Labour has a massive task of them: the core functions of the state are currently running only by the charity of the civil service, because the government is funnelling as much money as possible...
Exemplary
Labour has a massive task of them: the core functions of the state are currently running only by the charity of the civil service, because the government is funnelling as much money as possible into their donors' pockets. This is exacerbating economic problems: many schools will be unable to reopen in September, which will push women out of the workforce; understaffed council planning offices prevent the construction of new housing; and so on.
The green policies are interesting, though. The thing about making batteries in the UK isn't ambitious enough, though. British carmaking died because Japan made cheaper cars and Western Europe, having industrialised later, made better cars. But now the surviving French and German marques are struggling to adapt to electrification because they have too much inertia behind combustion engines, just as British marques had too much inertia behind manual manufacturing techniques. This means that a British government-created-but-always-going-to-be-privatised car manufacturer could have a real advantage because it lacks that historical baggage.
What really concerns me about Labour's current platform is the planned abolition of the House of Lords. The Lords have been the adults in the room ever since the Brexit vote, and while they do need reform, we need to strengthen them, not get rid of them. Ever since the Dark Ages, European societies have continuously grown in complexity, and we increasingly turn to our governments to manage that complexity for us. Trading standards had to be introduced because we no longer live in market towns where we know every merchant and the provenance of every item available for sale. Constabularies had to be introduced because we no longer know everyone we meet. The Highway Code had to be introduced because we have things faster than horses now. We don't need more representatives of the ordinary people, we need more experts to stop the ordinary people from ruining everything. We don't need to replace the Lords, we need to change how we appoint Life Peers: the prime minister shouldn't be making decisions for the Palace, for a start. Instead, there should be an independent commission that recommends candidate peers to the palace, and there should be a category of Lords Intellectual, who are appointed to the House of Lords by virtue of holding specific academic offices (prominent university professorships, presidents of learned societies, and so on), just as certain bishops are created Lords Spiritual by virtue of their Sees.
Thanks for your comment Shmiggles. I agree with you that Labour has a Herculean task ahead if they do win next year's general election. It is a bit dejecting to observe the government's handling...
Thanks for your comment Shmiggles. I agree with you that Labour has a Herculean task ahead if they do win next year's general election.
It is a bit dejecting to observe the government's handling of the automotive industry. Between EU tariffs and Britishvolt collapsing when Northvolt is being supported by Berlin, it seems that there's a lack of joined-up thinking in London, and too much of an obsession with a laissez-faire approach (which doesn't chime with the 'levelling up' mantra either). If Britain wants to keep and retain corporate titans, a wholly hands-off approach won't work.
I find your comments on the House of Lords especially interesting. There is strong public dissatisfaction with the present House of Lords appointment system, with just 6% of the public expressing the opinion that they support the Prime Minister being able to appoint peers at their convenience; if the House of Lords is to be kept, 58% want the House of Lords Appointments Committee (HOLAC) to be responsible for appointments only.
Abolition does seem to so far be a minority point of view, with polls hovering at the 20-30% mark. I think this is more because the public view the House of Lords as a low-order priority, as much as they are offended by the prime minister's nominations being a list of mates, or by particular peers such as Baroness Mone or Lord Cruddas (who was installed as a peer against the wishes of HOLAC). I would personally prefer electoral reform for the House of Commons and a fairer devolution settlement for England over House of Lords abolition, though changes such as the elimination of hereditary peerages and strengthening HOLAC are easy wins for a Labour government in its first parliamentary term. I would be amenable to House of Lords abolition only if I was satisfied with the alternative, and I don't think there's an alternative I would like until English regions have more devolved powers and a true senate of the regions (à la Gordon Brown) could be created.
Appointing peers ex officio is an interesting concept. Would their membership be for the duration of holding the relevant offices, in your ideal reform? One reform along these lines I've heard mooted is introducing something similar to Hong Kong's functional constituencies, which are essentially interest-group electoral colleges which return legislators. I'm not especially keen on this system as I think it would introduce parastatal dynamics. I don't want, say, business groups or unions to directly be able to influence the composition of the upper house through particular constituencies.
The problem with Britishvolt was that it didn't have a viable business plan. There is an opportunity to try to use our closer relationship with Australia (soon to be the world's biggest producer...
The problem with Britishvolt was that it didn't have a viable business plan. There is an opportunity to try to use our closer relationship with Australia (soon to be the world's biggest producer of lithium) to gain a market advantage, however.
