A small way to start tackling the Cost Of Living Crisis

It does appear to me that very few people know what to do - all Parties and most commentators. At root we have to recognise that we are all in this together (where have we heard that before). Dancing around VAT reductions and temporary relaxation of "green levies" is insufficient with the prospect of price increases that could go to +300%! This could mean the least well off paying up to a quarter of their income in energy bills!

In regard to the current inflation there is an overwhelming argument to increase welfare benefits (Universal Credit) such that recipients have sufficient funds to keep reasonably fed and warm in Winter. But this has to be part of an integrated plan. Energy companies should be offered a debt for equity deal provided they accept the price cap, have adequate collateral (independently audited), freeze Board or equivalent level salaries and Dividends. The government backed loan facilitating the debt for equity could be spread over many years - perhaps 20 which should help in the transition to non-fossil fuels. Additionally this should obviate the demand for an energy bill payment strike with the potential for societal breakdown.

What would be the arguments against this plan. It is true that it would raise the national debt but I say that is better than people becoming ill due to lack of warmth. Of course in a debt for equity arrangement the country would have a long term investment in those companies but long repayment dates would help both the companies and the country in gradually reducing debt. This would have to be managed much better than the shambles of Covid related purchases. Companies might object that their freedom to operate would be curtailed - this is true and with the failed regulation (particularly in relation to some companies which were no more than asset lite traders) it would not be before time for what is an essential utility!

I would suggest this is a far better option than tinkering around the edges.

Are you pessimistic or not and does it matter?

Ruminating on the present crisis (sic) - Cost of Living (Gas, Electricity, Petrol, Diesel etc, Ukraine, PRC and Taiwan while listening to an afternoon with Kraftwerk; I keep thinking will we survive all this? and then recall the WW1 acronym - SNAFU. Taking this summer to do some more work on what Labour might do in relation to Utility regulation and specifically the electricity market. So contrary to Roger Scruton while pessimism is necessary hope is essential!

Weekly Commentary 9th July 2022

 

UK Politics: Trust, Probity and Transparency

Now that the self deluded Boris Johnson is on his way out the circling pretenders tell us how they will be straight with the British public. The issues of trust, probity and transparency are to the fore. Are we again being fed a line, not just by the Conservatives, but by all professional/career Politicians? I fear that is the case. Let us look at the criteria on which they say they should be judged. First a couple of reminders. It would be well to remember the words attributed to St. Augustine: "Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet"; and the applicable conditions for sainthood:- becoming a servant of God, live a life of heroic virtue and perform or participate in miracles. (I do not consider martyrdom or canonisation necessary to consider in this context - at least not at this time). Of course these reminders apply to Political Commentators, but most are so tribal, (of which there are daily and numerous examples), in their affiliations that rational analysis of the substance of their comments is most often a waste of time! Which brings me to the point that if Political Commentators behave with, often outrageous, extreme partiality, how can the electorate bisect and debate the real issues. Unfortunately this requires taking your own precious time to understand the background to the issues. Most do not have the time even if they have the inclination. For my part I never take at face value what Chris Evans (Editor of the Telegraph) nor Katharine Viner (Editor of the Guardian) without further thought. I conclude therefore that appeals to probity, trust and transparency are chimerical. Much better to look at specific issues!

Here are three to start with: How are you prepared in detail to deal with the "Cost of Living Crisis" without debasing, substantially, the currency and increasing inflation; How would you address and implement policies to achieve much wider home ownership; and how can you contribute to improving the NHS within the inevitable financial constraints.

Finally some may say these questions require technocratic solutions, i.e. get the unelected great and the good plus the Civil Service to run the country. Oh please no! The notion that these people (even if it could be agreed who they might be) would not have a political agenda is naive in the extreme. Politics is for the elected not those who happen to have a position.

Weekly Commentary (a bit late)

Is better Government possible?

