Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

Cars don't strike. If public transportation workers couldn't strike i could be more convinced to dislike cars
.. but thats unlikely. And I dont even drive but I understand and acknowledge their usefulness

[Josquius]

Pedestrians were there first

Lord Dening on this (normally a great writer, but wrong - in this case, rarely, a great writer and right, but in a minority in the Court of Appeal so still wrong ):

This reads like something from long ago. I hope it is?
As I thought there were agent of change laws now and a Google shows this cricket club still exists thank woden.

There's been a trend of this in London of people about my age buying flats about 10-15 years ago in the areas they loved to go out in. And now they're older and they're putting pressure on local councils to turn down or reduce the licensed hours for nightlife in those same areas. It's been a bit of a contentious issue in Hackney - but sort of true with Westminster too and balancing the interests of nightlife and the night economy and the people it serves (who don't necessarily live there) and residents who do (and have the vote).
My broad view is that if you move to Soho or Dalston, it's like moving to Downing Street and complaining about Big Ben. It was there before you, it should be there after you. (For example, I think local residents really opposed the pedestrianisation of Soho which was great during covid so it's now been cancelled Admittedly I don't think people who live in central London should be allowed cars )   

Broadly yes.

On cars though it's funny this goes the other way.
Low traffic neighbourhoods are generally popular with the overwhelming majority of people who live in those streets....
But because people from elsewhere in the area lose their rat runs they hate them and they get ripped out.


I'd go further with night life. Not just if it was there before. If it serves a social good all efforts should be made to make it work anyway.
They have to take sufficient measures to ensure noise dampening for neighbours. But generally live music is to be encouraged wherever.

[Sheilbh]

Cars don't strike. If public transportation workers couldn't strike i could be more convinced to dislike cars
.. but thats unlikely. And I dont even drive but I understand and acknowledge their usefulness

Cars not striking is part of the problem

[Sheilbh]

This reads like something from long ago. I hope it is?
As I thought there were agent of change laws now and a Google shows this cricket club still exists thank woden.

It's law of nuisance and from the 70s.

Although I actually prefer my judges out of touch with the modern world: "what is a 'Gazza'?"

Edit: It's a bit like trendy bishops - from an aesthetic perspective it seems wrong.

[crazy canuck]

This reads like something from long ago. I hope it is?
As I thought there were agent of change laws now and a Google shows this cricket club still exists thank woden.

It's law of nuisance and from the 70s.

I thought he was referring to Lord Denning's rather unique judicial writing style.

[Sheilbh]

Oh yeah sorry I meant that judgement is from the 70s and that it was law of nuisance not to do with change of use or licensing or anything like that (wasn't sure what "agent of change laws" meant).

[HVC]

Cars don't strike. If public transportation workers couldn't strike i could be more convinced to dislike cars
.. but thats unlikely. And I dont even drive but I understand and acknowledge their usefulness

Cars not striking is part of the problem

I love you as much as I can a nebulous internet person, but you're wrong and should feel ashamed

[Sheilbh]

To take a sudden swerve to the serious - on asylum and small boats, one of the government's big "successes" has been negotiating a deal with the French government on this. They've tried to send a small number of people back to France several times this week and been stopped by judicial review and court hearing.

The flight today was cancelled following a claim from an Eritrean asylum seeker (I should say my default position is that any Eritrean should be granted asylum). His claim against being deported to France was because of the "real risk of destitution" and a modern slavery claim (basically around people trafficking). On the destitution point he argued this was why he came to the UK as traveling through Europe he saw lots of people who were homeless so there would be no support for him in those countries and proceeded to the UK. That claim was rejected.

On the modern slavery point the Home Office said they had investigated and rejected his claim that he was a victim of modern slavery but conceded that he had the right to make representations and they wouldn't expect him to do that from France. So the judge granted an injunction pending further judicial review of whether the Home Office has carried out their duties to investigate the modern slavery claim in a lawful manner.

