POLITICS CORNER

[Tizer]

Ian, don't you feel that surely, among all the Labour people, there must be someone who is a lot better than Corbyn for leading the Labour Party?

[PanBiker]

No, it's not the time to change leader and besides that it will take some time to get the message of good socialist principles over to the electorate. We could put a plastic manikin look alike Tory type up front but that has already been tried and it didn't last. If people took the time to listen to what Corbyn is saying they might actually like it. His appearance and manner may not be to everyone's liking but he is consistent in principle and policy, folk aren't used to that.

[Tripps]

His appearance and manner may not be to everyone's liking

Actually I'd say both those characteristics have improved noticeably. He's smartened himself up remarkably. I especially like his latest policy proposal of four additional Bank Holidays.
I've worked out that next year well have -
1st Jan Mon New Year
1st Mar Thur St David's Day
!7th March Sat St Patrick's Day
30th Mar Fri Good Friday
2nd April Mon Easter Monday
23rd April Mon St George's Day
7th May Mon Early May Bank Holiday
28th May Mon Spring Bank Holiday
27th August Mon Summer Bank Holiday
30th Nov Fri St Andrew's Day
25th December Tues Christmas Day
26th December Wed Boxing Day

Looks a bit weighted towards March April and May though, and there seems to be strong bias towards Christian festivals - but I expect he's thought of all that and consulted widely with industry, trades unions, religious bodies, educational establishments etc.

Not quite at the manifesto commitment stage yet, just "a Labour Government would seek to create four additional Bank Holidays". I heard him say that the cost to industry and commerce would be counterbalanced by the amount that would generated by additional tourism. So that's OK then.

[plaques]

...among all the Labour people, ...

Funnily enough they have asked this question twice. And each time they have come up with the same answer. Perhaps if they carefully selected the people who could vote on this matter then we may get a different result. Damned nuisance this democracy thing.
Just read that Blair is advocating to vote Tory to ensure that we avoid a hard Brexit. Link How naive can this man get. He must be the most trusting politician in the world. Just by asking a prospective MP if they will do something if you vote for them is no guarantee that they will hold by their promise, or am I being too cynical?

[PanBiker]

Not quite at the manifesto commitment stage yet, just "a Labour Government would seek to create four additional Bank Holidays".

No one else is at the manifesto stage either I would add, did you miss the promise of a defence review or the funded investment bank idea for training schemes?

Most parties do not have full slates of candidates in place either, all of this comes with the territory of snap elections.

[Stanley]

I am a bit concerned about the imposition of all candidates by the NEC. Many constituencies will have a candidate on tap and it would have been better to have given local parties 14 days to come up with an approved local candidate and imposed after that.
Tiz, as P has pointed out, the whole point about Corbyn is that he was democratically elected by the membership. Democracy is so unpredictable. As for 'is there a better candidate', that could be said of all the parties as it's only a matter of opinion. I absolutely discount media reports that start 'an insider informed us', there is always some snide bugger with a knife to grind, all you have to do is find them.
I was a bit thrown by the bank holiday proposal, a bit left field I think but it might have been included as part of an internal negotiation on the content of the manifesto.
As for the general trend of the Labour proposition so far, I think they have got it right. All politics is local and I think they are pressing all the right buttons. So are the LibDems. In contrast the Tories are sticking to 'Land of Hope and Glory' and giving glimpses of the nasty side, increased taxes and attacks on the Triple Lock on pensions. Big mistake I reckon and this might be the reason for the wildly fluctuating opinion poll figures. Watch out for the Tories changing tack and going for more of the populist policies espoused by Labour. Surely they have noted recent elections all over the world? At the moment it is all to play for and anything but a done deal. The biggest result of the snap election could be that it has woken up effective Opposition. Nothing focuses a politician's mind more than the prospect of losing his or her seat!
Later.... Not a lot of joy in the result of the initial French Presidential election. The result can't be directly compared with ours but one thing is certain about it, the electorate have voted for change and as it is almost certain that le Penn will lose, the new French President is pro-EU and also favours making Brexit has hard as possible.

