Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

And Kemi Badenoch elected Tory leader:

There were 131,680 eligible electors. Turnout was 72.8%.

Kemi Badenoch received 53,806 votes

Robert Jenrick received 41,388 votes

There were 655 rejected ballots.

66,288 electors voted online and 29,621 electors voted by post.

I think it's probably the better choice for them than Jenrick - but also have no idea how this will go.

[Josquius]

Depressingly high turn out. Surprised there weren't more spoiled ballots.
Thinking positively maybe the tories are already so far gone almost anyone decent has long since left?

[Sheilbh]

I'd expect turnout in any political party to be very high. They're literally the most politically engaged people.

Stunned that having thought about it your conclusion is that the Tories may, in fact, just be evil. Very off brand for you

Edit: Also while the Tories electing a woman leader is kind of normal at this point (their fourth) - it is a moment for Badenoch to be the first black party leader at Westminster. And, plausibly given how things have gone for Labour, a next PM.

Also someone who has described herself as basically a first-generation immigrant - she was born in London, but grew up in Lagos and only moved to the UK when she was 16.

For our Canadian friends I think she will be paying very, very close attention to Poilievre (I'm not so sure Jenrick would have been as interested).

Edit: And I think the Tories slightly enjoy it because it does really annoy Labour people that they're still electing middle-aged white men as leader (despite Labour people also being the people voting for those middle aged white men ). But I think Sunder Katwala has made an interesting point that there's a reasonable case that the Tories have the best record of any party in Europe (and possibly anywhere in the West) in normalising female and minority leadership. It's true across the nations and regions too - you think of Ruth Davidson, a lesbian mum (and very, very successful Tory leader in Scotland), gay metro-mayors etc.

I think something of it must just be the confidence of being one of the most successful political parties in the democratic world. While "imputed bigotry" is, I think, still a big issue for Labour.

[Josquius]

Oh sure. They're majority evil. But there is a sizable minority who are merely wrong. Had heard given the circumstances and everything that we'd expect a sizable number with spoiled ballots....but no.

As to the tories and diversity.... I do think there's a sizable amount of cynicism involved. They actively targeted installing minorities in safe seats precisely because they knew a decade ago + they were seen as the nasty racist party and they had to put up a smoke screen.
And of course look at any group of people and you'll find some who believe anything. Or at least can play that part.

I'm pretty Meh oh the whole thing. There doubtless is a old school working class minority at the labour grass roots making things unpleasant for anyone not part of their boys club and this needs mending.
And the lack of a female leader will be a natural outgrowth of this of course. Much like the lack of gay male footballers.
But the overall issue of the leader always being old white guys rather than women or minorities... Meh. Pick the best person no matter who they are.
Sometimes the middle aged straight cis white guy is the best choice-and when you've only one position with a low turnover this sometimes will naturally crop up a fair bit.

It's funny though. As it's tory members who are the ones who'll normally moan about diversity quotas and such.

[Sheilbh]

Oh sure. They're majority evil. But there is a sizable minority who are merely wrong. Had heard given the circumstances and everything that we'd expect a sizable number with spoiled ballots....but no.

As to the tories and diversity.... I do think there's a sizable amount of cynicism involved. They actively targeted installing minorities in safe seats precisely because they knew a decade ago + they were seen as the nasty racist party and they had to put up a smoke screen.
And of course look at any group of people and you'll find some who believe anything. Or at least can play that part.

You've said this a few times and it's not really true. The Tories don't generally install candidates anywhere of any type. The way they have boosted the diversity of their MPs was initially through Cameron's A List which was a list of candidates who would have special training from HQ and be pushed onto the shortlists of local parties in winnable seats (not necessarily safe seats - I lived in a swing constituency in London with a, dreadful, A-Lister). But they're on the shortlist and still need to win the nomination from the local party - and there was a lot of resistance to it from local parties who consider picking their MPs one of their key prerogatives. What was striking in retrospect was that Cameron didn't use the A List to try and enforce ideological unity - they weren't all lined up behind him and A Listers include, say, Priti Patel. But for example, I believe Patel, Badenoch, Sunak, Cleverly, Braverman (not all A Listers I don't think) won their local selections against standard Tory type candidates by performing really well with their local parties.