This is where I think there do need to be changes of law because this is how we end up  losing everything the system just being metaphorically torn to the ground. This is where it, I think, just loses all legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the public. If even the international law following, doing deals with partners, still following process approach ends up not being possible then we will end up with voters saying they need someone who will just stop it all - especially with genuinely sinister forces at play. They need to get a grip on this stuff.

(And I'd add this is all very, very reminiscent of the back and forth New Labour Home Secretaries had with the judiciary over asylum under David Blunkett.)

[Josquius]

Further to all this apparently fears within Number 10 that the left have acquired a stash of emails from within Labour HQ that will be damaging to various staffers around Starmer - like this story.

Separately reports the OBR (who should be abolished) have reduced their estimates of productivity which means the likelihood of tax rises in order for Reeves to meet her fiscal rules increases and there's a limited base to do it from given her electoral promises. I'd add to that that Treasury kite-flying of different tax ideas seems to have had an impact in the real world. Huge withdrawal of lump-sums from pensions following the (unconfired, undenied rumour) of taxing those pensions. At the same time, given the triple lock pensions will increase by 4.7% next year which is a fair bit higher than growth.

Reports of cabinet ministers speculating whether Starmer will last until Christmas (in the short term - I think a leadership challenge now-ish helps Streeting/the right).

Meanwhile having promised a laser focus on growth as well as decarbonising the grid by 2030 - which in 2023 required that we build more grid infrastructure in those seven years than we've built in the last 30 - the Government Office for Science has launched a new set of 8 principles to "consider the social dimensions of grid transformation" which I'm sure won't slow anything down - not least because we haven't actually accelerated

Meanwhile we're coming up to the one year anniversary of one of the government's big ideas for growth, the National Wealth Fund. So far it has committed £2.5 billion of investment - but I'm sure they've profoundly considered all sorts of "dimensions".

Would a change of management do away with the silly austerity promises? Or would they still feel beholden to that?

Oh yeah sorry I meant that judgement is from the 70s and that it was law of nuisance not to do with change of use or licensing or anything like that (wasn't sure what "agent of change laws" meant).

I thought agent of change stuff had been set in law now? - basically if you move next to a nightclub, expect nightclub music, it was there first. If one opens next to you though then you have a right to complain.
I've heard it applies with farms too so hopefully with cricket. Though  this wasn't around in the 70s so wonder how they saved things.

[mongers]

Cars don't strike. If public transportation workers couldn't strike i could be more convinced to dislike cars
.. but thats unlikely. And I dont even drive but I understand and acknowledge their usefulness

Cars not striking is part of the problem

I love you as much as I can a nebulous internet person, but you're wrong and should feel ashamed

Cars are the ultimate predators, they consume people and entomb them in steel and plastic, all the while telling them 'they are free'. 

[Sheilbh]

Would a change of management do away with the silly austerity promises? Or would they still feel beholden to that?

I think there's a couple of sides to this.

One is that we are in a really bad position fiscally. I think France and the UK are basically in a race as to who will have a full blown fiscal crisis first - and both may be overtaken by Trump doing something mad in the US and it blowing up for us (that would be the best option for a Labour chancellor). During the Truss Premiership our borrowing costs spiked above the rest of the G7. Commentators nicknamed this the "moron premium" and Labour slightly picked that up. It settled down and we returned to within G7 norms under Sunak. For most of the past year we have been paying a "moron premium" again where borrowing is more expensive for us - the BofE is continuing with QT which is not helpful for the bond market, structurally there are big shifts under way in demand for government bonds. Also one really technical problem for us is that we have quite a lot of bonds linked to inflation - it's more of the mix in gilts than other government bonds - that was great in the 2010s (when we didn't take advantage of it) but now when we have more stubborn inflation than the rest of the major economies (and more signs of a risk of wage-price spirals), it's a problem.

