Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Gove's department has, absurdly been renamed the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (very on brand of the Tories to wipe out local government wherever they see it). More interestingly they've hired Andy Haldane with the Cabinet Office to come in as permanent secretary/civil service role responsible for "levelling up". I've almost certainly posted Andy Haldane pieces here - he spent about thirty years in the Bank of England and was, by the end of his time, the BofE's Chief Economist who wrote a lot of very interesting stuff - he's a heterodox economic thinker (if Corbyn had won, his economic team had discussed appointing Haldane as BofE Governor).

He has had big ideas/insights and in particular has shown an interest in regional inequality which is something that the BofE can't really do much about (see this New Statesman piece he wrote: https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/devolution/2021/03/how-remake-britain-why-we-need-community-capitalism).

I've said before that "levelling up" is still an incredibly nebulous concept in terms of what it means in policy terms, but that by appointing Gove Johnson may accidentally end up with policies. I think Gove is about the only minister whose reforms from the coalition government haven't been cancelled or aren't under review, he's probably one of the best Justice Secretary's we've ever had because of how quickly he could unwind all of Chris Grayling's work and when he was (briefly) at DEFRA he was proposing very interesting ideas. Basically he is very interested in doing things with his time in office and - despite his "enough of experts" line - in Justice and DEFRA he had a reputation of listening to experts across the field, really understanding and trying to work on what that meant in terms of government action. At education I think he stayed too long and was too confrontational (Cummings' influence perhaps) so he stopped listening. But I think of the current cabinet he is probably the minister you appoint if you want to actually reform something (which is why he hasn't had a department for the last 2 years), and if you're looking to put policy meat on the bones of "levelling up" then Andy Haldane is a very clever appointment. It might not work and I've no doubt it'll lead to stuff I disagree with but that's a combination of an interesting economic thinker with a very competent minister. So maybe "levelling up" will start to mean something at some point.

Separately on Northern Ireland and Ireland there's been a bit of a furore because the President of Ireland has pulled of a church service he was due to attend with the Queen to mark the creation of Northern Ireland. This service has been organised jointly by church leaders from across Ireland and is a joint Catholic-Protestant service in Armagh.

Higgens said the invitation incorrectly referred to him as the "president of the Republic of Ireland" rather than the "president of Ireland" - which doesn't seem to be true (https://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Michael-D-letter.jpg) but he also feels this was a religious service that had become a political statement. Again based on the letter of the church leaders organising the event it's difficult to see.

There's since been a poll and 80% of the Irish public agree with him for pulling out, but this is seen very negatively by unionists and with Sinn Fein taking the lead in the South in polls is another reason I'm not sure we'll see unification any time soon. Piece from Mick Fealty on this:

Michael D Higgins' shifting stories indicate a weakening defence of the Belfast Agreement
Mick Fealty on September 18, 2021, 8:45 am

I'm glad I put yesterday's blog out before President Higgins gave his 'explanation' about why he wasn't coming to this joint service, because in its absence I preferred to focus on the bigger picture and why it is important to move on.

When it did come out, many people, including here in the Slugger comment zone and elsewhere found  they had argued in the belief the President had been snubbed he was entitled take umbrage and refuse to come north.

This is the position historian Diarmaid Ferriter took on Talkback pushing at Gregory Campbell for having had the temerity to push back in the first place and ask for an explanation. But then the President's story didn't add up.

The Church leaders group (Ireland) had clearly put a lot of thought into their invitation. Why would they not? As they point out in their letter they are (just one of 147) all island bodies. They represent faith groups from Tralee to Portavogie.

They are not the kind of body that would get something as basic as the president's official title wrong. Even so though they all had to endure a Twitterised day of scorn and derision for something they were never likely to do.