That is very different from Labour which has had all women shortlists, is considering all Black and Asian shortlists, and as we've seen with Starmer (but also happened under New Labour) does have a history of parachuting ideologically sound candidates who'll back the leadership into safe seats (not just winnable ones). And similarly it is cynical to say "we're doing badly with minorities and no longer look like modern Britain, therefore we need to take active steps to change that" - but is it bad? Isn't that what you want institutions to do?

I can't really explain why Labour are so bad at picking women when given the opportunity because anyone you meet from Labour circles will always say they want to elect a woman leader. But on other minorities I think it does help explain why the parliamentary Labour Party is significantly more diverse than the Tories, but the Tory leadership/ministerial level is often more diverse. The Tories go out of their way to recruit women and minorities as candidates who they think will go far. From my understanding there is specialised training for the people the Tories have identified as future "stars", including in how to get selected. But the intent is always (and they've always done this with candidates) that some are expected to be future ministers while others will just be backbench fodder - and the focus on minority recruitment has been the former.

Minority Labour activists who have tried to become MPs have said the single biggest obstacle they face is imputed bigotry. The selection is made by local party activists who will basically say that they're not racist, they'd love to support x candidate - but unfortunately literally every other person in the constituency is a bigot so they, regrettably, have to vote for the white guy again or they'd lose the seat. This doesn't seem to be an issue for Tory selections in nearly the same way. But I think it also means that Labour Black and Asian MPs tend to come from a narrower type of seat, that tends to have a more left-wing local party which means they're often on the left of the party so normally for factional reasons out of ministerial consideration (there are exceptions, like Florence Eshalomi or Miatta Fahnbulleh).

And semi-related to that I don't agree with Diane Abbott's politics on lots of issues, but I quite like her and I have a lot of respect for her. Over the last 10 years while the Tories have become more diverse in parliament, I can't help but be really struck at the way Abbott is treated or just hung out to dry by the rest of her party and party leadership compared to, say, Priti Patel, Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman. The Tories absolutely rally behind them, they circle the wagons and everyone is out there in the media to defend them. You think of Johnson WhatsApping all Tory MPs to "form a square round 'The Prittster'" during one of her scandals - loads of supportive, softball questions in parliament, flooding social media and getting on media to defend her. None of that happens for Diane Abbott or other Black women especially in the Labour Party.

On both counts I don't think local Labour parties are rejecting Black and Asian candidates because of their race. I also don't think a lot of Labour MPs at best leave Abbott to be attacked (at worst join in) because of her race, I think it's mainly factional reason. But if you ignore the intent and look at the result I think Labour has a problem as a political party (no comment on their or the Tories policies).

I'm pretty Meh oh the whole thing. There doubtless is a old school working class minority at the labour grass roots making things unpleasant for anyone not part of their boys club and this needs mending.
And the lack of a female leader will be a natural outgrowth of this of course. Much like the lack of gay male footballers.
But the overall issue of the leader always being old white guys rather than women or minorities... Meh. Pick the best person no matter who they are.
Sometimes the middle aged straight cis white guy is the best choice-and when you've only one position with a low turnover this sometimes will naturally crop up a fair bit.

So on sexuality as you've mentioned - I've said before but I've known a few Spads and really committed activists for both parties and the Tories are incredibly, incredibly gay Labour on the other hand, in my experience, can be very very laddish (but not really lads because they've got a first in PPE from Oxford, but are performing a working class laddish heritage) in a way that can be a bit off-putting if you're not "one of the boys". I think the stuff about Starmer's office being a "boy's club" is interesting and will come up again.

But also my concern is that I think the way Labour are treating different types of minority voters and MPs (black women, Muslims etc) reminds me of the sort of warning signs twenty years ago of discontent in other previously reliably Labour constituencies like Scotland and working class communities. I hope Labour stops and fixes it before realising those voters could go somewhere else because they do.

