Brexit caused this political instability? Surely not!

Hard to believe, but it's been ten years, almost to the day, since the fateful Brexit vote, and the start of Britain's "messy divorce" from Europe.

Whatever Reform UK might tell you, it hasn't gone well. Best estimates (by the independent US-based National Bureau of Economic Research) suggest that Brexit has reduced Britain's GDP by 6-8%, investment in the country has slipped by 12-18%, and employment and productivity have both fallen by 3-4%, all as a direct result of Brexit. Not pretty.

Then, yesterday, we hear that yet another Prime Minister has resigned, despite winning a landslide electoral victory just two years ago. That makes it the sixth prime ministerial resignation in ten years, and soon the UK will have its seventh Prime Minister in that relatively short but tumultuous time.

As my brother-in-law deadpanned, "I wonder what could have caused such instability?"

Labour council losses laid at Keir Starmer's feet

Votes are still being tallied after Britain's local authority elections, but it seems clear that it has been a bit of a bloodbath for the ruling Labour Party.

Labour has gone from 65 councils to just 28. Most of them were converted into "no party majority", but several Labour councils went directly to the surging hard-right Reform UK party (and a handful to the Green Party). Reform ended up with a majority in 14 councils, and the Greens with 4, both up from zero in the last election. The centrist Liberal Democrats also had a good showing, increasing its count from 1 to 15 councils. The Conservatives continued their down-and-out status, losing most of the few councils they used to control.

In Wales, once-dominant Labour lost 26 of its 35 seats, and the Conservatives lost 15 of their 22, with ascendant Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru becoming the largest party, although Reform UK also did better there, taking 34 seats (up from zero). In Scotland, the Scottish National party retained their dominance (although just short of an outright majority), despite a surge from Reform and the Greens, with the Conservatives seeing the biggest flops.

However, although Reform UK has clearly made significant gains in these local elections, it was maybe not as dramatic as expected by many, and there is some speculation that Reform's support may have already peaked. Reform leader Nigel Farage, of course, is claiming a "historic change in British politics" and asserting that Reform UK is on track for a general election victory, but this was probably not the landslide he had been hoping for in his heart of hearts.

Either way, overall, Labour was the big loser, and almost everyone is saying that the single biggest reason was national Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, even though he has nothing really to do with regional municipal politics. Maybe it makes no logical sense, but this election was in essence a referendum on Keir Starmer's leadership (and on the extent of Reform UK's surge).

The man is REALLY unpopular, and has been for some time, in spite of his broadly popular stance on the Iran war. Not only has be failed to deliver on what he mainly campaigned on in the last election - improving Britain's public services, which are creaking and all but moribundnafter years of Tory neglect - Starmer is just seen as bland, prevaricating and weak. A skit on SNL UK last week says it all about how the British people look on the once-popular Sir Keir Starmer.

For all that he insists that he is not going anywhere, there doesn't seem any way he can extricate himself from this situation, and many Labour MPs and voters are already looking ahead to a new leader, on the grounds that there is no way Labour can win another election with Starmer in place. (As of today, at least 90 of his own Labour MPs are calling for Starmer to stand down, and at least three cabinet ministers have tendered their resignations, so there doesn't seem to be any way back for him now.) Britain has burned through five prime ministers in the last seven years - that may soon turn into six.

As for who might replace Starmer, Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is many people's favourite to replace Starmer, although Burnham is not an elected MP, a pre-requisite for the leadership position. (UPDATE: Mr. Burnham easily won a seat in parliament in June, winning the by-election in Makerfield, near Manchester, very comfortably ahead of the Reform candidate.) Another popular choice is Health Secretary Wes Streeting, with one-time deputy prime minister Angela Rayner as a longer shot.

A generational ban on smoking

I don't know anyone who likes smoking. Even people who smoke don't tend to like smoking. Most countries have been discouraging it (i.e. making it more unpleasant and more onerous) for decades now. There is a distinct stigma against smoking now. Hardly anywhere has actually banned it, though.

Britain is now part of an exclusive club that is moving to actually ban it. It's doing so by what is usually known as a "generational ban" on tobacco: a couple of weeks ago, Britain passed a law whereby anyone born after 1 January 2009 (i.e. those under 18 years old on New Year's Day 2027) will find it illegal to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products in British shops. Or rather, it is illegal for shops to sell cigarettes to them. Ever. 

