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.