It's funny though. As it's tory members who are the ones who'll normally moan about diversity quotas and such.

Well as I say - they don't have diversity quotas, but keep managing to get the firsts. Labour do and don't.

[Josquius]

You've said this a few times and it's not really true. The Tories don't generally install candidates anywhere of any type. The way they have boosted the diversity of their MPs was initially through Cameron's A List which was a list of candidates who would have special training from HQ and be pushed onto the shortlists of local parties in winnable seats (not necessarily safe seats - I lived in a swing constituency in London with a, dreadful, A-Lister).  But they're on the shortlist and still need to win the nomination from the local party - and there was a lot of resistance to it from local parties who consider picking their MPs one of their key prerogatives.

So they don't install minorities in safe seats but they do install minorities in safe seats?
That they still have to get over the hurdle of the local party saying OK is common to Labour too.

What was striking in retrospect was that Cameron didn't use the A List to try and enforce ideological unity - they weren't all lined up behind him and A Listers include, say, Priti Patel. But for example, I believe Patel, Badenoch, Sunak, Cleverly, Braverman (not all A Listers I don't think) won their local selections against standard Tory type candidates by performing really well with their local parties

Yes. This is the key difference.
Labour uses parachuting to fight its internal ideological battles.
The Tories use it more wisely from a political POV.

That is very different from Labour which has had all women shortlists, is considering all Black and Asian shortlists, and as we've seen with Starmer (but also happened under New Labour) does have a history of parachuting ideologically sound candidates who'll back the leadership into safe seats (not just winnable ones). And similarly it is cynical to say "we're doing badly with minorities and no longer look like modern Britain, therefore we need to take active steps to change that" - but is it bad? Isn't that what you want institutions to do?

No.
I think MPs should be representative of their area.
Labour's minority candidates tend to actually come from the area they're representing, or at least similar places. They represent areas with sizable minorities.
As the main local example; Sunak and Richmond though?...really? That's got to be one of the whitest places in the country.
Sure, race shouldn't matter ideally, maybe he really represents Richmond in some other way, maybe he has good links to farming or the military or...nope. None of that either. Its just a safe Tory seat and he was a young up and coming Tory in need of a seat with the added bonus of being brown.

The less cynical 'nicest' way (though no doubt ineffective so understandable why they want another way) for the Tories to improve their minority showing would be minority Tories in areas they personally have a link to or which have large minority representation. Sunak in Southampton or a London seat for instance.

And semi-related to that I don't agree with Diane Abbott's politics on lots of issues, but I quite like her and I have a lot of respect for her. Over the last 10 years while the Tories have become more diverse in parliament, I can't help but be really struck at the way Abbott is treated or just hung out to dry by the rest of her party and party leadership compared to, say, Priti Patel, Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman. The Tories absolutely rally behind them, they circle the wagons and everyone is out there in the media to defend them. You think of Johnson WhatsApping all Tory MPs to "form a square round 'The Prittster'" during one of her scandals - loads of supportive, softball questions in parliament, flooding social media and getting on media to defend her. None of that happens for Diane Abbott or other Black women especially in the Labour Party.
On both counts I don't think local Labour parties are rejecting Black and Asian candidates because of their race. I also don't think a lot of Labour MPs at best leave Abbott to be attacked (at worst join in) because of her race, I think it's mainly factional reason. But if you ignore the intent and look at the result I think Labour has a problem as a political party (no comment on their or the Tories policies).

As you say that's not really a related issue though.
The Tories rallied around Pattel as she was doing a job they saw as necessary. Saying the really horrid things that are necessary for fighting Farage & Co. but absolute poison for the general population.
They more or less agreed with her but their job was to step more carefully.
Abbot on the other hand represents the far left against a centre left leadership. She represents something many wish they didn't have in the party.
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if say Lammy or someone else in the in-crowd got racist crap thrown their way the way Abbot had.

But also my concern is that I think the way Labour are treating different types of minority voters and MPs (black women, Muslims etc) reminds me of the sort of warning signs twenty years ago of discontent in other previously reliably Labour constituencies like Scotland and working class communities. I hope Labour stops and fixes it before realising those voters could go somewhere else because they do.