In fact you can see for yourself the tone of the letter is pretty sober and the focus was certainly not one of celebration but of contemplation. What on earth Mr Higgins found to object in this remains a complete mystery to me:
    ...the opportunity for honest reflection of the past one hundred years, with the acknowledgment of failures and hurts, but also a clear affirmation of our shared commitment to building a future marked by peace, reconciliation and to the common good.

Now Higgins claims the title of the events is unacceptable: "A service of reflection and hope to mark the centenary of the partition of Ireland and the formation of Northern Ireland". Again any obvious logic here escapes me.

All I can see is the mention of Northern Ireland. And yet there's nothing in the constitution that would give substance any such objection. When people talk about the Belfast Agreement, Ireland is only of two confirming NI's existence.

The Good Friday Agreement is an international treaty (endorsed by a multiparty agreement with limited standing in law) between the Irish state and the United Kingdom. Ireland's constitution was amended by it to give NI formal recognition.

Article 2.1 says this:
    It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

I'll leave it to others (civilly and within the rules of commenting here on Slugger) to tease out where they believe this second explanation sits with this particular clause and how it might condition the President's legal ability to attend.

As for the event organisers, it includes the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, Eamon Martin, who spoke to RTÉ about pains they had gone to in developing their approach, saying that it..
    ...certainly hasn't been politicised by the church leaders. We've been explaining and discussing this event now for maybe six to nine months with all of the various parties and we have always insisted that it will remain apolitical and we hope to try to keep it that way, but we can't rely on others to do that but we will be keeping this as a moment of prayer and reflection.

Higgins now says his first response was a knee jerk reaction not the event, but to the DUP's (entirely independent use of the President of the Republic of Ireland (a turgid academic argument over nomenclature, smouldering since 1949)).

In Northern Ireland, the North, the Six Counties, the Wee Six we have largely settled our differences on nomenclature. Each signals (to a greater of lesser degree) some class of political angle, but most are broadly accepted these days.

If the President was not constrained by office, but took a political decision, which he is entitled to do, in doing so (boosted by a complacent media over-doping on the hectic psychodrama that's Twitter) he lit a very nasty fuse.

And one in which he managed to make the DUP's Derry firebrand sound reasonable, as Gregory Campbell said yesterday's talkback, the President had never put a foot wrong on Northern Ireland since taking office in 2011.

Eoghan Harris used to quote the old IRA leader Cathal Goulding who said, 'a man who would once give up a bullet will eventually give up the whole dump" (Harris was always in martial mode in his long campaign against Provisional propaganda).

I'm reluctant to give this event the serious legislative force it's tempting to ascribe to it. Higgins' predecessor would not have passed up the opportunity and would have played it for the huge diplomatic value it undoubtedly had.

So what standard of reconciliation would meet with the approval of the current president? And if an event run by these religious institutions (who during the Troubles helped keep us from ripping each other apart) can't meet it, who would?

It feels very odd to be accusing a man of the stature of Michael D Higgins of betraying the Good Friday Agreement, but that's the way it looks this morning. If reconciliation is the bullet, the Agreement itself is the whole dump.

We should move on (although 'when' is in the hands of the President himself). But we should take a moment to reflect on whether the south is as ready to 'cherish all the children' of an expanded nation many would have us believe.

You might one day be offered to display symbols of loyalty. Make sure that such symbols include your fellow citizens rather than exclude them. – Tim Snyder

Edit: Also, separately, the second part of the Boardman report on lobbying has dropped - with relatively little government or media attention but a lot here seems like it should be done:

