Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

I think the reason every Chancellor in the last 30 years has vetoed that Treasury suggestion is political judgement.

But for me it's more whether it's indicative of a wider issue (and I think there's similar concerns with Starmer and the people around him). Ultimately the Treasury have a very particular view of the world which is still very Gladstonian. Part of the job of being a good minister is being able to resist your department's own vested interests and biases.

It might not mean anything but the fact Reeves has gone for something they've been pushing for years and had Chancellors block make me slightly worry that she'll be less able to spot what's the advice that's good and she should listen to, and what's institutional preferences where it's her job to override.

It's a line Blair's always flagged. I haven't read it and I won't because he creepily capitalises "the Leader" throughout, but in his new book on leadership he makes this point: "All bureaucracies are the same. They're not conspiracies for one side or another in politics; they're conspiracies for maintaining the system and they have a corresponding genius for inertia. They can be utilised and driven but should not be left with the first or final say".

I slightly worry that with their various institutional backgrounds Reeves, Starmer and Gray may be a little vulnerable on this in different ways. It's also where I sympathise a bit with the "blob" stuff - I don't think there's political bias but I think there is Treasury view/a civil service perspective and it bends to inertia

On Blair though very good to see his institute doing a big, very pro-building paper on the need to build more houses.

Yeah, throughout my career I have advised and interacted with ministries of governments of various stripes.

The thing that has struck me, is that regardless of who the minister might be the views of key public servants remains the same.  Some might view that as a good steadying influence.  Some might do that as a terrible deep state manipulation of their political masters.  Or as you have characterized it, something in between that-simply inertia.  My great disappointment is that nobody lived up to my expectations created by watching Yes Minister. 


I think it very much depends on the individual public servant because in my experience over the years individuals fall into one of those three categories to some extent.

[Sheilbh]

I don't see why means testing the fuel payments is such a heresy. Where the cutoff line needs to be can be open for debate, I am sure, but come on.

Okay so I think there's three levels.

One is purely political which is why from Diane Abbott to tribune of the plebs, George Osborne, there's a sense it's a risky decision and why Chancellors have consistently rejected this Treasury recommendation for the last 30 years. That is simply that pensioners vote Tory and Labour's the party of welfare so no-one is particularly keen on cutting benefits for pensioners. And it makes sense on a spreadsheet, if you do it it will always be the most covered bit of a budget. There will be news reporters looking for stories this winter about elderly people turning off the heating because they're worried they can't afford it and, if it's a cold winter, then I'd be amazed if there isn't a u-turn. It's politically high risk for what is, effectively, a rounding error on the balance sheet.

The other political side is I think strategic for this government. They couldn't help the riots, that was out of their control. But having won power for the first time in 14 years the first impression of this government is riots, prison releases/crisis and taking money away from the elderly. That's not the way I'd like to launch it - and I think this is the risk of the "this is the worst inheritance ever", is I don't think it's enough in government to have an analysis of why things are shit (that's the job of the opposition) - you need a theory of change. In my view it might have been better to tell Reeves that because she's not planning to make big changes to taxes (from everything we've heard), just have a holding pattern for this autumn (or, even better, get rid of the autumn statement which is pointless but causes problems) and the finances update will be at the next budget. Meanwhile launch GB Energy, get the Railway Nationalisation Bill into Parliament, do Rayner's planning reform - do the big positive "this is how we're changing Britain" things (and also hope that actually they help with growth - a bit of stability, crowding in etc).

I think, again if it's a cold winter, then I'm not even sure Reeves' position as Chancellor will be sustainable. This has been (and always would be) the big story since she's announced it, there's likely a big Labour revolt and she's making loyalists vote for something they don't like - if the end result is that it's cold, there's a bit of a crisis/disastrous media coverage and she has to u-turn, I think there'll be a lot of anger in government and the party. And Labour will have wasted their first six months to introduce themselves to the public as the first Labour government in fourteen years on that policy.

Those two are the political objections/risks - I think there is a policy one which I get will have different opinions. I used to be really pro the targeted slightly means tested approach to welfare. New Labour did a lot of really targeting spending at the people and communities who need it most - and I think this ties to the democracy debate because I think in results that actually worked really well. The problem is that I think there is something to the line that welfare for the poor will become poor welfare. I think the targeted, means tested approach is easier to cut. I've swung from that to that it is better to have (possibly lower) welfare that is universal (which is the old, pre-New Labour model of British welfare), because it's more difficult to cut. See the controversy over this or the only big defeat on austerity for the coalition when they had to u-turn on child tax credits.

