POLITICS CORNER

[Tizer]

There's an article by Edward Luce in the FT titled `Donald Trump is creating a field day for the one percent'. It says he was supposed to be leading a revolt against America's elites but instead he's `laying out a banquet for their delectation' with across the board deregulation, tax cuts and a new generation of defence contracts. He's doing little for the `forgotten Americans' who support him. The chances of a big infrastructure bill are receding. The effect of trump's economic agenda will be to `deepen the conditions that gave rise to his candidacy.' In marketing this is known as `bait and switch'. Steve Bannon's `bonfire of regulations will begin this week in what he calls the `deconstruction of the administrative state' with undoing Obama's `clean powers bill'. Repeal of Dodd-Frank and the Volcker rule come next. LINK

There was a comment on the radio this morning that while Trump claims he'll build a wall that will stop the flood of drugs from Mexico into the US his deregulation of the banks will provide the drug barons with much easier money laundering. Another example of him giving with one hand and taking with the other.

[plaques]

while Trump claims he'll build a wall that will stop the flood of drugs from Mexico

I must admit American history is not one of my strong points but I seem to remember that Mexico extended up to North California and across into Texas. America solved the problem by flooding the area with immigrants and when there was sufficient numbers established they drove the Mexicans out and claimed the land. We are now seeing the opposite flow taking place.There are now more Hispanics than the old resident Americans. Perhaps the removal of illegal Mexicans and Trump's wall is really just a ploy to stop them taking their country back.

[Stanley]

Where do we start with politics this morning?
Trump. You are both right he is going to further bugger the workers who voted him in. Apart from his favouring the 1% he is trying to divert money from other programmes into a ten percent rise in defence spending. It remains to be seen what the Hill makes of this budget!
I've said before that I warm to John Major as he ages and he made a good speech yesterday laying out the most probable course of Brexit and to me it's credible and depressing. Of course the Brexiteers will scream that it's just sour grapes but I'm afraid they are wrong. They say he and Blair are 'discredited and have had their day'.
The Treasury are already asking for 6% more cuts from departments. They say the tax take is 'healthy', compared to what? Austerity continues in sneaky ways, see the latest pronouncements on Disability Living Allowance. The private contractors depend on reducing the spend in order to make their money though the government denies this. Who do they think they are kidding!
The CSA enquiry gets under way and starts with the post war forced child migration. I think about two of our oldest members and wonder what they think about it because they went through it.
In the Netherlanders Wilders' Far Right faction is leading the polls.....
Reasons to be cheerful? I'd welcome just one.....
By the way.... the allegations that there is a 'silent coup' supported by Murdoch against Jeremy Corbyn. I thought that was bloody obvious!!

[Stanley]

If anyone can find anything positive in the political news, will they please inform me! I'm getting quite depressed as I watch our lot stumbling on towards Armageddon and Trump getting cheered for announcing that he is going to repeal Obamacare and build 'a great brick wall along our Southern border'. (Quite apart from his other regressive measures) We will all pay for this madness eventually.

[plaques]

Not quite good news but if you have a twisted sense of humour it may make you smile. Boris Johnson's reply to Sir John Major's speech on the Brexit. "that he felt like telling those raising concerns such as Sir John Major to “Come off it, sunshine”. So if you want to upset someone without being responsible for what you say you frame it to make it sound like "I was thinking about saying this, that or t'other", and then saying what you were thinking. That way you haven't really said anything directly; you were only thinking about it. This logic probably fits the bill of 99% of what politicians say.
In 2002 Mrs May said that the Conservatives were perceived as the 'Nasty Party'. Today its the 'Party of the people'. If we add the two together we get 'The party of the Nasty people'.