[Tripps]

did you miss the promise of a defence review

No - nor the one that he commissioned after being elected in 2015. I think Ken Livingstone was in charge of that. Not sure what the outcome was, but he still seems to be at odds with his Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith.

I thought she made a very convincing case that the words 'important' and 'clear' should be banned in interviews for the remainder of the campaign.

[Big Kev]

Interesting to see that one of the tory councillors, Paul White who's been campaigning for Pendle Rural council votes, is now standing for election in Hyndburn. Perhaps he feels he has a better chance over there, not sure where all his local pride has disappeared to?

[plaques]

I absolutely discount media reports that start 'an insider informed us',

It goes much deeper than that. Downing St itself has more than five 'press' secretaries who give daily updates on the latest government positions. Virtually all the major newspapers receive these briefs and documents hoping to influence the media to their way of thinking. It goes without saying that the wording and emphasis is carefully chosen to clarify or confuse what is actually happening. The cabinet will usually have their own 'attack dogs' who will intentionally mislead the public on what the opposing side is doing. Coupled with this are those departments, treasury, military and foreign office who 'leak' contrary information to suit their own agenda. In the background their are those with an axe to grind who see it as a golden opportunity for a bit of mischief making. At the end of the food chain is the press itself who are always eager to make a headline 'splash' and to appease their masters will bend the truth until it bears no resemblance to reality.
At the end of the day can you believe what you read? in a word NO.

[Stanley]

Kev, I had Paul White down as an opportunistic as soon as I came across him and nothing he has done since has disabused me of that opinion. So much for his Roads 'campaign' in company with J Purcell.....
P, quite right and May herself isn't any better, some of her comments about Jeremy C are unworthy of her office. Even in an election politeness is an advantage. Remember Churchill calling Labour 'Gestapo'? Too early for any predictions but on the showing so far Labour are running a better campaign with a clear message, 'People V Power'. Can't understand why nobody has asked May the question 'How many naval ships and submarines are fit for immediate active service'? I think the answer is one attack submarine and one Type 45 and they are undermanned to the point where it's doubtful if they have crews for them even if they were fit to sail. 'Safe in our hands'......
Locally, in the May CC elections David Whipp is playing a blinder......
Full colour glossy leaflet for Stephenson landed on the doormat en route to the bin two days ago. Who paid for that I wonder?

[Tizer]

Full colour glossy leaflet for Stephenson landed on the doormat en route to the bin two days ago. Who paid for that I wonder?

These days it could be Vladimir Putin trying to disrupt Barlick's voting!

[Stanley]

More likely to be the dead hand of the Ashcroft subsidies still at work. That quality doesn't come cheap and they are not printed locally, unlike David's campaign literature.
May is doing a John Major and even seems to have a soap box. Fascinating contrast between the campaigning styles.
I was thinking yesterday about May's speech at the Party Conference when she dubbed the Tories as 'The Nasty Party'. Her espousal of their punitive and regressive economic policies and her refusal to address awkward questions about pensions and tax increases plus the personal attacks on Jeremy seem to me to indicate that she is as 'nasty' as they come! Tim Farron gets stick on his historic statements on LGBT. We are only in the second week and the nastiness index is rising rapidly.
She is sticking to her line on EU negotiations, the keywords seem to be 'mandate' and 'strength' when Verhofstadt and other EU figures have said that this has no bearing on the actual process. How long before they start to make promises a la Cameron that are triggered by Labour's message? The election result in France does not bode well for the Brexit talks and she is likely to be held up even further by the German elections. The promise of a result inside two years recedes even further.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest Trump's wall is knocked back by strong Democratic opposition to the budget proposal that the US taxpayers should pay for the wall and the cost be recouped from Mexico later. BTW, I see that he has finally got his carrier pointed towards N Korea......
On balance this administration is looking weak and not a lot of swamp draining going on. How long before there will be joined up protest about the strong streak of nepotism in his team?
Later.... News that Bojo has been banned from campaigning, he has been told to clear his diary until June 8th. What does this say about competence if it is true. A Foreign Secretary who is seen as a loose cannon?

