Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

So... they were naked in a bath tub, but they were pressed too close together to do anything sexual? That's the argument?

And this was reproduced in a photograph with the intent to illustrate how the Duke-fella did nor behave inappropriately in a sexual way with the young woman who was naked in the bath tub?

Did I get this right?

And this reconstruction is based on an actual photo that exists but can't be released? Or was it reconstructed from memory and description?

[Sheilbh]

It was apparently a photo taken in preparing Ghislaine Maxwell's defence to discredit Giuffre. Apparently the argument is that she claimed in an interview that "there was a bath and it started there and led to the bedroom" (also apparently she claimed the wrong type of bath). Apparently these are two of Maxwell's friends posing to help her defence (somehow? ). But as Giuffre wasn't called as a witness it wasn't used in the trial.

Maxwell's brother has released the photo - he claims not have had any contact with Andrew or his legal team but was willing to offer any help he could, such as this photo which he's declared he's happy for Andrew to use, adding "I am releasing my photos now because the truth needs to come out. They show that the bath is too small for any sort of sex frolicking."

We've now had got Askwith, who was the star of a lot of 1970s British sex farces, posting pictures from his films showing "sex frolicking" in far smaller baths.

[mongers]

....
We've now had got Askwith, who was the star of a lot of 1970s British sex farces, posting pictures from his films showing "sex frolicking" in far smaller baths.

Thus proving a storming performance in a teacup sized bath is possible. 

[Sheilbh]

This interview - and the move on cladding tomorrow - is a great example of why, despite being really hated on the left and not often agreeing with him, I still rate Gove as a minister. He was at education and with Cummings too long - but as I've said before it's very rare for a Tory minister to get statements from Friends of the Earth, criminal justice reform and social housing reform campaigners saying they regret him moving on from those relevant departments when he's been fired. Wherever he's appointed he actually tries to do things.

Cladding is a great example of something that was not being solved in the five years before he became Secretary of State - then things moved forward a lot in the nine months he was at the department, only to grind to a bit of a halt after he left. And now get picked up again in the last three months.

On the leasehold point he repeated that on Sky today and said there'll be legislation coming forward in the back end of this calendar year. Vague on planning reform but ultimately that's the third rail of Tory politics so I imagine they're very unlikely to do anything that'll be significantt on that:

Michael Gove: We are to blame on Grenfell
Housing secretary says 'faulty and ambiguous' government guidance allowed the scandal to happen
Martina Lees and Harry Yorke
Sunday January 29 2023, 9.00am, The Sunday Times

Michael Gove raised his son and daughter minutes from Grenfell Tower. Five days after the fire that destroyed the west London high rise, he returned, walking around its blackened husk. The remains of some of the 72 people who were killed, 18 of them children, were still inside. "It did have a profound impact on me," the housing secretary says.

More than five years on, with more than four million people affected by the fallout and almost 700,000 residents still living in fire-risk flats all over Britain, he feels that weight. On the window sill in his Westminster office stands a framed photo of a Grenfell billboard: "Never forget." After years of dithering, buck-passing and government delays, Gove is clamping down on the companies that profited from unsafe homes.

Sitting in front of that photo, he makes a remarkable admission: "faulty and ambiguous" government guidance allowed the scandal to happen. Never before has a minister acknowledged this.

Evidence to the Grenfell inquiry has shown that official guidance was widely seen to allow highly flammable cladding on tall buildings. Does Gove now accept that the rules were wrong? "Yes," he answers. "There was a system of regulation that was faulty. The government did not think hard enough, or police effectively enough, the whole system of building safety. Undoubtedly."

Five minders sit around the table. One shoots him a look, but he ploughs on: "I believe that [the guidance] was so faulty and ambiguous that it allowed unscrupulous people to exploit a broken system in a way that led to tragedy."

But much blame also lies with those who made the products, did the work and signed it off, Gove insists. "The inquiry, I think, will allocate responsibility appropriately . . . There are sins of omission and sins of commission. There's neglect and a failure to effectively get the system in place, which is one thing. And then there is an active willingness to put people in danger in order to make a profit, which to my mind is a significantly greater sin."