Matt Honeycombe-Foster
@matt_hfoster
Another belting day for transparency as Boardman review part two — recommending some *really* big tweaks to U.K. lobbying rules, falls to http://gov.uk with zero fanfare. Here's what you need to know —  THREAD
MEETINGS: — Departments should do "more frequent" logging of government meetings with lobbyists and other outsiders including...
— "sufficient explanation" to let readers actually know what happened at a meeting and who was there.
MEETINGS: — Senior official should be put in charge of meetings transparency in every department.
— Annual reports should include info on how quickly departments publish information on who's meeting ministers/top officials. Grilled by select committees if they don't
MEETINGS: — Whole definition of meetings that departments have to reveal info on should be broadened to include "all forms of non-public interactive dialogue" — so not just face-to-face meetings. Boardman wants proper guidance on this
LOBBYING REGISTER: Existing definition of people who have to register as a lobbyist should be expanded to
— ANY former senior official or minister who lobbies
— Lobbyists employed by more than one org
— Ditch exemptions for those not VAT registered or do 'incidental lobbying'
LOBBYING REGISTER
— Lobbyists should have to disclose  person ultimately paying for — or benefiting from — their lobbying (sounds like clients, not just agencies).
— Must give more info for register, logging how often they lobby, what's discussed, who they meet
LOBBYING REGISTER
— Lobbyists should have to sign a *statutory* code of conduct
— Ministers should review whether lobbying regulator should be able to dole out tougher penalties for breaches.
SNAP TAKE
— Boardman's Greensill report part two suggests a *whole bunch* of stuff transparency campaigners have been asking for for ages. Would be a *big* change to UK lobbying rules and put onus on departments to be more transparent. Ball now in govt's court...
SPICY TAKE
Despite glorious-as-ever govt timing, will be digging into this for London Influence readers. Will it work? Will anyone listen? What are the snags? Does it go far enough? DMs v much open.
BONUS ROUND

Big ask of lobbying industry — treat in-house lobbyists the same as those working for agencies — is touched on in 'suggestions' but not really addressed. But he poses question of whether think tanks should also come under scrutiny (expect some pushback on that)

I think the point on think tanks is particularly important - and not just in the UK.

[Josquius]

Gove's department has, absurdly been renamed the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (very on brand of the Tories to wipe out local government wherever they see it). More interestingly they've hired Andy Haldane with the Cabinet Office to come in as permanent secretary/civil service role responsible for "levelling up". I've almost certainly posted Andy Haldane pieces here - he spent about thirty years in the Bank of England and was, by the end of his time, the BofE's Chief Economist who wrote a lot of very interesting stuff - he's a heterodox economic thinker (if Corbyn had won, his economic team had discussed appointing Haldane as BofE Governor).

He has had big ideas/insights and in particular has shown an interest in regional inequality which is something that the BofE can't really do much about (see this New Statesman piece he wrote: https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/devolution/2021/03/how-remake-britain-why-we-need-community-capitalism).

I've said before that "levelling up" is still an incredibly nebulous concept in terms of what it means in policy terms, but that by appointing Gove Johnson may accidentally end up with policies. I think Gove is about the only minister whose reforms from the coalition government haven't been cancelled or aren't under review, he's probably one of the best Justice Secretary's we've ever had because of how quickly he could unwind all of Chris Grayling's work and when he was (briefly) at DEFRA he was proposing very interesting ideas. Basically he is very interested in doing things with his time in office and - despite his "enough of experts" line - in Justice and DEFRA he had a reputation of listening to experts across the field, really understanding and trying to work on what that meant in terms of government action. At education I think he stayed too long and was too confrontational (Cummings' influence perhaps) so he stopped listening. But I think of the current cabinet he is probably the minister you appoint if you want to actually reform something (which is why he hasn't had a department for the last 2 years), and if you're looking to put policy meat on the bones of "levelling up" then Andy Haldane is a very clever appointment. It might not work and I've no doubt it'll lead to stuff I disagree with but that's a combination of an interesting economic thinker with a very competent minister. So maybe "levelling up" will start to mean something at some point.

Ouch. Thats a pretty painful renaming.
This levelling up stuff- now that I think about it, just what is the etymology of this term? Does it have any history outside of video games? (or even table top RPGs?)
I do see it popping up in the past:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22level+up%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20level%20up%20%22%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2C%22%20level%20up%20%22%3B%2Cc0
But why is a curiosity.