Here though...I think we have to remember politics doesn't exist in a vacuum. Society and attitudes in general are changing.
I do think its quite inevitable the reliable minority vote for Labour will go away as minorities become ever more integrated and race becomes less and less important of an issue. They will start to vote far more as they would if they were white but all else the same.
Which yeah, is something to deal with... but maybe not in the way people assume.

[Sheilbh]

So they don't install minorities in safe seats but they do install minorities in safe seats?
That they still have to get over the hurdle of the local party saying OK is common to Labour too.

Ish - Labour have form for presenting a short-list of one and, as I say, do have all-women shortlists and have considered all ethnic minority shortlists.

The Tories don't. They basically have the Rooney rule instead.

Yes. This is the key difference.
Labour uses parachuting to fight its internal ideological battles.
The Tories use it more wisely from a political POV.

Is it more wise? I mean Cameron changed the face of his party in terms of diversity, which was positive. But those A-Listers also included people (like Sunak) who went on to back Brexit and destroy Cameron's premiership.

I actually think it more reflects Cameron's insouciance and foolishness - I think he basically thought that if you're (like Sunak) a well-educated, London dwelling professional who's been tempted into Tory politics then you will inevitably be on the same side as Cameron.

No.
I think MPs should be representative of their area.
Labour's minority candidates tend to actually come from the area they're representing, or at least similar places. They represent areas with sizable minorities.

I totally disagree. Most importantly I think you can represent an area without being representative of that area. That's what MPs are for. But also I have less of a feudal sense of being tied to the land - people move. I've lived in Liverpool, London, Scotland, Oxfordshire, Bristol I don't know where my area is.

And I find the "similar places" a bit weird too because, say a London constituency like Peckham, Barnsley, Leicester are three very different areas but all have pretty large communities. I don't think you could inter-change MPs between them because areas with sizable minorities are somehow basically the same.

But also I think there are too many very local MPs. This parliament has more local councillors than any before it but they've been steadily increasing for the last 25 years because people really like local MPs but they're wrong and I think it's part of why our politics has got worse. You have MPs who are basically, broadly seen as backbench fodder by their party leaderships, who treat the job as being a glorified local councillor dealing with hyperlocal problems and their constituency's perspective. MPs are there to legislate on national issues in the national interest. I think we are lacking in national figures and have plenty of underwhelming parochial, "very good local MPs".

As the main local example; Sunak and Richmond though?...really? That's got to be one of the whitest places in the country.
Sure, race shouldn't matter ideally, maybe he really represents Richmond in some other way, maybe he has good links to farming or the military or...nope. None of that either. Its just a safe Tory seat and he was a young up and coming Tory in need of a seat with the added bonus of being brown.

Sure but two points on that. One is if it wasn't for his race (and religion) it wouldn't be questioned. Son of a pharmacist and GP in Hampshire, goes to the local private school, then Oxford, few years in financial services and doing an MBA before being recruited to run in a safe Tory seat - in this case in North Yorkshire. There is nothing unusual about that - look at, say, George Osborne in Cheshire. The reason you're noting it, while saying race shouldn't matter, is that Sunak is British Asian and Hindu.

But also I think this does get to the point for Labour - because the young up-and-coming future Labour ministers are (generally), say Ed Miliband (Doncaster), Yvette Cooper (Wakefield), Rachel Reeves (Leeds) etc. I think the Tories have perhaps been better at recruiting diverse potential MPs who they expect to become Ministers while letting the backbench lobby fodder be the red-trouser brigade, while Labour have done the opposite (arguably as they did with working class communities).

Again I think Labour are maybe getting better at this with great local candidates like Florence Eshalomi and Miatta Fahnbulleh (although both in very left-wing constituencies and likely to be under constant pressure from their local party).

The less cynical 'nicest' way (though no doubt ineffective so understandable why they want another way) for the Tories to improve their minority showing would be minority Tories in areas they personally have a link to or which have large minority representation. Sunak in Southampton or a London seat for instance.