Current discussion centres around severe loss of trust, "sleaze" and other misdemeanours in our Parliamentary Democracy. Without delving into the past too much it would be advisable for the other three main Parties in Westminster to reflect on their own histories as well as the Johnsonian Conservative administration, e.g. - Parliamentary expenses scandal when Labour was in power, Chris Hühne during the Tory Liberal-Democrat coalition and SNP with the present Grady/Blackford issue plus Natalie McGarry a few years ago. I am certainly not a Conservative and the simplistic wish for Proportional Representation seems opportunistic, not reflective of a deeper malaise and an absence of more rigorous analysis which allows (and perhaps contributes) to bad behaviour. Indeed it may be that PR would multiply bad behaviour in our system as it requires more croneyism which is at present a major contributing factor. And in so doing lessen the effectiveness of our Parliamentary Democracy. It will be clear from this opening that I very much support our Parliamentary system and believe that the present arrangements are not adequate to deal with the quasi Presidential modus operandi we now have. In addition Parliament itself through the medium of administrative processes (e.g. Standards/Behaviour) has diminished it's own standing as a viable and vibrant integral mainstay of our politics. For explanation, I am not saying that the present administrative processes should be abandoned but that their presentation of the facts in any particular case should be just that without any judgement whatsoever and that Parliament is then left to decide. (The notion that a Civil Servant would not be judgemental, or not, is naive in the extreme (see Sue Gray report which, in my view, should have gone to Parliament not the Prime Minister).

How do I get to this conclusion? Well I start with the electorate and their views! It should be worrying that UK turnout in General Elections has been steadily declining from 78.7% in 1959 to 67.3% in 2019. (Source: House of Commons Research Papers 01/37, 01/54, 05/33 & 10/36). How often have you heard the common refrain: "They're only in it for themselves"; or even more apt, on Bury Market during the 2019 General Election Campaign a citizen was asked about Boris Johnson and replied; ' he's probably the best of a bad bunch as he is borderline human'. There will be many other examples of the public's view of our Parliamentary Democracy most of them uncomplimentary and a lot unprintable!

This brings me to the second point. We are discussing our Parliamentary Democracy not our Presidential system. Much of this drift towards: Big Job requires Big Person who is all powerful is a construction of Spin Doctors and twenty four hours News Programmes. (Note omnipotence is in the ownership of God not Politicians nor Commentators, myself included). The relationship between Politicians and the News Media is dangerous for serious analysis and debate, as the visual media sells instant answers to very complex problems. Not to do that militates against the media's attractiveness for continued viewing and income from advertising. Over simplification brings with it greater disappointment when the promised solutions are not delivered. This has become a never ending merry go round of near vacuous verbiage!

The third point is: How are persons selected for Parliamentary candidature? This is an area where Parties have control and over the years have assumed that electorates in those constituencies will continue to vote on a Party Ticket although of late this appears to be declining. However Parties continue to impose Candidates. The desire of Parties is to have compliant members so that the Governing Party's programme can be voted through. Independent thinkers and potential rebels are not welcome, with very few exceptions. It is therefore the unanswerable case that Parliament does not have the most talented and competent people.

What might be done to improve behaviour and competence? Together with enhancing our Parliamentary Democracy. Today I shall concentrate on Party procedures which can only be part of the necessary reforms! (Other reforms would definitely include the Civil Service and transferring administrative oversight of political/government activities back to the political arena). The desire for control by Parties has to be loosened. I would suggest very strongly that compulsory Primaries would have to be held in each constituency in selecting Candidates for prospective election to Parliament. I believe the compulsory element is necessary so as to maximise participation. Affiliation could be withdrawn or changed at any time. People would have to register as a Party Supporter and those putting themselves forward would engage with a much wider electorate than is presently the case. The process to be managed via the existing Electoral Registration system. Only Parties registered by the Electoral Commission could proceed to a Primary. Others would have to declare as Independents. Those putting themselves forward would be subject to scrutiny much more so than at present and the likelihood of past behaviour being exposed should contribute to better representation.

The three main arguments against this proposal are: cost; necessity and that it would favour the wealthy/organised. It is accepted that there would be an increase in cost but this should be minimised by using the existing Electoral Registration/Counting arrangements and utilising electronic/mechanical aids. With regard to necessity I do not think it can be argued that this is unnecessary given the current low trust between Government and Electorate. As to favouring the wealthy/organised this arrangement should help those willing to act collectively e.g. Trade Unions as against the herds of Lawyers, Journalists and the 'never had a proper job'. For a little effort, much change could be effected with the distinct possibility of a better democracy. Certainly it would be less costly and less divisive than PR (of whatever flavour was subsequently decided). With these changes more people representative of the electorate should be chosen and some of the hindrances to the talented and capable would be removed. Our democracy would stand a better chance of being improved and trust would increase.

Weekly Commentary 26th June 2022

 

In a week which has seen Labour re-take the Wakefield seat at a by-election and the Conservatives trounced in Tiverton and Honiton it is timely to look at both the facts on the ground (as against media hysteria and spin) as to what this might mean, if anything, to the Labour Party.

