Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

I actually agree with the line that we are becoming an island of strangers....
Though it has fuck all to do with immigration.
More the hollowing out of local government, the decline of high streets and pubs, car centricity, economic inequality, and all manner of other things.

I do like a lot of what Burnham says when I see him. The work with Manchester sorting it's transport out is great. I wouldn't be surprised if he is next labour leader too.

Though Manchester desirable?...

[garbon]

With the online safety act coming into force, will vpn use go up in the UK?

[Sheilbh]

I was going to update the general AC chat - but this is so typically and specifically British I feel it had to go here. With a fabulously on brand comment piece on AC in the Guardian

How do I feel about air conditioning? On the one hand, I'm extremely hot. On the other, it's destroying the planet
Emma Beddington

Yes, temperatures are rising. But more and more AC means more and more CO2 – and then more and more global heating. Let's have some long-term thinking instead
Sun 13 Jul 2025 14.00 BST

It's way too hot. I'm cowering inside, curtains drawn, pale limbs clammily exposed, the sound of my overheated laptop fan drowning out the sound of an ancient, feeble desk fan. If it gets any hotter, I'll stagger to my air-conditioned car and drive to the air-conditioned supermarket to stand in its chilly aisles, shamelessly fanning myself over the ravaged ice-cream cabinet in the freezer aisle. I've even become nostalgic for the summer when I shared an office with a man who insisted on having the AC set to 17C, meaning I had to wear a cardigan to work in August.

Ah, air conditioning, the dream. Or the nightmare? Welcome to appliance culture wars, 2025 edition. You may recall, in 2023, the US debated whether induction hobs were a communist plot; then last year Republicans tried, in all apparent seriousness, to pass the Liberty in Laundry and Refrigerator Freedom acts. This year has already featured Donald Trump pledging to "make America's showers great again" (low water pressure means it takes 15 minutes to wet his "beautiful hair") and now France is grappling with Marine Le Pen declaring herself its AC champion.

As the country suffered through an early summer heatwave, with temperatures reaching the 40s, schools closing and, according to modelling, an estimated 235 deaths, Le Pen pledged, if elected, to launch a "grand plan" to cool France. Her ally, Éric Ciotti, called for AC to be obligatory in schools, hospitals and care homes to "protect the most vulnerable".

With even higher temperatures predicted, this might prove a popular promise. It would certainly please the many Americans holidaying in Europe, expressing their sweaty astonishment at how we manage here without the chilly kiss of refrigerant-gas-cooled air. But the French AC debate rapidly heated up: Le Pen faced scathing criticism from the Greens and ecological transition minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher, who noted Le Pen's party voted against plans to develop more sustainable "cooling networks". The environment agency president called AC "an alibi for inaction". Accused of hypocrisy by right-wing commentators after reporting on environmental concerns around AC, Libération even published a follow-up confirming its offices were not air conditioned (though conceding a few "air coolers" had taken the temperature down to 32C – ugh – in the hottest spots).

Because climate control is a climate problem. In the US, where AC is ubiquitous and its necessity not up for debate, the Department of Energy says it accounts for about 12% of energy consumption in homes and "contributes significantly to carbon dioxide emissions, releasing over 100m metric tons annually". In 2019, the International Energy Authority predicted that, as the rest of the world catches up, AC will produce 2bn tonnes of CO2 annually. Relying on it to cope with an ever-hotter planet contributes to global heating, making us need it more. That's not a solution; in Pannier-Runacher's words, it's a "maladaptive" coping mechanism.

AC is quantifiably bad, but I think it's also philosophically problematic. Cooling offers comfort, making the unbearable bearable, at least for now. That happens at a community level (no one is really disputing we should keep the very old, the very young and the vulnerable cool), but also individually. When you can buy a personal bubble of coolness and not truly feel the heat, the screaming urgency to tackle the collective issue of a world on fire can recede slightly.

And this is where I have to fess up. I actually have AC – a little freestanding unit we use only in the evenings, maybe 10 times a year. We also have solar panels and a battery, which helps me sleep at night, but the cool helps more. If the government came for my AC, I wouldn't demand they "pry it out of my cold, dead hands", as one Republican said of his gas stove, but at times like these, I'm deeply, guiltily glad of it.

Air conditioning isn't the answer. We need more ambitious plans but, without them, many more people – not just rampant individualists, climate deniers, laundry liberators and fridge freedom fighters, but hot furtive hypocrites like me and anyone desperate to get some sleep – will be tempted by the easy, cool, breezy solution.

