Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I dunno. I've heard this a lot (though I somehow suspect half the time people screaming about the communist tories are just idiots talking about lockdown) but I'm not quite seeing it.

Yeah so the Tories moving left on fiscal issues doesn't mean we're about to enter foothills of socialism or that they've become social democrats. It's a bigger state - and big government has been something Tories can work with.

But look at the shift - as George Eaton pointed out - since Osborne:
higher corporation tax
entrenched 45% top tax rate (instead of Osborne's plan to lower it to 40%)
removed investment spending from fiscal targets so we aim to borrow for investment instead of Osborne's absolute budget surplus strategy
raising taxes elsewhere (national insurance, travel, alcohol etc) to pay for higher spending not just to pay for tax cuts.

Who knows if they're all good but I think in part it reflects a wider change in the discourse - including the US and Europe - about how much of a disaster and mistake the decade of austerity after a recession was. So the consensus on the role of fiscal policy has moved left.

Key against the Tories actually moving left I'd say is that there's no sign of serious discontent from the liberals in their ranks. Sure, the right by nature are far more into towing the party line than the left. Expecting a conservative SDP, especially after the mess that was whatstheirface (black and white stripey guys) is a bit much.
But I do find it suspect the neo libs are quite happily going along with the leftward promises- almost as if they know they're lies.

There is discontent from the dry/Thatcherite wing of the Tories for sure - and I think this also feeds into the Blue Wall/stockbroker belt anxiety. At the minute they're at the point of grumbling a lot and the bit of the budget they cheered most was Sunak's peroration on being the party of individuals and community and opportunity, not the big state etc. It's why you've got Steve Baker doing his "this is what we believe in" bit.

And the UK's tax take as a % of GDP has floated around 30-33% for almost the entire post-war era. All of Sunak's announced tax rises would take us up to 36% so I think it's very unlikely they will actually all happen. I think he will use the better than initially forecast economic moves to get rid of planned tax changes and I think they will try to cut taxes before the next election to reassure that wing of their party.

Edit: And I'd add I'm not sure that's the budget you give if you're anticipating a big trade war - which is another reason I think Johnson will try to declare victory and move on with the EU over the NIP (though subject, as ever, to actual politics in Northern Ireland).

[Tamas]

I think what this reflects is we have had a pandemic. Considering the forces of the right in other countries, I think it is to their credit that they decided to let finances go to do the furlough scheme instead of being doctrinal about it, but now we have a hopeful but IMHO highly uncertain recovery (we are rising from the pandemic bottom but there may be a Brexit ceiling above us in the fog), so they can't just start reigning spending in now.

So let's not read more into this for now in my opinion.

[Sheilbh]

I think what this reflects is we have had a pandemic. Considering the forces of the right in other countries, I think it is to their credit that they decided to let finances go to do the furlough scheme instead of being doctrinal about it, but now we have a hopeful but IMHO highly uncertain recovery (we are rising from the pandemic bottom but there may be a Brexit ceiling above us in the fog), so they can't just start reigning spending in now.

So let's not read more into this for now in my opinion.

Well they've announced spending plans for the next three years (unless there's another crisis - spending reviews are meant to be multi-year). But even if there was another covid crisis I don't think it would have a huge economic impact - the second lockdown impact is tiny compared to the first lockdown because we'd already made the adjustments once so it was re-activating things rather than a sudden shock. But these are the broad tracks we're on until the next election.

None of the spending is related to the pandemic really - the pandemic and "recovery from the pandemic" spending had all been announced last year (optimistically).

I take your point - but I'd say there's a different context. Since 2010 the IMF and OECD have moved against austerity in the context of recovering from a crisis, in particular they and other academics, NGOs, think tanks etc are pointing out that in the West we have entirely relied on monetary policy as the big lever for the last decade and there's not much more central banks can do. Those expert acronyms haven't admitted they were wrong, but they've come as close as they can. Their emphasis now is that we need a fiscal response for the next crisis - which is what we're in. We've also had, I think, political shocks from the left: Corbyn, Sanders, Melenchon.

