Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

One of things I really liked/miss about the UK was the accessibility and variety of ready-made sandwiches. 

Over here, a grocery store will have much less obvious, much more limited variety/flavors.

I may appear to spite a few posters here, but today I had some egg sandwiches ( I needed to eat some salt promptly). 

Not on a rush hour train I hope?

[mongers]

One of things I really liked/miss about the UK was the accessibility and variety of ready-made sandwiches. 

Over here, a grocery store will have much less obvious, much more limited variety/flavors.

I may appear to spite a few posters here, but today I had some egg sandwiches ( I needed to eat some salt promptly). 

Not on a rush hour train I hope?

Luckily not; I suspect in the far future near 'perfect' condition BRS's will be dug up archaeologists  investigating railway stations, they will conclude they're some form of votive offering to the gods of the timetables, rather than as something as outlandish as food.

[PJL]

Schedules, one of the most dangerous things known to mankind. Many people have died as a result of trying to follow them.

[Sheilbh]

On the threat from Reform pose, I see in the FT they've now come out in support of renationalising Thames Water (which is in crisis, but eventually all the privatised water companies). This follows opposing the 2 child benefit cap, reversing the winter fuel payment cut, ending the BofE's implicit subsidy of the banking sector and introducing domestic preference in public procurement (particularly with an eye to supporting British Steel). I'd add on the other side, for example, calling for an investigation into the food delivery companies and other "gig economy" companies for whether they're doing immigration/right to work checks.

Obviously lots can happen - not least, hopefully, an effective Labour government - but that strikes me as the right direction for a populist party to try and win (not least because I think British voters are fundamentally conservative social democrats).

Also - and no idea how this sits with the Silicon Valley types - but striking that at the same time you have Trump wading in behind the longshoremen union in their opposition to automation on docks.

This probably means we'll now end up with some negative polarisation of people who would otherwise back it getting uncomfortable with water nationalisation because Reform back it.

[Admiral Yi]

What does the BoE's implicit subsidy mean?

[Sheilbh]

BofE is unusual among central banks in paying interest on all central bank reserve accounts which is basically a subsidy for certain entities entitled to create reserve accounts with the central bank.

Interest wasn't paid before the financial crisis and costs generally were basically immaterial because there basically wasn't any cash in them. They've since basically been used when the BofE is creating cash - so they're now used by commercial banks (and some other regulated entities) for managing payments to and from the state, but also with each other.

The BofE pays base rate on this. Until recently that wasn't much - about £1-2 billion a year. In recent years it's been up to £35 billion.

The ECB and BoJ both don't pay interest on this (though I think they pay it on part) other central banks normally link that to a requirement for entities to a proportion of their liquid assets reserved in the central bank. The BofE doesn't, but does pay interest on them all - which could work in a low rate, low inflation environment. At the minute it's a windfall for entities with those accounts (so if you want to keep it I'd probably have a windfall tax - but getting rid of it and moving a tiered plus minimum reserves system is I think the Reform proposal).

As with renationalisation, interesting as it's circulated for a while in left think-tanks but then been picked up by Farage (this is part of his wider campaign against banks after the whole "debanking" story).

[Sheilbh]

Something of interest to literally only me and Jos - but Labour proposal for local government reform sounds good

[Josquius]

I haven't read up on it much but doesn't seem so great to me.
20 years ago in County Durham there was a referendum on whether to switch from districts to single tier.
It was a complete disaster. Postal vote only and hardly advertised- it was ran alongside the regional devolution one.
Interestingly though the no on devolution was taken as the people have spoken for all time, this one was also rejected but they did it anyway.
I won't read correlation equals causation in this, a lot of bad stuff has happened over the period, but certainly it's been pretty continuous decline since.

Where it does seem good is in standardisation, local government is a messy mish mash in the UK.

[mongers]

Wessex will be reborn! 

[Sheilbh]

Labour MPs accuse Starmer of 'historic injustice' to Waspi women
Government apologises for maladministration but rejects pleas to compensate women born in the 1950s who were not aware of an increase to the state pension age
Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor | Aubrey Allegretti Chief Political Correspondent
Tuesday December 17 2024, 7.20pm, The Times

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused by Labour MPs of "historic injustice" in refusing compensation to millions of women over rises in the state pension age.

The prime minister was criticised for dealing another blow to pensioners already struggling with the loss of their winter fuel allowance. Campaigners are threatening to continue the fight in the courts.

Backbenchers lined up in the Commons to urge ministers to reconsider a decision to reject recommendations by the parliamentary ombudsman to pay women born in the 1950s up to £2,950 each.

Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, apologised for "maladministration" in the way changes to the state pension age were communicated to more than 3.5 million women two decades ago.

However, she dismissed the case for compensation, saying that these women had suffered "no direct financial loss" and that spending £10.5 billion on redress would not be "a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers' money".