So for minority candidates to run in Labour seats where they'd lose?

As you say that's not really a related issue though.

I think that matters for intent - but I think in outcome it is related.

And we could maybe carve it away but I do think Labour need to confront why they've not yet elected a female leader while every other major party has (and the Tories are on their fourth), and why their current cabinet is less diverse than the cabinets of the last five years of majority Tory rule. My argument is it is related to the reasons that minority MPs in the Labour Party tend to be on the left opposing the leadership and being abandoned by that leadership and the rest of their supposed comrades.

Here though...I think we have to remember politics doesn't exist in a vacuum. Society and attitudes in general are changing.
I do think its quite inevitable the reliable minority vote for Labour will go away as minorities become ever more integrated and race becomes less and less important of an issue. They will start to vote far more as they would if they were white but all else the same.
Which yeah, is something to deal with... but maybe not in the way people assume.

I think that's sort of already the case. My understanding is that if you adjust for age and education (which are the key indicators of how someone will vote), then race is broadly not an indicator of how someone will vote. The difference is a reflection of the fact that those communities are younger and the education mix.

There was some really interesting research breaking down different minority communities over the last two elections - one trend I thought was really interesting was that basically minorities vote their "class" more obviously. So basically university education and better pay correlates more with voting Tory (as it used to for everyone), in a way that isn't really the case with white British voters. It feels a bit like white British voters are voting on "cultural" identity while minority Britain is more economic.

[Josquius]

Is it more wise? I mean Cameron changed the face of his party in terms of diversity, which was positive. But those A-Listers also included people (like Sunak) who went on to back Brexit and destroy Cameron's premiership.

I actually think it more reflects Cameron's insouciance and foolishness - I think he basically thought that if you're (like Sunak) a well-educated, London dwelling professional who's been tempted into Tory politics then you will inevitably be on the same side as Cameron.

True, many of the people that ended up coming through have been awful. But they've certainly been successful.

I totally disagree. Most importantly I think you can represent an area without being representative of that area. That's what MPs are for. But also I have less of a feudal sense of being tied to the land - people move. I've lived in Liverpool, London, Scotland, Oxfordshire, Bristol I don't know where my area is.

I don't mean you have to be born and raised in an area to represent it. But you should have SOME link to an area. Something to connect you to the people there.
It could be that you're from that seat or somewhere near by, maybe you've just been living there the past 5 years, maybe you served in the navy and its a seat with a big navy base, maybe even your home town halfway across the country had a similar profile to this town.

For you for instance, assuming all else lined up for being an MP, you could represent a Highlands, Bristol, or a London seat just fine (I know your family is Scouse but you lived there? Oxfordshire is a mystery to me).

And I find the "similar places" a bit weird too because, say a London constituency like Peckham, Barnsley, Leicester are three very different areas but all have pretty large communities. I don't think you could inter-change MPs between them because areas with sizable minorities are somehow basically the same.

London and Barnsley are not similar no.
Somebody born and raised in a village in Norfolk representing a rural seat in Shropshire though? There's a link there.

But also I think there are too many very local MPs. This parliament has more local councillors than any before it but they've been steadily increasing for the last 25 years because people really like local MPs but they're wrong and I think it's part of why our politics has got worse. You have MPs who are basically, broadly seen as backbench fodder by their party leaderships, who treat the job as being a glorified local councillor dealing with hyperlocal problems and their constituency's perspective. MPs are there to legislate on national issues in the national interest. I think we are lacking in national figures and have plenty of underwhelming parochial, "very good local MPs".