[Stanley]

That is too close to the truth P!
I am appalled by the furious rage against the Lords fulfilling their constitutional role of refining legislation. Anything against Brexit is seen as treason which makes me wonder just what it is about walking away from the EU is so attractive to the wealthy classes...... Can they see a bonus not available to us ordinary folk?
Later. A report from the IFS (LINK) confirms what Lord Greaves and David Whipp have been saying locally. The Tories are cutting school funding for the first time since the 1990s. They deny this of course and cite carefully selected statistics but I would rather believe our local men backed by the Institute for Financial Studies. Sir Mike Richards of the CQC reinforces the news on cuts by saying that the NHS is 'stood on a burning platform'. He paints a dire picture. The IFS also says that domestic incomes will stand still for at least the next two years.
Remember Ossie's 'Economic Miracle'? You'd think we were living in a banana republic. Where is all the money going? Then there is the question of Brexit.... a shabby clutch of unknowns that is eroding the economy day by day and could quite easily get worse, John Major thinks so and his speech rang true. Tin hats on Lads!

[Bruff]

I detect rather more to Boris’s ‘come off it, sunshine’ remark to the former PM than that. It’s in the strangeness of Old Etonian, Oxford-educated Bullingdon boy and classics scholar Boris resorting to the ‘working man’s’ vernacular. Why would he do that? Oh yes, the former PM Mr Major was a humble lad from Brixton. ‘Come off it, sunshine’, is Bullingdon Boris’s way of speaking down to him, reminding him of his origins, putting him in his place. He would never ever I wager, say ‘come off it, sunshine’, to anyone from his millieu.

The Brexiteer’s contortions over the Lords is a joy to see, exhilarating even (one now looks on with a kind of exhilaration at the coming car crash; if I didn’t I would go mad). How it’s all so undemocratic these unelected peers doing this. I thought the EU was ‘undemocratic’, and the Commission ‘unelected’? Seems in Brexit-land that our democracy is great………….until it isn’t.

Worth repeating. Immigration from outside of the EU is one of the many, many, many areas where the EU has no competence. National governments decide non-EU immigration. The EU therefore cannot decide the status of UK nationals in other EU states as it has no competence. So national Governments will decide once the UK is not a member of the EU. No country though has said there will be a problem, to the extent that established UK nationals might have to leave. This is because in most of these states the law would have to be changed to do so. Only here is the law so ridiculous that EU nationals of long-standing, parents to UK nationals, risk losing their right of residence. And in some cases are even being told as much.

Still, let’s not kid ourselves. A good few million of the leave vote was absolutely about getting folk out.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

I have to wonder how much of what Brexiteers claim is due to ignorance and how much due to scheming. I guess it depends on the individual and the scheming ones are leading the ignorant ones astray.

That leads me back to Stanley's comment: `...makes me wonder just what it is about walking away from the EU is so attractive to the wealthy classes...... Can they see a bonus not available to us ordinary folk?' I think the bonus for the Brexiteers is less to do with economics and more to do with satisfying their prejudices. Selfish, self-righteous, self-important, isolationist, desire for power. Just like with Trump supporters, there is an element of cutting off your nose to spite your face... They'll carry it through even though it's going to backfire in a very big way.

At least the government has had the sense to do an immediate U-turn on the compensation legislation that was going to increase car insurance premiums by an average £75 a year. But why didn't they see the problem coming in the first place?

[Stanley]

Richard, your comment re. Boris very perceptive and I think accurate. It ties in nicely with Tiz answering my question as to why Brexit was so attractive and his question about why they didn't see the problem with the changes to compensation rules. One of the concomitants of the Bullingdon syndrome is an overweening arrogance that says that you don't need to worry about the detail, it's good enough if your upper class instinct is that 'it is right'. This is a form of incompetence born in laziness. Cameron was famous in Number Ten for not doing his homework as well.
The Lords..... Exactly the same syndrome as the outrage over the Supreme Court judgement. The Brexiteers talk about sovereignty and national control of the levers of power but as soon as those very processes raise a question about the government's actions they cry foul and undemocratic.
Gordon Brown smells a rat here when he says that Leveson 2 should be started and that before Murdoch is allowed to complete the takeover of Sky his organisation should be investigated. Behind the scenes Murdoch is pulling strings and I don't discount his involvement in the soft coup against Corbyn.
Thanks for repeating the explanation about the individual states and inward migration. The subject is so complicated that we get lost in the detail, as did the voters in the referendum! I heard the largest carrot grower in the UK saying that without migrant workers he would have to rethink his business model.... Like the rest of agriculture the farmers and growers are beset by uncertainty.
Meanwhile. in another part of the forest..... Jeff Sessions, Trumps intelligence chief has accused himself of lying to Congress and this means that a special investigator, independent of government. must be appointed to decide on the matter. In effect this hamstrings him in his new post and his position must be seen as bring untenable. Trumps ploy of dismissing the accusations as false news seems to have backfired. Could he be suffering form Bullingdon Syndrome?