The women against state pension inequality (Waspi) campaign arose from a decision in the 1990s to raise women's state pension age from 60 to 65, in line with men. The courts ruled ministers were entitled to make this change and had no legal duty to communicate it, while the ombudsman said the government had attempted to inform women through leaflets and an education campaign.

The ombudsman also ruled that ministers acted too slowly from 2004 onwards after research found that many women were unaware of the changes, saying a two-year delay in sending out personalised letters cost women a chance to adjust retirement plans.

In the Commons, Kendall insisted that 90 per cent of women knew of the changes and only a quarter actually read unsolicited letters.

"We cannot accept that, in the great majority of cases, sending a letter earlier would have affected whether women knew that their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunity to make informed decisions," she said.

Starmer said he understood the "concern" of the Waspi campaign, but insisted there was a "lack of direct financial injustice". He said: "I have to take into account whether it's right at the moment to impose a further burden on the taxpayer".

Brian Leishman, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, said he was appalled by the decision, which was "an incredible letdown" for campaigners. "Waspi women certainly do not need words of disappointment and hollow statements," he told the Commons.

Speaking to The Times, Leishman added: "It made me think of issues like Grenfell, Hillsborough and Orgreave. I think today is another one of those historic injustices that are a stain on society.

"It's important that many other Labour colleagues who feel in a similar boat show our collective view. That's a fight I am up for."

In the Commons, the Labour MPs Melanie Onn and Gareth Snell urged Kendall to reconsider. Onn said earlier that notice "would have made a difference to individuals' financial planning, their retirement dates, the notice they gave to their jobs, and the wider family arrangements and commitments".

Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP who has led opposition to removing winter fuel payments to ten million pensioners, said the decision was "a significant blow for women who have already had to work additional years". She said: "Clearly, I am concerned about the human cost of this policy. Labour must be on the side of the poorest pensioners."

A meeting between Kendall and concerned Labour MPs after her Commons statement was described by some attendees as heated.

Kendall did not give any assurances she would look again at the issue. Government insiders said they expected doing so would compound the possibility of legal challenge from Waspi campaigners.

Labour MPs now fear a significant political backlash following cuts to winter fuel payments. "There appears to be no political sense from the government," said one. "We're now being run by people who are completely detached from what people actually care about."

Another warned of "political risk", saying that "for some female pensioners, it's a second blow, after the fuel allowance decision".

Angela Madden, chairwoman of the Waspi campaign, accused ministers of a "bizarre and totally unjustified move" that would make "Donald Trump blush". Calling their reaction an insult, she warned: "An overwhelming majority of MPs back Waspi's calls for fair compensation and all options remain on the table. Parliament must now seek an alternative mechanism to force this issue."

Caroline Abrahams of Age UK said women were "right to feel aggrieved". She said: "Everyone understands that the public finances are under acute pressure but the government should not rub salt in the wounds of those affected by suggesting there is no case for compensation. The fact that many of the women affected will also be coping with the loss of their winter fuel payment this year will intensify their sense of injustice."

Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, Labour's biggest union backer, called the decision "a disgrace", adding: "Ministers are making the wrong choices — they need to turn back now because voters will not forgive them."

So I think it's the right decision. I don't really get the campaign. The law passed in 1995, the pension age started to rise incrementally in 2010 - I just struggle with the idea from campaigners that it was a shock in 2011 to discover that the pension age had increased and this would have been avoided had the government sent a mass mail out letter.

But no wonder people are cynical and no idea what Labour were thinking endorsing this in opposition. Keir Starmer in 2022 saying it was a "real injustice" and "we've got a government which has basically put its fingers in its ears." Angela Rayner in 2019 said the pension system stole the money from WASPI women and that Labour "will compensate them". And Liz Kendall - the minister responsible for this decision who announced it in the House today - talked about how the "injustice can't go on" and her pride at signing up for the campaign:


Just begging for anyone in politics who can look a little bit ahead, or, say, acknowledge there might need to be trade-offs and choices

[The Brain]

So pension age was important to them, but not important enough to pay any attention at all to related information? In Sweden a change like that would have been heavily reported in media when it happened, was it not so in the UK?

[Josquius]

I guess the problem is the gap between saying it was going to happen and then it happening.

Bad politics for sure.
But the continued kicking of the most priveleged in society and refusing to kowtow to their demands is pleasing.
Would be nice to see some sort of limited compensation for those below a certain threshold but then politically that would just lead to more moaning from the poor old middle class people who can't afford to leave the heating running full blast and all the windows open all day.

[The Brain]

I guess the problem is the gap between saying it was going to happen and then it happening.

When was that gap? The law was passed already in 1995.

[Gups]

So pension age was important to them, but not important enough to pay any attention at all to related information? In Sweden a change like that would have been heavily reported in media when it happened, was it not so in the UK?

It was. I personally have little sympathy but yet again, terrible politics from Labour.

[Admiral Yi]

But the continued kicking of the most priveleged in society and refusing to kowtow to their demands is pleasing.

What in God's name are you talking about?