The thing that has struck me, is that regardless of who the minister might be the views of key public servants remains the same.  Some might view that as a good steadying influence.  Some might do that as a terrible deep state manipulation of their political masters.  Or as you have characterized it, something in between that-simply inertia.  My great disappointment is that nobody lived up to my expectations created by watching Yes Minister. 

There's an amazing documentary from the 2000s about the culture of the "great departments of state" in the UK (Home, Foreign Office, Treasury) with loads of interview from former senior civil servants and ministers.

And it was really striking the extent to which there were clearly very different institutional cultures and attitudes in each of them. Ken Clarke was great because he'd been Chancellor and Home Secretary. He said the Treasury was a collection of the most brilliantly intelligent, smart people he'd ever worked with where you could really debate policies and everyone was whip-smart - but it was a very narrow, focused type of smart and part of the job of him as the politician was to introduce practical reality to that. Also loved the anecdote that when he took his red box of papers home of an evening or weekend, his private office would put a chocolate bar in the middle of the papers to mark the essential from the optional reading

Then in the Home Office, it has a reputation as the graveyard for promising political careers. There was a senior civil servant who basically said that in the Home Office it's like you're always watching the clear blue sky for the rocket that's about to land and explode and cause the minister to step down/be fired (because they cover policing, immigration - and until recently prisons, probation etc - so many things with lots of things that could go wrong). A former minister also noted that on the executive floor there was a corridor to the Home Secretaries office - on one wall the portraits of all former Home Secretaries which was like fifty of them, on the other wall portraits of former Permanent Secretaries, of which there were about ten. They weren't sure if the civil service was making a deliberate point with that - but they definitely felt it was made.

I agree that's my experience of government too from working in a firm that did a lot of work with HMG, to now working in a sector with a lot of comms with them. I don't know if it's the same way in Canada - or if this is just inertia, professionalised - but there is also a civil servant whose default position on every issue is that it's best solved by a consultation or another round of meetings with stakeholders (And FWIW again I think that's where I think there is corruption of a revolving door of civil service to consultancies and private funded civil society organisations trading on contacts made as a civil service and back...)

[Barrister]

I agree that's my experience of government too from working in a firm that did a lot of work with HMG, to now working in a sector with a lot of comms with them. I don't know if it's the same way in Canada - or if this is just inertia, professionalised - but there is also a civil servant whose default position on every issue is that it's best solved by a consultation or another round of meetings with stakeholders (And FWIW again I think that's where I think there is corruption of a revolving door of civil service to consultancies and private funded civil society organisations trading on contacts made as a civil service and back...)

Hey, so my life of experience working in government is slightly different as my job is slightly more arms-reach from government, but the difference seems to be that A: we don't have any ministry that's quite so wide-ranging as Home Office (plus our federal system means the provinces typically have a lot of power) and B: we don't have quite the same tradition of senior civil servants just changing ministries every few years - here you tend to stay within your own home ministry for your career.

But the similarity absolutely is another round of consultations with stakeholders is always seen as a good idea...

[Sheilbh]

Hey, so my life of experience working in government is slightly different as my job is slightly more arms-reach from government, but the difference seems to be that A: we don't have any ministry that's quite so wide-ranging as Home Office (plus our federal system means the provinces typically have a lot of power) and B: we don't have quite the same tradition of senior civil servants just changing ministries every few years - here you tend to stay within your own home ministry for your career.

Yeah it was very much an outlier in the world to have the justice system (but not the judiciary) and sentencing, prisons, probation etc in the same ministry as policing. The Home Office has been broken up now so there's a standalone Ministry of Justice which deals with prisons, sentencing, probation etc. So that episode ended with whether it is still a "great office" or increasingly diminished.

I think Permanent Secretaries, so the very top, will typically stay for 5-10 years. And if you want to get to the very top (so Cabinet Secretary) you need to spend a bit of time in the Treasury. But for example Sir Richard Wilson (Tony Blair's Cabinet Secretary for a bit) started in trade (in Harold Wilson's Premiership), then moved to Energy where he was responsible for nuclear policy and privatising oil, into the Cabinet Office working on economic policy for Thatcher, then the Treasury - then Permanent Secretary of Environment, Home Office Permanent Secretary and finally Cabinet Secretary under Blair. You can see you'd absolutely pick up a lot of skills, experience, knowhow, networks in a career like that - but it's not one of deep subject area expertise. So I think to an extent even the senior civil servants get institutionalised moving into a new department.

But it's a world away from staying in your area for your entire career - I think the exception to that is maybe the Foreign Office and Defence. They might move into the intelligence services, but I think they're seen as pretty specialist. Although less so in recent years. The Foreign Office is apparently less interested in mandating language learning and region expertise because they think it's a problem of old boys networks (which I can see and is probably true - but also I think the forced language learning and region experts are probably good things ).