The turnout in Wakefield was 39.1%; whereas in Tiverton and Honiton it was 52.3%. As Sir John Curtice (National Centre for Social Research) says: ‘many Conservative voters stayed at home and there is no great enthusiasm for Labour. In a General Election turnout would be likely to exceed 60% in Wakefield and over 70% in Tiverton and Honiton.

Let us look at the sloppiness of current media thinking and presentation. There is the conflation of the EU and Europe. The distinction needs to be made and remembered unless you are a convinced Bonapartist such as Macron. From this conflation a number of errors and misinformation flows. David Gauke in the New Statesman this week asserts: “the best solution to the UK’s woes is to rejoin…the EU”. Neither the “woes” nor the analysis are presented. It is an extraordinary fact free assertion. I do not wish this article to dwell on Brexit but suffice to say the evidence is all the other way. Trade may be down but significantly this is in part due to the removal of the Rotterdam effect where trans-shipments from Felixstowe and Southampton were counted as exports but now are no longer and in any event while imports from the EU are down exports to the EU are "...at the highest level since records began." (ONS). Facts are very important unless you wish to regress to animal instincts alone: "Over the last six years...UK GDP has expanded at an accumulated rate of 6.8% - France 6.2%, Germany 5.5% and Italy 2.1%. (IMF and Liam Halligan, Independent Economist sometime with Financial Times and The Economist).

I could go on but Labour has to realise that the EU is not a religion! This is of particular relevance to Hilary Benn, Emily Thornberry, David Lammay, Chris Bryant and their ilk!

Of much more importance is Labour's policies or lack thereof. It has to be much more than Keir Starmer saying he is not Boris Johnson!. Such policies need to be rooted in securing a fundamental shift in power so that democracy is seen to work better - hence a re-run of the Brexit debate can only be a disaster for Labour.

So on a first matter of substance Labour has to think carefully about what binds people and the nation together. This may be difficult for old style Labourites in that it means accepting the Liberal notion of property rights but in an updated way. I believe a significant rallying point would be the progressive abolition of residential leaseholds - not the 'half- hearted' attempt by the present government but to develop the sense of place, identity and freedom that property ownership gives. This has to be properly thought through. Thus in a programme not exceeding 10 years from day 1 no new residential property Leases would be permitted. The trigger for change would be on the sale of a property - a sale would only be legal if it transferred the Freehold interest without restriction. Voluntary transfers could take place but the formula for the determination of Freehold cost would be limited - say a maximum of ten times the current leasehold rent. Insofar as Apartments are concerned the move in the same time-scale would be to create common-holds.

Such a policy would only be part of the programme. It would be vital to raise the level of Social Housing provision to at least 300k units per annum for the 10 year period. These units would be built to exacting quality standards which would be legally binding on Developers/Builders. Additionally Developers/Builders would be subject to ongoing Independent audit to advise government as to whether excess profits were being made. Thus many more people would feel they had a real stake in society. Worth thinking about.

Just some observations to end with!

Boris Johnson says he would want to go to a third term? The "dumb heads" in the media take this at face value. He is, of course, taking the mickey out of his own profession

"Levelling Up" is a joke - increasing the Living Wage is crumbs from the Master's table while the Conservatives allow and encourage exorbitant salaries elsewhere (Bankers and the City of London).

We have been told for 40 years that "trickle down" would work - the evidence says otherwise!

I leave you with the most wonderful observation from George Orwell.

"...The ugly fact is that most middle-class Socialists, while theoretically pining for a class-less society, cling like glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige....The Coles, Webbs, Stracheys, etc., are not exactly proletarian writers...Sometimes I look at a Socialist — the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation — and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? ... You get the same thing in a more mealy-mouthed form in Mrs Sidney Webb's autobiography, which gives, unconsciously, a most revealing picture of the high-minded Socialist slum-visitor. The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders…"

see p162 Penguin Modern Classics 1986 edition re-printed 2001

Weekly Commentary 19th June 2022 - Whither Assange?

Things are a bit behind this week. Glorious few days in Suffolk and then getting the Lounge and Dining area ready for the Decorator who (2 weeks later than we had hoped) will be coming tomorrow.

