POLITICS CORNER

[plaques]

David. Let me say congratulations on being re-elected. Anybody who polls over twice the number of votes as their nearest rivals must be doing something right. Of course we will now see all sorts of statistical manipulations which ‘proves’ you didn’t win.
The first one is obvious. Those who voted for David Whipp = 761, Total of votes for other candidates =777. Therefore you lost by 16 votes.
Second. The total electorate was 4321. The total number of votes cast = 1538 = 35.6%. Therefore another 2783 didn’t vote for you. This time you lost by a bigger margin. All this is total BULL…. Take no notice and enjoy the victory. You deserve it.

[Stanley]

I agree totally with both Ian and P. David got in not because he is Liberal but because he is active and works for Barlick, any other result in Craven Ward would have been a travesty. As for the main parties nationally, they pay lip service to concern for the electorate but in truth are campaigning solely to gain or hold office, power is all, ethical considerations, principle and recognition of reality on the ground has gone out of the window. Like Ian, I have ditched Labour as a party apart from my residual loyalty in matters like the MEP or a general Election. I regard myself as a social democrat, I want to see the best policies for society as a whole.
Some take me to task when I raise historical matters to support my views, they are entitled to their opinion but I feel they are disregarding the best evidence there is when making decisions about policy based on principle. The Liberals were at their zenith when they were the main opposition to the Tories and had, what were then, radical policies. As they gained power and personal improvement as members largely of a rising middle class they moved towards the Tories in that they protected the seat of their power, the larger financial interest of the wealthy, the class they aspired to. It was this shift, allied with the obvious inequalities in the way the working classes were treated that triggered the rise of socialism which, after progressing through various phases including the Co-operative Movement, The Trades Unions, the SDF and the Fabians and eventually produced the Independent Labour Party but they were overwhelmed by the other participants and the Labour Party was born. Labour became the main opposition Party to the Tories and the Liberals. The advent of New Labour was a disaster as they moved to the centre to gain the political weight that led to 1997 when they had the opportunity to really do some good but blew it by becoming more Right Wing than the Tories and we all know where that led us.
The basic lesson behind all these swirling currents is that a political party gets respect and leverage when they challenge the status quo and attempt to actually effect change for the better for the majority of the electorate. They have to differentiate themselves from their opponents. The success of UKIP, a one pony trick, is down to exactly this, they have focussed on the lowest common denominators, Immigration and by extension, Europe and look different. It won't work in a General Election and they will never gain substantial power because they have no policies apart from the obvious.
So, how can the log jam be broken? I believe that whoever concentrates on the biggest threat to society today, the inequality bred by austerity and the relentless rise of the wealth of the top 10% due to the favourable tax structure, will gain traction. As Clinton famously said "It's the economy. Stupid!"
Funnily enough there is a parallel in the discipline of Economics. I have seen evidence from three sources that Economics Students are protesting against the way the subject is being taught. They claim it has no relation to the reality they live in. This is actually the core argument in politics as well and any sign of progress, no matter where it is, gives me hope.
On another matter, interesting to see the expected reaction inside Libs and Lab, sporadic attempts to change their leader. In both cases it is needed, in both cases it will fail.

[Nolic]

A friend of mine in Colne bucked the trend and retained her seat In Waterside. Same commitment and hard work for the town saw her get support from all parts of the electorate.

On another note I see that the estblishment in the form of the Finacial Times are trying to discredit Piketty's work http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ata-errors Nolic

[Stanley]

Comrade, nice to know that effort was rewarded, just as it should be in an ideal world. As for FT and Piketty, of course the establishment nit-pickers will be desperately searching for errors to criticise and in a work of this scope covering data from the 18th century to the present day it would be surprising if there weren't some errors. However, to suggest that these destroy his overall thesis is ridiculous and clutching at straws. I wonder how many of these 'experts' have actually read and understood Piketty? (Or Marx either for that matter!)
I know good research when I see it and his conclusions are sound. He's tossed a grenade into economics and if the commentators took the trouble to read it, the last remark about economics being bad science is covered by Piketty in the book. He agrees, in fact he says it is not a 'science' in that it can't be precise. He says it would be better if the social sciences and the historians piled in and developed a new approach dedicated to political economy. My mate Martha was saying the same thing thirty years ago in the US and was regarded by her fellow economists as being eccentric. I can assure everyone that she is anything but that! Funnily enough, I have had evidence in the last two days that this view is being backed up by students who are demanding change in the discipline as they don't think that economics as taught at the moment is relevant to their lives. They are paying through the nose for their education and are getting more vocal. Good!