[Pluggy]

I'm hoping the Tories wind up with a reduced majority, if only that it might make 'em think twice about calling a general election half way through a term again.....

[Tizer]

Saturday marks Trump's first 100 days, a big event for Americans. It will show up all the things he hasn't managed to do, including appointment of all the advisers etc. It's embarrassing for the Republican Party too because they run the White House, the House of Representives, the Senate etc. If they can't get things done when they're so dominant on the scene then it looks real bad.

It struck me the other day that everyone spends too much time ruminating over how Trump managed to stir up 50% of the US public to vote for him when there is another way of explaining it. Think about it the other way around. There are many disaffected people in the US, fed up with the establishment, feeling they haven't got anyone to vote for. What has really happened is that those people saw Trump as a gulible blank canvas, got hold of him and made him into what they wanted - a foil to the establishment, a protest. It wasn't Trump making people cheer, it was those people cheering themselves because they were getting Trump to do what they wanted, be who they wanted in order to achieve their objectives. I don't mean they thought it all through and planned a strategy but that this is how it all happened - they subconsciously moulded Trump into what he now is.

[plaques]

Trump managed to stir up 50% of the US public to vote for him

Tizer, does this really surprise you? Something like 40% of the Americans believe in some form of creationism. Link. . This is in spite of Darwin's book 'On the Origin of Species' (1859) being proved as fact. I think we can just accept the fact that there are some people who just don't think for themselves. All gung ho, kick ass, and walk away.

[Stanley]

This obsession with mandates annoys me. I can't remember a recent election when a party got a clear numerical majority. Even the referendum is suspect on a simple question like that because there are the people who didn't vote. We have imperfect electoral systems. The other thing that strikes me is that, as in May's case, it is easy to detect a false resurgence in a party's fortunes if you discount the lamentable quality of the Opposition. I don't have any confidence at all in the polls, apart from their small base the published ones are fluctuating wildly.
I am puzzled by a leaflet that dropped through my letterbox last night puffing the joint candidacy of Jennifer Purcell and Paul White for the new rural council seat. How does that work if he's standing for Hyndburn in June/
Boris Johnson's latest attack on Jeremy Corbyn is instructive. For a start it is disgraceful language attacking the man and not the policies. It could backfire of course, it is typical Boris bluster stemming more from the Bullingdon Club than any evidence or responsibility as a Minister of State. However, I think it is indicative of Tory fears, it may be that having committed themselves to a pure contest of leaders and refusing to discuss troublesome policies they are beginning to realise that perhaps, in terms of electioneering, the Labour concentration on a clear policy message of the weak against the powerful is making headway.
On the matter of leadership in the Brexit negotiations, May's arguments are codswallop. 'Strong and stable leadership carries no weight in the EU. They hold all the negotiating cards and any mitigation will not be achieved by Theresa waving a big stick at the conference table but by intelligent and skilled discussions out of the public eye.
I told you it would get nasty........

[Tizer]

Trump managed to stir up 50% of the US public to vote for him

Tizer, does this really surprise you? Something like 40% of the Americans believe in some form of creationism. Link. . This is in spite of Darwin's book 'On the Origin of Species' (1859) being proved as fact. I think we can just accept the fact that there are some people who just don't think for themselves. All gung ho, kick ass, and walk away.

I agree with what you say but observers have become too focused on thinking that it was Trump simply leading the gullible astray. Not enough attention is given to the the fact that the gullible are influencing the direction of politics. In a sense you could say the gullible created Trump. This usually happens with the creation of celebrities but now it has moved into politics and Trump is the political celebrity.