A lack of joined-up thinking is endemic across governments around the world, because democratically elected politicians tend to be humanities graduates who are very good at forming personal relationships, and that style of thinking doesn't fare well given the complexities our governments now need to manage. Levelling up is just prolefeed for most of the government, except Gove, who seems to actually care about the disadvantaged. And, yes, laissez faire economics has failed and golden shower economics is becoming dangerously close to being replaced by pinata economics ('beat the rich with sticks until the money falls out').
My disagreement against an Assembly of the Regions comes from growing up in Australia, which has an American-style Senate as its upper house of the Federal Parliament. The Australian Senate provides a useful mechanism for minor parties to make their voices heard, but otherwise matches prime minister Paul Keating's description as 'unrepresentative swill'. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, we saw the Will of the People (the referendum result) pitted against the Representatives of the People (the votes in the Commons). Having two different mechanisms for representing the people at large in the same institution inevitably leads to deadlocks - look at those silly shutdowns they have in America when they can't pass the budget.
I would appoint peers ex officio only for the duration of that office - once they step down, the appointment would pass to their successor. Exactly which offices would be associated with membership of the Lords would need to be periodically reviewed, of course, because keeping the whole thing relevant to society and the economy (which are, in a sense, the same thing) is the aim of the game. If my proposed Lords Intellectual were successful, then there could be, say, Lords Artistic, representing cultural institutions, and so on, until the Lords Temporal were just the leftover catch-all group where we put people who are useful to have in Parliament (leaders of strategically important businesses, and so on) that don't fit into other groups.
I wasn't aware of Hong Kong's functional constituencies, but they sound very much like the involvement of the Livery Companies in the election of the Lord Mayor of London, or, what the Livery Companies were back when the Livery Companies did things that were actually relevant to London other than charity work. That's an important point that I left out in my last comment: the categories should be permanent (or as permanent as anything is in the British Constitution), but the specific offices within those categories should be periodically reviewed to ensure that they remain relevant. I think the greatest thing about the UK is that it is evolutionary, not revolutionary: it is always behind the times, but only ever slightly behind the times, unlike many other countries, which seem to be trapped in the eras when their Constitutions were laid down.
Archive link to article here Britain's opposition Labour party has been widely accused of not making clear policy pronouncements in an attempt to not spook markets or the electorate after the...
Britain's opposition Labour party has been widely accused of not making clear policy pronouncements in an attempt to not spook markets or the electorate after the debacle of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. U-turns on policies including the nationalisation of utilities and abolition of university tuition fees have been described by Labour as reticence in the face of UK budgetary pressures. Yet, despite the retreat from stereotypically ‘progressive’ policies in this regard, the Labour party has adopted an enthusiastic stance towards increasing capital spending on infrastructural investment, which the party proposes to increase by £28 bn a year through to 2030 through additional borrowing - while pledging to begin to bring the government debt to GDP ratio down by the end of a five-year parliamentary term.
The governing Conservatives are likely to decry this as a ‘borrowing bombshell’, though the government debt burden as a share of GDP has ballooned from 74% in 2010 to 105% in 2022 under Conservative government, so whether this charge will stick remains to be seen.
It’s worth noting that both main parties are supportive of some increased capital investment for green infrastructure, and both parties oppose the UK rejoining the European Union or the European single market (and subscribing to its ‘four freedoms’, including freedom of movement). With the exception of the Conservative party's brief Liz Truss drama, both parties are fairly 'big state' at the moment, so it's really a matter of scale. Labour rhetoric charges the government with dithering and being obsessed with intra-party drama, rather than in other Anglosphere countries where the centre-right tend to indulge in climate change denial.
I never really understand politics. Does anyone take notice of these "promises"? Surely the electorate is more focussed on what's going on right now (inflation, cost of living, interest rates etc)
I never really understand politics. Does anyone take notice of these "promises"? Surely the electorate is more focussed on what's going on right now (inflation, cost of living, interest rates etc)
Manifesto commitments are important in parliamentary systems. Sure, there are acute cost-of-living issues at the moment but perception matters too. I find it hard to argue that Starmer/Reeves...
Manifesto commitments are important in parliamentary systems. Sure, there are acute cost-of-living issues at the moment but perception matters too. I find it hard to argue that Starmer/Reeves haven't moderated the image of the Labour party, which makes large swathes of the electorate (especially in England) more comfortable. Not stressing out the markets (which have fragile faith in the UK's trajectory as it is) is important for a government-in-waiting too.