[Stanley]

At first sight it looks as though there has been a massive vote of no confidence on the EU and old style politics in UK and France particularly. Today's 'explanations' by party spokesmen are going to be interesting! If there is a trend, it could be that, like the economics students I mentioned yesterday, many voters are flagging up that the policies they see have no bearing on their lives and they feel disenfranchised. Perhaps some adjustment in UK to campaigning for the General Election in 2015?

[Stanley]

MAY ELECTIONS 2014

I think I'm about ready to give an opinion on the recent elections in the UK for both some local councils and EU Members. For those of you in the US who have missed it, we have a local phenomenon, a new party called the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Led by a very charismatic but slightly weird man called Nigel Farage, it has been a feature of the UK political scene for 21 years. It describes itself as populist, libertarian and right wing. It was long seen as a bit of a joke because it issued a manifesto (which is still current) which was barking mad. Even its own members say it's rubbish. Their platform is anti-EU and anti-immigration and this week they achieved a quite amazing success in both the EU and the local elections in that they are now the largest group of MEPs from the UK in Brussels.
The Conservatives see them as a threat because they are making gains largely (but not exclusively) at their expense. The initial reaction of the Tories was to ridicule UKIP but all this has changed now. Some Tories are actually talking about a 'coupon election' where selected candidates are put up jointly by the Tories and UKIP and supported by both. This messy compromise is not getting much traction.
The main losers, from a low base, have been the Liberal Democrats. In some areas, despite being partners in the current Coalition government, they have been forced into fifth place behind the weak Green Party. Their leader Nick Clegg is coming under increasing pressure to resign.
The Labour party have fared best but are looking very weak, a consequence of being a bad opposition party with a man, Ed Milliband, who is seen as weird and a bad leader.
Remember that all this is happening less than 12 months before a General Election in 2015 and the major speculation is how UKIP will do in that contest.
Right, that's the UK story, how about the EU? UKIP now have more MEPs than Labour or the Tories. In the wider European elections for members of the EU parliament in Brussels, the main feature is the protest vote against the EU on various grounds, the main ones are too much EU control over national politics, the attempted imposition of a federal system with control at the centre, in effect by Germany which is the most powerful EU member. In places which have felt the full force of economic woes and EU bail-outs the protest is against austerity as an economic policy. The parties who have had success range from extreme right wing in France to extreme left wing in Greece, the common factor seems to be mainly anti-EU administration in all its forms which are seen as interference and designed to foster the German agenda for Europe, full federalisation, in many ways a United States of Europe. Incidentally, these concerns are also at the heart of EU opposition in the UK.
So where are we now? Anyone who was reading my opinions when the Parliamentary Expense Scandal hit us in 2009 (incidentally triggered by the Daily Telegraph, an arch Tory supporting publication) will remember that I thought we might be seeing a shift in the tectonic plates of British politics. Public indignation with the whole structure of Westminster politics was obvious. Since then, this disillusionment with politics as a whole and politicians motives in particular has grown and been exacerbated by the imposition of austerity which is hitting the lowest 50 percentile of the population hardest while wealth in the top 10% of capital holders has increased 15% in the last year alone. The most common popular perception is that the government is not listening and is looking after the financiers and its friends. This has been an EU perception as well in respect of the EU and from the election results it is obvious that opposition and discontent with the status quo is growing.
