Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

Four-year terms would help in that respect; a 20% reduction of maximum term is quite significant.

We already have a problem with governments not thinking past the next five years. Why make things worse?

 

[nw1]

We already have a problem with governments not thinking past the next five years. Why make things worse?

Four years allows us to turf out the government more readily if we're fed up of it - as the current situation shows. Just feels at the moment like we're treading water without anything positive happening, as others have observed - and it seems likely to go on for another 11 to 15 months.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2023 ==

Wiltshire is effectively gaining a constituency due to people moving in (strictly there is a newly shared one with south Gloucestershire).

The current Devizes constituency includes huge rural area that becomes new East Wiltshire. Melksham and Bradford-on-Avon are currently part of oversize Chippenham constituency which are proposed to join with Devizes.

Ah ok thanks - so I'm guessing there'll be another "free" constituency for the Tories then as I doubt any in that area will change hands.

The big problem is that all these new constituencies seem to be semi-rural, which suggest they'll all go to the Tories. Presumably the cities must be due a few extra ones, as (AFAIK) city population has risen since the turn of the century.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Four years allows us to turf out the government more readily if we're fed up of it - as the current situation shows. Just feels at the moment like we're treading water without anything positive happening, as others have observed - and it seems likely to go on for another 11 to 15 months.

scorched earth policy is what is going on leaving a mess for whoever follows next with little opportunity to get on top of it in five years let alone reducing it to four

 

[JamesT]

Ah ok thanks - so I'm guessing there'll be another "free" constituency for the Tories then as I doubt any in that area will change hands.

The big problem is that all these new constituencies seem to be semi-rural, which suggest they'll all go to the Tories. Presumably the cities must be due a few extra ones, as (AFAIK) city population has risen since the turn of the century.

That depends how balanced the constituencies were before. I’m sure I read previously that Conservative constituencies were larger on average, so more likely to end up being split to get them balanced.
The main shift is from Scotland, the North of England, and especially Wales to the South of England.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree there will be some element of that, but I'm not sure how possible it is quantify the effect of that compared to, say, the impact of high corporation tax. Of course there is nothing to stop companies setting up here and still following EU rules if they choose to do so - admittedly with a bit more bureaucracy than before. And conversely we can attract other companies that don't want or need to follow EU rules because they're not going to export their products to the EU.

Corporation tax was 20% from until 2016, then down to 19% until 2023 when it went up to 25%. So it can't account for the loss of investment and growth that started with the Brexit referendum throwing the UK into uncertainty about the potential regulatory regime.

Why would a business wanting to sell in the EU locate itself in the UK when going to the Netherlands or Germany or any of 25 other countries would involve much less paperwork and associated costs and delays, and similar issues with sourcing supply chain and people? And why would a business not bothered about selling into the EU locate in the UK when all their largest potential markets are an ocean away?

And even if they still wanted to do business here, the threat of mountains of so-called EU regulations being summarily excised from UK law has created even more uncertainty, only partly mitigated by the list now being shortened.

 

[najaB]

And even if they still wanted to do business here, the threat of mountains of so-called EU regulations being summarily excised from UK law has created even more uncertainty, only partly mitigated by the list now being shortened.

Indeed. The only thing worse than tearing up reams of regulations is uncertainty about which ones are going and which are being kept.

 

[Snow1964]

Indeed. The only thing worse than tearing up reams of regulations is uncertainty about which ones are going and which are being kept.

And businesses are also wary about potential new regulations.

If making something, and built it to EU conformity, who wants to waste their time having it re-certified to a new UK standard which it might not meet if arbitrary new rules are made.

Brexit just makes trade with UK more paperwork intensive thus expensive, especially when current Government keep changing dates when transition rules will end.

 

[MikeWM]

Why would a business wanting to sell in the EU locate itself in the UK when going to the Netherlands or Germany or any of 25 other countries would involve much less paperwork and associated costs and delays, and similar issues with sourcing supply chain and people? And why would a business not bothered about selling into the EU locate in the UK when all their largest potential markets are an ocean away?

And even if they still wanted to do business here, the threat of mountains of so-called EU regulations being summarily excised from UK law has created even more uncertainty, only partly mitigated by the list now being shortened.