The ban is to begin on January 1st 2027. Going forward, the legal age will increase by one year annually. Thus, by 2037, for example, no-one under the age of 28 would be allowed to buy cigarettes; by 2050, the age requirement would be 41.

So, the whole of the current younger generation - and subsequent generations, in perpetuity, at least in theory - will never be able to smoke (legally). This conjures up the prospect, one day, of a whole country where no-one smokes. Unless, of course, the law is later repealed - and you have to believe that it will be one day - smoking will be actively prohibited. 

Some are calling it the boldest public health move in generations. Healthcare advocates and cancer charities are lauding the bold move (smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death, disability and ill health). Some conservatives are worried about its effects on employment in the industry, and others are howling about government overreach. But, in general, there has been a surprising consensus across the political spectrum, and it does seem like the legislation is indeed going through.

The only other country to have passed a similar law is the Maldives. New Zealand was on the cusp of it until a change in government derailed the legislation. Also, 22 individual towns in the US state of Massachusetts have also passed generational bans (although that does make it rather easy to evade...)

In the meantime, though, all eyes are on the UK. How will it be policed? How easy will it be to evade? How will stores check people's ages?  Will there be riots? How will black market smugglers be dealt with? How will the government cope without such a large tax generator? What about people with clinical addictions? (In theory, very few current under-18s should be addicts.) 

A large-scale social and medical experiment is going forward before our very eyes. It will be fascinating.

Clean power as an energy security issue

Perhaps it's not much, but maybe something good might come out of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Spooked by the precipitous increase in oil and has prices, Britain's biggest energy company, Octopus Energy, has already seen a 50% rise in solar panel sales in the few weeks since the war started, as well as a spike in heat pumps and enquiries about electric vehicles and chargers.

Now, the UK is introducing new rules to the effect that all new homes built there (from 2028) must be installed with heat pumps and solar panels. In addition, plug-in solar panels are to be widely available in stores in Britain. The idea is to avoid being held hostage by the globalized oil and gas market, as is happening in the aftermath of the Iran war, and to move closer to "energy sovereignty" for the country. 

Something very similar is happening in Europe, which is seeing a wave of increased interested in solar power. Ditto, Australia, which had all but given up on its ambitious target of 82% renewables by 2030, until a huge surge in household solar and battery installations since the US-Iran war.

All this thanks to anti-renewables Donald Trump and his misguided Iran war?

Well, partly. The last time there was an oil crunch of this magnitude, in the 1970s, there were few practical alternatives available. This time there are viable substitutes, powerful and cheap enough to build at scale, and many countries are looking towards that off-ramp, bringing in long-overdue policies that will stand them in good stead decades into the future.

Hey, maybe we could do that here too, here in sunny Canada? Ah, no, Alberta would never allow that!

Do the Brits really want to see the Bayeux Tapestry?

French President Emmanuel Macron has promised to loan the UK the famous thousand-year old Bayeux Tapestry as a gesture of goodwill.

Politicians and local authorities are lauding the decision. Conservators and museum people, on the other hand, are warning that the tapestry is way too fragile to transport (and is, of course, irreplaceable).

My first thought was: why would Britain want to admire a tapestry celebrating nearly two hundred years of conquest and oppression by a foreign force? Maybe the Brits are more broad-minded and urbane than I think, but my guess is that M. Macron is being overly optimistic 

Why does everyone now hate Keir Starmer?

Keir Starmer and the Labour Party won a landslide victory in the UK elections a year ago (411 out of the 650 seats available), largely as a result of general dissatisfaction with the Tories' sorry performance over the preceding decade plus. The country, it seemed, was willing to give him carte blanche to follow a new political direction.

But, as I noted just recently, Labour's popularity is now down around 20%, barely above that of the Conservatives, and well behind the far-right Reform UK, which would win with a healthy majority if an election were held today. Luckily, no such election is planned. 69% of voters now have an unfavourable opinion of Labour, and Starmer's net favourability rating has sunk to an all-time low of -46%. In fact, even among Labour voters, his approval rating is -26%.

Now, Starmer has lost one of his most loyal lieutenants, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who resigned after details surfaced of her failure to pay the proper land tax on a new home, an egregious sin indeed.

And all this is in spite of what seem at face value to be a series of economic wins: trade deals with the US, India and the EU for example, reductions in NHS waiting lists, improvements to school services, etc.

So, how did Starmer manage to make such an almighty hash of it? Why is Starmer so unpopular?