Complicated isn't it.... So how do we assess the elections in the UK last week? Listening to the apologists for the main three parties, Tories, Labour and Liberals, the thing that strikes me is that all the discussion is in terms of political advantage, what this means for the General Election, who is going to lose or gain power and who is 'to blame'. I haven't heard anyone addressing the basic problem which is the disillusionment of the voters and their obvious yearning for a new approach. There is a noticeable lack of ethics and basic democratic principles. The focus is on personal advantage and the success of the 'economic miracle', a tide which is supposed to raise all boats but at the moment is only floating the interests of the big capital owners.
The immediate question being asked inside the parties is whether they need new leaders, someone must be the scapegoat. Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg are under attack and Cameron is not as secure as he looks, many of his more right wing colleagues are muttering and spinning against him. All this against the background that the big fear is that Farage and UKIP can translate their recent success into an increased share of the vote in the General Election. Farage himself is talking about UKIP being a partner in the next government.
At this stage, nothing is clear, all we can talk about is probabilities. If history has any lessons for us they are that success in any election apart from the General Election is no guarantee of success when the voter's minds are focussed on who is to govern. This would appear to be even more true in the case of UKIP which is a party of no policies outside leaving the EU or cutting migration into the country, both populist and both imperfectly understood by the electorate. If, as I suspect, this is right, the main parties are making a terrible mistake in allowing UKIP and retaining office to dominate their present focus. Remember that the UKIP vote only equates to a third of those who voted and two thirds of the electorate didn't bother to get off their behinds. The main parties should be going back to basics and addressing the obvious concerns of the voters, the growing inequality in the country and the seeming lack of response to their needs by the politicians. Blaming the EU, migrants and UKIP is useless. What is needed is a long hard look at the realities, the greatest of which is the complete lack of confidence in the major parties and their policies.
There is a big clue lying there for anyone who takes the trouble to search for it. 1950 to 1980 saw the biggest advance in correcting inequality, building a strong economy and enhancing the lot, and therefore the satisfaction, of the greater part of the electorate. It is no coincidence that this was also a period of tight regulation of the financial sector, progressive taxation of the most wealthy and strong technological growth fuelled by an enlightened education system. It is also no coincidence that all this ended when Reagan and Thatcher burned the regulations, gave the capital holders freedom to do what they desired and reduced taxation of the major capital holders. At the same time the windfall revenues from North Sea oil were not invested in the infrastructure but used to finance a large pool of unemployment in an attempt to break the unions. Contrast this with Norway which allocated 60% of oil revenues to a Sovereign Wealth Fund and only 40% to government. This fund is now the largest such vehicle in the world. We marched off on the road to 2008 and the collapse of the house of cards.
I've gone on long enough. I rest my case. The message is clear, no government can function without the support of the electorate. This support is absent now and must be rebuilt. The fastest way to do this is to remember what Clinton said; “IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!”
Tectonic plates move slowly but are incredibly powerful. My hope is that this is what we are seeing. I hope so for the sake of the generations to come.