That is why, tomorrow, he will give developers a six-week deadline to sign a government contract to fix their unsafe blocks — or be banned from the market. "Those who haven't [signed] will face consequences. They will not be able to build new homes," Gove says. Through a new "responsible actor scheme", to be set up in the spring, he will block them from getting planning or building control approval for new developments.

Gove was appointed by Boris Johnson in 2021 with an explicit brief to solve the cladding crisis but was sacked in July last year for telling him his premiership was doomed. He spent the summer recuperating on the back benches but is now back in his old job, a trusted confidante of Rishi Sunak, with an undiminished appetite for reform.

Asked if he wants to abolish the leasehold system, which leaves homeowners at the mercy of sometimes unscrupulous freeholders, he bellows unambiguously, "Yes".

Campaigners fear long-awaited reforms, based on a major review of the system governing a fifth of homes in England and Wales, will not become law before the next election. But Gove says he is determined to do so.

"I'd like the government to be able to cut the Gordian knot," he says, hoping for a neat solution to an intricate problem. "I don't believe leasehold is fair in any way. It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go. And we need to move to a better system and to liberate people from it."

But first the cladding contract. Drawn up to protect leaseholders of flats in more than 1,500 blocks taller than 11 metres, it will legally commit the companies to more than £2 billion of repairs to strip flammable cladding and fix other fire risks, on top of a £3 billion developer levy over the next decade.

"The reason for that is a basic one," Gove, 55, says. "If you can't maintain that which you have already built in safe conditions for those within those homes, then why should . . . you [be] granted permission to carry on with your line of business, with the development of new homes?"

For years after Grenfell, ministers had urged the companies that built and owned unsafe blocks to "do the right thing". Almost none did. Banks stopped lending on flats without proof that blocks were safe, leaving up to 1.5 million flats unsellable. Repair bills as high as £400,000 per flat landed on the doormats of innocent owners — the only people who were, under leasehold law, legally on the hook. Despite £9.1 billion in government funds, only 7 per cent of the 368,000 fire-risk flats have been fixed, analysis of official data shows.

Over the past year, 49 developers have joined a pledge to fix their buildings, but none have signed the contract binding them to do so. Objectors saw it as a blank cheque with unlimited liability. The contract has not changed liability, Gove says. Persimmon, one of Britain's biggest housebuilders, intends to sign the contract imminently.

At the heart of Gove's quest is his belief that it is "completely wrong that people who had not done anything wrong [were] suddenly landed with these huge bills", while developers and building owners hid behind "opaque corporate structures". Evidence in the Grenfell inquiry of rigged tests, lies and corner-cutting — brought home through a verbatim play that he saw and a Sunday Times campaign — made Gove "more determined" to act. "I remember thinking, 'How on earth can people behave like this? This is just completely disgusting.'"

To those who have had their "lives frozen" by the scandal, Gove apologises. "The pain, the sense of disorientation that those people have had, is something for which I'm deeply sorry."

Forcing developers to sign the contract is also "a way of unlocking a part of the housing market that's been frozen", Gove says.

Adopted at four months by Ernest, an Aberdeen fish merchant, and Christine, a laboratory assistant, Gove's politics were shaped by his background. His father, 86, died earlier this month; the funeral was on Monday. "I have a responsibility to my mum and to my dad's memory, to show that they did the right thing," Gove says. "A lot of [my dad's] time and energy was thinking about others, and that's had an influence on me."

However, in the face of a blue wall rebellion last month, Gove caved in on top-down housing targets — a core policy that pushes councils to permit new homes. Softening them, as Gove promised to do, would amount to "spitting in the face" of the younger generation and remove the prospect of them becoming Tory-voting homeowners, critics had warned. Only 15 per cent of people aged 25 to 35 would vote Conservative, compared with 46 per cent of over-65s, Deltapoll found this month.

Should his children, Beatrice, 19, and William, 18, need a deposit to buy a home of their own, Gove — whose marriage to the Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine ended last year — says he will "help them in any way I can".

He is "definitely" still committed to the Tory manifesto target of 300,000 new homes a year by the mid 2020s. Asked how it is still possible to reach that without local targets, he appears to dodge the question. "The targets have operated as a stick, which can be handed to the developer or the planning inspectorate to beat a local authority or a community into submission. I don't believe that is sustainable." Targets will still be set, but communities will be able to lower them over "environmental or aesthetic or other constraints".