Well, as is so often the case, cost of living issues are the main reason. Inflation is on the rise again, and the cost of electricity, gas and other fuels has risen even faster, with water and sewage costs increasing more than everything. These monthly bills are highly visible and top-of-mind for voters, and are a big influence on people's opinions. Cutting benefits for disabled people and winter fuel cuts didn't help the government's image either.

British business have also soured in Labour. Higher taxes on businesses are seen by many as "anti-growth", and limits imposed on immigration and foreign workers, as well as an arguably  laudable increase in the minimum wage and improved workers' rights, are all seen as increased burdens for small and medium-sized businesses in particular.

Ironically, in a country still reeling from the effects of the relatively flamboyant and bombastic Boris Johnson and even Nigel Farage, Starmer's lack of personality is also holding him back. You'd think the country would welcome a calm, thoughtful leader, but apparently his lack of charisma and his dull, plodding approach to politics is a distinct turn-off for many Britons. Many of his cabinet members are also not well-liked as personalities, and several (particularly Chancellor Rachel Reeves) are perceived as being out of their depths.

There were other contributing factors too - Starmer's initial reliance on, and subsequent sacking of, the unpopular advisor Sue Grey; the acceptance of free gifts ("freebiegate"); and others. After all, Starmer was supposed to be different from Boris and the others, right? 

Polling suggests that there are two types of Labour defectors: those who now prefer the Greens or Lib Dems - younger, predominantly female and better-educated, who largely feel that Labour under Starmer is too right-wing and "not Labour enough" - and those who have switched to Reform UK (really?!, yes!), who tend to be more working class and poorly-educated, and often Brexit leave voters, many of whose main complaint is that Labour has not controlled immigration well enough. 

Starmer's response to this has mainly been to lurch even further to the right on issues like immigration and trans rights, i.e. to chase those who have defected to Reform. But those same polls suggest that only 15% of those Reform defectors say they would consider voting Labour again, while nearly 60% of the defectors to the  Greens and Lib Dems say they might still vote Labour in the future. So, this seems like a bad choice on Starmer's part, and acting more like traditional Labour would probably help them more. It gets complicated, right?

So, predictably, there is no one underlying reason for Starmer's fall from grace, more of a perfect storm of minor factors, none the less damning for all that. What a mess!

Britain willing to follow Reform UK into a new dark age

Nigel Farage's Trump-influenced far-right party Reform UK is going through a purple patch at the moment. Opinion polls show them with a comfortable lead: Reform 31%, Labour 20%, Conservatives 16%, Liberal Democrats 14%, Greens 10%.

According to other polls, 34% believe that Reform has a good long-term economic plan, and 38% think they have a good plan for changing Britain generally. But, crucially, over half say they are not confident in ANY of the parties. 

And there's the rub. The poll indications are not so much because the Reform Party and its policies are intrinsically that popular. It's more a function of disaffection with the other main parties. Labour came to power in last year's general election with a strong majority, after years of Conservative mismanagement, chaos and scandal. But Labour too has proved ineffectual, dithering and underwhelming since the election.

And, it has to be said, Farage talks a good game - embarrassingly extreme when you stop and think about what he is actually saying, but couched in appealing populist terms. Donald Trump has singlehandedly moved the Overton window so far, that much of Farage's schtick seems almost reasonable.

For example, clinging onto Trump's coattails as he drags America into a new dark age, Farage says that if elected, he will take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights and engage in a mass deportation of immigrants on a scale not even dreamt of since the days of Enoch Powell.

In fact, I'm not convinced that many of the 30-odd per cent of Britons who claim to be in favour of Reform UK actually know much about its policies. It's more of a knee-jerk pox-on-both-your-houses type reaction. And that's probably the most dangerous type of reaction. Brits should be careful what they wish for.

It makes no sense to reduce the voting age to 16

As Britain takes what seems like a giant leap in lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, and people here in Canada are starting to discuss whether we should follow suit, the indispensable Andrew Coyne puts out a much-needed reality check, and even asks the question: should we be increasing the voting age, not lowering it?

Many coutries lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 back in the 1960s and 1970s. It was the thing to do back then. Like in Britain today, the main argument is that these young people will have to suffer the consequences of government actions long into the future, so they deserve to have a say in which government is allowed to act. Well, yes, but 14-year olds are even more affected by today's government decision-making, as are 12-year olds, etc, etc.