Emma Beddington is a Guardian columnist

I remember articles/podcasts taking a similar approach early in the pandemic condemning the hope for a "technological" solution like vaccines or treatment (as opposed to "social" approaches of dealing with disease). The Guardian has also run literally hundreds of articles on the problems with those weight loss drugs (while also running lots of articles on how obesity is causing huge costs to individuals, society and the NHS). And as I say if you read any of David Kynaston's books on post-war austerity Britain every there are what we would today call "culture wars" over the adoption of new technologies like vacuum cleaners, fridges, microwaves with a consistent drumbeat in the (Manchester) Guardian suggesting there is something morally suspect and American in "ease" or "comfort". I'm not sure but I couldn't help but suspect that many of those writers perhaps had paid help so were less personally exposed to the discomfort involved. So plus ca change

Edit: Also I get the heating argument from AC and urban heat islands - but I really don't get the carbon point. Surely it is just downstream of your ability to decarbonise the grid? So from a UK perspective the more wind and nuclear we build and get connected to the grid the less carbon impact there'll be from AC (and if we were to have HVAC units that heat and cool it would also allow replacing fossil fuel powered boilers etc).

[Tamas]

 

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally in the same paper on the same day

Ed Miliband would let a turbine farm destroy Brontë country. We need net zero, but at what cost?
Simon Jenkins

Of course the climate crisis must be confronted, but history, tranquility and beauty must also count for something

This is where I think the right-wing papers support the right while the left-wing papers criticise is also maybe a bit of a misdiagnosis.

Because I think the Guardian is the most small-c conservative/opposed to change paper in the country - it's always framed as wanting profound, radical, systemic change across society but absolutely opposing anything short of that. While I think a lot of the right-wing press (especially the Mail) are basically pretty radical.

[crazy canuck]

Cooking is quantifiably bad, but I think it's also philosophically problematic. Cooking offers comfort, making the consumption of food both more palatable and safer to eat, at least for now. No one is really disputing we should keep cooking meals. When you can cook your meals and not truly feel hunger, the screaming urgency to tackle the collective issue of a world on fire can recede slightly.

And this is where I have to fess up. I actually cooked and, I must also confess, I have even eaten at a restaurant where food is cooked, maybe 10 times a year. If the government came for my kitchen, I wouldn't demand they "pry it out of my cold, dead hands", as one Republican said of his gas stove, but at times like these, I'm deeply, guiltily glad of it.

Cooking isn't the answer. We need more ambitious plans but, without them, many more people – not just rampant individualists, climate deniers, laundry liberators and fridge freedom fighters, but hot furtive hypocrites like me and anyone desperate to get a good meal – will be tempted by the easy, filling, tasty solution.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - exactly.

I've yet to see an argument against AC that doesn't also apply to central heating, but one is obviously necessary. The other "philosophically problematic".

[Richard Hakluyt]

If we decarbonise the national grid and heat our houses with heat pumps then we are going to have a very large electricity production. So there will be a shortfall in electricity demand in the summer unless we embrace air-conditioning.

[Josquius]

A majority of houses with solar panels as well as heat pumps?

[Sheilbh]

Some fairly wild polls at the minute but a more serious story.

FFS on multiple levels - the breach, the superinjunction (covering £7 billion of spending ) and the government time and money spent fighting to keep it secret. I saw John Healey being interviewed and couldn't help but sympathise with the question "Lisa Nandy called for firings at the BBC over a broadcast, yet 100,000 lives were put at risk and 𝙣𝙤 𝙤𝙣𝙚'𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙟𝙤𝙗?" I mean I get not wanting to punish honest mistakes like someone accidentally clicking a phishing link. But I also feel like there's probably a higher standard for a soldier reporting to the director of special with access to and emailing a list of thousands of Afghans who worked with British forces.

Just lots of failure at enormous cost with no accountability or repercussions for anyone in the British state

Revealed: Leak that risked lives of 100,000 Afghans — and £7bn cover-up
A dataset was emailed to the wrong people, leading to fears of a Taliban 'kill list', a huge evacuation and an unprecedented superinjunction
Larisa Brown, Defence Editor
Tuesday July 15 2025, 8.30pm, The Times

The British military is responsible for a data leak that put up to 100,000 Afghans at risk of death — and successive governments have spent years fighting to keep it secret using an unprecedented superinjunction.

Some 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have either been brought to the UK already or will be in future as part of the biggest covert evacuation operation in peacetime. Up to £7 billion of taxpayers' money was once earmarked to handle the fallout.

John Healey, the defence secretary, said he had felt "deeply uncomfortable" about what happened and apologised on behalf of the government after senior MPs criticised the draconian gagging order.

Tan Dhesi, the Labour chairman of the defence select committee, told Times Radio the data breach and superinjunction were "an absolute mess and wholly unacceptable" as he said he was "minded" to carry out an investigation given the "serious ramifications".

"It's shameful, I think, that those Afghans who bravely supported our service personnel are now at risk and could be subject to reprisals or recrimination," he said.

Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge presiding over the case, said the "long-running and unprecedented" order had given rise to "serious free speech concerns" and had left a "scrutiny vacuum". Handing down his judgment, he said the gagging order had the effect of "completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy".