[Bruff]

Just realised in my post above that I used the term ‘non-EU migration’, which implies there is ‘EU migration’. It’s worth noting that across all the other Member States, ‘EU migration’ is not recognised as a term. It is seen as the ‘freedom of movement’ of people, one of the fundamental and inseparable pillars of the single market. The rest of EU has never understood why the UK insists on referring to EU migration, and includes EU nationals in migration figures. They don’t. Sir Ivan Lewis spent some time explaining this in his evidence to Select Committee the other week. It’s why Mr Cameron got nowhere with his arguments on EU migration prior to the referendum. It is a term that is simply not recognised. It is free movement of people in a single market. And the underpinning EU legislation on free movement gives all Member States the power to put in place whatever arrangements they see fit to manage this free movement. It’s all very straightforward.

Still, it’s waste of time banging on about this now. What’s done is done and cannot be undone as someone said and anyway most folk won’t listen or wouldn’t believe if it was explained. But it’s just one of very many useful snippets for understanding why when we get down to the post-Art 50 negotiations, we’ll have endless pictures of bemused Brexiteers scratching their heads.

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

Bruff I agree entirely what you have said in these posts. Yes, water under the bridge but its always worth reflecting on why we had a referendum in the first place. Cameron always has been a damp Eurosceptic but was faced with an increasing number within the Conservative Party who where outright anti Europe. Also the rise of UKIP was threatening to drain more support from the Conservatives than it would from Labour. Between the two it would look like the Conservatives would go into the next General Election as a split party and a reduced percentage of the votes because of UKIP. The so called negotiations prior to the referendum were nothing more than a ploy to deflect his Eurosceptics and the voting population at large than he could get the better of the Eurocrats. He failed miserably and now faced a referendum. The Conservative Eurosceptics are nothing more than extreme right-wing Thatcherites, of the "There is No Alternative" brigade. Bullying, misinformation and downright lies are par for the course. The £350 million a week propaganda bus which implied this amount could have been spent on the NHS was typical of the "Change Britain" campaigners. The move now is to get the UKIP party absorbed into the Conservatives with the hope that UKIP's gains from Labour will also come to them. Gradually we will see a backtracking on immigration when they realize that free movement within the European Union isn't all negative and essential if we are to trade with them. A campaign of deflection away from Corbyn is now underway in the right-wing press and the right-wing Labour party. Things couldn't get worse.

[Tizer]

Things couldn't get worse.

Are you a betting man?
(I added the winking, grinning smiley...but it doesn't wink any more!)

[PanBiker]

I think we have lost the wink due to not having the advanced post editor installed.

[plaques]

Are you a betting man?

Actually NO. But if I listen to ABBA 'I Have a Dream'..
I have a dream, a song to sing
To help me cope with anything
If you see the wonder of a fairy tale
You can take the future even if you fail
I believe in angels
Something good in everything I see
I believe in angels
When I know the time is right for me
I'll cross the stream - I have a dream.

The only problem is I don't believe in the supernatural either.

Just a comment on the Conservatives making a bid for UKIP voters; I became more convinced when Mrs May was adamant about not giving an upfront agreement that Europeans working in the UK could stay after Brexit. Virtually all her own party say this is the right thing to do. The argument that it would be a bargaining chip for future discussions is as pointed out by Bruff a load of rubbish. Much more to the point is that UKIP is an anti-immigration party bent on throwing them all out. To allow everyone to stay would kibosh any hopes of conning UKIP that they are talking the same language.