I say all of that because Reeves is a dreadful chancellor who is not up to the job - much like her PM - but the markets do not like the idea of basically any other Labour chancellor. So any change of management would, I think, be an even more constrained, narrower place.

Having said that I think a new PM and Chancellor could re-write the "fiscal rules" they choose to apply to themselves. They could revisit Reeves' approach to the OBR - it would be nice if we could move away from long term policy being shaped by forecasting that is about as accurate as auguries. That stuff I think would be more straightforward.

Breaking an election promise on taxes is going to be more difficult politically and will require a lot of pitch-rolling to build the argument for it. Also because it would be a shift within a party it's more difficult to do the "the last lot left a huge mess" as a lot of them would still be sat round the cabinet table (I think Burnham may be more able to pull this off than, say, Streeting).  But they've still got four years and I think the best route to using that is to take political risks and pain for what you think will be the right policies and hope/trust they pay off in four year's time.

I thought agent of change stuff had been set in law now? - basically if you move next to a nightclub, expect nightclub music, it was there first. If one opens next to you though then you have a right to complain.
I've heard it applies with farms too so hopefully with cricket. Though  this wasn't around in the 70s so wonder how they saved things.

Oh I looked it up and it's relatively recent and from what I can see a change in policies and guidance and frameworks but not actually law.

Semi-related, I see Starmer is saying he won't quit and blaming his team for not briefing him properly on Mandelson. This is a recurring theme with Starmer where he tries to shift the blame onto his team who, obviously, can't actually dispute that. It's a very unattractive trait in a leader.

And on that sort of thing, Wes Steeting getting an exclusive story like this in the Guardian seems a sign to me that he thinks a leadership race is coming soon-ish and is starting to make his pitch:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/16/we-must-tackle-rising-tide-of-racism-and-homophobia-claiming-to-be-free-speech-says-streeting

[Tamas]

Lol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/18/jeremy-corbyn-clashes-zarah-sultana-your-party-split

[HisMajestyBOB]

Lol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/18/jeremy-corbyn-clashes-zarah-sultana-your-party-split

Soon to be the Independent Alliance Party vs. the Alliance if Independents Party?

[Josquius]

It is quite amazing.
I'm signed up for their mailing list on my secondary address just to see what they're doing.


This morning :

Dear Vladimir,


Today is the day. Our membership portal is now open.

For too long, Britain's politics has been run in the interests of the rich and powerful. From Ayr to Aberystwyth, our new party is about changing that - taking power back for working people, communities and future generations.

Joining isn't just about signing up. It means taking part in a founding process that is genuinely democratic and member-led.

This is your chance to help build something new. A party that belongs to its members, not the establishment.

Sign up to join Your Party today!

In Solidarity,
Your Party

Now:

Dear Vladimir,

This morning, an unauthorised email was sent to all yourparty.uk supporters with details of a supposed membership portal hosted in a new domain name. Legal advice is being taken. That email should be ignored by all supporters. If any direct debits have been set up, they should be immediately cancelled.

The agreed process was announced on 1 August: the Independent Alliance Group of MPs – Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Iqbal Mohamed, Adnan Hussain, Shockat Adam and Ayoub Khan - are stewarding and accountable for the foundation process for the new party, leading to an inaugural democratic conference in the Autumn.

Earlier this week, we shared new details about the roadmap to the launch, including our plans for mass regional assemblies and our founding conference. Soon, you will be able to turn your support into membership at yourparty.uk, and shape the future of our party and our country.

In solidarity,

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Ayoub Khan MP

Adnan Hussain MP

Iqbal Mohamed MP

Shockat Adam MP

[Sheilbh]

Lol

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/18/jeremy-corbyn-clashes-zarah-sultana-your-party-split

Pros: there is space and demand for a party of the populist left which could shift British politics on issues like welfare, workers' rights and wallets, public goods, investment.

Cons: it will be run and organised by the British left.