've still got a higher than normal savings rate. Though of course given British tastes us running at 20% higher than our normal rate of saving and, say, Germany running at 25% lower probably means we're close to the same level for the first time ever

Edit: In part I think it's transitioning from opposition to government.

[Josquius]

I find it fascinating the Tories keep banging the taxes drum, shouting "Labour is just pretending things are bad so they can raise taxes"- they've been saying this since the election campaign. Like a one trick pony copying American memes about the left.
Its almost as if they recognised things were much worse than they were letting on and knew taxes would have to rise so they're poisoning the well up front.
I hope they get suitably attacked for this.

On savings...I wonder if there could be a generational shift at play here. Millennials who started work during horrid times now being peak savings age. Could just be my own biases here, but I do think we could be a bit less frivolous in our spending (despite the memes of avocado toast)

[Sheilbh]

Well also the Tories raised taxes to their highest level as a share of GDP since 1948.

It's like immigration where they can bang the drum but have presided over record rates, or law and order when they closed prisons and now have a shortage of cells.

But Labour can (and will) use this to beat up on the Tories. But it's still early but they still feel a little opposition in government. Attacking the Tories matters less now - they need to move on more to what they're doing and how it ties to that analysis.

[Norgy]

Labour has been out of power for well over a decade, and Broon's cabinet wasn't exactly left-leaning either.
So the party needs to get used to having actual power. It went well for the Norwegian conservatives, and with all the think tanks and various interest groups ready to offer policy ideas and plans, I doubt Labour will be shy about changing the course to the terrain in the months to come.

Is there any support for rejoining the EU, really? From the outside, Brexit seemed like such a clusterfuck that it made British women in Greece on holiday seem semi-decent.