Government delivery units and by-election coverage

How does a banana trigger a CIA backed coup Do AirPods herald the arrival of a new global order What do LED lights say about the future of humanity I'mt Conway, and in each episode of my new podcast, Stuff Matters, I take an object, crack it open, and reveal the world shaping forces hidden inside. This is economics told through the things we think we understand. Search Stuff Matters on your podcast app to listen and follow Gor and welcome It's Wedesday may the twentieth after days of chaos. Rachel Reedves is going to kick the tires and find out whether the machinery of government is still working today with a big and tricky growth announcement. What is it? and what will it tell us about the state of the government right now? My name is Sam Coates of Sky News. And I'm Anne McKlvoy from Politico PMQs at lunchtime no doubt are featuring the Prime Minister's future. again I a sense that real world politics has been on hold for almost a fortnight since the local elections drama, but with the Straits of Hormuz still closed and ministers trying to figure out what to do about the consequences, we've got a couple of days of treasury powered announcements designed to help the country through that if ministers pull the levers Do they still work? Yeah, I keep hearing the bits of Whitehall aren't working And you know, that's compounded by mixed signals, should we say, from the center, know some in Downing Stre, I think don't think there's much of a future worth planning for after june eighteenth and the Make a field by election. but other people strongly disagree. and you can see disagreements over the Prime Minister's potential longevity in office splashed over the papers. Labour MPs, well, their focus is what Andy Berham might do, perhaps understandably, but particularly because it A lot of them are concern for what it means for jobs. but there are still ministers in their roles and some of them Rachel Reeves, interestingly, have tried to just try and get things done and start new things, which actually feels kind of quite bold at the moment. Tomorrow we're likely to hear from Reeves about fuel duty and the extent to which the risees due from September are going to come into force or whether there is some relief on that. Today, there are signs that ministers are thinking of trying to strike a grand bargain with supermarkets over the prices of essential goods in return for lower regulation in other areas. Yeah, all of this adds up to, I think, a real real concern at the top of government over the ongoing sequences of what's going on in Iran, which we've talked about a lot less recently for understandable reasons, really since the local elections. And I happened to grab a government minister last night who'd been looking at all of this. and they were ically and just quite downbeat Partly because of just how hard it's turned out to plan over the consequences So u They acknowledge that basically Donald Trump isn't in control of events and you can see that You know, quite plainly been more bombing in the last few days, maybe not. is there viable peace deal on the horizon, maybe maybe not. you just cannot begin to plan in a way that I don't remember it being true for any other Lel event But also, the sort of economic consequences have not played out as the early predictions suggested So fuel prices didn't end up going as high as energy traders initially suggested they would. Some suggest that energy traders really just didn't know what they were talking about the sort of about the consequences of the strait of hormies. and that's made things more difficult. But there are real problems coming down the track. Fertilizer is going to cause problems for food in particular But what path you believe the global economy and domestic pressure is going to go along depends on really a guess aunt whether or not you think that the sort of it's less bad than expected for temporary or for permanent reasons. And nobody's got a really good argument either way. I was told, we just don't know, and that's why it's so hard at the moment But nevertheless, there is a fear that quite bad things are coming down the track. so they're having to plan for something. Yeah, absolutely. And there's a big push, I think in diplomacy on the formal tracks and should we say the less formal tracks through intelligence gathering to kind of basically get as much information about the Gulf states and whether they will, in the end, there's a big push by about three of the major Gulf states and Saudi Arabia also there to constrain Donald Trump and to try as push towards a deal and whether if that would be a benign outcome for the UK. Another global act of President Zee weighing in overnight as he meets Vladimir Putin which is never a promising duo. He's been saying the war in Iran has to end with the utmost urgency. and that does go to show that it is quite bleak but the terms of that and whether that benefits the democracies or the autocracies doing their own stitch up deals, that is less certain. So let's look at the consequences one by one And let' start with that supermarket prices story. Rachel Reeves has written in the Times that her priority is to keep prices down for households and shell look at all responsible options And before we diveve into the detail An I was just quite struck that's quite similar to language that Andy Burnham used about the cost of living earlier in the week in his in one of his many, many sets of comments. It just struck me slightly that there was an interesting alignment there And I read somewhere, I was reminded and I double checked this Rachel Reeves backed Andandy Burnham in twenty fifteen for his leadership bid back then Interesting after Chucka Ramuna withdrew So there is a bit of back history between Burnham and Reeves. Anyway, let's get get back to policy in the way from a Scuttlebt.. The whole issue of what's going on with supermarkets and what the government's trying to negotiate sort of burst onto the scene when the FT's Ashley Armstrong broke the news that there was a sort of negotiation about whether or not they can push supermarkets toward some kind of voluntary on food in return for some lower regulation. This is in the context that the newly elected fifth term SNP government have got some legally enforced promise caps coming down the track in response to what's going on in Iran So Treasury very keen, I think, to draw the distinction and say this isn't legally enforceable. But it's not that. and what is it? Well it seems that the Treasury is discussing a policy