Have been ruminating about the Julian Assange affair. Is he a saint just seeking to speak truth to power (yawn) or a narcissistic publicity seeker (another yawn). It is worth looking over the chronology of this saga. 391,000 reports covering the period of 2004-2010 of the Afghan War were released via WikiLeaks in 2010 from information obtained from the “whistleblower” Chelsea Manning and possibly others. These documents show (prima facie) that the USA engaged in activities in Afghanistan that could be War Crimes, e.g. deliberately killing civilians. The USA response was to seek the arrest of those responsible for the release of this classified information. That the information was classified is one of the few agreed facts here. Whilst it was implied that the security of the USA was threatened by the release of this information nothing further was detailed. This is to be expected, as to suggest that security was endangered would require (subsequently) proof in a closed court session. I think it reasonable to believe therefore that USA security was not endangered! And since it is now 12 years since the release of the information one would have thought the USA security agencies would have by now closed any actual or potential breaches. It was widely reported that American Generals were furious at the release of the information. Perhaps this was because, they had been found out – undertaking actions in breach of International Law or, that it was necessary to come down hard on the perpetrators else questions might be asked about political authorisation, or simply to provide cover for soldiers working in a particularly hostile environment. What is of great interest is that Barack Obama in January 2017 issued a pardon for Chelsea Manning!

Of course Assange has been claiming privilege in that he is an Investigative Journalist, which may be the case – although I have never seen a tight legal definition of what one of those is! Hence umpteen years in the Ecuador embassy in London and now Home Secretary approval for extradition to the USA for what inevitably will be a “show trial” (to discourage others).

What I get from this is: a) there is a great difference between what those in power say they are doing and that it is lawful; b) that in refusing to acknowledge that “fighting dirty” does happen treats electorates as infantile!; and c) it is no surprise when electorates turn to the openly nasty as they at least know what they are getting! Treating electorates as stupid and juvenile opens the door to the precise opposite of what governing elites want! It is they who want to mature and stop infantalising citizens. They might be surprised at a mature response! In the end therefore Assange should not be extradited to the USA because for all his faults he has shown the massive duplicity of some of our leaders and thereby indicating a possible better way forward with much greater transparency and open debate.

Weekly Commentary 11th June 2022

 

Utility Regulators without Teeth

The report this week from OFGEM about the storms earlier this year and the failures of Network Providers is yet another example of toothless regulation. They have been fined, of course, but despite that and allegedly scrutinising performance and capital expenditure by the Regulator it is evident that they have not failed in profits and dividends (see ENWLtd for example). It is as if this Utility privatisation was designed for that specific purpose. That is, a profit and dividend created Company with an Electricity Network Provider attached not the other way round! In detail we also have the further extortion of money from customers not only through usage charges but via the “Standing Charge”. This charge is for the wired connections, meter reading and customer service. If that is the case why does it vary so widely between suppliers but also on different tariffs with the same supplier. Is it not the case that those three elements are the same or very similar for all! I know the argument will be made that recently it has been necessary to use the charge to recoup losses where another company has ceased trading but that does not explain the huge disparities. In my own case 20.83p per day in February 2021 and 33.22p per day in September 2021 (prior to most company collapses) and with the same supplier! Moreover using the charge to accommodate customers from collapsed companies hurts the poorest most. So we have a failed regulation in relation to the resilience of the network, a failed regulation in relation to continuity of suppliers, yet profits are still made and dividends paid!

The Soap Opera Continues

I have long held the view that present day politics in Britain is a Soap Opera and continues to be so as the participants engage in mutual ego massaging. This week is a good example. Boris Johnson is doomed. Boris Johnson is saved but only for a while (don't kill the story just yet). Huge opportunity for Keir Starmer – Oh no! He’s fluffed it. The similarities all round are hard to ignore. Principally the lack of substance. Boris Johnson, his persona is deliberate superficiality (although History may attach more importance to Brexit, Covid and Ukraine than glasses of wine and birthday cake). But what can you make of Keir Starmer – it has to be more than I am not Boris Johnson. It also has to be more than “we would spend/invest more”; “we would be quicker”. I’ve been burrowing around looking for Labour policies as to what their government would be like. Apart from a “Green Paper” on Employment that is all I could find! A lot of work to do here both in the substance and giving Keir Starmer a personality.

Constancy, Stoicism and Leadership

It has been very interesting to read the commentaries on the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. I find it strange that some avowed Republicans praise Queen Elizabeth’s longevity and contribution to Britain and the Commonwealth and others while recognising that (contribution) seek to sow doubt as to the future for the monarchy. Part of the latter is, of course, the stock in trade of speculative journalism, (it is also a plea for continued employment). What these personages seem to forget is that the future history has yet to be written and that their views (speculation) and comments reveal their own ideology and purposes.