[Sheilbh]

From the FT on a similar point - that it's not just the Reeves decision on its own but its wider context that is a little concerning:

Labour needs Reeves to be an imperial chancellor
She already has a political empire, but she must command it — and neutralise damage from the government's early mistakes
Robert Shrimsley 9 hours ago

When Labour strategists were drawing up the grid for the first weeks in office, it seems unlikely that a row over a decision to means-test winter fuel payments to pensioners was central to the plan. Few will have anticipated that the settling of outstanding public sector pay disputes could be depicted as a story of higher rewards for train drivers while impoverished pensioners are left afraid to turn on their heating this winter.

Even more alarming to supporters will be that, while the plan is defensible, both Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, his chancellor, were surprised by the scale of what seems a fairly predictable backlash against taking money from the elderly. 

Nor would a government apparently laser-focused on economic growth and restoring the UK's reputation as a good home for inward investment want to see the summer dominated by stories about expansive new employment rights and unchecked speculation about increases in capital gains tax (this in addition to the planned moves to tighten the tax regime for non-doms).

A corrective is needed. This government is barely two months old. Much of what consumes Westminster is ephemeral. Rows fade and Reeves's first Budget next month will set Labour's true course. Even so, the leadership has tested the tolerance of its own MPs and let a negative narrative erode the already limited public goodwill from its so-called loveless landslide.

What is going on? How has Labour allowed the story of its first months to be quite so faltering? Insiders see a number of challenges. Notably, the election timing left a long gap until the Budget and spending round. This has created a policy vacuum as departmental ministers wait to hear what they can afford to do. 

Aside from Reeves's first foray on the public finances in a July speech to the Commons, the gap has been filled by those ministers who arrived in government with the most advanced, and lowest-cost, plans. The consequence is that the early running has been made by Ed Miliband on energy and net zero, Angela Rayner on employment rights and Louise Haigh at transport, all on the soft-left. Hence the primary impression of empowered unions, increased state intervention and regulation.

At one level ministers are easy about this. They stress that part of their mission is delivering for the working class. Even Wes Streeting, the Blairite health secretary, argues that the last Labour government was "too quick to declare victory in a classless society".

But those waiting on Reeves feel the delay. Reviews are proliferating and big issues are being pushed into later in the government. The future of social care is again being shunted into the middle distance with another Royal Commission.

The next difficulty springs from the relentlessly downbeat political message of Labour's first weeks, designed to establish Conservative culpability for the state of public services and finances. Starmer knows it is time to move beyond the gloom and will use his Labour conference speech to offer a more optimistic picture of what Streeting calls "the house we are building once we have fixed the foundations".

He and Reeves clearly hoped any blame for the rationing of pensioner fuel subsidy could be pinned on Tory predecessors; she also wanted to reassure markets about her fiscal rectitude. But critics argue that it was an example of Reeves succumbing early to "Treasury brain" as officials presented her with their "it's even worse than you think chancellor" message.

One close to the centre worries that "policy is being driven by the Treasury," not Number 10. This raises two issues. First, Reeves must be more alive to potential political flare-ups even if she then decides to face them down.

The second is that if this is to continue, she must become a more imperial chancellor, closer to the model of Gordon Brown or George Osborne, who stretched their remit widely across domestic policy, than predecessors with a narrow focus on the economy and public finances. This means setting priorities that best match the overall missions. Few question Reeves's primacy among colleagues or her readiness to play that role. What's more, she has all the tools she needs for control. The current one-year spending round is expected to be followed by a two-year one in 2025.

But the pensions row will have sown doubts. Those who already feared Starmer was insufficiently political are looking to Reeves to fill the gap. As well as evidence of strategic oversight, MPs will also want to see that it is she who is driving Treasury policy — not the other way round. She needs to show prudent stewardship without succumbing to the departmental orthodoxy that would compromise Labour's "change" agenda.

Her anticipated change to the debt definition should increase room to borrow for investment. Meanwhile, allies argue she has scope for around £20bn of tax rises.

Her first Budget must not merely be an expression of her discipline on public finances but of the breadth of Labour's ambitions for this parliament. It must deliver an overarching and ambitious story for the government on growth and public services.

The Budget will be this government's defining moment. If it lands well, it will mask the early mis-steps and give Labour a song to march to. Both she and the party need to emerge larger from the event. Reeves already has the empire. Now she must show she can don the purple.

I've mentioned before my concern about the number of reviews Labour are commissioning. Reviews are what you do if you're in government and want to kick an issue down the road and/or form cross-party consensus on a difficult issue. It is not what should be happening in the first months of a government, urgent with power after 14 years in opposition

Edit: Also the big plan for growth is building - but reports today the Secretary of State for Transport "is minded" to reject a £750 million proposed rail freight hub because of the impact on traffic - and decision pushed back to March to allow further information-gathering No idea on if this scheme is good or bad - but if building is your big plan, sign off a few projects quickly (politics but also comms to the markets) which will buy you time to review the difficult ones if needed. Hopefully they take conference season to inject some urgency into everything...