I couldn't disagree more. I see a key problem in the UK as more that MPs only care about their seat as far as getting the 40% of votes to win the next election goes. This leads to areas that will safely fall behind one party or another being largely taken for granted and never getting a mention as their MP concentrates on issues that improve things in more competitive areas.
This could go too far of course, we don't want local populists who will actively sabotage Manchester because they represent a Liverpool city.  People should still look out for the wellbeing of their region and the country overall. But its their job to represent their constituency and this should be their main job.
Its a flaw in the British system that 'success' means being given these responsibilities that take 300% of your time and leaves your home constituency almost unrepresented.
I've often mused in the "Would be nice but never gonna happen" way that this could be perhaps where the Lords could have a utility in the future, as a place for these politicians with a more national focus, so safe seats aren't punished with a lack of representation.

ure but two points on that. One is if it wasn't for his race (and religion) it wouldn't be questioned. Son of a pharmacist and GP in Hampshire, goes to the local private school, then Oxford, few years in financial services and doing an MBA before being recruited to run in a safe Tory seat - in this case in North Yorkshire. There is nothing unusual about that - look at, say, George Osborne in Cheshire. The reason you're noting it, while saying race shouldn't matter, is that Sunak is British Asian and Hindu.

Thats just not true.
Go back a few pages you will see I was raising questions about Labour parachuting some (white) randomer into North Durham. You always hear questions being raised about this sort of behaviour.
Is Sunak's religion an issue in anyway at all?

So for minority candidates to run in Labour seats where they'd lose?

As said I understand why the Tories took the path they did.
But purely from a outside judgey 'tut tut' perspective- if they have a reputation as the nasty racist party who minorities don't like, and they want to push forward minority candidates to represent minorities...those minorities should be the ones they actually win round.
So largely yes.

And we could maybe carve it away but I do think Labour need to confront why they've not yet elected a female leader while every other major party has (and the Tories are on their fourth), and why their current cabinet is less diverse than the cabinets of the last five years of majority Tory rule. My argument is it is related to the reasons that minority MPs in the Labour Party tend to be on the left opposing the leadership and being abandoned by that leadership and the rest of their supposed comrades.

Sure, ish.
But as in all things around diversity I do think they need to step carefully here. The longer it goes on the less likely it is that it is just pure chance that throws up men as consistently the best candidate- but its not impossible that this happens.
With Labour especially there's a big trap here in feeding the culture warriors desperate efforts to play the woke game.

As to Labour being less diverse...disagree.  Purely looking at skin colour yes. But Labour's cabinet has a huge representation of working class people from across the country.
The idea that Britain doesn't "Do" racism is of course bollocks, but the argument that this is more America's core issue whilst for us its class is definitely one I believe in.
The powerful circles in this country have little problem accepting public school educated, Oxbridge PPE, poshos no matter their colour. A full-on working class Scouser though?....Thats a barrier that I'd like to see tackled.

[Josquius]

Semi related on the topic of race et al, read this today and found it interesting.
The experiences of Gary Bennet, one of the first black footballers in the north east back in the 80s.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/nov/04/gary-bennett-sunderland-racism-football-diversity?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[mongers]

New Tory leader showing her class:

It comes after Kemi Badenoch urged Sir Keir to apologise for "derogatory" comments made about Trump by David Lammy before he was foreign secretary.

In her first appearance in Parliament as Conservative leader, she pressed Sir Keir on how Trump's election would affect UK policies on trade and defence.

Badenoch asked the prime minister if he would push for Trump to get an invitation to address Parliament, but did not receive a direct reply.

[HVC]

Hiya mongers!

[Josquius]

Because apparently sometimes Tamas just needs a kicking.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/07/cost-of-shed-to-protect-bat-colony-near-hs2-has-topped-100m-chair-says?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Tamas]

OMFG 

[Sheilbh]

One for Tamas

Cost of 'bat shed' to protect colony near HS2 has topped £100m, chair says
Jon Thompson tells industry conference there was 'no evidence' that bats were at risk from the trains
Gwyn Topham Transport correspondent
Thu 7 Nov 2024 14.13 GMT


Artist's impression of the Sheephouse Wood bat protection structure, which will allow bats to cross above the railway. Photograph: HS2/PA

The cost of a "bat shed" to protect a species in woodland along the new HS2 high-speed line has risen to more than £100m, HS2's chair has revealed.

The 1km-long mesh structure will be built where the London-Birmingham high-speed line emerges from a tunnel in Buckinghamshire, to protect a colony of Bechstein's bats.