Does he really believe the Conservatives can still be the "party of homeownership" for the under-40s? "Completely," he says. "Our planning system hasn't worked as it should for years." Too many councils — around 60 per cent — don't have up-to-date local plans for development, he argues. "A plan-led system is the best way of . . . making sure that we have more homes, but also the communities feel that they are shaping the places where they live, the communities that they love."

But amid uncertainty over targets, the number of councils that published a plan last year fell to 17 — a third of the usual number. In the week after Gove's climbdown, three councils delayed their plans.

Many Conservative MPs broadcast their role in blocking new development. Simon Clarke, the former housing secretary, recently warned that the party risks being on the wrong side of "unabashed Nimby-ism" and colleagues celebrating "planning permission refusals on Twitter . . . are celebrating the decline of their own party". Does Gove agree? "It all depends on the individual development. Given my own Twitter feed, I would never criticise anyone else's."

On top of solving the cladding scandal and housing crisis, Gove has the equally gargantuan task of giving meaning to "levelling up" — a Johnsonian slogan which has morphed into the government's overarching mission. Last week, despite the majority of a £2 billion pot being allocated to areas with a Tory MP or council, both Gove and Sunak were buffeted by allegations of unfairness from those who were overlooked.

The centralised decision-making process was fiercely criticised. Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, called for an end to the Whitehall "broken begging bowl culture" by letting local authorities — rather than civil servants in London — decide how to spend the money. Gove says: "I've got a lot of sympathy with the points that Andy makes. I think that there are too many funds that are allocated through a competitive process, and that is, overall, a waste of time and energy of local authorities." But competition for "some funds" fosters innovation and rigour in proposals, he adds.

Whatever results Gove delivers, the more important question is whether anyone will credit his party for it. After the Johnson and Truss rollercoaster, Sunak promised to restore "integrity and accountability". Three months into his premiership, Sir Gavin Williamson has resigned as a minister, Dominic Raab, the deputy prime minister, is under investigation over allegations of bullying, and Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative Party chairman, has been sacked following an investigation by the adviser on ministerial standards over his multimillion-pound tax settlement with HMRC.

While Gove confesses to paying "£50 or whatever" a year or two ago for filing his tax return late, he refuses to say whether he thinks Zahawi should have told the prime minister about the penalty.

Is he not worried about the message this sends? Far from stamping out the scandals that afflicted so much of Johnson's premiership, Sunak now faces comparisons to John Major and the Tory sleaze of the 1990s.

Gove, whose next appointment is at Chequers for a cabinet debrief on the party's bleak election prospects, says: "I think there is anxiety on the part of some people to write the obituary for the government. My view is that it's tempting for our critics to look for parallels then. But every government has faced difficulties like this. The most important thing is to keep your eye on the changes that we need to make.

"In the 2010-15 government, even though there were all sorts of bumps in the road, David [Cameron] and George [Osborne] kept their eye on what was a long-term economic plan. We've got to show the same degree of resolution and focus."

[Josquius]

On top of solving the cladding scandal and housing crisis, Gove has the equally gargantuan task of giving meaning to "levelling up" — a Johnsonian slogan which has morphed into the government's overarching mission. Last week, despite the majority of a £2 billion pot being allocated to areas with a Tory MP or council, both Gove and Sunak were buffeted by allegations of unfairness from those who were overlooked.

The centralised decision-making process was fiercely criticised. Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, called for an end to the Whitehall "broken begging bowl culture" by letting local authorities — rather than civil servants in London — decide how to spend the money. Gove says: "I've got a lot of sympathy with the points that Andy makes. I think that there are too many funds that are allocated through a competitive process, and that is, overall, a waste of time and energy of local authorities." But competition for "some funds" fosters innovation and rigour in proposals, he adds.

I wonder if someone ever tried to quantify the amount of waste going into LAs bidding for funding that isn't' given.

To be fair this sounds basically how most of the world functions.

To be fair, a whole bunch of people think it's not fair.

It has got worse, at least in the UK, in the past 50 years. There were far more working class actors, comedians, musicians etc back in the 1960s and 70s. All the continuing talk of "increasing diversity" in arts and culture tends to irritate me; with the important exception of skin colour diversity is on the decrease.