Bojo really put his foot in it this morning in the interview with John Humphrys and I'll bet he gets his legs slapped by Theresa. He made a comment which was essentially that the Government could attack Syria without consulting Parliament. Humph picked it up immediately and ran with it - not surprisingly since Bojo had been trying to upstage Humph all the time and talking over him, as well as doing his usual Oowaaaarh Eton-type sounds. Then the BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg followed it up saying Bojo's comments were "very significant", especially given he had said that this was "in his and the prime minister's view". Now it's the top story on the BBC News web site: LINK

[plaques]

they subconsciously moulded Trump into what he now is

was Trump simply leading the gullible astray

I think there is a a good dose of sense in what you are saying. Although there are many Americans who are very smart and understand exactly what is going on there appears to be quite a number who are very gullible and take everything at face value. In this respect they can be compared with quite a number of British voters. Similarly, the Republicans have been moving towards secrecy in governmental control and enjoy the full backing of their media which is only to be expected since they own it anyhow. (Shades of the Tory party back home). A by-product of this is that some people are totally fed up with the system and are prepared to rock the boat. I doubt that this moulded Trump, ie: the chef became a product of the ingredients, but more likely he was astute enough to take advantage of the situation and gave them what they wanted. The top tier Republicans probably thought that once in power they could close him down and it would be business as usual. We will just have to wait and see.

[plaques]

Boris Johnson's latest attack on Jeremy Corbyn is instructive

Back in Nov 2013 Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was quoted as saying that "throwing a dead cat on the dining room table" was a way of sidetracking the argument. A little like I have just done by quoting his full name. His 'mugwump' comment will now occupy several column inches of media cover and divert attention away from the main political arguments. Unfortunately, he then lets himself down

the Government could attack Syria without consulting Parliament.

. In this he is saying that Trump can virtually tell us what to in Syria and use our men and materiel as an extension to his own strategy. This all boils down to our rather one sided 'special relationship' especially now that we will going cap in hand asking them for more trade. As far as the Americans are concerned its all about control and power. They will drop us as soon as a better deal comes up and think nothing about it. That's the way of the world and we had better recognize it.

[Stanley]

The conundrum about Trump support.... When I first started going to the US I was puzzled because even intelligent people can be very naïve. I have come to the preliminary conclusion after forty years that this may be due to the strong ethos of 'America is best' that has always been the foundation of their society. If you believe that you don't have to think too deeply about some matters. You just trust the system.
Man caught carrying knives in London. Ergo we need May as a strong leader with a clear mandate to protect us. That's the Tory message. Meanwhile, in another part of the forest Angela Merkel reinforces my contention about the course of the Brexit 'negotiations'. The 27 countries are not split, they are unanimous, the UK must honour its treaty liabilities and there is no way a leaver can have preferential treatment in any other talks. 'Strength' and 'Mandate' have nothing to do with it. They are quite aware of the fact that they hold all the cards.
Corbyn's response to Bojo was spot on, "I do policies not personalities". Ever since he gained (and reinforced his mandate) the Tories have been after his throat. I think they recognised early that someone who spoke directly and with principle was a threat to them. We may not always agree with him but I like the way he is campaigning. Nobody can say that he is not putting everything he has into it.

[Stanley]

I am puzzled, how do the last two quarter's dire growth figures square with the IMF forecast of 2% for the year (in itself too low in historic terms)? I am still convinced that what I see as a rapid deterioration in the economy is recognised by the Tories and is the main reason why we are having a snap election. This is bad news for the Tories and surely must come into play during the campaigning. The Tories are up to now refusing to address policies or the reality of present trends. What looks suspiciously like what Mark Carney warned about six months ago, an unbalanced economy wavering as the weight of debt grew too heavy, is coming to pass and in the next five weeks the Tories may have to address this.

[plaques]

Vince Cable predicting doom if Mrs May does a hard Brexit. Link. " Quitting the EU could could trigger an economic crisis even greater than the 2008 financial crash." For ordinary people it is difficult for them to understand what all this means. A drop of 0.3% of GDP means nothing unless the firm you work for goes bust or relocates to pastures new. At this point a 2% increase in inflation suddenly takes on a new meaning. Poor people suddenly become invisible, disappearing from sight and dropping out of the normal social circuits. 'Building a Stronger Britain' is Mrs May's equivalent to Donald Trump's ' Making America great again' a good soundbite, Rule Britannia and all that. Of course there will be some tough decisions to be made and more flexibility required. This is a euphemism for working longer for less money and less security plus cuts in services and pensions. Strong for who? You decide.