Ah, but, the argument goes, many 16 uear olds are at least as responsible and well-informed as many 18-year olds, even 20-year olds. I'm sure they are, and so are some 14-year olds, etc, etc. But some - the majority, I would venture - are most definitely not.

Neurologists tell us that the pre-frontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for impulse control and long-tern planning) continues developing until at least the age of 24. Wouldn't that suggest that, actually, the voting age should be increased to. 24 or 25, not reduced to the more-or-less-arbitrary 16? Especially im an age of social media and all the misinfornation and disinformation that comes with it.

Today's kids typically have - and apparently want - much less atonomy than the kids of the 70s. They tend to leave home later (well into their mid-20s, if at all!), get their first job later, etc. Kids - North American and European kids, at any rate - typically lead more sheltered lives these days, and their lived experiences are severely limited until well into their 20s. Should we be entrusting our social and political systems to kids, however bright, with no real understanding of the world and its ways.

Should we allow callow children to steer the ship of state when they not even allowed to drink, smoke weed, join the military, be fully responsible for crimes, serve on a jury, donate an organ, take out a mortgage, etc, etc? Yes, they can drive a car at 16, but only subject to various controls and exceptions until they are a year or two older. They are also required to pay ridiculously high insurance premiums until they are older because so many 16-year olds, especially boys, are just, well, irresponsible.

I'm sure all these debates raged in Britain before the government made its fateful decision. I'm just surprised  the consensus was on the side of reducing the voting age. If anything  it makes more sense to increase it or, at the very least, just leave it alone

Did UK get a good trade deal with USA?

Surprisingly, both for them and for the rest of the world, the UK became the first country to agree a tariff and trade deal with Donald Trump's USA.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been waxing lyrical about the deal, calling it "fantastic" and "historic". and even the BBC seems to think it a good deal and a "significant achievement" (for Starmer at least, even if not for the UK). 

Others, however, are not so sure. The Independent calls it "lipstick on a pig", and The Guardian is equally, well, guarded, likening it to "a bit part in Trump the Musical".

In some ways, a deal with the UK was low-hanging fruit for the Trump administration. For one thing, the US actually has a small surplus in its trade with the UK, which can therefore hardly be said to be taking advantage of the US. And the UK is desperate for a deal with pretty much ANYONE since leaving the EU and is therefore willing not to drive too hard a bargain. (Trump is also quite desperate for a deal, to make his wacko tariff policy look a little less dismal.) Plus, Starmer needs a win of any sort after a rather disastrous local council election.

Starmer kept up the deluge of flattery he has employed since he started dealing with Trump, which arguably is the only way to make a deal with the man, however much it may pain the flatterer. But he received some flattery back too. When Trump himself starts to compliment you, it's probably time to worry.

Anyway, what Starmer ended up with is a deal that leaves the UK only slightly worse off than before: a reduction on the 25% steel and aluminum tariffs, and a decrease on tariffs on cars from 25% to 10%, although only up to a certain quota, and still much higher than the previous 2.5% tariff. The deal increased UK access to US ethanol and beef (although why the UK wants US beef, laden with growth hormones as it is, is not clear). The US, for its part, wanted something on pharmaceuticals and technology and succeeded in that, although exactly what remains to be negotiated. The blanket 10% tariff on most UK goods entering the USA remains, though. This compares with an average tariff in 2023, for example. of just 3.3%.

So, even with its so-called "special relationship" with America, Britain still did not manage to get all the tariffs dropped, not even close. And, remember, this is not really a trade treaty at all, not like the recently-concluded free trade deal between India and the UK (which would require Congress' approval, and a lot more time). All this is happening outside of the official international trade channels, and it's not clear whether it needs to be approved by Congress or not (or whether Congress would in fact approve it). The deal, as even Trump admits, is not yet finalized, despite all the song and dance.

Being first to go is not always a good ploy. Other countries are certain to be deconstructing and analysing this deal, in an attempt to learn where points were gained and lost in the game. Because that's what this has turned into, a pretty high-stakes game. 

The UK is a much smaller trading partner with America than Canada, but this whole process gives a good idea of what to expect in future negotiations.

Brexit - five years on

Happy Fifth Anniversary, Brexit! Or is it? Believe it or not, it has been 5 years to the day since Britain severed political ties with the European Union, on January 31st 2020 (and four years since it left the European single market and customs union).

So, how has  that gone?

Not that well, it seems, although maybe not quite as disastrously as I might have predicted. 