[Stanley]

What saddened me most about the Lords debate was the way people like the egregious Tebbitt dismissed the principle of giving the non-UK residents the assurance that they will not be ejected on 'Little Englander' grounds. As one Labour peer said, there is much to be said in defence of UK residents in the EU for going into any negotiations holding the moral high ground. Right from the start I have bemoaned the fact that the principle of greater cooperation with the rest of the world wasn't a keystone in the Brexit debate.
As for Mrs May's tone yesterday addressing the Scottish Conservatives..... This was not a bid to lubricate relations with Scotland, it was direct antagonism directed towards the SNP under the veil of aiming to conserve Scotland 'historical' status as a colony. Apart from the fact that Scotland has never been fully integrated with England since the Union, she ignores the reality which is that at least half of Scottish voters hate being treated as a 'back office' (remember what happened to Labour in Scotland as well?) and I have a suspicion that if proper research was done the proportion of Native Scots wanting more control over their own country is even higher. I have little doubt that this antagonistic approach is intended to promote direct conflict with the Nationalists, the question is, what has happened that has convinced her that this is the correct course?
I believe that the hard Right Tories in general and Mrs May in particular believe that what is happening in politics is a resurgence of the Old Tory Party and that now is the time to ride the crest of the wave and shape the future of the UK to give that renaissance the best chance of succeeding long term. I also believe that she could not be more mistaken. The domination of Tory principles in economic and social policies at the moment is because of the division of the Opposition and is founded on sand. Privately, they have recognised this as evidenced by the fact that a totally confident party would go to the country for a mandate to pursue their policies but they will not do that. They are taking a gamble that over the next four years the 'benefits' of Brexit and austerity will give them a solid platform in the next general election in 2020(?). Of course they may be right but I doubt it. There are immense counter arguments building as we see the short term consequences of underfunding vital social services working their way through the system.
P asked if things could get worse..... In my opinion the answer is yes and it is most likely to be a growth in public unrest. Piketty speculated as his conclusion to 'Capital in the 21st Century' that in the absence of concrete moves to introduce a progressive Wealth Tax globally he could only see one alternative, the rise of Popular Movements. We are seeing small but telling signs of this already in what, twenty years ago, would have been seen as unthinkable political aberrations, think Trump, the rise of right wing nationalism and a general feeling for the vast majority that traditional politics has failed. Link this with my constant moan that principles and ethics seem to be in short supply in politics. Then look back at history and recognise that every time this has happened in the past it has led to troubled times and in extreme cases like Germany in the inter-war years, to disaster.
No, Mrs May and the Tories are blinded by what they see as 'success'. This is ephemeral and will bite them in the bum inside the next three years. After that, who knows, Farage for PM? Don't laugh....... This is as at least as good a bet as a new era of Tory domination.
Later. Official advice is that we needn't pay any of the EU estimated €69 billion exit costs nor do we need a divorce, we can just walk away. How do you think the EU will respond to dirty talk like that?

[Stanley]

Can you remember the days when Chancellors went into purdah and at least one had to resign after an inadvertent leak. (Hugh Dalton resigned in 1947 after a leak) Those days have gone, Hammond is telling us what is coming, I suppose on the grounds that the impact of continuing austerity will be lessened if it is drip fed to us. He's even written an article for the Sun on Sunday, note, a Murdoch publication. I wonder if he gets paid for that? Hugh Dalton must be rolling in his grave.
Interesting that Andrew Rawnsley today is going on record as saying that May's decision not to go for a snap election is a gamble on the effects of Brexit. I suspect that this could be a massive miscalculation. We shall see.

[plaques]

Andrew Rawnsley today is going on record as saying that May's decision not to go for a snap election is a gamble on the effects of Brexit

Going for a snap election has other penalties than just a gamble on Brexit. The terms of dissolving parliament are...

If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". Link. .

The first option implies that the government itself feels that it is not fit for purpose. This would give the opposition an enormous advantage in electioneering propaganda. The second relies on the opposition agreeing to the two-thirds vote. Something that they would not agree to if there was any chance they would lose the election.

I think we can forget about snap elections.