I am certainly not a rabid Monarchist but divorces and bad behaviour in the Royal Family are not rare occurrences. Before elaborating just give some thought to a Presidential alternative. Perhaps (most likely) a former politician – a bit like the House of Lords only more grand and more expensive. Surely we could not have both! But to return to the point of an alternative – would President Blair or President Boris be able to keep their own counsel and not meddle. Of course not – constitutional mayhem would ensue. Now as to Royal Family behaviour it is worth reminding ourselves about Henry VIII, Civil War, Republican Protectorate, Parliamentary coup to prevent Jacobin succession (William of Orange), Edward VII, Edward VIII, the present Prince of Wales, the death of Princess Diana and latterly the presumed guilt of Prince Andrew without trial. Against that background the relative tranquillity of the reign of Queen Victoria and our present Queen might seem to be an aberration? Moreover the Prince of Wales would have to be spectacularly dim and wilful not to have learnt from his mother.

So what are some of the lessons we might learn. First there is the sense of what you have been entrusted to do. To lead a Parliamentary Democracy as Head of State conforming to the established and developing conventions. Second to provide a focus and historical perspective for the country. Third to be an exemplar of the best in public service and duty to the nation and commonwealth. This can only be done with the characteristics of stamina, fortitude and a strong belief in what you are doing and have done. That you learn from your experience and continue to work hard to implement the belief(s) that you have. It is perhaps a striking reminder of the present day that these virtues (and to my mind they are virtues) seem old fashioned and dated. However the sheer presence of the Queen, 96 years of age, celebrating a reign of 70 years and still working exemplifies the real value of those virtues as compared with the extravagant individualism, self indulgence and the many (allegedly) liberal fashions of today. There is very much to say in leadership by example, constancy, stoicism in the face of adversity and belief is worthwhile now and in the future.

Weekly Commentary 26th May 2022

 

A view from Clough Brook Cottage

An weekly commentary on current affairs from an imaginary cottage in the Peak District.

An end to Partygate (hopefully)

A dangerous demagogue with Imperialist pretensions is rampaging through Ukraine with a bestiality not seen since WW2. As a result the world could be facing famine especially in developing countries. Total employment in the UK has declined by nearly 1m in the past 30 months. The cost of alleviating the impact of Covid19 is about £30bn. Inflation is steaming ahead. Yet what does the media in Britain talk about – minor offences related to Covid19 regulations. What a load of sanctimonious, hypocritical guff. I shall just give a couple of examples of media hypocrisy – Kay Burley of Sky News December 2020 – “I was desperate to go to the toilet” (of course she is still there – on Sky News!); on a different note but hypocrisy related, George Eaton of the New Statesman set up the late philosopher Roger Scruton by de-contextualising and removing parts of an interview (April 2019) – an apology was not given until July, by which time Professor Scruton had been removed from a Government appointment as the actions of George Eaton gave the impression that the Professor had expressed anti-Semitic views (he did not!). George Eaton is still at the New Statesman.

The Pandemic Regulations were created in haste and have poorly defined advice. They provided for Fixed Penalty Notices and relatively small fines. A “party” does not appear in those regulations. As is the established case Police Officers have discretion. Hence there is a high likelihood of differential application across the country.

The real criticism of the Government (and for that matter the Opposition) is that there is a distinct lack of strategic thinking beyond tomorrow’s headlines, poor planning and attention to detail in the application of policy. The news media should do much better than they have, so far, and prove themselves capable of rigorous analysis and criticism not pandering to Westminster “tittle tattle”.

Cost of Living

Yes it is a crisis but all crises should be put to good use. In the case of energy this means rectifying the faults in the present model of supply. This present model is based on the belief that the market is self regulating and therefore intervention in relation to the structure is not necessary. Actually the market has failed simply on the basis that it allowed far to many under capitalised retail and trading entities to exist resulting in multiple business failures. The measures today by the Chancellor (26^th May) are aimed at sustaining the existing (neo-liberal) model not reforming it. The retail and trading sectors of the energy market would be hard pressed to show any added value. On the other hand many of them support excessive executive pay, high dividends and profits which are drawn from a vital necessity (a public utility).