I think all of that has moved the discourse of what is sensible fiscal policy to the left since 2010 - if Sunak were to announce a load of austerity measures I doubt he'd get the flattering write-ups in the FT and Economist that Osborne got. That's why I think there's a bit of a shift across the developed world - you see that in Biden's plans as well or the European Recovery Fund all of which are doing things that were unimaginable in 2010. Austerity now would be out of the mainstream.

I think the pandemic is maybe a necessary trigger, but I actually think the - and I hate this phrase - "Overton window" of what economic policy should look like has moved to the left and away from the Osborne-Schaeuble-Trichet-McConnell catastrophe of the 2010s. And I think even without the pandemic Biden and Johnson at least would want to do big spending - I think Draghi and Macron would want something like the Recovery Fund as the next necessary step of European integration. I don't know if they could actually get it done, but they'd try.

Edit: But this is why I think the trends and conversations happening at the elite/"intellectual" level matter. What think tanks etc are talking about now shape what will seem politically plausible, if not necessary, in 5 years time.

It's why I think it's good the left has lots of ideas and seems to have a more or less coherent theory with different strands/options - but I worry they're going down some esoteric roads that will not help the left win power like "post-growth economics".

On the other hand on the right in the UK there's no coherent theory as there was in the 70s before Thatcher, or around Cameron - that may emerge. But there are lots of ideas about regional inequality, infrastructure, science/R&D and development in general all of which range from the interesting to the unhinged and very few seem to need public money which I think is implausible. "Leveling up" is about as coherent a way of trying to package that all together as you could try. But there's no real theory yet and despite all of that not much of it is about growth - in fairness, the Tories never like theory/intellectualism so maybe that's asking too much.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, could you explain why this is all fine please?

There is no evidence that ministers or officials considered potential conflicts of interest before handing government contracts to a former No 10 adviser, Whitehall's independent watchdog has found.

The National Audit Office report has said two projects involving the disgraced financier Lex Greensill's firm offered no material benefits to the NHS. Greensill Capital ran an early-payment scheme for pharmacies and a salary advance facility for employees of NHS trusts that did not receive the expected uptake.

Greensill had advised David Cameron's government and later hired the former prime minister when he left office. Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said:

This report provides further information on the role of Lex Greensill and Greensill Capital in providing government services. It raises yet more questions over the government's ability to prevent conflicts of interest and the independence of advice it receives.

The consequences once again fall squarely on the taxpayer, with increasing risks to value for money and promised savings vanishing into thin air.

What's amazing to me is this forced naivety which is laid over in reports such as this one. Those promised savings are not vanishing into thin air. They are going into pockets of chums.

[Sheilbh]

So as you asked I had a look at the summary of the report The thing I think is most interesting  is how it looks like business as usual for professional service/finance. And there is a question about how much that is "corrupt".

But for what it's worth there's two schemes. One was pitched to various bits of government - seven NHS Trusts (out of 220) went for it. All central government departments who were pitched rejected it because it went against their internal guidance/policy. And because of the service Greensill were providing, government didn't actually pay anything.

The other is the one where there's more of a potential conflict but it's the one that reminds me of professional services and why law firms, banks, big 4, consultancies etc send employees on secondment or do some advice almost for free - it's to be in the room when your client is deciding its priorities so your company is best placed to win that work. Basically Greensill pitched the idea when he was at Citibank - then left to found Greensill and advice government. Citibank won the first contract. He then helps design the framework strategy for doing supply chain finance - stops advising government and six months later when there's a tender his firm bids for it.

There was a tender (and Citbank also bid) run by the government's procurement wing (Crown Commercial Services). Greensill's bid (they were just the sub-contractor for Taulia - a San Francisco fintech firm) was actually disqualified because of concerns over their finances - but they threatened to sue/go for judicial review so were allowed to bid if they had a guaranteee from the parent company. His company then wins the contract in the framework he helped design. On the criteria CCS were using (in line with the strategy he may have helped develop) Greensill won the procurement because their price was better than Citi's (which is probably why Citi don't sue/go for judicial review). They don't deliver any extra savings than Citibank (though he routinely claims they have delivered £100 million savings) - so the cost of the service is the same as it previously was and uptake's pretty low by the bits of government that are offered this service.