[Tizer]

Trump is now claiming that Obama had him wire-tapped just before the election. Obama denies it and says he has never ordered surveillance of any US citizen. Ben Rhodes, who was Mr Obama's foreign policy adviser and speech writer, also addressed Mr Trump's claims in a tweet, saying: "No President can order a wire-tap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said: "The Deflector-in-Chief is at it again." LINK

[Stanley]

Thanks for that P but the fact remains that snap elections for political advantage have been used in the past. Remember Gordon Brown being criticised for not doing it when he took over from Blair?
Trump. I think there is little doubt in my mind, and it is certainly current opinion in the US in anti-Trump quarters, that this is Trump muddying the waters as investigations into the connections between him and his campaign with Russia are gathering weight. I was amused when he compared the accusations against him with Macarthyism and the Committee on Unamerican Activities. I don't think he has understood the history. The activities of Macarthy were exactly the same as the tactics he used in his election campaign, unfounded and overblown accusations against political opponents. If Trump had been about in those days he would have been supporting it!
The takeover of the old GM interests is going ahead and despite the fact that the new owners have stated there will be no immediate job cuts I'm afraid the writing is on the wall for the Luton and Ellesmere Port factories. A major factor of course will be the possible consequences of Brexit. This wasn't mentioned in the exit campaign.....

[Tizer]

....and the turkeys were duped into voting for Christmas.

[Stanley]

I have noted the optimistic announcements by ministers that the takeover of the GM interests by PSA isn't automatically going to lead to job cuts in the UK. It strikes me that the need to preserve Brexit strategies trumps all other considerations most notably any sober assessment of the facts. Note what the head of PSA said in a statement, that he trusts the workers to support the change and that 'as long as they are profitable' they have nothing to fear. (I may have paraphrased that but in essence it is what he said) Taking into account that the matter of supply chains and tariffs is still an unknown and that up to 70% of components used in the UK factories are imported, how can anyone be so optimistic when there is no basis for it?
Notable that when Trump signed his latest version of the racist immigration policy the press were not allowed into the Oval office, the filming was done by a White House staffer. It looks as though Trump is avoiding any possibility of searching questions about his attack on Obama and the Russian Questions.....

[Tizer]

Reading the financial pages it seems the business bosses have a much more pessimistic view of Brexit than that shown by the Brexiteers and government. They're seeing the fall in profits, rise in costs, effects on availability of suitable employees, customs and trade problems etc. The boss of a logistics company on the Bottom Line programme was saying that he can see the return of the queues, miles long, of lorries waiting to get through customs like it used to be in the old days. They are dreading the changes. Even the boss of the WPP advertising company is worried now that their turnover and profits are falling. When advertising profits fall you know trouble is brewing.

[Stanley]

I suspect that all government announcements are being tightly controlled to give the rosiest picture possible. I fear the business bosses are right to be worried. When that letter goes out to the 27 EU members and negotiations really start I think Mrs May is in for a shock.
I see May dismisses the Lords vote as a small matter easily rectified. Such a cavalier attitude towards the much vaunted Sovereignty the Brexiteers swore was in danger...

[plaques]

The two 'return to sender' votes in the House of Lords both support the basic principle of democracy. The best argument being offered forward against letting the Commons having a say should Mrs May walk away without any trade deal at all is that it could incentivize the EU to get the best deal they can. Well there's a surprise, I would have thought it was what they were paid to do. The latest vote is principally saying that the MP's should have a discussions on the final deal. The question is ' who is Mrs May accountable to if the MP's are left out of vetting the final agreement? This is approaching dictatorship levels.
We are constantly hearing the statement that the Commons have agreed by a massive majority that the Brexit referendum should move forward. The will of the people is often quoted. Letting it move forward does not mean that normal democratic discussions need not take place. We got into this situation because of the lack of information during the build up of the referendum why should we tolerate more secrecy and misinformation?

[Tizer]

Tarzan has been sacked. After 6 years advising the government in six different roles Michael Heseltine has been sacked after rebelling over Brexit. I heard someone interviewed on the radio this morning say that government advisers should support the government's proposals and actions. I disagree. Advisers should be independent and able to express their views even if they disagree with the government. Otherwise the government will only hear what it wants to hear. The `echo chamber' problem.