[Stanley]

Vince Cable is I think on the right lines. I'm not sure about any direct comparison with 2008 because Brexit is a different kettle of fish altogether. 2008 was retrievable, it was a failure of the financial system. Brexit is a fundamental change in the way we manage our relationships with the rest of the world. Worth looking at the history, the formation of the European Iron and Steel pact after WW2 was a sensible attempt to regulate competition in these industries and over the years has developed into a federal movement, not a long way from Churchill's United States of Europe. This is a big transition and not without its problems but fundamentally the principle is sound and based on experience of the old way of managing relationships which led via a series of errors to World War Two. This is an ongoing process and the birth pangs of something as big and important as this can only be managed by the participants, the 28 members as was. By opting out we have rejected cooperation and striving for mutual accommodation. This has never been mentioned and is the tragedy of Brexit. Born of internal wranglings and 19th century DNA in the Tory Party, it is as Werner Verhoftenstadt described it, 'a cat fight'.
The May/Tory approach is based on an illusion, that we are a global power, can punch above our weight and far too important to be (as they see it) 'bullied'. None of these 'facts' are correct. Looked at dispassionately we are a declining power clinging to dreams of empire. The much vaunted 'economic miracle' is founded on what caused the 2008 crash, over-valued assets and massive internal debt, both public and private. Mark Carny warned us about this but used moderate language as befits his position when he described the economy as 'unbalanced'. All Tory policies since 2010 have ignored these fundamental facts and relied on spin to project a totally false image. The imposition of austerity on the lower 90percentile was exactly the wrong thing to do as they are the consumers. If you doubt this look at the latest GDP figures in which the fall is directly attributable to consumer spending by these people being curtailed by the insupportable levels of domestic debt and the trend of rising inflation and interest rates. Look at the cuts and recognise that they are also unsupportable, we no longer maintain viable public services or even armed forces.
This is bad enough in today's circumstances when we are still a full member of the EU. As Donald Rumsfeld once said there are the unknown unknowns. May talks glibly about no deal being better than a 'bad deal'. This is nonsense and assumes that we can maintain our status in the world by becoming an even bigger off-shore financial manipulator. Exactly what produced 2008. The uncertainty alone is damaging our economy, what happens when the full import of Brexit hits?
As if this wasn't bad enough, the Tories have based their campaign on ignoring policies and waving the Union Jack. One likely outcome of hard Brexit is the end of the Union. This can't go on. Very shortly they are going to have to address the realities and start to talk directly about policies. As Clinton once famously said, "It's the economy, stupid!"
If the Tories win this election it will be a terrible indictment of the state of politics in the UK and we will deserve all we get. I have always described Brexit as Cameron's Catastrophe. I used to regard Blair's blind allegiance to Bush as the greatest political mistake of the 21st century. I am revising that opinion, this is even worse. P is right, look at the facts, ignore the spin and go figure......

[Tizer]

The Times shows a graphic from an EU report just published. It's a map of Europe using different colours to compare the EU member countries on something like employment figures. It doesn't matter what the comparison was, the important fact is that the UK is `greyed out', i.e. we are already treated as a non-member!

[plaques]

The one thing that keeps cropping up at regular intervals is the thorny issue about the Britex Divorce Settlement. The EU quite rightly take the view that like any banking system if we want to change the terms of our agreement we must settle any outstanding bills that we have committed to. The EU are adamant that this comes first before we start talking about new trading agreements. Link. It is common law in places like France that if you are part owner of some joint enterprise, say a block of flats, and you agree at some future date to have a new roof installed, even if its by George Osborne, then it remains your debt even if you sell it meanwhile. This is no different to all the promises we have made to the EU on all future developments. This is going to be quite an expensive divorce that is unless you can sell the debt to someone else. Any offers?