Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

I think I know that piece about Birmingham you're referring to. Its a pretty common conspiracy around Birmingham apparently that the government deliberately damages Birmingham for its favourite child Manchester.
Really stunk way too much of tory divide and rule rather than anything based in reality.

As to Blair... Don't forget it was under him that we got devolution. There were greater plans for regional devolution in England too but they went too fast and too half arsed with it - really seems feasible there were competing interests within the government and it was deliberately sabotaged it was so half hearted and incompetent.
This is the sensible way to go for me. Giving every town independence is a bit mad in the 21st century but a regional level gives a decent balance

[Sheilbh]

I think I know that piece about Birmingham you're referring to. Its a pretty common conspiracy around Birmingham apparently that the government deliberately damages Birmingham for its favourite child Manchester.
Really stunk way too much of tory divide and rule rather than anything based in reality.

It was under the post-war governments though and didn't have much to do with Manchester I don't think. There were initially in the Attlee government restrictions on Birmingham's industrial growth, then under Wilson on its service sector growth:

Birmingham itself was second only to London for the creation of new jobs between 1951 and 1961. Unemployment in Birmingham between 1948 and 1966 rarely exceeded 1%, and only exceeded 2% in one year. By 1961 household incomes in the West Midlands were 13% above the national average, exceeding even than those of London and the South East. Although employment in Birmingham's restricted manufacturing sector shrank by 10% between 1951 and 1966, this was more than made up during the early post-war period for by employment in the service sector, which grew from 35% of the city's workforce in 1951 to 45% in 1966. As the commercial centre of the country's most successful regional economy, Central Birmingham was the main focus outside London for the post-war office building boom. Service sector employment in the Birmingham conurbation grew faster than in any other region between 1953 and 1964, and the same period saw 3 million sq ft of office space constructed in the city centre and Edgbaston. The city's economic boom saw the rapid growth of a substantial merchant banking sector, as major London and international banks established themselves within the city, and professional and scientific services, finance and insurance also grew particularly strongly. However this service sector growth itself attracted government restrictions from 1965. Declaring the growth in population and employment within Birmingham to be a "threatening situation", the incoming Labour Government of 1964 sought "to control the growth of office accommodation in Birmingham and the rest of the Birmingham conurbation before it got out of hand, in the same way as they control the growth of industrial employment". Although the City Council had encouraged service sector expansion during the late 1950s and early 1960s, central government extended the Control of Office Employment Act 1965 to the Birmingham conurbation from 1965, effectively banning all further office development for almost two decades.

Up until the 1930s it had been a basic assumption of Birmingham's leaders that their role was to encourage the city's growth. Post-war national governments, however, saw Birmingham's accelerating economic success as a damaging influence on the stagnating economies of the North of England, Scotland and Wales, and saw its physical expansion as a threat to its surrounding areas – "from Westminster's point of view was too large, too prosperous, and had to be held in check". A series of measures, starting with the Distribution of Industry Act 1945, aimed to prevent industrial growth in the "Congested Areas" – essentially the booming cities of London and Birmingham – instead encouraging the dispersal of industry to the economically stagnant "Development Areas" in the north and west. The West Midlands Plan, commissioned by the Minister for Town and Country Planning from Patrick Abercrombie and Herbert Jackson in 1946, set Birmingham a target population for 1960 of 990,000, far less than its actual 1951 population of 1,113,000. This meant that 220,000 people would have to leave the city over the following 14 years, that some of the city's industries would have to be removed, and that new industries would need to be prevented from establishing themselves in the city. By 1957 the council had explicitly accepted that it was obliged "to restrain the growth of population and employment potential within the city."

As to Blair... Don't forget it was under him that we got devolution. There were greater plans for regional devolution in England too but they went too fast and too half arsed with it - really seems feasible there were competing interests within the government and it was deliberately sabotaged it was so half hearted and incompetent.
This is the sensible way to go for me. Giving every town independence is a bit mad in the 21st century but a regional level gives a decent balance

Yes but even with devolution the devolved administrations don't have much revenue raising powers. They get allocated funding from Westminster for their services.

[Sheilbh]

Also - more on topic - the recent "row" between the UK and EU over a Brexit deal looks very, very coordinated. If I wasn't so suspicious of this government's competence, I'd almost suspect they were working closely with the Commission to have this argument so they can claim a "victory" and make a deal.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think it is important to bear in mind that both sides need to have a "victory"; and that shouldn't really be very difficult as trade deals are better than zero-sum. I think the fish offers loads of opportunity for concessions that don't really matter; just give things different names and preserve the status quo 

[Sheilbh]

I think it is important to bear in mind that both sides need to have a "victory"; and that shouldn't really be very difficult as trade deals are better than zero-sum. I think the fish offers loads of opportunity for concessions that don't really matter; just give things different names and preserve the status quo 

Yeah - I think the UK will give concessions on fish, not least because British governments fundamentally do not care as much about their fishermen and farmers as other European governments.

