Are they mad? The new legislation on British Steel

Extremely odd things are happening all over just now and perhaps we are becoming inured to disturbing novelty.  In the UK, some might date this to 2015 and the rise of Corbyn, passing through Brexit, in an ever-rising, ever-accelerating crescendo of covid, Ukraine and now the daily lunacies of Trump.

Personally, however, I have rarely been more shocked than when I read this today: 

Emergency legislation allowing the government to instruct companies to keep loss-making steel operations in England open, or face criminal penalties for their executives, were passed yesterday during an extraordinary sitting of parliament.

For context: I bow to no man on the strategic imperative of being able to make steel in this country.  (Obviously, not everyone need agree.)  Nor do I object to swift and decisive use of the levers of power: in fact, more often I am criticising the inertia and lack of imagination of those who hold those levers limply in their idle hands.  

And I don't have the time to read up on the exact legislation in full, which may, I suppose, in the round be less shocking than the above summary suggests.  

But ... criminal penalties?  For an economic "offence"?  Obviously, there are such liabilities upon employers that flout health and safety regulations.  But financial affairs are intrinsically civil matters: are there any other even vaguely equivalent precedents?  The "personal liability" precedent that came immediately to mind to this former councillor was Thatcher's legislation on local authorities: to prevent rogue "socialist" councils like Lambeth and Liverpool from taking the piss at annual budget time, she made the chief finance officer personally liable for balancing the budget, with powers granted to the said official to impose balance if the democratically elected members persisted in mulishly voting for infeasible financial plans.  But these were not criminal matters.  Is Starmer proposing to bang up Chinese nationals ..?  Who was it that thought a sober grey lawyer would at least bring stable, rule-of-law government to the land?

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.  In the wrong hands this precedent will be a joy to every mad leftist and green in the land.  You pick a piece of policy, and declare it a criminal offence to carry out any act inconvenient for said policy, property rights be damned.  What am I bid for failure to install heat pumps?  "Well, climate change threatens the well-being of everyone on the planet, it's preventing genocide we are talking about here!  It's obviously a criminal matter!!"   You can generate further nightmares for yourself.  Or indeed, generate a few prime candidates of your own for criminalisation!  It needn't only be leftists that play the game: we can all join in, see how they like that.  We are constrained only by the limitations of our imagination. 

Am I alone in my state of shock at all this?  Or do I just need to read the whole thing properly, and calm down?

ND

"The mother of all rebellions" ...

... if Starmer doesn't back down on PIP etc.  Oh yeah?  Way back in the summer we noted that Starmer had come down hard (very hard, in terms of precedent) on the first batch of rebels, by way of a softening-up of backbenchers for even tougher decisions to come.  (That one was over the 2-child limit.)   Here's how we concluded then:

Many of them must be trembling at the thought of what they're going to be told to vote for.  The Smack of Firm Government, eh?  And a summer of riots still to come ...  Kier "I banged them all up in 2011" Starmer will be in his element.

Needless to say, La Toynbee has been hyperventilating with her usual subtle mixture of crazy optimisim and severe disapproval.  Popcorn supplies having long since been laid in, let's see what happens. 

ND

Labour headed for serious internal strife

The Starmer government has been trying the patience of Labour members from MPs downwards, ever since the 2-chid allowance and winter fuel payment things, not to mention the freebies.  Their mealy-mouthed stance on Gaza enrages further tranches of their base.  Kow-towing to Trump - and who knows what that might entail - won't go down at all well in many quarters.  But now Rachel Reeves seems to have cut loose altogether, and must surely be moving onto a whole new patch of extremely thin ice.

Growth as a panacea for, well, everything, has a moderately respectable economic pedigree (even if achieving it has seemed to be beyond UK politicians - and there are respectable theories about that, too).  Months ago we noted that the Starmer regime seemed to have come to it fairly late, and there's no doubt it's the only thing that matters now - to Reeves, at least.  It's also top of Starmer's rhetoric just now, but soon he may find he has a few competing priorities to juggle.  And ahead of any ultimate, actual growth-derived economic benefits arriving - a long-term prospect, at best - manic growth-stimulating policies come with a lot of near-term political downsides.

This all comes to a head when, last week, Reeves explicitly said growth takes priority over Net Zero etc.  Well, in that case, we can suggest several cost-saving measures right away!  That's after weeks of "the Cuts are Coming!", which is hardly music to the ears of the rest of the Cabinet - and the Party.  Then, to cap it off, LHR3 seems likely to be given the thumbs-up.  

Apparently, Miliband says he won't resign over LHR - and we know how exceptionally "loyal" he is.   OK, LHR might not technically be within his brief, so he might feel able to let it go.  But, seriously, if NZ is to be downgraded as a priority, there really are several material savings to be made there: Sizewell C is a current cash drain for no immediate gain[1], and numerous other smaller, stupid projects too (hydrogen for heating, this includes you - and many more besides).  Reeves' axe must surely swing in his direction as well as every other.  These cuts and blunt Go-for-Growth bulldozer measures will be pissing off Labour swing voters and NIMBYs everywhere on a big scale - and there's one helluva big, restive, worried labour backbench cohort.