Describing it as a "blot on the landscape" built with "no evidence" that bats were at risk from the trains, Sir Jon Thompson said: "This shed, you're not going to believe this, cost more than £100m."

Thompson, questioned at an industry conference about the huge costs of building HS2, said the railway's budget was driven partly by legal constraints and the demands of conflicting agencies, as well as government indecision, with more than 8,000 different permits needed along the route.

He gave the example of the Sheephouse Wood bat protection structure, adding: "We call it a shed."

Thompson told the Rail Industry Association conference in London: "To build a railway between Euston and Curzon Street in Birmingham, I need 8,276 consents from other public bodies, planning, transport, the Environment Agency or Natural England. They don't care whether parliament did or didn't approve building a railway."

He said the "bat shed" was his favourite example of the problems caused. The Bechstein's bat was "generally pretty available in most of northern Europe, western Europe", he said. "But nevertheless, under the Wildlife Act, 1981, it's deemed to be a protected species in the UK, this bat, even though there's lots of them."

The bat is rare in the UK and deemed to be "vulnerable" in Europe, according to the IUCN conservation network's red list.

Thompson added: "No evidence, by the way, that high-speed trains interfere with bats, but leave it on one side."

HS2 had to obtain a licence from Natural England, which approved the bat mitigation structure, before asking planning permission from Buckinghamshire county council, he said.

"So when we go to [the] council and say: 'Would you like to give us planning permission for this blot on the landscape that costs £100m', of course, the answer to that is, you've got to be joking, right? Why would [they] like this eyesore?

"So now I've got two different bodies. One says I have to do it. The other one says: 'No chance'. So what do you do? I reach for the lawyers and the environmental specialists and hydrologists and so on and so forth. It stretches out the time. I spend hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to do something, and then in the end, I win the planning commission by going over [the county council's] head."

Thompson said there were "loads of those examples", concluding: "People have this simplistic way of saying: 'Oh, you've gone over the budget. Oh, yeah. OK. But do people think about the bat?'"

Natural England's chief operating officer Oliver Harmar said: "Natural England has not required HS2 to adopt this structure, nor advised on the design or cost. Our input has been to comment on whether the proposed mitigations will work. That is our duty under the Habitats Regulation.

"HS2 Ltd is required by legislation to avoid harm to the environment and it is for them to make choices, consider risks and factor in costs when deciding how to do this, whether by avoiding species and sites protected for nature or by investing in mitigation to limit harm where the route passes through sensitive sites."

According to HS2, more than 20 alternative proposals were considered but discounted as even more costly or failing to protect the bats and therefore illegal. A Treasury-commissioned review in 2021 undertaken by DfT, Defra and Arup concluded the "bat shed" remained the most viable solution.

The HS2 chair said that, to reduce costs, "the government needs to be a better client and make quicker decisions ... They can take six months to make a decision most of us would make across the boardroom on a Friday. There are problems across the system."

Ministers last month said that the scale of HS2's budget overspend to build the line from London to Birmingham was still unclear. Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, said the cost overrun could be between £10bn and £20bn. HS2 Ltd gave the government an upper projection of £74bn last September for the first phase.

The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has nonetheless committed to funding the tunnels into Euston, after the project was trimmed and mired in uncertainty last year by Rishi Sunak.

Also why I was always a little wary of Guardian stories about the risk to our precious institutions and normal procedures from the Trumpian Tory politicisation and deregulation. I'm not convinced all process is good or working as it should be and I suspect someone's going to have to take a bit of an axe to it sooner or later - and it was Boris Johnson who appointed a former Green parliamentary candidate and president of Friends of the Earth to chair Natural England.

As someone who worked for a firm that did a lot of work for HMG, the "be a better client" thing is very true. Long, long decision making gaps while they consult various stakeholders followed by absolute urgency (On the upside, they pay their bills on time )

[Sheilbh]

Because apparently sometimes Tamas just needs a kicking.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/07/cost-of-shed-to-protect-bat-colony-near-hs2-has-topped-100m-chair-says?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Snap!