Setting aside the way in which it has divided British society, setting family members and long-standing friends against each other in acrimonious political dispute, Brexit's effect on Britain's trade has been generally negative, economists agree, but not entirely so. 

Exports of goods are substantially down, as expected, although different studies disagree as to how much (6%? 30%?), with smaller companies being disproportiately affected. But exports of services from the UK (advertising. management consulting, information technology, etc) are up, a lot. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the UK's economy has taken about a £100 billion hit.(about 4%) as a result of Brexit.

On immigration, a major plank of the Brexit campaign, results have also been mixed. Net immigration from Europe has indeed fallen a bit, but immigration from the rest of the world has increased by a lot more. So, net immigration has actually increased, by quite a lot! 

Travel in and out of the UK/EU has not changed that much, although plans to introduce ETA/ETIAS permits to later this year will make the administration even more burdensome and expensive, in both directions, and this may (or may not) have a dampening effect on travel.

Likewise, Brexit was supposed to give the UK much more independence in the laws it can pass. But thousands of "retained EU laws" were passed in the UK just after Brexit announcement. And only a small proportion of those (mainly small obscure regulations, at that) were repealed by the various Conservative governments, so UK law actually still reflects EU law pretty closely.

And has Brexit actually saved the UK bags of money, as the Leave campaign promised? Yes, around £18 billion a year in public sector contributions to the EU are no longer being paid out. But, at the same time, £5 billion a year in agricultural funding from the EU has stopped, and $4 billion a year in "rebates" on EU Budget contributions further whittles down the annual saving to around £9 billion. Add to that £21.3 billion in official Brexit Withdrawal Agreement payments to the EU, and the UK has hardly seen any overall savings yet, although that may yet start to materialize in the years to come (there are still many unknowns involved).

For example, after Brexit, the UK did stop paying into the Horizon pan-European scientific research scheme, from which it used to be a net beneficiary, in terms of science grants, etc). But in 2023, it decided to re-join the scheme, even though it is now a net payer to the tune of about £2 billion a year.

So, as ever in politics, nothing is ever simple, certainly not as simple as populists like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage assured the British public. And now, with a more conciliatory Labour government in power, the future may be even more difficult to predict.

Reflections on conservatism

A good part of the ideology of Conservatism revolves around resisting change. The name itself tells you that - it's nothing to do with  conserving nature or biodiversity or anything as positive as that; it's about conserving the past. 

A few snippets from current and recent political campaigns makes this painfully obvious, and gives an idea of what more thoughtful progressive parties are up against.

Take the Trump campaign in America, for instance. Here's a typical quote from a Trump supporter: "It's slowly slipping away from us. Anyone that's a Trump supporter wants an old America back, the best America back." Here's another (in reference to electic cars): "I don't trust them. I want it to be the way it always was, with a good old-fashioned car." As though nothing has improved over the life of this 82- year old Michigan voter...

Canada's Pierre Poilievre, with his particular penchant for overstatement and exaggeration (for political effect), is only evoking the conservative hankering for "the good old days" when he calls the country's carbon tax an "existential threat to our economy and our way of life", that will surely lead to "mass hunger and malnutrition", even, somehow, to "nuclear winter". I would assume that he doesn't actually believe this stuff, but he knows that it will appeal to his change-resistant political base.

"Traditional family values" is also a recurrent conservative article of faith, although many conservatives might be hard-pressed  to say what exactly that means. In practice, it seems to mean opposition to expressions of individuality in sexuality (even though individualism is supposed to another core conservative tenet) and to anything vaguely connected to LGBTQ issues, trans rights, a liberal sex education, and support for what have become known recently as "parents' rights" or "parental rights" (the right to force kids to follow parent's rules and values).

The largely Conservative-led Brexit movement in the UK also relied on a hankering for a return to the old glory days of a resplendant British Empire (like cutting ties with all of Europe was somehow going to achieve that!), with slogans like "we want our country back", "take back control", "make Britain white again", etc. Most of it was disingenuous, misleading and hopelessly idealistic, but it deliberately and shamelessly leveraged a (largely spurious) nostalgia for better past times. It also demonstrated how Conservatives ARE actually willing to change things, but only in the service of undoing progressive advances and returning to more old-fashioned ways of doing things.

Anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe is just another example of this denial of change. White Europeans in France Germany, Austria, Italy and many other places see their countries changing, and one of the most obvious manifestations of that is the colour of people's faces and the language they speak. Thus, the burgeoning hard- right parties are openly (and quite successfully) running on platforms of drastic immigration reforms and even the repatriation of existing immigrants. This, regardless of the fact that much of their economies, and much of their ability to weather turbulent economic times, relies on immigrant labour, particularly as birth rates in western countries continues to tank and populations skew ever older. *Sigh*

Change is sometimes hard, granted. But burying your head in the sand and pretending that the past was better than the present, or some envisioned future, is surely a poor response. That way, we would still have slavery, capital punishment, hymns instead of pop music, a coal-dominated power system, and unadulterated patriarchy. Change - constant change, even - is hard but necessary. Just don't expect a Conservative government of any stripe to provide that.

Far-right clashes in UK part of the perennial xenophobic undercurrent

Although it pales into insignificance compared with the ongoing protests in Bangladesh, which have left nearly 100 people dead, the far-right clashes in the UK are pretty significant in themselves. Hard on the heels of a general election which left the burgeoning British extreme-right movement in the dust and a Labour government in power with a landslide majority, here we see disaffected fascist types taking the law into their own hands.

With the pretext of a horrendous stabbing incident in the northern English town of Southport in which three young girls were killed at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class and many more were injured. The perpetrator, a disturbed young man named Axel Rudakubana, turns out to have been born in Wales, to Christian Rwandan parents, but he is most certainly black and that is enough for the far right to create a narrative and run with it, facts be damned. Thus, he has been painted as a Muslim madman who entered the country as an illegal immigrant, like thousands of other desperate people crossing the English channel from Europe. 

(Controversial "influencer" Andrew Tate, who was one standout among the many who were whipping things up on social media, later admitted, "perhaps I was wrong about the fact he was an illegal migrant". Yuh, think? And, hold on, "perhaps"? and "the fact"? That's your idea of an apology?)

So, hundreds of (almost equally disturbed) rioters have stormed various locations, mainly working class towns in northern England like Rotherham, Middlesborough, Bolton, Hartlepool and others (plus gentrified Weymouth in the south!), attacking targets like a hotel used to house illegal immigrants and a mosque, throwing bricks, furniture, bottles, fire extinguishers and anything else that comes to hand at police. One rioter, when asked why they were running around smashing neighbourhood windows, merely retorted, "Because we're English!", which gives you an idea of the level of debate that is going on.

And behind it all, a bunch of radical online influencers, anti-Muslim extremists and fascist groups, including Patriotic Alternative, British Movement, English Defence League, and other similarly-named shadowy organizations. It's worth mentioning that several of the instigators were once banned on Twitter, but have since had their accounts reinstated on X by Elon Musk. Thanks, Elon, good job.

There has always been this undercurrent of xenophobia at work in Britain. Official far-right political parties like the National Front and the British National Party are technically not involved in all this, just the more extreme dark side of the movement. But you have to imagine the politicians smiling to themselves in the comfort of their own homes or offices.

UK Reform Party celebrating, but election results underwhelming

This is the day after the UK general election in which Keir Starmer's Labour Party swept the board with 412 seats out of the 650-seat British Parliament. It wasn't a surprise, with an electorate in desperate need of a change after 14 years of turbulent Conservative rule, but it may have been more definitive than even Labour had hoped, more than doubling it's previous seat count, and handing the Conservatives their worst electoral defeat in 200 years.

But, as of last night, and based on exit polls, a lot of the media attention was focussed not on Starmer but on the grinning mug of Nigel Farage, leader of the nascent Reform Party (ex-Brexit Party and UK Independence Party). Garage is Boris Johnson's far right alter ego, a blustering mendacious populist who was responsible in large part for the misinformation that led to Britain's disastrous exit from Europe.

As of last night, the Reform Party - named, incidentally, in deference to Canada's Reform Party, in whose footsteps Farage transparently hoped to tread, taking over the larger, more moderate Conservative Party from within - was predicted to win 13 seats, including Farage's own (after seven previous failed attempts). While this is only 2% of the available seats, it represented a big breakthrough for a far right party in Britain, and therefore a big deal.