Now I may be getting ahead of myself here, but I feel we see some of the bigger players starting to position themselves for genuine internecine strife.  Streeting is the one who caught my attention last week with his big, heavily-trailed "battle of ideas" speech - a sure sign; and of course Khan is always on the lookout for cues to work his passage back into Parliament and the leadership he fondly imagines is his by right.  They say Lammy is boundlessly ambitious.  Rayner is a joke, of course, but for completeness I feel it must be noted that Miliband is seriously radiating dynamic confidence & competence (that's "radiating", not "actually delivering"), and looks like leadership material [2] if anyone was in the market for it.  In a country like France, he'd have no difficulty in being a candidate to go round again.  Mandelson, of course, is always on expert manoeuvres and his favours are fairly fickle. 

Popcorn time, then.  And sooner than we might have expected.

ND

____________

[1] Not in energy terms, anyhow.  Of course, many say the underlying purpose of the whole civil nuclear programme is to subsidise the military nukes.  And I persist in viewing it as part of the overall craven France-mollifying strategy which of course involves the Small Boats issue.

[2] If you want to judge for yourself, view his performance at the ESNZ committee in Parliament two weeks ago - masterful stuff.

The politics of (green) compulsion

If, as seems likely, the Tories held Uxbridge as a reaction to Sadiq Khan's ULEZ extension, well, we ain't seen nothing yet.

The UK has reduced its CO2 emissions by more than any other country** since 1990 - but this was achieved by (a) going for the low-hanging fruit (i.e. phasing out coal) and (b) de-industrialisation.  Although this hasn't been remotely cost-free, the costs have been loaded onto electricity bills and, frankly, haven't really been noticed.  But that phase of the game is rapidly coming to a close: very little low-hanging fruit remains down decarbonisation way.

The cost of such potential still to be exploited in the power generation sector is rising rapidly

Aside from incremental efficiencies that arise naturally from technical evolution, we've barely started on home heating, transportation, agriculture and much of heavy industry.  And decarboning those will be very costly indeed.

And then there's Behaviour.  Less travel.  Less meat.  Less creature comfort.  The greens, from Swampy and Greta to John Selwyn Bummer (© Jasper Carrot) have all been pressing government to start 'changing behaviours' - that's our behaviours - and while they'd rather that to be via 'leadership' and 'persuasion', there's little doubt that ultimately they mean compulsion.

I have a strong suspicion they won't be getting any change out of any UK politicians of any party (except just maybe a few Green Party hopefuls) this side of the next GE.  In this context, Khan is right out there on his own - and being rapidly disowned by Starmer, naturally enough.  Miliband has been well and truly sat on, so really it's only Ed "Drax" Davey we still need to hear from on the subject.

ND

____________ 

** France, of course, would claim to have had a lower-CO2 starting-point, thanks to its nukes

Sue Gray: more trouble than she's worth

The old troublemaker

We should probably get this in quick before Kier Starmer retreats behind procedure and un-invites Sue Gray to be his chief of staff, a contingency that must be on the cards given the very weak ground they are both on.  At best, the precedent is that she'll need to wait a year before taking up the appointment, which pretty much sanitizes her usefulness for the GE.  At worst, the move will be ruled against.

What's the attraction?  Maybe her reputation as a sea-green incorruptible?  Hmmm.  She puts me in mind of Alexander Solzhenitsyn - best admired at a distance.  He was a troublemaker in Russia; and he wasn't about to change his spots when he was expelled from the same and lived in the west.  

Sue Gray will either cause trouble for Starmer now, or (if she makes it aboard his ship) when in post.  Probably seemed like a clever idea at the time: but a bad decision.

ND

Might Starmer gets his Man after all?

 So last week I wrote about how Boris would survive, undeservedly, due to Ukraine and Labour being so weak. However, today he came to Parliament to apologise and was defenestrated by Keir Starmer. 

Not that in the long term this should matter, but the way the whole partygate story is unfolding may well end up doing for Boris. Firstly, on his own terms, he has lied and been fined. For me this is a very confected story for now, but still. he was guilty as charged. 

The bigger issue is that Priti Patel was also woeful before in defending the Rwanda policy; a policy which needed much better communications than it has had. it would always be controversial but the way it was announced does seem like a dead cat to distract from partygate. Which is a shame, as doing something about illegal immigration should be very popular and is needed after generations of politicians ignoring it as too difficult. 

The real mess will be if Boris gets more fines. Keir has laid the marker now that he is a convicted liar. Apparently Boris is under investigation by the Met Police for six more potential breaches. I can see him hanging on for one more, but after that the litany of abuse will be to  much and he will resign or be forced to face an internal election at best. 

So the odds on the Survivor appear to have come in shorter during the week!