Anyway. More relevantly...Interesting to see they're sticking at this attempt to steal Labour's position. The level up stuff seems to have very much dropped off in recent times.
I think I've seen that article before, very much something I agree with. I've often thought we need to take a polder approach to inequality in the country. Firmly establish local cities as major economic centres and then improve the transport links radiating out from them into the surrounding area rather than thinly spreading a little bit of funding all over the place.
Butt......In light of covid and the complete economic overhaul out of there it is a wonder whether this is still the smart approach.
I'd like to think it is. As the alternative points backwards into the nasty unsustainable car-focussed model of development that has shattered society.  But I do suspect we need more satellites of these centres now, trying to get professional work spaces in every decent sized town across the land to make them viable places for educated people to live and work- I can't see the Tories doing this though, they rely on emptying these places out for their vote.

[Sheilbh]

This seems sub-optimal:

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
Business Sec Kwasi Kwarteng: "There's absolutely no question of the lights going out or people being unable to heat their homes. There will be no three-day working weeks or a throwback to the 1970s."

[The Brain]

So basically start prepping.

[Zanza]

Her Majesy's Government has decreed its next great policy: Instead of GB, British vehicles now need a UK sign. As obviously the existing plates have GB on them, British car owners now need to put one of those 1980s stickers on their vehicle. 

[Tamas]

Her Majesy's Government has decreed its next great policy: Instead of GB, British vehicles now need a UK sign. As obviously the existing plates have GB on them, British car owners now need to put one of those 1980s stickers on their vehicle. 

This is very unpatriotic.

[Syt]

This showed up in my Twitter feed:

[Tamas]

 

[Sheilbh]

That is almost never not true

It is weirdly one of Tony Blair's big theories too from when he was a Labour reformer. Basically that party splits are fatal (since 2016-19 I think we can say it is, however, relative) in an election because the public don't care or engage about the detail but the fact that you're not united puts them off. And that the big weakness of Labour in the 80/90ss and basically every time it's in opposition (also the 50s) is that it turns inward and stops even trying to engage with the public or explain to the public what it wants to do.

I'm not convinced it was an issue from 2010-15 (there were other problems) but it's definitely been the case since 2015.

Separately reading Guardian explainer on the upcoming energy crisis and there's something grimly hilarious about a major supply crisis hitting the UK and it doesn't seem to really have anything to do with Brexit

Edit: Also I can't find it but there was a long thread by a journalist who did articles about UK gas storage about 10 years ago. The UK has a tiny gas storage infrastructure compared to other European countries (less than 1% of the European total capacity).

Basically what he said summed up so many issues in the UK in that it was clearly predictable, everyone knew there was a shortage. But nothing had been done to increase capacity because of a combination of NIMBYism, plus green activism (we shouldn't be building new fossil fuel infrastructure) and short-termism/optimism. So he said that ten years ago the view was everything might be fine if we build enough new nuclear power plants quickly enough (and that's famously an uncontroversial, quick process) to fill the gap when renewables dip.

As it is not everything went to plan - so I think we're a decade from the new nuclear power, the ageing nuclear power plants (which are not all being replaced) are having more and more regular outages for safety reasons, we've accidentally destroyed an energy cable to France and we didn't build gas storage to give us a fossil fuel cushion

[Richard Hakluyt]

Private Eye has a UK energy correspondent, "Old Sparky" iirc, I can confirm that he has been banging on about this for at least 10 years. It is totally understandable that the general public are not that interested in the details of energy policy; but I don't see how anyone with an interest has not seen this coming.......the main surprise is that we were so lucky for so long.

[Sheilbh]

A follow up to Syt - a preview of the Labour Party Conference:

[Syt]

 

[crazy canuck]

Those are both great

[Josquius]

I won't even bother to make it but the spiderman one applies too.

[Tamas]

It's funny how people are analysing "levelling up". It's Johnson. It's an empty buzzword. Nothing of substance will happen.