Admittedly this is the National Audit Office - so what they're looking at is process and value for money. There's a conflict of interest, in my view, but it is one that is not uncommon in professional services (and his previous role in government was disclosed to CCS in their application - apparently CCS considered that it didn't breach procurement rules). But there's no sign that they didn't deliver the services or that their price was inflated (it cost the same as Citibank), it just didn't save money as they boasted. The bigger issue is, of course, that he knew Cameron and the head of the Civil Service - having said that I imagine that Citibank also have lots of senior contacts with government (especially with Jeremy Heywood, head of the Civil Service who knew Greensill from when Heywood was at Morgan Stanley and Greensill was at Citi - and who introduced him to Cameron), which isn't covered here because they haven't collapsed

Even at a less senior level you'll find people who spent 20 years working for CCS (or some big companies like, say, Oracle or Microsoft) who retire and then set up consultancies advising companies on how to win bids/negotiate with their former employer. In part because of their knowledge but also, I imagine, their contacts to get a sense of what the real issues/redlines/priorities are.

This is separate from paying a former PM to (unsuccessfully) lobby - there's other reports on that. But I think it's wider than just this bid/contract - I think it is the revolving door problem with politicians and civil servants into the private sector and sometimes back. On the one hand I think it's good that people don't just have experience of life in politics/the public sector, but I also think it's fair to say that you don't get hired into roles that are totally different form your experience in politics/the public sector. I don't know how you fix that - and even at a private sector level lawyers often get hired by clients and their law firms are very happpy to see them go. My solution would be just more transparency for everything in the public sector because I think we generally have a right to know.

[Sheilbh]

Re Britain as a failing state and austerity cutting deep into core functions of the state - the justice system ranks pretty high in my view for any type of government. Obviously this is an extreme example but the huge backlog of cases is an issue:

Peterborough Crown Court closed for week because of a lack of judges
By Phil Shepka

A criminal court had to be closed for a week after resident judges were not available and no cover could be found.

Peterborough Crown Court, which has two resident judges, had no hearings between Monday and Friday.

A Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesman said hearings would resume from Monday.

Across the country, about 60,000 Crown Court trials are waiting to be heard, with many serious cases being listed now in late 2023.

Earlier this month, the new Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said he could not promise when unprecedented delays in prosecuting and jailing criminals would be solved.

In this week's spending review, the Ministry of Justice was given an additional £2.2bn for the recovery of the courts, prisons and probation services.

There is also funding for 32 Nightingale Crown courtrooms until April 2022.

A HMCTS spokesman said: "Due to exceptional circumstances two judges were unavailable this week and despite the best efforts of staff, no short-term cover could be found.

"A small number of criminal hearings were affected but family and civil cases continued as normal."

Court work, including case progression, continued despite there being no hearings.

[Josquius]

It's why I think it's good the left has lots of ideas and seems to have a more or less coherent theory with different strands/options - but I worry they're going down some esoteric roads that will not help the left win power like "post-growth economics".

On the other hand on the right in the UK there's no coherent theory as there was in the 70s before Thatcher, or around Cameron - that may emerge. But there are lots of ideas about regional inequality, infrastructure, science/R&D and development in general all of which range from the interesting to the unhinged and very few seem to need public money which I think is implausible. "Leveling up" is about as coherent a way of trying to package that all together as you could try. But there's no real theory yet and despite all of that not much of it is about growth - in fairness, the Tories never like theory/intellectualism so maybe that's asking too much.

The problem here is that the concepts of levelling up and the problem of regional inequality, the whole idea of invest in the north to save London, etc.... - this is from the left. Its their idea.
The Tories are pretending to be for this whilst not really doing much about it but talk. Spending just enough to offset a small percentage of their cuts that people think they're the ones trying.