In an emergency, which this is without doubt, the requirement should be to take the opportunity for reform. First the country should enhance the role of the National Grid so that it becomes the Monopoly purchaser of electricity and gas for onward transmission to domestic customers. Second National Grid, in it’s new role would have to show transparently that rigorous international price comparisons had been undertaken. There would need to be for some time, price controls, dividend controls and excessive executive pay controls. The accounts of the retail and trading entities should have their accounts independently audited – the results of which should be made public. The Government should provide loans to these companies, perhaps over a 20 year period as their contribution to keeping prices down. I will not hold my breath for either the Government nor Opposition to do anything like this!

The debasement of political debate and dialogue

 

A view from Clough Brook Cottage

An weekly commentary on current affairs from an imaginary cottage in the Peak District.

Debate in Parliament and about Government has always been robust but has it also been crass. This is Benjamin Disraeli about William Ewart Gladstone:

“A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.” Compare this with Chris Bryant in the House of Commons Chamber, Autumn 2021: “The Prime Minister is a f…… liar.”. He was only mildly admonished (“we are not having that here”) by the Speaker and left the Chamber immediately having gauged (most probably) that the punishment would be prohibition from the House for at least a day. Moreover Chris Bryant is an ex Anglican Priest.

To my mind nothing exemplifies the decline in standards than this comparison. Perhaps it is yet another expression of the overwhelming hypocrisy so prevalent. We all deserve “respect” but many who make such a demands are themselves deficient in offering it!

Many things have changed since the time of Disraeli and Gladstone in relation to political dialogue and debate. I am not saying they are to be deprecated. Far from it! It is the use to which these new features are utilised by individuals. I am referring here to 24 hour news (most of it in the visual media) and Social Media.

The physical separation of the protagonists is key. If you are doing a TV interview there is some physical inter-action, however via Facebook and Twitter for example you are shielded from your opponent.

Though not always an accurate reflection non-verbal communication can be very important – sometimes contrived and subject to manipulation. See for example during Prime Minister’s questions the camera pans to the questioner during the answer and if it is not the answer desired we have the deliberate head shaking and mouthed contrary view.

It is worth re-calling that when Parliament was first televised only the question and the answer were shown. Lobbying by the BBC led to control of camera views being given to the the provider not Parliament.

However I would argue that this has been part of the process whereby the oral and written contribution to debate has been downgraded to the detriment of real substance as it is that, (written and oral statements) which are the foundation of the legislature’s work. Whether somebody shook their head at the answer is not relevant in any degree when interpretation is carried out by the Courts! So it may be “good” TV but that does not mean it is enlightening. Perhaps (I would say certainly) its diversionary nature impedes understanding and does not provide enhancement. Removing control from Parliament opens the door to greater exposition much under the claim of improving democracy and transparency. I am not disputing those claims but doubt their complete veracity when news and current affairs become “shows”; e.g. Andrew Marr, Beth Rigby, Sophie Ridge and Andrew Neil. The purpose of these “shows” is to get an audience and thereby, in the case of the Commercial sector to secure a revenue stream via advertising; in the case of the Public broadcaster it is to secure competitive audience ratings. We therefore have a multi-objective provision overlain with the protection of the brand. Thereafter we see the exaggerated question, the production of ‘worst case scenarios’ and “grandstanding”. No don’t ban it just be aware that the visual media is a deceiving and deceptive medium.

The separation is even more marked in the Social Media. Many have described Twitter as an “anger- fest”. These keyboard warriors do not have to face their protagonists and this has led to their views being both judgemental and dismissive of opposing views. Just as you would have expected where there is a limit on the number of characters you may use in a post. Staccato debates rarely produce anything meaningful! This to, is a multi-objective business with the main requirement to have a revenue stream not to enhance knowledge and proper understanding of politics and current affairs. Again don’t ban it - read more books and quality printed media. So in this consumerist society always pay particular attention to the maxim ‘caveat emptor’.

Some further quotes which support the view of the primacy of the written and oral tradition over the confusion and downright nastiness of today. Many of the, are apposite for the present day.

“Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own”. Disraeli 9^th November 1877.

“This shows how much easier it is to be critical than to be correct”. Disraeli 24^th January 1860.

“All the world over, I will back the masses against the classes”. Gladstone 28^th June 1886.

“A desiccated calculating machine”. Aneurin Bevan on Hugh Gaitskell anticipating the Labour Party leadership contest on the retirement of Clement Attlee. 1954.

Weekly commentary

A view from Clough Brook Cottage

An weekly commentary on current affairs from an imaginary cottage in the Peak District.