Not enough talk about class and its complete dominance on life outcomes these days :raisesredflag

Yep. And the far right (and increasingly the tories) are using this as a wedge to try and paint it as a straight choice between working class white kids and 'the coloureds'.

It reminds me of the Clive James line about why Australia tends to beat England at cricket and rugby: class. It's only certain schools that play cricket and rugby (although I think cricket is broader in some areas), while others play football. In Australia all schools play them and you can put out a better team if you're not handicapping yourself by only giving kids at, say, 7% of schools a fair chance.

Hell, in my experience schools in the UK just don't bother to do sport at all.
I remember my senior school in my first year or two having try  outs for a school team and it seemed there was going to be such a thing but then it just...vanished. It never came to pass.
This is one of the few areas where we could do with copying the US a little- it would be nice to see proper school sports tournaments that really matter locally (though not to the extent of premier league quality stadiums. Thats dumb).

[Sheilbh]

Feels increasingly relevant - as Labour are backing to polling 50%+ and on course for an absolutely massive majority. In general Starmer is purging the left from the parliamentary party, but they've also not done very well in internal elections lately as Labour party members have got a whiff of power (and decided they want it). So for all the moaning (and I find the amount of moaning at a leader who's on course to win a landslide a bit mind-boggling, personally) I don't think the left are more than an irritation.

Obviously not all of these are bad ideas but you'd think after 5 years in charge and Labour's worst result since the Great Depression, the left might take a bit of a backseat - and I really don't see who is helped by attention seeking interventions moaning about "yawnathon" policies and leadership from Starmer

Keir Starmer and Labour left to face off over manifesto plans
Momentum grassroots group says it is hoping to make 'loud' case for leftwing policies in lead-up to next general election
Aletha Adu Political correspondent
@alethaadu
Mon 30 Jan 2023 19.33 GMT
Last modified on Mon 30 Jan 2023 19.52 GMT

Keir Starmer is set to battle the Labour left over protest laws, green issues and a wealth tax as the party kickstarts its manifesto development.

Momentum, the grassroots campaign group, is hoping to make a "loud" case for left-leaning policies in the lead-up to the next general election, and will collaborate with the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG).

The first intervention is understood to be imminent, with rent controls, the abolition of tuition fees and a wealth tax said to be high on the group's agenda.

A Momentum source told the Guardian: "Keir knows that leftwing policies are what's needed. That's why policies like rail nationalisation and a windfall tax have resonated, while no one remembers the British recovery bond yawn-athon. The lesson from the 2017 election campaign is that people want bold, clear policies: like abolishing tuition fees or nationalising our failed energy system."

On Monday, Labour's national policy forum (NPF) published a draft consultation paper covering six key policy areas including the environment, the future of work, crime, public services and international development.

Members and campaigners will have until 17 March to submit submissions or contribute to online events, airing their views before the NPF redrafts those policy papers on the basis of those submissions.

Momentum and the SCG hope to ensure proposals that were popular under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership – including nationalisation, wealth taxes and the abolition of tuition fees – will make it on to the manifesto. Insiders are also understood to be hopeful that groups including Labour for a Green New Deal, which has announced a new campaign for public ownership of energy, will also launch their own interventions.

In one of the few policy announcements already made, Starmer has promised a publicly owned energy company run on clean UK power – called Great British Energy – in the first year of a Labour government.

The new leftwing coalition will bring a fresh headache to Starmer, who had promised Labour members over the weekend that his party had changed since the disastrous 2019 election defeat under Corbyn, telling a London conference: "Never again will Labour be a party of protest not public service. Never again will Labour fail to grasp that economic stability is the foundation of all our ambitions.

"Never again will Labour allow hate to spread unchallenged. We have changed our party and we're ready to change Britain."

Starmer faced pressure at the last Labour party conference as delegates passed union-backed motions urging public ownership of Royal Mail and inflation-proof pay rises. Labour subsequently vowed to renationalise the railways. The party leader has since confirmed his plans to shift Labour back towards the centre in a bid to lure undecided swing voters.

The NPF will meet from 21-23 July to decide what will be put to Labour conference to form the final party programme, from which the manifesto will be drawn.