As an aside, I thought I posted this in ~news? I put in some tags (politics and United Kingdom) and it ended up posting to ~misc. Maybe I'm blind and accidentally changed the board I posted to.
As an aside, I thought I posted this in ~news? I put in some tags (politics and United Kingdom) and it ended up posting to ~misc. Maybe I'm blind and accidentally changed the board I posted to.
Labour has a massive task of them: the core functions of the state are currently running only by the charity of the civil service, because the government is funnelling as much money as possible into their donors' pockets. This is exacerbating economic problems: many schools will be unable to reopen in September, which will push women out of the workforce; understaffed council planning offices prevent the construction of new housing; and so on.
The green policies are interesting, though. The thing about making batteries in the UK isn't ambitious enough, though. British carmaking died because Japan made cheaper cars and Western Europe, having industrialised later, made better cars. But now the surviving French and German marques are struggling to adapt to electrification because they have too much inertia behind combustion engines, just as British marques had too much inertia behind manual manufacturing techniques. This means that a British government-created-but-always-going-to-be-privatised car manufacturer could have a real advantage because it lacks that historical baggage.
What really concerns me about Labour's current platform is the planned abolition of the House of Lords. The Lords have been the adults in the room ever since the Brexit vote, and while they do need reform, we need to strengthen them, not get rid of them. Ever since the Dark Ages, European societies have continuously grown in complexity, and we increasingly turn to our governments to manage that complexity for us. Trading standards had to be introduced because we no longer live in market towns where we know every merchant and the provenance of every item available for sale. Constabularies had to be introduced because we no longer know everyone we meet. The Highway Code had to be introduced because we have things faster than horses now. We don't need more representatives of the ordinary people, we need more experts to stop the ordinary people from ruining everything. We don't need to replace the Lords, we need to change how we appoint Life Peers: the prime minister shouldn't be making decisions for the Palace, for a start. Instead, there should be an independent commission that recommends candidate peers to the palace, and there should be a category of Lords Intellectual, who are appointed to the House of Lords by virtue of holding specific academic offices (prominent university professorships, presidents of learned societies, and so on), just as certain bishops are created Lords Spiritual by virtue of their Sees.
Thanks for your comment Shmiggles. I agree with you that Labour has a Herculean task ahead if they do win next year's general election.
It is a bit dejecting to observe the government's handling of the automotive industry. Between EU tariffs and Britishvolt collapsing when Northvolt is being supported by Berlin, it seems that there's a lack of joined-up thinking in London, and too much of an obsession with a laissez-faire approach (which doesn't chime with the 'levelling up' mantra either). If Britain wants to keep and retain corporate titans, a wholly hands-off approach won't work.
I find your comments on the House of Lords especially interesting. There is strong public dissatisfaction with the present House of Lords appointment system, with just 6% of the public expressing the opinion that they support the Prime Minister being able to appoint peers at their convenience; if the House of Lords is to be kept, 58% want the House of Lords Appointments Committee (HOLAC) to be responsible for appointments only.
Abolition does seem to so far be a minority point of view, with polls hovering at the 20-30% mark. I think this is more because the public view the House of Lords as a low-order priority, as much as they are offended by the prime minister's nominations being a list of mates, or by particular peers such as Baroness Mone or Lord Cruddas (who was installed as a peer against the wishes of HOLAC). I would personally prefer electoral reform for the House of Commons and a fairer devolution settlement for England over House of Lords abolition, though changes such as the elimination of hereditary peerages and strengthening HOLAC are easy wins for a Labour government in its first parliamentary term. I would be amenable to House of Lords abolition only if I was satisfied with the alternative, and I don't think there's an alternative I would like until English regions have more devolved powers and a true senate of the regions (à la Gordon Brown) could be created.
Appointing peers ex officio is an interesting concept. Would their membership be for the duration of holding the relevant offices, in your ideal reform? One reform along these lines I've heard mooted is introducing something similar to Hong Kong's functional constituencies, which are essentially interest-group electoral colleges which return legislators. I'm not especially keen on this system as I think it would introduce parastatal dynamics. I don't want, say, business groups or unions to directly be able to influence the composition of the upper house through particular constituencies.
The problem with Britishvolt was that it didn't have a viable business plan. There is an opportunity to try to use our closer relationship with Australia (soon to be the world's biggest producer of lithium) to gain a market advantage, however.