In the cold light of today, the Reform Party actually only won 4 seats: Farage in Clacton, Lee Anderson in Ashfield, Richard Tice in Boston/Skegness and Rupert Lowe in Great Yarmouth. That's just 0.6% of seats, and so not exactly a tsunami, and certainly not the "many, many seats right across the country" that Farage was expecting. As it happens, this is the same seat count as the Green Party, and less than the Scottish National Party (9), Sinn Fein (7), individual members standing as independent of any party (6), and the Democratic Unionist Party (5). The Green Party saw its haul of seats rise almost as dramatically as Reform, from 1 to 4, to much less recognition -  wouldn't/shouldn't that be as big news? UPDATE: the 4 Reform seats have now been updated to 5, with James McMurdock belatedly taking the seat for Basildon South and East Thurrock,  which messes up my math, but my point stands.

Farage and Reform are nevertheless celebrating getting a foot in the doorway, so to speak, and Farage, ever the blusterer, is not ruling out a spell in Downing Street in five years' time. 

Estimates of COVID cases in the UK - somehow

Apparently, the UK is still able, somehow, to monitor, or at least estimate, COVID cases.

According to reports based on data from the Zoe Health Study, there is quite a spike going on. Estimated case numbers have jumped from 696,656 on July 4th to 785,980 on July 27th. It is thought that the jump is largely due to outdated vaccinations and poor weather in July leading people to spend more time together indoors in poorly ventilated spaces!

Well, maybe. But where are they getting these estimates from? No-one is testing any more, and no-one is reporting their infections. 

The Zoe Health Study seems to be a kind of community science outfit, studying, among other things, the Big Poo Review and the Big IF Study (Intermittent Fasting), as well as their ongoing COVID monitoring efforts. 

Apparently, their COVID estimates are based on "PCR and LFT test data as of 2 days ago". What test data? No-one is testing! I'm not sure I would have a whole lot of confidence in these projections.

UPDATE

For the record, EG.5 (and EG.5.1) is fast becoming the top new COVID variants in the UK and, increasingly, around the world. Also know as Eris, after the Greek goddess of strike and chaos, EG.5 and its offshoots are descendents of Omicron, as was the previous front-runner, Arcturus or XBB.1.16, which is still the No. 1 variant in the UK.

It is similar to other Omicron variants in that it is not that virulent and dangerous, but it is highly transmissible. Typical symptoms include runny nose, headache, fatigue, sneezing and sore throat (i.e. basically the same as the common cold).

Britain's medieval fantasy

And in between all this, we had a Coronation. Well, Britain had a Coronation. The rest of the the world looked on in tolerant bemusement. The rest of the world doesn't really care if Britain has a king or not. (Actually, Canada does, because it costs us money.)

A writer in The Guardian gave a good, amusing overview of the shenanigans that went down. Funnily enough, I had exactly the same thought about bladders (because yes, dear readers, I did watch some of it - my wife switched the TV on, in my defence). And about it dragging on interminably, despite it being apparently pared down and "modernized". And it only cost taxpayers a paltry £100 million (C$150 million). Like I said, pared down.

Perhaps the best snippet from the article: "A modern 21st-century democracy reliving a medieval fantasy". Says it all in eight words, really.

Diana Abbott suspended for proffering her opinion on race

Long-time British MP and Labour Party Chief Whip Diane Abbott (a black woman, for what it's worth) has been suspended from her party over a letter she published claiming that prejudice,  such as that experienced by Jewish, Irish or Traveller people, is not the same as racism.

In her letter (which was a response to an article by Tomiwa Owolade, entitled "Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It's far more complicated", which is well worth a read), Ms Abbott claimed that, while Irish, Jewish and Traveller people "undoubtedly experience prejudice", that is only "similar to racism", and other white people (e.g. blondes, redheads) can also experience this kind of prejudice, "but they are not all their lives subject to racism".

The Labour Party, which has faced allegations of antisemitism in the past and is hyper-sensitive to any similar charges, reacted quickly, calling Ms. Abbott's comments "deeply offensive and wrong". Jewish MPs called the letter "deeply offensive and deeply distressing". Abbott herself promptly apologized "for any anguish caused", and completely withdrew her comments. In an exercise in toeing the party line, she publicly revised her views: "Racism takes many forms and it us completely undeniable that Jewish people gave suffered its monstrous effects, as have Irish people, Travellers and many others".

But, hold on, she is a successful black woman (Britain's first black woman MP, in fact) commenting on the nature of racism. Shouldn't her views be taken seriously? Does the (mainly white) Labour Party really know better than she what racism is or isn't?

In fact, many commentators on race would agree that prejudice is not the same as racism. More specifically, racism is a type of prejudice, where unequal power on the basis of race results in detrimental outcomes. Put more succinctly by Calgary Anti-Racism Education: Racism = Racial Prejudice + Power. In another formulation: "Prejudice can apply to lots of things, not only race. But racism is based on the assumption that race is an indicator of basic traits of character".