The war in Ukraine rumbles on with continuing medieval bestiality from the Russians. If one has to take sides in this sad affair I am with Ukraine. Ukraine is an internationally recognised sovereign country invaded by Russia. The Russian regime is, by any reasonable analysis, a government of gangsters and kleptomaniacs. This is not to say that the present and previous Ukrainian regimes are/were “lily white”. However to take the Russian regime at its word – correctly interpreted as subjugation and permanent subordination of neighbours to ensure its security - is a reversion to great power politics which has served humanity so badly in the past 500 years. We must stand together to support a rules based system of international order and this includes the USA remembering Vietnam and Iraq for example.

The cost of living crisis is aptly described as distinct from much other of the ‘news hype’. Energy price increases may reach or even exceed 100% by autumn! I have to admit not being a supporter of energy privatisation (Gas and Electricity). A diffused and fragmented business was never going to be able to deal with such a crisis in cost increases. Rather than dance around the edges as the present government does with a small rebate and a loan. Nor the opposition’s proposal for a windfall tax which is only a very short term partial solution. Why not offer loans to suppliers – possibly paid back over up to 20 years – where energy costs are stabilised (controlled). Suppliers will, of course, scream that it is nationalisation by the back door and it may be. But it will provide stability while the transfer to renewables takes place. Just a thought!

Oh I suppose I shall have to comment on the Northern Ireland Protocol. A little analysis and removal of partiality would help! To do so requires acknowledgement of the facts not as some would wish them to be! The Good Friday Agreement and the Protocol are not synonymous. The GFA precedes the Protocol by 22 years. The GFA is about peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The Protocol is about trade. Of course there is an overlap and I would suggest that is one reason that the Protocol is written in the way that it is and for the provision of Article 16. Article 16 provides for “unilateral” action (see EU proposal surrounding Covid19 vaccines). Taking such “unilateral” action is not illegal as it is specifically provided for in the TCA (the Protocol is part of the TCA – UK-EU). “Unilateral” action is exactly as it says. It is not subject to agreement – maybe consultation but any party may institute it (see above about EU and Covid19 vaccines). The reasons for unilateral action are serious difficulties relating to societal, political and/or economic matters. (Words taken from the Protocol itself). The diversion of trade UK – NI and NI – Republic and the inability to form an Executive in the Province are strong indications that the test for unilateral action may have been met. If such action is taken it should not be confused with repudiation of whole or Part of the TCA which may well be illegal.

Keir Starmer is a hypocrite Boris Johnson is only a player of Games

 

“If I am fined for breaking Covid lockdown rules I shall resign.”

Thus by this manoeuvre hoping to wrong foot the Prime Minister.

I have long felt that attacking the character of Boris Johnson was a

mistaken strategy encouraged by other Political Journalists as BJ had

previously made up stories and they did not want any of the muck to

stick to them! Well that train left the station many years ago. So

do some real hard work instead of taking the lazy and easy way out.

Yes BJ has character flaws and probably is not suited to being PM.

That does not mean that KS has none and is the next best thing to a

saint although he is certainly sanctimonious.

Let's look at his record in Parliament. Well he definitely has a

a dubious past. He thinks he knows better than the voters. He provided

advice and support to a foreign International Organisation in attempting to

reverse the Brexit referendum result. (He would deny it but still stood on

platform in 2019 demanding that it be re-run). He is arrogant, supercilious,

behaved in an under hand way, continues to play low politics and is anti-democratic. Moreover Labour under his Leadership has drifted rudder-less with,

at best, a policy offering so opaque as to be meaningless.

So he is not the sort of liberal democrat that would be recognisable in

intellectually rigorous circles. To refer to Isaiah Berlin and John Stuart Mill

the removal of choice in a democracy is an unfreedom and can only be justified

where there has or will be an egregious removal of basic human rights.

Unless you are of a peculiarly messianic nature there is no way that

the Brexit referendum result comes into that category!

Anyway look at BJ's other character traits: he does not do detail; there is a

trail of incompetence; there is a lack of strategy or if there is one it is

to get through another week of this 'game' and the importance given to chasing headlines, a perennial fault of Political Journalists in the Westminster

bubble

It really is a strange and downright weird world in which having a cake or curry

during the pandemic restrictions qualifies for media space of any size.

There is a war in Europe, an economic crisis (in part brought about by the pandemic) is going to get very much worse and inflation will make many poorer. These are the real issues that need to be addressed not ridiculous posturing by Westminster politicians.