UK government officials were also left exposed when in February 2022 a soldier inadvertently sent a list of tens of thousands of names to Afghans as he tried to help verify applications for sanctuary in Britain.

The database of 33,000 records was then passed on and one of the individuals who received it threatened to publish the dataset on Facebook, which it was feared would have given the Taliban what amounted to a "kill list".

The MoD would not confirm on Tuesday night if the individual had faced disciplinary action as a result, or if anyone had been sacked.

The soldier responsible for the leak was operating under the command of General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, the current head of the navy, who was director of special forces at the time. When asked on Tuesday whether the prime minister retains full confidence in his naval chief, Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman replied: "He does."

A highly secretive mission, codenamed Operation Rubific, was launched to shut down the leak and stop the details of the breach becoming public.

A superinjunction — the first to be deployed by the government and the longest ever — which prevented anyone revealing even the existence of such an order, was put in place in September 2023. As it was lifted on Tuesday, after a two-year legal battle spearheaded by The Times, there were concerns in government about the risk of rioting because of the secret scheme bringing in thousands of Afghans.

At the 11th hour, The Times and other media organisations were hit with a new interim injunction that blocked the publication of sensitive information about what exactly was on the database, on the grounds of confidentiality and national security. The government argued the leaked list still posed a potential risk to Afghans.

The removal of the superinjunction followed an independent review, ordered by Healey and carried out by the retired civil servant Paul Rimmer, that concluded early concerns about the intent of the Taliban to target those on the list had "diminished".

The review also found the superinjunction may have made matters worse by increasing the value of the dataset to the Taliban.

A lawsuit involving some 1,000 of those affected across the world is being prepared against the government and is expected to cost it at least £250 million.

The vast majority of those affected by the leak, which has been described by activists as "simply bone-chilling", were not warned they were in danger as ministers sought to cover it up.

This is despite government fears the Taliban could suddenly come into possession of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) database, which was in the hands of at least one potential blackmailer. It included sensitive information — including email addresses and phone numbers — about individual Afghan cases, as well as email addresses belonging to UK government officials.

If the Taliban did gain access, the MoD said as many as 100,000 Afghans would be at "risk of death, torture, intimidation or harassment". The figure took into account the individuals who had applied for sanctuary in the UK plus their family members, some of whom were named in the dataset. It was the stuff of "nightmares", government lawyers said in court as they argued to maintain the superinjunction.

Individuals in the UK and Pakistan are still believed to be in possession of the database, which The Times has seen and analysed. In at least one case the list was exchanged for a huge sum of money, it is understood.

It remained unclear whether the Taliban had managed to get hold of the list. One activist told The Times she believed they had already been working their way through it killing people, saying she was "convinced" that "dozens if not hundreds" of Afghans had been beaten or died as a result. This allegation could not be verified and the MoD claimed it had seen no concrete evidence the Taliban had it.

Afghans who were suddenly notified of the breach on Tuesday described their situation as "hopeless" as they took urgent measures to protect themselves. Some of those listed had served alongside British troops, risking their lives in the Afghanistan war before western forces pulled out in August 2021 and the Taliban swept to power.

Many others had not, but were on the list because they had applied to come to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) on the chance they might have their applications granted.

In October last year Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, signed off a secret plan, which had begun under the Conservatives, to spend up to £7 billion over five years on bringing 25,000 of those affected to the UK.

Court documents disclosed that the cabinet's home and economic affairs committee, which included Reeves and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, agreed the plan remained "appropriate". The 25,000 were not previously eligible to come to the UK. The policy was widened in June to include more than 42,500 individuals.

The MoD said the document given to court was not clear and said the £7 billion referred to the cost for all Afghan schemes.

A total of 18,500 Afghans, less than one fifth of those caught up in the breach, have already been flown to the UK and put up in hotels or military bases.

On Tuesday, Healey scrapped the secret Afghan Response Route (ARR) scheme to bring over the rest of those previously deemed at risk of retribution. This was after the review said the plan "may now be disproportionate to the actual impact of the data loss were it [to] fall into the Taliban's hands", raising questions about why the superinjunction remained in place for so long.

Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind.

The MoD said the cost of the breach was £850 million over an unspecified period for 6,900 of those affected, because the rest of the Afghans were found eligible under the existing Arap scheme after a review of cases.

MoD figures disclosed late on Monday showed that three Afghan schemes taken together will cost taxpayers £6 billion — less than originally envisaged — of which £2.7 billion has already been spent.

Emily Keaney, deputy commissioner at the Information Commissioner's Office, said the breach "should never happen again" but "no further regulatory action is required", despite the enormity of the breach.

It sounds like Healey was briefed when he was in opposition, I assume on Privy Council terms, but the rest of the government, including Starmer, only found out on taking office.