of voluntary price freezes rather than introducing caps which would obviously be the most straightforward way to potentially lower prices Unlike the plans that were drawn up by the SNP, this would also be voluntary. But I think we're talking about voluntary with a degree of inverted commerce around that because what's under discussion here is that retailers would be offered the easing of some regulations in exchange for freezing their prices on ore goods. So it's sort of a nudge but a pretty hefty nudge to control prices and it certainly is radical. A supermarket industry source telling the Times If the government is trying to pursue a growth agenda, it seems extraordinary that they could be trying to control what businesses like ours are charging, the cost of regulation is enormous So it doesn't sound like this is going to be announced in tomorrow's update on help visibly the Iran crisis, but it does sound like it's a live issue, Samon. It sounds like you've been ferretting around on the shelves and finding out if there really is anything that can be done then in terms of pulling a policy lever. So it's interesting there that the tendency of the Treasury when it comes to food prices is quite interventionist Rachel Reeves has a big speech today, however, on growth and that is going to be bad news for Nimbes because she's kicking off a really rather interesting Dare I say it's almost aggressive argument. on supply side reform. If she gets her way, basically, she is going to make the case today The goovernment wants to end and curb the right to judicially review all sorts of clean energy and big infrastructure project in order to get Britain building This plan is big, it's controversial and given the unstable political backdrop, it's actually really, really interesting headline proposal, which is all about getting Britain building again and faster, particularly in the energy sector, would be to allow Parliament to designate and approve the most important clean energy projects as what willll be called crritical National importance, CNI If they get that, they basically are no longer exposed to judicial review on anything but human rights grounds, which massively curbs your ability to challenge these projects So this would protect the government hope, Rachel Reee's hopes, new power stations, offshore wind farms from years of judicial review And then there's a second category of infrastructure, so transport and water projects, where there would be basically a fixed legal challenge window at the end of which planning consent could be updated to address legitimate issues, but you know, essentially that would be the end of the process. The law would have to be changed so that courts would refuse permission for the judicial review to proceed on any issues not brought up during that window meananing that then developers basically just get on with it with full confidence that they won't have successive, spurious challenges that could be raised at a later stage. It does sound bold, and the question is can it be done? And also just to put in a word T Nimbs is such a sort sweeping category, but judicial review is something that is deemed a bit of a last resort for communities when they really believe that a national project is not in their local interest that it's been bulldozed through quite literally in many cases. I'm thinking of things like the Kent Building planl and the absolute know pushback that gets from large groups of people, right? So I think there will be here quite a big argument that you're right, Sam that Rachel Reeves is going to engage. She's clearly decided she does want to send this very strong signal the critical national importance of infrastructure projects prompt these concerns. But if you are the opposition and if you're the conservatives or reform and you you're in a particular county you're part of the country where there was a lot of pushback Yeah, this I think is going to be a red rag to a bull on that. and I think we will see quite a lot of protest about eroding the rights to judicial review. Oh, one hundred percent. this is why this announcement is so eye catching precisely for the reason I think that MPs and peers are going to find potentially objections to it this moment where clearly the Prime Minister's writ over his party is not exactly strong, I think it's a bold thing, which so I did push on exactly this point, Do you have the political strength to do it. You know, this government, the Starman government had already tried to rebalance the issue of judicial review and they discovered it was very hard And there were loads of objections, not least in the Lords, and there was a sort of very delicately constructed compromise through the planning and infrastructure bill that was passed earlier this year. So we've had a bite at the cherry at this. and now Rachel Reeves wants to come back for more I'm told that her view is, well, let's just have the argument This is the moment to rise to solve a big problem. She thinks she spots a consensus in the Labour Party at least because the growth group kind of likeed this stuff and announced something similar last week to do all of this. And you know, now is not a reason Iran is not a reason to shy away from it There is no imminent vote. It sounds like this proposal will be in the sexually called nuclear regulation bill, which we haven't seen of yet. and you know, ultimately, I think what's going on is we're not going to get that legislation or certainly the crunch vote happening this side of the summer. So if I'm being honest Anne don't think this is going to come to a head when Kirara potentially is in number ten But what Rachel Reeves is doing is saying we still need to have a big conversation about the future of the country and I'm going to do it ome what may U and then it will all fall to what a sort of hypothetical Burnham premiership thinks about things like this and how tough he's prepared to be on his MPs, by the way, but I'm pretty pro growth judging by a lot of what's gone on in Manchester. But I think what Rachel Reeves is really doing is taking a stand against political paralysis, which frankly is interesting and shows a bit more of a spark than we're getting from other bits of our political system? I agree with that. and I think also just you said it happened in a previous Netflix series about this government. that it's interesting that Rachel Reeves and Andy Burnham had an alliance back in twenty fifteen and where that might go if indeed we find ourselves in the Burnham era Overall, I think this story is so interesting, Sam, because