SCG/27/05/14

[PanBiker]

If we still had the thanks button you would get one, excellent post Stanley, hit the nail on the head.

[Tripps]

"Their platform is anti-EU and anti-immigration "

To be fair - as the football people say all the time, they will tell you that they are not anti immigration - they just want tighter controls over who comes here to stay. They speak in praise of the Australian points system.
I don't know if I'm typical, but I voted for UKIP in the Euro elections, because in my view it is an election of no importance, and it was a suitable place to register dissatisfaction, and worry the incumbents. That seems to have gone well.

There is absolutely zero possibility that I will vote for them at the General Election next year. The description fruitcakes and loonies seems about right.

[Thomo]

Exactly Tripps. Tighter controls, and the power to rid the country of illegals.

[Stanley]

Thanks Ian, it has gone down well with my friends in the US as well, they were getting a bit confused. David, in my view a perfectly correct use of your vote, it was only the depth of my old Labour loyalties that prevented me from doing the same....
Straws in the wind, have a look at this LINK for a Guardian report on a high power but private conference in London yesterday on 'Inclusive Capitalism'. The reporter complained because it was private, quite right, the public should be involved.
The supporters (like Lagarde) of progressive taxation of the very wealthy should read Naomi Klein's book 'Shock Doctrine'. Too often crisis is used by the bad guys to gain their ends, it would be just as effective to use the principle to shock the wealthy into a realisation that the inexorable flow of wealth to the top is eventually just as dangerous to them. What is the use of wealth if society is crumbling beneath their feet? Like it or not, their world is supported by the bottom 50 percentile of the population from cleaning their houses to building the yachts.
Plaques makes the point in 'Speaker's Corner' that there is high grade criticism of Piketty. This is a good sign, it shows that he has made an impact. Not surprisingly Thomas said in his book that this would happen and forestalled many of the criticisms by taking a conservative value for the data that support his thesis. The book will survive!
The dirty side of politics is raising its ugly head. The attacks on Clegg, while they may be justified by his performance, are too well orchestrated to be random, this is a concert party and he must be a worried man. Milliband was trying to be positive at Thurrock yesterday and argued that the EU question and immigration aren't the most important election topics but he stopped short of laying out exactly where the campaign should lie.
Cameron must be counting his blessings as he argues in Brussels for change in the EU. The shock of the dissident vote in Europe has had an effect, who would have thought he would find an ally in France? De Gaulle must be spinning in his grave....
Too much blame flying round, not enough hard thinking based on reality.

[Bruff]

'...because in my view it is an election of no importance.....'.

There is an argument for it being important. Whilst the level can be, and often is, exaggerated, a heck of a lot of legislation impacting this country originates in Europe. Depending on your point of view, some of this legislation is 'good' - an example might be the various dossiers (that is, planned legislation or 'Directives' in EU speak) under single market legislation, say product standards and anything else to do with the free trade area; but some of it may be 'bad' - examples here might be aspects of the social charter, so paid maternity leave, other paid leave, health and safety standards. There's also environmental dossiers as well, and others.

Believe it or not, none of this is forced on us by 'Brussels', as it's all agreed by elected Ministers and elected MEPs (the 'Commission' are simply civil servants). And if the UK wants to influence a dossier, it pays to build alliances of like-minded MEPs and Ministers (and officials to facilitate/encourage discussions among and between both these) in other EU member states, to ensure so far as possible that what you would like in a dossier is reflected in the final draft. Unfortunately, as UKIP does not agree with the whole system their MEPs are very happy not to engage on anything at all even to the extent of voting on occasion against the UK's interests. So with UKIP now having the number of MEPs they have, the scope for the UK influencing the shape and scope of future Directives is commensurately reduced.

Which if one is genuinely attracted to UKIP as one agrees with their policy of withdrawal from the EU is fine I guess (and mischeviously allows for the impression to be given that the 'EU' just tells us what to do I suppose).

Richard Broughton

[Bruff]

Another reason why the European elections matter, is that the Commission President is elected by both the Council of Ministers (all the elected Heads of the EU's constituent Governments - so, our PM) and the European Parliament (EP). A prospective Commission chief must be nominated by a recognised 'block' of MEPs (a 'block' is essentially a grouping of defined size and related interests/views etc).

Mr Cameron is exercised at the moment by the EP's nomination of M Juncker as next Commission President - nominated by the centre-right EPP 'block'. Unfortunately for Mr Cameron, he removed his MPs from the EPP block of the Parliament in order to placate restive backbenchers and so ensure his election as Party leader (for all that they are centre-right, the EPP are still 'federalists'). This received a lot of comment at the time of his elevation to leader as the Tory MEPs now sit with an assorted rag tag and bob tail mob with no influence at all.

Were folk in this country au fait with the machinations of Europe, then one's vote should, among other things, be cast with an eye to the type of character one would like to see elected Commission President in due course (and the EU constitution notes that in nominating a Commission President then the views of the voters must be reflected). Unless one doesn't agree with the EU and any of the nonsense that surrounds it etc and so vote for say UKIP (though one would hope here that the other policies UKIP might have in mind for folk don't come as a surprise when they are enacted nationally. I have to say, it is a surprise to me that the people of Rotherham are now unreconstructed Thatcherites with nobs on but there we go).