Ukraine, Invasion the EU and UK – Defence and Security Part 3

Having dealt with the (spurious) argument about “proximity” requiring the UK to re-engage with the EU (alleged – no evidence!). Let us look at the facts of existing defence and security. Of the 27 members of the EU, twenty (20) are already members of NATO – a defence and security treaty of over 70 years with the UK as a founding member. Additionally Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria are neutral! So to allege a lack of engagement is close to being preposterous! If there is a wish to replace NATO then this should be made explicit. I could go into a lot more detail but EU behaviour has to be taken into account. Thus far their record has not been error free. Germany’s “ostpolitik” has failed spectacularly. French desire to lead Europe (after de Gaulle) depends on German money – the bus always has to be driven by a French person no matter who pays the bill. The UK has very superior intelligence capabilities which is why the EU wants us to be with them but their way of working would be very difficult for an independent nation state – as many MEP’s have said they are in the process of building an Empire. It will take the EU many years to shed itself of the view that the only way to do things is the EU way. So let us put this away in the filing cabinet under “Another Nonsense Idea”.

The "proximity" argument explored - a comedic

Imagine you are on the London Underground. You sit down and then a person with a strong, noticeable (and unpleasant) body odour sits next to you. You could move to the next available seat but that would only put you one seat away from that smell. The train stops, no one gets off and another person sits next to you in the previously available seat. Horror of horrors! This person also has a very unpleasant smell emanating from them, only this time it has all the indications that the person has had an anal accident of significant proportions! A truly unfortunate and very undesirable example of “proximity”.

On another journey on the Underground you have chosen a seat which has a vacant seat either side of you. The train stops . No one leaves and two people enter the carriage and sit on either side of you. One has a very definite perfume which you enjoy experiencing. The other is dressed in expensive and stylish clothing, smells clean and has a cherubic outward appearance. Neither engages in discussion and both leave two stops later. A much more fortunate and desirable example of “proximity”.

The point is simple, without further clarification “proximity” of itself (as per Paul Mason, Andrew Marr and today David Lammy and John Healey) in relation to UK/EU Defence and Security is close to being meaningless.

Poor Journalism again!

As a subscriber to the New Statesman I have digital access to articles both those printed and those published on the Web site. Last week I came across an article on the Web site by Paul Mason entitled “The Ukraine war has invalidated Brexit”. So I thought I had better take a closer look since “invalidated” usually means not legally acceptable. On closer investigation this, at best, just more Journalistic hyperbole. So I haven't missed a decision of the Supreme Court nor even a unilateral decision of the ECJ. However warming to his hyperbole Mason asserts (i.e. without a shred of evidence) that Brexit in it’s original form is dead and refers especially to “defence, energy and even trade”. Of course the phraseology “in it’s original form” is meant to be pejorative and therefore not related to any prior rigorous analysis, objectivity nor subsequent rational conclusion. I would just ask for the evidence – there is none! - because the events to which Mason refers are only 3 weeks old! To bolster his argument he then goes on to state that the “alliance” between Russia and China (of militarised dictatorships) means that the UK is isolated and therefore geographic proximity matters a great deal now. The UK is supposedly unable to survive without the (s)mothering hands of the EU. In support of this argument he suggests that discussions between the USA and Venezuela (about energy supplies) are an example of what is required (last time I looked the distance between Caracas and Washington was 2059 miles by air!). Not a lot of proximity there! Moreover $60 a barrel is the point at which it becomes profitable to start pumping American shale oil! (currently Brent Crude is $114 {21^st March} per barrel). So the UK must “re-engage” with the EU. Please provide evidence that the UK has dis-engaged and that the EU has not – shall we look at satellites, science and security. Again partiality and lack of objectivity! He (Mason) states that the UK has walked away from 70 years of leadership in Europe. Au contraire the UK has not wanted to lead the EU for many and varied reasons – e.g. Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties (ever closer union) despite promises were never consented to by the electorate; history – two world wars originated on the continent of Europe; Charles Michel (President of the Council of the EU) has openly sought to create an empire out of the EU (with support from Macron). If there was ever a dangerous thought that is it! Throughout the piece there is the conflation of the EU and Europe

which is both geographically and politically incorrect. Additionally it would seem that it is alright to refer to Britain but not the UK. I think it is about time this narrative by this remainer should be confined to the dustbin as it is devoid of meaningful analysis, objectivity and sense! Poor Journalism and even worse reasoning.

I shall come to Marr later!