I must confess I always have a bit of a problem with the assertion that Irish people, for example, suffer from racism in Britain. I don't think I am being too literal when I counter-claim that, given that Irish people are the same race as the majority of Brits, what they are experiencing might be prejudice or discrimination, but it is, by definition, not racism.

Despite her retraction, Ms. Abbott is now no longer a member of the Labour caucus, and is representing her London riding as an independent MP. What a perilous area of debate is race. In fact, you might say, there is no debate allowed any more. See what happens when someone goes against the prevailing dogma.

Britain claims new coal mine will be carbon neutral

Britain has just announced the go-ahead for its first new coal mine in decades. It is to produce coking coal for the steel industry, despite the fact that the two remaining British steelmakers are both moving to low carbon steel production, as are most steelmakers in Europe. Climate commentators, even those within the Conservative government itself, have panned the move, calling it "absolutely indefensible", both environmentally and economically, and many people are worried that Britain's enviable recent record of pursuing renewable energy is at risk, along with the government's stated goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, and the British steel industry's goal of carbon neutrality by 2035.

What intrigued me, though, is the claim by Michael Gove, the unlucky minister chosen to make the announcement, that the mine would have "an overall neutral effect on climate change". (He also claims that the country "needs" the mine, even though at least 85% of its output is destined for export to Europe, if they can be persuaded they want it.)

How can a coal mine be carbon neutral? Coal is the most climate-damaging energy source we have - it is essentially pure carbon - and the new mine is estimated to pump about 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year to the atmosphere, the equivalent of adding about 200,00 diesel cars to British roads. In what respect, then, can the new mine be considered carbon neutral? That's a real head-scratcher. I know it's what people want to hear, but it needs to be true before you say it!

Rishi Sunak: Britain's third Prime Minister in 7 weeks

And 5th Tory party leader in 6 years, even though he actually only came second in the latest vote, installed by "acclamation" without a single vote being cast by the public, Tory or otherwise.

Good luck with that.

The difference between Great Britain, the United Kindom and the British Isles

Speaking of Britain, I know it's something I should know as a British citizen, but I can never keep it straight in my head, so let's see if writing it down helps: the difference between Great Britain, the United Kingdom and the British Isles.

Great Britain, often shortened to GB or just Britain, is a legal and political designation that includes England, Wales and Scotland. The United Kingdom (UK) includes England, Wales and Scotland, but also Northern Ireland (in fact, the official name of the sovereign nation, what it says on my passport, is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). The British Isles, on the other hand, is a purely geographical term with no legal or political standing, comprising England, Wales Scotland, the whole of Ireland, as well as the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man (these latter islands being Crown Dependencies).

In practice, "Britain", "Great Britain" and "the UK" are used interchangeably, even in government documents, which is why things get confusing. In most cases, it doesn't really matter that much, unless of course you are taking to an Irish person (and, increasingly, a Scot or a Welsh person, many of whom don't want to anything to do with England, Britain or the United Kingdom).

Why is Britain still bound by the European Court of Human Rights?

Britain shocked and exasperated the world (again) recently, when it announced a hare-brained plan to ship its unwanted asylum seekers to human rights-challenged Rwanda. Nothing daunted, Her Majesty's Government persisted with the plan, and would have sent its first flight of refugees to the central African country were it not for a last minute reprieve granted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which grounded the flight indefinitely. Still apparently undaunted, and despite the acute embarrassment of most of its citizens, Britain plans to appeal the ruling.

But, wait, hasn't Britain irrevocably exited the European Union? How can there ECHR still hold sway over the country?

Well, it turns out that the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution at all. It was established by the Council of Europe in 1950, long before tyhe EU was even a thing. As a  current member of the Council of Europe, Britain is therefore subject to the provisions and decisions of the ECHR.

The Council of Europe is a completely separate entity from the European Union, although it is often confused with it (maybe partly because the EU adopted the Council of Europe's flag for its own, and even its anthem). Britain was a founding member, along with Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Over the years, many more countries joined, and today it boasts 46 members, compared to the EU's 27, including several EU holdouts like Switzerland and Norway (even Russia was a member for a few years until it was expelled in 2022 over its invasion of Ukraine).

So, there you have it, Council of Europe. Different from European Union. Score: Europe 1, Britain 0.