It marks the first time since the 2015 general election that the NPF has been able to convene and officially start its manifesto work. Last summer the party drew up plans to govern in case of a snap election while Boris Johnson was struggling to thwart a mutiny, party insiders told the Guardian.

A leftwing source told the Guardian: "A Labour government will be remembered by the change it makes. Being real, everyone thinks Keir will be the next PM – the question is whether he'll end up hated like Blair, or feted like [Clement] Attlee. The path will be set by the manifesto."

I'd note that Attlee was very strongly attacked by the left over NATO, Korea, nukes, NHS charges on eye and dental treatment and defence spending when he was PM - but apart from that feted

And I think it might be what to expect if Starmer wins - a lot of very negative coverage and Owen Jones' pieces in the Guardian from day one.

[The Larch]

Universities have been told they must limit the number of medical school places this year or risk fines, a move attacked as "extraordinary" when the NHS is struggling with staff shortages

That's the Twitter headline. The full article is paywalled at The Times. Can somebody take a look at it in detail?

[Sheilbh]

Universities have been told they must limit the number of medical school places this year or risk fines, a move attacked as "extraordinary" when the NHS is struggling with staff shortages

That's the Twitter headline. The full article is paywalled at The Times. Can somebody take a look at it in detail?

There's a cap on the number of medical school places - I think the ratio of candidates with grades to acceptances is something crazy like 5:1. They are very competitive and I think it's currently 7,500-8,500 places per year.

The cap was temporarily doubled during covid and is now being re-imposed. Universities that too many places on a regular basis will get fined.

The cap basically exists because the Treasury likes to keep a very tight lid on it because they're quite expensive courses (I think student doctors can also get some amount of fees paid by the NHS - and of course end up doing their junior placements in the NHS).

But also the British Medical Association which is basically the doctors' union is strongly in favour of the cap. I think they've now reached the point where they will endorse a higher cap, but only a bit. In the past they have campaigned against it as they argue that current medical schools cannot deliver enough clinical experience to the current number of students. But they've also campaigned againgst opening new medical schools. In general they position their stance as being against "watering down standards" (or the wages of their members ) and agains the "overproduction of doctors with limited career opportunities" who'd be prey to "unscrupulous profiteers". Also any funding for new trainee doctors should be new funding and not affect any of the existing pots of cash.

There's a number of new medical schools at universities in recent years but they only accept international students as it's a nice earner. They have indicated that they'd be happy to accept British students too if the cap were lifted.

But basically there's big vested interests in the Treasury and the medical profession who like a low cap - I hope it's something Labour looks at although it would take many years to feel the benefit. But I think the cap bascially hasn't changed in 20 years.

[Josquius]

I've heard the problem is at the end of the university course these Junior Doctors need a pretty hefty period of on the job training with senior doctors holding their hand.
It's here that there is a practical upper limit in how many graduates can be handled.
Basically typical crap of universities getting the blame for training too many doctors rather than the government getting the blame for not having enough senior Doctors in place to train the juniors.
Rather than training fewer doctors we should be looking at a way to get our seniors to avoid /come out of retirement and to bring in new seniors from abroad if at least on a short term basis.

A Momentum source told the Guardian: "Keir knows that leftwing policies are what's needed. That's why policies like rail nationalisation and a windfall tax have resonated, while no one remembers the British recovery bond yawn-athon. The lesson from the 2017 election campaign is that people want bold, clear policies: like abolishing tuition fees or nationalising our failed energy system."

... Err... So... We just pretend 2019 didn't happen now?

[crazy canuck]

Medical school in the UK is a bit deficient compared to North American schools.  There is little or no clinical training. So when UK medical students graduate, they need to be trained in the clinical setting.  Compare that to North American medical schools where medical students spend increasing amounts of time in the clinical setting as part of their training.

 

[Sheilbh]

How much of that is because medicine (like law) can be an undergrad in the UK? So it's slightly semantic? In the UK there's the university which is called medical school and then the practical education which form a single path but are slightly distinct (and you can't practice medicine if you've not completed the practical bit even if you are a doctor. In North America medical school does the practical bit?

My understanding is that "medical school" which can include an undergraduate degree (depending on your route) takes four to seven years - at which point you get your relevan medical degree and can become a provisionally registered junior doctor but you're not allowed to do anything. It's the stereotypical "you get a corpse on day one" stuff.