But all that assumes that we're only talking about large multinationals, looking for a new location, that they trade in physical goods (eg. so not software or finance or similar) and that all other things are equal (eg. not taking into account the expensive and significant cost of labour protections in France, among others).

I'm also not sure why regulations being repealed - or not - has any effect whatever *so far*. If you think you're going to export to the EU, keep following the regulations anyway. For those who aren't, the removal of such regulations may offer opportunities.

It would be much better to be filling any gaps with home-grown SMEs, who often don't need to care about EU exports anyway - but of course the current economic conditions, energy prices, state of the banks, etc. not to mention the existential threat to future business caused by a similar over-reaction to events as we suffered in 2020 and 2021, leave us in a state where it is extremely difficult (and probably very foolhardy) to attempt to start up, or grow an existing, SME.

Yes, Brexit has had an effect, and probably a mildly negative one *at this point*. But lockdowns (and the potential threat of future lockdowns), and the appalling mismanagement of the economy both by the government and the Bank Of England, have had a much more significant effect in my opinion.

 

[edwin_m]

But all that assumes that we're only talking about large multinationals, looking for a new location, that they trade in physical goods (eg. so not software or finance or similar) and that all other things are equal (eg. not taking into account the expensive and significant cost of labour protections in France, among others).

I'm also not sure why regulations being repealed - or not - has any effect whatever *so far*. If you think you're going to export to the EU, keep following the regulations anyway. For those who aren't, the removal of such regulations may offer opportunities.

It would be much better to be filling any gaps with home-grown SMEs, who often don't need to care about EU exports anyway - but of course the current economic conditions, energy prices, state of the banks, etc. not to mention the existential threat to future business caused by a similar over-reaction to events as we suffered in 2020 and 2021, leave us in a state where it is extremely difficult (and probably very foolhardy) to attempt to start up, or grow an existing, SME.

Yes, Brexit has had an effect, and probably a mildly negative one *at this point*. But lockdowns (and the potential threat of future lockdowns), and the appalling mismanagement of the economy both by the government and the Bank Of England, have had a much more significant effect in my opinion.

Small companies would often service the EU market by sending deliveries via without having to have a physical presence there. Now that's virtually impossible because of the amount of paperwork needed for each shipment. Similar applies to UK consumers ordering from EU companies. Many service-based companies suffer from extra obstacles to international travel.

The economic conditions are indeed not good for home-grown SMEs, but to those reason you list you should be adding the labour shortage and the uncertainty about future regulations. That uncertainty is a problem for everyone, even if the regulations today remain broadly aligned.

I agree Brexit is not the main reason for current problems, many of which (to get back on topic) were caused or worsened by the actions of Tory governments, but the OBR has said it had more economic impact than Covid. How do you see Brexit making things better in the future?

 

[najaB]

But all that assumes that we're only talking about large multinationals, looking for a new location, that they trade in physical goods (eg. so not software or finance or similar) and that all other things are equal (eg. not taking into account the expensive and significant cost of labour protections in France, among others).

Regulations and standards apply to services as much as (and in some cases more so) than with physical goods.

I'm also not sure why regulations being repealed - or not - has any effect whatever *so far*. If you think you're going to export to the EU, keep following the regulations anyway. For those who aren't, the removal of such regulations may offer opportunities.

The issue isn't regulations being repealed, it's not knowing what regulations are going to be repealed and, more importantly, what regulations are going replace them.

 

[MikeWM]

The economic conditions are indeed not good for home-grown SMEs, but to those reason you list you should be adding the labour shortage and the uncertainty about future regulations. That uncertainty is a problem for everyone, even if the regulations today remain broadly aligned.

I'd argue labour shortages should be mostly resolved by training people in this country adequately, rather than assuming we can just use immigration to solve these issues (previously from the EU, and now it seems the rest of the world instead). We won't, it seems, but that's more due to short-term thinking and government uselessness than a Brexit issue in the longer-term.

As for regulations - yes, if we get to the stage of adding *different* regulations, as opposed to just less. But we're not at that point yet.

I agree Brexit is not the main reason for current problems, many of which (to get back on topic) were caused or worsened by the actions of Tory governments, but the OBR has said it had more economic impact than Covid. How do you see Brexit making things better in the future?