On "victories" there was a really interesting poll in various European countries and basically everyone thought the EU was getting the better of the UK. Except for France. No idea why - maybe it reflects higher Frexity/souverainiste politics than in most other countries so there's some people who are invested in the EU doing badly and the UK making a "success" of Brexit, or maybe it's natural (and appropriate) natural suspicion of the rosbifs?

[Tamas]

Yeah honestly I am not even paying attention that much, it can easily be just posturing before we bend over at the last moment like with the previous two Brexit-related agreements.

Although I would not put it past a frustrated arrogant cunt like Prime Minister Cummings to really torpedo a deal to spite, well, everyone.

[Duque de Bragança]

I think it is important to bear in mind that both sides need to have a "victory"; and that shouldn't really be very difficult as trade deals are better than zero-sum. I think the fish offers loads of opportunity for concessions that don't really matter; just give things different names and preserve the status quo 

Yeah - I think the UK will give concessions on fish, not least because British governments fundamentally do not care as much about their fishermen and farmers as other European governments.

On "victories" there was a really interesting poll in various European countries and basically everyone thought the EU was getting the better of the UK. Except for France. No idea why - maybe it reflects higher Frexity/souverainiste politics than in most other countries so there's some people who are invested in the EU doing badly and the UK making a "success" of Brexit, or maybe it's natural (and appropriate) natural suspicion of the rosbifs?

AS for France, more like the EU not being harsh enough on the Rosbifs, despite getting rid of them is obviously good news. 

[The Brain]

Yeah - I think the UK will give concessions on fish, not least because British governments fundamentally do not care as much about their fishermen and farmers as other European governments.

Well, British governments also don't care as much about the wellbeing of Britain as other European governments.

[Tamas]

Yeah - I think the UK will give concessions on fish, not least because British governments fundamentally do not care as much about their fishermen and farmers as other European governments.

Well, British governments also don't care as much about the wellbeing of Britain as other European governments.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I think the UK will give concessions on fish, not least because British governments fundamentally do not care as much about their fishermen and farmers as other European governments.

Well, British governments also don't care as much about the wellbeing of Britain as other European governments.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah - I think the UK will give concessions on fish, not least because British governments fundamentally do not care as much about their fishermen and farmers as other European governments.

Well, British governments also don't care as much about the wellbeing of Britain as other European governments.

It all makes sense if the government's principal plan is to assist oligarchic rentiers with interests in cushy government contracts and money-laundering.

[Sheilbh]

Amazingly the government have also managed to get into a fight with the Channel Islands about fishing (needless to say this has been quite a big story on the Channel Islands).

Basically I think the government was proposing to extend proposed UK fisheries law to the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands are not part of the UK and have never been part of the EU. There is a mechanism for the UK to extend UK law to the Channel Islands, but the External Affairs Minister of the Jersey government issued a statement today clarifying that it doesn't happen automatically, that it requires an Order in Council which can only happen following a recommendation from the Chief Minister and a vote in the States of Jersey. The government will not be making that recommendation and Jersey remains in control of their exclusive economic waters

It takes a lot for Channel Island politics to make the news on the mainland - it normally only happens when they're talking about something kind of comic like Sark, for example, introducing democracy or considering legalising divorce. But the government has managed to get into fights with Wales, Scotland, the EU, the North, London and the Channel Islands which is a fairly extraordinary record for a couple of weeks

[Richard Hakluyt]

Hubris from the 80 majority perhaps?

Which they got by being slightly preferred to Corbyn. Hardly a resounding endorsement.

The 1992 election was a good one to lose and it is increasingly looking like the 2019 election is the same in spades.

[Zanza]

I hope the EU does not give in on the substance of LPF and governance. No deal is better than a bad deal.

[Sheilbh]

There's an article behind this, but this tweet from James Forsyth feels like something that could work out for a campaign but is a catastrophic strategy for governing:

James Forsyth
@JGForsyth
There's a reason why No. 10 is always so inclined to ratchet up the tension. Downing Street's staff, and particularly the Vote Leave alumni, believe that one of their strengths is that in high-pressure situations, they stay calm while others panic

Always ratchetting up the tension is how you end up accidentally fighting a two fronts war against Jersey and Greater Manchester

Which they got by being slightly preferred to Corbyn. Hardly a resounding endorsement.

Yes - and I would add that as with the EU Withdrawal Agreement, May did most of the work

The 1992 election was a good one to lose and it is increasingly looking like the 2019 election is the same in spades.

Maybe. I mean they're still in the middle of all this level with Labour in the polls

(Although the rating of Johnson has collapsed and Starmer's doing well so...)