Finally, the reader may note that the EPP's nomination of Juncker reflects the fact that Juncker is centre-right and his political views are essentially those of your mainstream Tory that has led the party since the war (Thatcher perhaps excepted). That the alternative is from the centre-left social democrat 'block' shows just what a ridiculous pickle the PM has engineered all by himself, for himself.

I apologise for the tediousness of this post....

Richard Broughton

[Thomo]

Quite OK Bruff, no need to apologise, we are used to it on here. Many of the people in this country who can trace their history here over centuries, do have concerns about the future. It is one thing to be governed by our own parliament, whatever the individuals political leanings are, to be told what we "must" do by others is another matter entirely. Some of the rather more obtuse political groups that have arisen out of these concerns may at times appear silly and of no consequence, but many will recognise something that they believe in. We are also constantly reminded that what happens in our great Capital, London, should be an example to us all. This many of us could live with, by at best adopting some features that might be of use, and ignoring the rest, what is good in London does not mean that it is good for all. For example, that the London enjoys being a multicultural place does not mean that it would work elsewhere, it does not! As I understand it, we who consider ourselves truly English, or British are entitled to be in control of our own destinies, regardless of what happens across the Channel. The Germans are telling France that Marie le Penn and her party are fascists, I suppose that they would know all about fascisism, we, and France paid the price for that.

[Tripps]

"Were folk in this country au fait with the machinations of Europe, then one's vote should, among other things, be cast with an eye to the type of character one would like to see elected Commission President in due course"

Deep and erudite and knowledgeable as always Richard - however suggesting that my vote might influence the choice of President is surely stretching it a bit. I don't even get to choose which member of the party I choose gets elected. Under the D'Hondt system, my vote just goes to the first, then second, and perhaps even to the third, but what if I don't think much of them, and think number four or five are better candidates. Quite why anyone would wish to be number six or seven on the list is beyond me. Perhaps they are just apprentices, who are promised that their turn will come?

[plaques]

Funny isn’t it how our traditional enemy “France” has now become our closest European ally. Meanwhile “Germany” one of the countries that saved us from our traditional enemy and the supplier of our monarchy has become arch enemy No1. Just as Europe is trying to get its act together to stop all this internecine bickering we send them a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies to sort out their parliament. In spite of all the false starts and cock ups I’m amazed that the European Union has done as well as it has. Just imagine sitting down in a room with twenty odd different people, all intent on maximise their own interests, and trying at the end of the day to get a consensus view.
For those like UKIP who appear to be totally anti European all I would ask is for them to say which item or feature of the EU laws they don’t like. If I remember correctly there are only seven bits of legislature that the UK has actively objected to. This is in comparison to the hundreds that we are quite happy about. What we hear from the tabloids and unfortunately some of our leading public figures are instances where the authorities made a total hash of it to start with and then blamed the European courts for not allowing us to break the rules.

[Stanley]

I agree David, Richard is pretty good on the detail isn't he! I agree with P as well and would add that it seems to me that Cameron is more interested in the effect his 'policies' in respect of the EU have on his own party rather than what is happening in the EU itself.
I started off by being all in favour of cooperation in Europe as an alternative to the war I was raised under. The closer the EU moves towards federalisation, the less I like it. In the end, if the EU and the Euro are to survive they need the federation and central control of finance by the ECB or some other central authority. This is the driver for the Euro faction and in the end it must prevail in order for the EU concept to survive. This is where I have my doubts. I suppose it all depends on how they can manage a two tier union. Complicated isn't it and very badly explained to us in the UK.
Meanwhile in another part of the forest the resignation and revelations from Lord Oakeshott muddy the waters of the LIbDems even more. Interesting that the Tory press are stoking this as hard as they can. This is murky politics and is diverting attention from serious issues.
My only consolation is that there are signs in the UK and Europe that the electors are beginning to think for themselves with the rise of the protest votes but it's resulting in a very strange mix of bedfellows!

[PanBiker]

My only consolation is that there are signs in the UK and Europe that the electors are beginning to think for themselves with the rise of the protest votes but it's resulting in a very strange mix of bedfellows!