You may have noticed from this thread that I have little regard for what the OBR say, their track record is appalling.

I do note, for example, that the level of exports to the EU from the UK was slightly up in 2022 compared to 2019 and previous years. Yes, you need to take inflation into account when calculating that, but also the fact that much of the EU still had covid restrictions early in 2022 (in some cases, throughout 2022!). The 2023 figures should be more instructive, but so far it is hard to see that exports have been affected much at all.

I don't think it appears that the current or future UK governments are going to take advantage of the things we *can* do, but an obvious example is that if a regulation was severely affecting a business, they can now lobby the UK government to change it, and the UK government has the power to do so. On current track record they probably won't, but at least the option is now there.

--

Regulations and standards apply to services as much as (and in some cases more so) than with physical goods.

They do, but such things tend to be left to the legal department and affect the company less as a whole. I work for a European software company and my job hasn't changed one bit since Brexit. I'm sure there are people in the legal department who've had to do some stuff, but it hasn't impacted me.

The issue isn't regulations being repealed, it's not knowing what regulations are going to be repealed and, more importantly, what regulations are going replace them.

As above - I'm still not sure why regulations being repealed matters in the slightest - you can still follow them if you want to.

Yes to the replacement part, divergence if not handled sensibly will be a pain to deal with, but that's not happened (yet).

 

[bspahh]

As above - I'm still not sure why regulations being repealed matters in the slightest - you can still follow them if you want to.

It matters if you make manufacture something. For the things that you build, you can be sure that the European regulations are being followed. If you need to buy in components, then you cannot, and now you need to check that all your suppliers and your suppliers' suppliers are following the appropriate regulations.

If you were choosing where to invest to make things to sell to the EU, then placing that investment where you can then assume that all the local suppliers will be following the EU regulations becomes more attractive.

 

[edwin_m]

As for regulations - yes, if we get to the stage of adding *different* regulations, as opposed to just less. But we're not at that point yet.

That "yet" embodies the uncertainty issue that's hitting businesses. And plenty of Brexiters were chuntering about imposing higher standards in the UK.

A software company is probably amongst the least affected of all, except maybe by the labour shortage (though note immigrants with high qualifications are still allowed, so the immigrants are now only taking high-paid jobs...).

 

[jon0844]

I'd argue labour shortages should be mostly resolved by training people in this country adequately, rather than assuming we can just use immigration to solve these issues (previously from the EU, and now it seems the rest of the world instead). We won't, it seems, but that's more due to short-term thinking and government uselessness than a Brexit issue in the longer-term.

There are many jobs where someone from the UK simply couldn't afford to do the job, so more training isn't enough. Take people doing seasonal work on farms. They might get paid minimum wage and it is all legal and above board, but they're only able to be there because they're 'happy' to shack up with others locally, paying far less than any 'native' could do. I mean, you're not going to move for a low-paid part-time job (if not, how do you get to your job if there's no buses and you can't afford to buy/run a car?). And if you live where the most jobs and opportunities are, you probably need more money to have any chance of paying your increased rent - and a mortgage? Yeah, good luck with that even without the interest rate rises. So, again, you're not going to take a rural job.

We aren't going to fill all of our vacancies without some major changes to the economy, and we've always relied on immigrant labour and I can't see how we think it is different now. We might WANT it to be different, but that doesn't make it so.

Rishi says in 5, 10 or 15 years we'll solve the problem and not need to rely on foreign workers for the NHS (and presumably other industries) but he's surely sensible enough to know that isn't true, and in any case it isn't going to be his problem.

 

[MikeWM]

It matters if you make manufacture something. For the things that you build, you can be sure that the European regulations are being followed. If you need to buy in components, then you cannot, and now you need to check that all your suppliers and your suppliers' suppliers are following the appropriate regulations.

Ok, that's a good point. I hadn't really thought of that , thanks.

--

That "yet" embodies the uncertainty issue that's hitting businesses. And plenty of Brexiters were chuntering about imposing higher standards in the UK.

Yes, fair enough, though I do wonder really how much an effect it has compared to other factors over the last few years (which I guess is where we started this conversation).

A software company is probably amongst the least affected of all, except maybe by the labour shortage (though note immigrants with high qualifications are still allowed, so the immigrants are now only taking high-paid jobs...).