[Josquius]

I've been speaking to some pretty well off people around retirement age this week.
Shit do I feel dirty.
LOTS of paranoia about the budget about.

[crazy canuck]

I've been speaking to some pretty well off people around retirement age this week.
Shit do I feel dirty.
LOTS of paranoia about the budget about.

Why do you feel dirty?

[Josquius]

I've been speaking to some pretty well off people around retirement age this week.
Shit do I feel dirty.
LOTS of paranoia about the budget about.

Why do you feel dirty?

Partial tongue in cheek.
How much I need to analyse.
Career stuff.

[Sheilbh]

I see British news continues to be painfully on the nose

Minister for police's purse stolen – at policing conference
Diana Johnson was giving speech in which she said UK was in grip of 'epidemic of antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting'
Eleni Courea Political correspondent
Thu 12 Sep 2024 16.43 BST

The minister for policing and crime prevention has had her purse stolen at a conference for senior police officers.

Diana Johnson was in Warwickshire on Tuesday to give a speech to the Police Superintendents' Association, in which she said towns and cities were being "gripped by an epidemic of antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting".

Warwickshire police said they were investigating the theft of a purse at the hotel outside Kenilworth where the conference took place. A man has been arrested on suspicion of burglary.

A Home Office source confirmed that Johnson had had her purse stolen, after the news was first reported by the Financial Times.

At the conference, Johnson said the government wanted to "restore respect for the rule of law on British streets, including restoring respect for the police, which has sadly been eroded over many years".

She said: "Too many town centres and high streets across the country have been gripped by an epidemic of antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting, which is corroding our communities and cannot be allowed to continue.

"There are thousands of incredible police officers and support staff doing an admirable job. But we do have to face the reality that there are still too many victims of antisocial behaviour who feel that when they call the police, no one listens, no one comes and nothing is done."

After the conference, Johnson wrote in a post on X that it had been a pleasure to address police superintendents but did not mention her stolen purse. She wrote: "We have a mission to tackle serious crime, antisocial behaviour and restore neighbourhood policing. What I've seen in my short time in this role has given me renewed confidence that we'll succeed."

Labour has vowed to crack down on crime, including by recruiting 3,000 new police officers and 4,000 police community support officers.

However, the government has faced criticism for releasing more than 1,700 prisoners in England and Wales early. The early release scheme was introduced to deal with overcrowding in prisons which, according to the Ministry of Justice, has brought jails to the "point of collapse".

In a statement, Warwickshire police said: "We're investigating a report of the theft of a purse at a hotel on the B4115 in Kenilworth. The theft occurred some time between 11.00 and 13.15 on Tuesday. Inquiries are ongoing. A 56-year-old man from Coventry has been arrested on suspicion of burglary and has since been released on bail while inquiries continue."

The Police Superintendents' Association declined to comment on a live investigation.

Edit: Separately, the UK's last oil refinery in Grangemouth is to close next year. Labour and the SNP are deeply disappointed and promising to "stand by the workforce" as they "find good, alternative jobs" and will seek a viable industrial future for the site. The SNP and Labour have also both been campaigning agains any new oil and gas exploration licenses being granted and just a couple of months ago Miliband announced there would be no new licenses granted. But 400 jobs likely gone and, I'd argue also for at least as long as fossil fuels still exist, the end of a strategically important industry.

Edit: It slightly reminds me of steel when Labour campaigned (correctly) vigorously to save the British steel industry by nationalisation if necessary - but then campaigned equally vigorously against establishing a coal mine that would basically only exist to provide coke to the British steel industry Not the first point as I've mentioned in this threat but I think they need to get more serious on a few fronts - and probably pretty soon as the Tories will have a new leader soon.

[HVC]

[HVC]

The new North American vs The UK battle.  Do you rinse your dishes when you wash them?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_rRTx4SWhM/?igsh=MXIxMnJ3YjdvNXl6dQ==

[Admiral Yi]

That can't be real.

And honey, it's a sink, not a bin.

[HVC]

Could be a big put on, but I've seen a few other reacts of different dish washers

If you want to laugh at the other end losing it, Americans microwaving water for tea is worth a view.

[Admiral Yi]

If you want to laugh at the other end losing it, Americans microwaving water for tea is worth a view.

That would be two cases of Brits being wrong.  I don't want to dogpile.

[HVC]

Just get a stove top kettle you heathen yank!