Well, a little over 30% of them are. I think the lack of interest or engagement is more scary than some of the results. I have mentioned this before but I do think there is a case for compulsory voting or penalty deducted at source. You never know, if forced, the ones that never do may turn out to actually have an opinion.

[Tizer]

It's interesting to see the comparison between UK and European averages for the EU elections over the years:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-pa ... urnout.htm
The rest of Europe seems to be joining us!

[PanBiker]

It looks like the Belgians and Luxembourg have it right. I wonder if their voting system is obligatory or the population is just better educated? Both above 90%.

Just had a quick look and surprise surprise Belgium has a mandatory voting system but Luxembourg according to the Wiki is voluntary, well done to them in that case. Shows it can be done but mandatory is probably a quicker route to get the turnout figures up.

I just can't understand how any party or coalition can say they have a mandate with only a third of the electorate taking part. In any other committee led organisation, (which is all it really is), the meeting would be deemed inquorate under most standing orders with a turnout like that and no business could be done. Can't see why the same rules cant apply.

[Stanley]

Ian, 30% is a pretty good sign!
Interesting piece in PE in the 'In the City' investigative section on top executive's remuneration. The last sentence reads: "... as more of the data has to be disclosed by companies it will be harder to argue against the Piketty view that higher top-rate personal taxation may be one response to unrestrained boardroom greed." More evidence that I'm not the only one who has read Thomas!
Rennard 'apologises'. Vince Cable is a Good Guy according to Clegg. Senior party members try to wriggle out of any admission that they knew what Cyril Smith was up to in Rochdale. The Liberals aren't exactly covering themselves with glory at the moment!
08:00. Just read the BET on the elections and it surprised me that there isn't a single mention of the Liberals in the editorial coverage except in the actual results. Perhaps David has been overlooked because of his great age and the fact he's not photogenic enough!

[David Whipp]

Suspect not a lot to do with age or physog; it's hard to tell where the B&E finishes and Tory propaganda begins these days.

[Stanley]

I agree. I was surprised they published my recent latter which contained criticism of young Mr Stephenson.....

[Stanley]

It's beginning to look as though we can take a fair stab at what has been causing the delay in the publication of the report of the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq incursions. Every time T Blair was asked if it was him he has denied it but we now learn that the correspondence and notes of conversations between him and Dubya will not be published in full, only excerpts and 'the gist' will be made public. So what are the odds that TB has been fighting to prevent full disclosure? All sorts of weasel excuses are being quoted as the reasons why it would be bad to do this. Bad for whom? We paid in blood and treasure for the madness, why shouldn't we be party to exactly how it came about when millions were against it? Many will see this as a cover-up and I am one of them. Why should all those grieving parents and the soldiers who had to endure the conflict be denied full access to how and why it happened. If the cannon fodder are fit to fight and die they are entitled to know why....

[plaques]

The Chilcot Enquiry.

The two quotes below are.
(1) From the Guardian newspaper on the agreed release of Blair’s discussions with Bush.
After intense negotiations, Sir John Chilcot, who has been leading the inquiry since 2009, has agreed with the Cabinet Office that the gist of the conversation can be made public, but direct quotations from the notes will be kept to "a minimum necessary for the inquiry to articulate its conclusions".

(2) From the UK Government’s own Cabinet Office web site.
Government efficiency, transparency and accountability
Openness and transparency can save money, strengthen people's trust in government and encourage greater public participation in decision-making’

Am I missing something?

[Stanley]

P. You know you haven't. On the contrary, you have picked up the weasel attitude perfectly. Our serving Tory MP, provoked by a letter of mine in the paper, promised "honesty, openness and transparency" if elected. He hasn't said a word about the Noble Lord's support.....
Rennard's apology yesterday was another good example, when is an apology not an admission of guilt. Blair was a weasel from the start, it comes naturally to him.
See this LINK for the ongoing saga of Rennard. The questions being asked by observers are why take this dodgy peer back. The answer seems to be that as an acknowledged election strategist and fund-raiser, they may need him!