One could debate whether or not a US-style H1B situation is better or worse than outsourcing jobs to cheaper countries in Asia. Probably neither is the best solution (!), but we seem to oscillate between the two...

--

We aren't going to fill all of our vacancies without some major changes to the economy, and we've always relied on immigrant labour and I can't see how we think it is different now. We might WANT it to be different, but that doesn't make it so.

Then perhaps we should make those major changes to the economy. If we've got more jobs than workers (so 'need' immigration to fill the roles) and yet the economy is still in the poor state it is in, we're either doing things wrong or we're doing the wrong things, or most likely both.

 

[edwin_m]

Then perhaps we should make those major changes to the economy. If we've got more jobs than workers (so 'need' immigration to fill the roles) and yet the economy is still in the poor state it is in, we're either doing things wrong or we're doing the wrong things, or most likely both.

The UK certainly has a productivity problem, but doing something about that needs industry to invest in training and automation. One could argue that there were previously reasons why they just employed immigrants instead (notably before Osborne increased the minimum wage significantly), but now there's little confidence to invest for all the reasons discussed in recent posts.

 

[najaB]

Yes to the replacement part, divergence if not handled sensibly will be a pain to deal with, but that's not happened (yet).

And it's exactly that uncertainty that makes the UK less attractive to a business seeking to set up operations on this side of the Atlantic/Indian Ocean.

 

[jon0844]

Then perhaps we should make those major changes to the economy. If we've got more jobs than workers (so 'need' immigration to fill the roles) and yet the economy is still in the poor state it is in, we're either doing things wrong or we're doing the wrong things, or most likely both.

Yes, but how? The problem is that people aren't earning enough to pay for somewhere to live. If renting or house prices were lower, people wouldn't give up more than half of their income on a place to live - which leaves them barely any money to cope with rising prices of food and travel, and a risk of becoming homeless in a matter of months because there's also very little in the way of savings for most people. I suspect that in the last year, more people have begun putting things on credit - so that's going to end in disaster too.

 

[Snow1964]

Interesting to read that Nadine Dorries still hasn't officially resigned as an MP, unlike the other two...

Apparently still hasn't resigned

Clearly when she announced she would be going immediately, she forgot to add that she wouldn't follow through.

Now missed the deadline to call a by-election before summer recess and allow Bedfordshire constituent's same date as some other by-elections on 20th July

 

[D6130]

Now missed the deadline to call a by-election before summer recess and allow Bedfordshire constituent's same date as some other by-elections on 20th July

What a surprise! Now she'll be able to claim her salary and expenses for a few more months, while doing precisely nothing for her constituents. The brass neck of the woman is beyond belief!

 

[Busaholic]

What a surprise! Now she'll be able to claim her salary and expenses for a few more months, while doing precisely nothing for her constituents. The brass neck of the woman is beyond belief!

Couldn't she get Sunak to give her an honour for Services to Literature? Oh. hang on, I saw one of her books in a charity shop and it was dire beyond belief!

 

[DC1989]

In cases like this it almost seems like there needs to be more legislation to force governments in this sort of situation to just hold the damned election.

Four-year terms would help in that respect; a 20% reduction of maximum term is quite significant.

Not sure I'd agree with this. Whoever wins the next election will have a hell of a job on their hands - I think it's going to be take 4-5 years at a minimum to start seeing the results of any reforms

If Labour do win, they need to make sure they pass significant legislation in the first year

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, but how? The problem is that people aren't earning enough to pay for somewhere to live. If renting or house prices were lower, people wouldn't give up more than half of their income on a place to live - which leaves them barely any money to cope with rising prices of food and travel, and a risk of becoming homeless in a matter of months because there's also very little in the way of savings for most people. I suspect that in the last year, more people have begun putting things on credit - so that's going to end in disaster too.

Well, yes, I agree, but we're stuck on a vicious circle of not building enough houses, thus prices for both buying and renting getting silly, so people can't afford to take/do many jobs. so we get more immigration - which makes the issue even worse. The last thing you need when you get to this stage is to have net inwards migration of 600,000 a year, also looking for a place to live.