A lack of joined-up thinking is endemic across governments around the world, because democratically elected politicians tend to be humanities graduates who are very good at forming personal relationships, and that style of thinking doesn't fare well given the complexities our governments now need to manage. Levelling up is just prolefeed for most of the government, except Gove, who seems to actually care about the disadvantaged. And, yes, laissez faire economics has failed and golden shower economics is becoming dangerously close to being replaced by pinata economics ('beat the rich with sticks until the money falls out').
My disagreement against an Assembly of the Regions comes from growing up in Australia, which has an American-style Senate as its upper house of the Federal Parliament. The Australian Senate provides a useful mechanism for minor parties to make their voices heard, but otherwise matches prime minister Paul Keating's description as 'unrepresentative swill'. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, we saw the Will of the People (the referendum result) pitted against the Representatives of the People (the votes in the Commons). Having two different mechanisms for representing the people at large in the same institution inevitably leads to deadlocks - look at those silly shutdowns they have in America when they can't pass the budget.
I would appoint peers ex officio only for the duration of that office - once they step down, the appointment would pass to their successor. Exactly which offices would be associated with membership of the Lords would need to be periodically reviewed, of course, because keeping the whole thing relevant to society and the economy (which are, in a sense, the same thing) is the aim of the game. If my proposed Lords Intellectual were successful, then there could be, say, Lords Artistic, representing cultural institutions, and so on, until the Lords Temporal were just the leftover catch-all group where we put people who are useful to have in Parliament (leaders of strategically important businesses, and so on) that don't fit into other groups.
I wasn't aware of Hong Kong's functional constituencies, but they sound very much like the involvement of the Livery Companies in the election of the Lord Mayor of London, or, what the Livery Companies were back when the Livery Companies did things that were actually relevant to London other than charity work. That's an important point that I left out in my last comment: the categories should be permanent (or as permanent as anything is in the British Constitution), but the specific offices within those categories should be periodically reviewed to ensure that they remain relevant. I think the greatest thing about the UK is that it is evolutionary, not revolutionary: it is always behind the times, but only ever slightly behind the times, unlike many other countries, which seem to be trapped in the eras when their Constitutions were laid down.
Archive link to article here
Britain's opposition Labour party has been widely accused of not making clear policy pronouncements in an attempt to not spook markets or the electorate after the debacle of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. U-turns on policies including the nationalisation of utilities and abolition of university tuition fees have been described by Labour as reticence in the face of UK budgetary pressures. Yet, despite the retreat from stereotypically ‘progressive’ policies in this regard, the Labour party has adopted an enthusiastic stance towards increasing capital spending on infrastructural investment, which the party proposes to increase by £28 bn a year through to 2030 through additional borrowing - while pledging to begin to bring the government debt to GDP ratio down by the end of a five-year parliamentary term.
The governing Conservatives are likely to decry this as a ‘borrowing bombshell’, though the government debt burden as a share of GDP has ballooned from 74% in 2010 to 105% in 2022 under Conservative government, so whether this charge will stick remains to be seen.
It’s worth noting that both main parties are supportive of some increased capital investment for green infrastructure, and both parties oppose the UK rejoining the European Union or the European single market (and subscribing to its ‘four freedoms’, including freedom of movement). With the exception of the Conservative party's brief Liz Truss drama, both parties are fairly 'big state' at the moment, so it's really a matter of scale. Labour rhetoric charges the government with dithering and being obsessed with intra-party drama, rather than in other Anglosphere countries where the centre-right tend to indulge in climate change denial.
I never really understand politics. Does anyone take notice of these "promises"? Surely the electorate is more focussed on what's going on right now (inflation, cost of living, interest rates etc)
Manifesto commitments are important in parliamentary systems. Sure, there are acute cost-of-living issues at the moment but perception matters too. I find it hard to argue that Starmer/Reeves haven't moderated the image of the Labour party, which makes large swathes of the electorate (especially in England) more comfortable. Not stressing out the markets (which have fragile faith in the UK's trajectory as it is) is important for a government-in-waiting too.
As an aside, I thought I posted this in ~news? I put in some tags (politics and United Kingdom) and it ended up posting to ~misc. Maybe I'm blind and accidentally changed the board I posted to.
I moved it into ~misc. All moderation actions can be found in the topic log to the right of every post.
Got it. Thanks!