But then you need to do your five-eight years of foundation (two years) and specialty clinical training to become a fully registered doctor. That's normally done by region with multiple medical schools providing whatever academic support is needed and the region's NHS trusts providing the various rotations that junior doctors go through and specialties they might be interested in. From friends it's this bit that's brutal. The two foundation years are academic-ish but in a clinical setting basically decided centrally but you might need to move anywhere in that region and are academic-ish but in a clinical setting, I think it's less centralised for the specialty training but you will still be required to work in several hospitals and clinics across the region.

There is a separate track which basically does the foundation training purely academically but that is for people have done a medical degree and want a university-based/academic/research career path.

From my understanding of the US system it doesn't really seem that different - around ten years to qualify. First 4+ years fully academic undergrad, second 5+ years you spend first couple of years academic-ish but increasingly in a clinical setting until that's all you're doing.

Edit: I should say that even at undergrad the medics were going through something pretty bruta - which is why they went hard when they could relax I think their final year was basically half-academic/half-clinical to prep them for foundation years and rotations. But even in the first few years they'd be in at 9 every morning cutting up cadavers etc - while I was doing an arts degree. Very different experiences

[crazy canuck]

It is not semantic at all.  People from North America often learn that lesson too late when they think going to medical school in the UK is a kind of shortcut, only to find that their medical education is viewed as second tier when they try to come back.

[Sheilbh]

But what's the practical difference? From my understanding of North American training it sounds very similar just different names for different points. They both take roughly the same length of time and involve a similar transition from academic to clinical, just the UK route (normally) has a mandatory medical undergrad degree instead of pre-med courses.

That sounds more like they're not realising that medical school here means the academic/sometimes undergrad side which allows you to train as a doctor, rather than medical training you need to practice (which in North America is called medical school)?

You got it sometimes with international law students too thinking the undergrad law degree (at a universities School of Law) will be a quick route - only to realise there's another three years of practical training before you're a lawyer (although this has entirely changed since I qualified so I don't know how it works anymore ).

[crazy canuck]

But what's the practical difference? From my understanding of North American training it sounds very similar just different names for different points. They both take roughly the same length of time and involve a similar transition from academic to clinical, just the UK route (normally) has a mandatory medical undergrad degree instead of pre-med courses.

That sounds more like they're not realising that medical school here means the academic/sometimes undergrad side which allows you to train as a doctor, rather than medical training you need to practice (which in North America is called medical school)?

You got it sometimes with international law students too thinking the undergrad law degree (at a universities School of Law) will be a quick route - only to realise there's another three years of practical training before you're a lawyer (although this has entirely changed since I qualified so I don't know how it works anymore ).

I am not sure what you are missing, there is a fundamental difference.  A person graduating from medical school in North America has extensive clinical experience and so they are ready to jump right into a residency program.  Graduates from UK medical schools have none, and so they have a very difficult time trying to make the jump into residency training.

Maybe it as simple as understanding that there is no such thing in North America as an undergraduate medical degree, but people who graduate from medical school in the UK want to be treated as if they have an equivalent degree, and are disappointed when they learn it is in no way equivalent.

[Sheilbh]

I am not sure what you are missing, there is a fundamental difference.  A person graduating from medical school in North America has extensive clinical experience and so they are ready to jump right into a residency program.  Graduates from UK medical schools have none, and so they have a very difficult time trying to make the jump into residency training.

Maybe it as simple as understanding that there is no such thing in North America as an undergraduate medical degree, but people who graduate from medical school in the UK want to be treated as if they have an equivalent degree, and are disappointed when they learn it is in no way equivalent.

But this is what I mean by it sounds like it's just semantics and different bits of the same pipeline have a different name. Because they're named differently they're at a different stage.

A person graduating from a medical school in the UK can't go straight into the equivalent of a residency program here because all they have is their degree - which is a masters but starts at undergrad (and may lead to an alternative academic/research career path). They need to do two years of foundation training before that (and the last year of their undergrad is preparing for foundation training) - which is academic but in a clinical setting. Once they've completed that they do the equivalent of residency.

The overall structure seems pretty similar just labeled differently: pre-med = medical school; medical school = foundation training (as a junior doctor); residency = junior doctor rotations. But you need all of them in order to complete your training.