Brexit of course allows us to control that number whereas before we could not - but for some reason the Tories don't seem interested in doing so, despite their base screaming at them to do so.

One other thing Brexit would allow, that I don't think would be allowed in the EU, is to recognise that the housebuilders are not doing what the country needs (eg. with banking development land for years on end rather than building on it) and so set up a state-owned housebuilder to try to tackle the backlog. But the Tories aren't interested in that either, of course - though neither, I doubt, will Labour.

 

[najaB]

Brexit of course allows us to control that number whereas before we could not - but for some reason the Tories don't seem interested in doing so, despite their base screaming at them to do so.

We didn't use the powers that we had to control migration while we were in the EU, why would we start now?

One other thing Brexit would allow, that I don't think would be allowed in the EU, is to recognise that the housebuilders are not doing what the country needs (eg. with banking development land for years on end rather than building on it) and so set up a state-owned housebuilder to try to tackle the backlog.

Why not? Local authorities still build houses in EU member states.

 

[MikeWM]

We didn't use the powers that we had to control migration while we were in the EU, why would we start now?

Well, indeed - but it means we've got stuck in this trap of ever-increasing demand for housing stock, driving prices up crazily. It is very hard to see how we can get out of that, but making things still worse isn't helping one bit.

Why not? Local authorities still build houses in EU member states.

LAs aren't a national thing though, by definition. My understanding of the EU is you can't setup a *new* state-owned company to compete against private companies, that breaches the state aid rules. Admittedly I may be wrong, I remember much debate about that regarding Labour's 2017 manifesto commitments and whether they required Brexit, I'm not sure anyone really agreed what the actual answer was though.

 

[najaB]

LAs aren't a national thing though, by definition.

Indeed. However central government can provide money for the LAs to provide the housing needed in their areas.

My understanding of the EU is you can't setup a *new* state-owned company to compete against private companies, that breaches the state aid rules.

We don't need more commercial housebuilding, what we need is social housing which the private sector isn't interested in providing. So there wouldn't be competition between the state and private enterprise.

 

[nw1]

We don't need more commercial housebuilding, what we need is social housing which the private sector isn't interested in providing. So there wouldn't be competition between the state and private enterprise.

Indeed; the shortage of housing is a shortage of affordable housing.

Building more premium housing with prices close to half a million in areas of natural beauty achieves nothing, other than profit for construction companies.

 

[MikeWM]

We don't need more commercial housebuilding, what we need is social housing which the private sector isn't interested in providing. So there wouldn't be competition between the state and private enterprise.

I think we urgently need both, but I agree that if you had to pick between the two, social housing would be the priority. One of the biggest failures of the Blair/Brown government was to do anything about that. We'll see if Starmer does any better (Lisa Nandy said reasonable things at conference last year, but I don't see a lot said about social housing since).

This looks relevant:

https://thelabourcampaignforcouncilhousing.org/2023/05/25/questions-on-labours-housing-policy/

They don't seem happy at all with the policy commitments made so far in the documents that are the 'road to the manifesto'.

 

[jon0844]

Well, yes, I agree, but we're stuck on a vicious circle of not building enough houses, thus prices for both buying and renting getting silly

There are plenty of homes that simply need to be renovated. There is also planning granted for stacks of new homes and flats, but developers simply don't want to build too fast (and especially now, they probably have a limited workforce so couldn't even if they wanted to). Far better to drip feed housing into the market so as not to see values fall...

As more people only have any assets at all through a property, where's the incentive to solve the housing issues which are very much a self-created problem?

 

[MikeWM]

There are plenty of homes that simply need to be renovated. There is also planning granted for stacks of new homes and flats, but developers simply don't want to build too fast (and especially now, they probably have a limited workforce so couldn't even if they wanted to). Far better to drip feed housing into the market so as not to see values fall...

Well, indeed so, hence why I suggested a state housebuilder (though it would be far from trivial to find the workers for it, I admit).

As more people only have any assets at all through a property, where's the incentive to solve the housing issues which are very much a self-created problem?

Well, yes - I own a house and don't especially want its value to fall. But in reality, negative equity or downsizing apart, it doesn't *really* matter if house prices drop somewhat - though negative equity is such a poisonous issue politicans understandably want to avoid it happening if at all possible.