The issue isn't one of regional inequality is bad. Its convincing people that the tories are liars and that Labour would do a better job of actually tackling this problem.
Things have gotten into a very rotten state here however.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Re Britain as a failing state and austerity cutting deep into core functions of the state - the justice system ranks pretty high in my view for any type of government. Obviously this is an extreme example but the huge backlog of cases is an issue:

Peterborough Crown Court closed for week because of a lack of judges
By Phil Shepka

A criminal court had to be closed for a week after resident judges were not available and no cover could be found.

Peterborough Crown Court, which has two resident judges, had no hearings between Monday and Friday.

A Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesman said hearings would resume from Monday.

Across the country, about 60,000 Crown Court trials are waiting to be heard, with many serious cases being listed now in late 2023.

Earlier this month, the new Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said he could not promise when unprecedented delays in prosecuting and jailing criminals would be solved.

In this week's spending review, the Ministry of Justice was given an additional £2.2bn for the recovery of the courts, prisons and probation services.

There is also funding for 32 Nightingale Crown courtrooms until April 2022.

A HMCTS spokesman said: "Due to exceptional circumstances two judges were unavailable this week and despite the best efforts of staff, no short-term cover could be found.

"A small number of criminal hearings were affected but family and civil cases continued as normal."

Court work, including case progression, continued despite there being no hearings.

Why not turn this over to the private sector? That's the whole point of austerity, is it not?

[Josquius]

Today I turned on the TV to find Boris Johnson being interviewed in the colleseum of all places.
When asked why his reply....
Rome thought their empire would last forever but due to uncontrolled mass migration it fell.
Jesus.  Johnson knows his classics and history better than that. Obvious lie to appeal to the shit eaters.
No Boris. Quite the opposite. It was a shortage of people that was a key factor, on the one hand due to plague which they didn't handle very well (hmm) and on the other due to the undermining of the state and privatisation of its fundamental functions (hmmmmmmm)

[Tamas]

Today I turned on the TV to find Boris Johnson being interviewed in the colleseum of all places.
When asked why his reply....
Rome thought their empire would last forever but due to uncontrolled mass migration it fell.
Jesus.  Johnson knows his classics and history better than that. Obvious lie to appeal to the shit eaters.
No Boris. Quite the opposite. It was a shortage of people that was a key factor, on the one hand due to plague which they didn't handle very well (hmm) and on the other due to the undermining of the state and privatisation of its fundamental functions (hmmmmmmm)

Let's just say you are both wrong in your emphasis. 

[chipwich]

but due to uncontrolled mass migration it fell.

In a certain sense of the word "uncontrolled"

[The Larch]

Boris, true example of an education in the Classics?

"When the Roman empire fell, it was largely as a result of uncontrolled immigration. The empire could no longer control its borders, people came in from the east, all over the place, and we went into a dark ages, Europe went into a dark ages that lasted a very long time. The point of that is to say it can happen again.

[Duque de Bragança]

Today I turned on the TV to find Boris Johnson being interviewed in the colleseum of all places.
When asked why his reply....
Rome thought their empire would last forever but due to uncontrolled mass migration it fell.
Jesus.  Johnson knows his classics and history better than that. Obvious lie to appeal to the shit eaters.
No Boris. Quite the opposite. It was a shortage of people that was a key factor, on the one hand due to plague which they didn't handle very well (hmm) and on the other due to the undermining of the state and privatisation of its fundamental functions (hmmmmmmm)

Let's just say you are both wrong in your emphasis. 

Yeah, BoJo forgot the part about Scipio the Younger crying when watching Carthago destroyed as was his objective, since he knew this happens to all nations hence, eventually, Rome.
At least, according to Polybius. 

@The Larch

Tyr beat you to it.

[The Brain]

Wait? Cheating your way through a Classics education doesn't actually teach you anything?

[Duque de Bragança]

Wait? Cheating your way through a Classics education doesn't actually teach you anything?

Most people stop by the end of the High Roman Empire. So no Barbarian Invasions.

Hell, Classic Latin ends even earlier.