it's a good example of the kind of tangled knitting that the government is trying to sort of undo in order to get on with delivering and the kind of delivery, in this case, big infrastructure and building that moves dial. So it's coincidental, but I also had a bit of a story on that talking to officials this week about the delivery agenda, what's going on behind the scenes on that score. We had Darren Jones announcing that each department of government would have its own delivery unit where that is relevant and you can track it one very senior civil servant telling me that while this focus on outcomes is good There is still quite a lot of concern there's two very different directions here. So bear with me for a moment One is that you've got this push to break down silos between departments when it comes to projects that have to share budgets or capacity. There isn't really a very easy road to doing that in the UK system And I think some officials at the high level are not convinced that these individual delivery sars are the answer to that Something else that has been happening very quietly in the last weeks is watering down the actual number of major projects in what's called the Government Major project portfolio from over two hundred to well under a hundred. All of these are handled in the end. Wow. Yeah, which is it is genuinely it's quite big deal. Can I just recommend that you read things called construction Weekly or whatever for more details on that. These are all handled in the end by the treasury. And the logic is that slashing the number of projects under central control helps focus. I guess that fits a bit with the sort of story that you were bringing us there about Rachel Reeves Now what you end up with then is more focus from this government on hard infrastructure, things like the Thames crossing, new hospitals So Bop the builder kind of project But there are some worries that what has been taken out of this kind of big central portfolio is stuff like technological upgrades, which are also seen as qu kind of high risk programs and they will be managed now by government departments and local authorities in many cases, which arguably weak can scrutiny and you know, arguably, but there's not a brilliant you say history of these things being handled terribly well once they're pushed down to the local level. And it just goes against the direction that was set last year, and I'm sorry, this does contain acronyms where the whole national infrastructure Transformation and Services Authority, NSA, was set up and pushed precisely to deal with a lack of clear strategic direction. So I think watch this space on M because it's It ss as I say, it tos a lot of acronyms, but it's also really about who is supposed to be driving what. I think there's still quite a bit of mudle on that. Well I think that's I think that's really quite something in effect potentially means that when Kir Stahmer and maybe Rachel Reefves as well, stood up in the first eighteen months, twenty four months of their time in office and announced prromise communities particular projects would be delivered by this Labour government Now there is some sign in Whitehall that they're giving up on exactly some of those project because it's all just been too hard to prioritize it That's the consequence of reducing from two hundred and thirteen to under one hundred the number of projects in the government's major projects. portfolio, the moment Whitehall sniffs something going on a back burner And it's not getting the kind of three hundred sixty support that these really complex projects needs doesn't happen. Also, by the way, they don't get as much scrutiny. you know, there's a whole like the really big ones are supposed to get quite a lot of scrutiny and accountability. that's supposed to drive them on faster.. Well, let's see if what happens. But I think we'll be coming back to this. Right. let's just go back to ral politics for a moment It was yesterday, it was confirmed that there were now three by elections coming up, two in Scotland to MPs have now become MSPs and of course, make a field that could determine the future of the country. Reform UK unveiled their candidate in make a field Uh interesteresting This is an event where the media could ask questions unlike Gordon and Denton, but in a video, what do we know about the individual and who is fighting for reform. So facing Andy Bernam will be Robert Kenyan, forty one year old whose opening video another a slick video affair, a bit like in the style of of the Andy Burnham O, a lot about his life story and a lot being made of the fact that he is a plum is that different emphasis, G local. I' the really I was already here. Andy Burnham was sort trying to stride into town, but I am made in Mako Field after that experiment with Matt Goodwin that didn't work out, you know o local is clearly the strategy here. He's already a councillor in the area and something of a name. so I think they're really doubling down on that. expect more digital video and lots of air plumbing. Yeah, it's interesting. you can get the names of all of the candidates in the show notes of this podcast as we come on as the B election draws close, I'm just going to end with a note of complication may explain something that mystifies some of our listeners because there's an issue with by elections and the TV and radio coverage bluntly Because from the moment that the writ is moved, . the by election is formally called, coverage has to look different on TV and radio It's because we're in a slightly odd world where there's heightened regulation just on TV and radio. and under offcOM rules casters of course people who just post on the internet must give the language legal language due weight to parties and candidates during the campaign not interview a candidate or give a candidate an opportunity to make constituency points or promote their candidacy without offering the same opportunities to a to the other parties with strong evidence of electoral support And, you know, this really, I mean bluntly messes with our heads and as broadcasters during election time because it means you basically have to sit there not quite with a stopwatch, but it means you get either TV pieces with thirty seconds from every candidate or just lots and lots of vox pops and no candidates appearing. Today there is a report by Cardiff University basically saying the rules around broadcasters approach to by elections and elections is a nonsense because it just inhibits proper scrutiny of policy and just you end up doing endless fox pops