So the party conference season has come and gone, with little to show for it except division and rancour.
Labour banned discussion of Brexit, tried to no-platform the Mayor of London, one of their most popular elected members, while a reporter had to have bodyguards to protect her from the Labour members.
The Conservative conference offered a reality-as-parody speech by their party leader, and not much else, as one member of a Question Time audience pointed out.
Meanwhile the EU Withdrawal Bill has been delayed again while a committee go over the hundreds of changes that have been proposed, and Brexit negotiations are even further delayed as Mrs May still refuses to pay the divorce bill.
Mrs May is weak and ineffectual as the leader of the current Conservative party, but might achieve something if her own cabinet backed her. It is an irony that she feels unable even to impose a reshuffle.
Mrs May should look at her record of abandoned policies and ask herself if she actually wants to achieve something in her term of office. Whether we leave the EU or stay in, she will not be PM after the next election. A good Brexit deal, one that is worth having, one won in spite of the most intemperate efforts of Brexit headbangers, would be something she could be proud of.
To achieve it will take ruthlessness, single-mindedness, double-dealing, and political savvy.
No more Mrs Nice Guy, Mrs May.
Monday, 30 October 2017
Sunday, 29 October 2017
Be prepared
Mrs May promised £250 million towards preparing for a no-deal Brexit. Parliamentary Brextremists criticise Mr Hammond for not wanting to spend it now. From their point of view this makes sense - they want a hard Brexit so they need the government to prepare for it. The fact that few ordinary people - or even their own colleagues - want to cast the UK completely adrift is irrelevant to them. They don't care that a hard Brexit means a hardship Brexit for people who are already struggling.
However, their zealotry means that they are unable to actually think critically about what such preparation would involve. Ignoring the problems that can't be 'prepared for', such as the imposition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and also ignoring the problems that will have to be solved no matter what flavour of Brexit is forced down our throats, such as chemical regulation and access to nuclear materials, we are left with problems which will cost a lot more than a quarter of a billion pounds to even get started on.
The Calais upgrade is costed at £800 million over six years. The upgrade is only to get it up to scratch for current purposes. Leaving the single market means Dover will need to be expanded to cope with the demands of custom inspections - not only staffing and inspection areas, but also holding areas where transport can wait its turn. Dover is hemmed in by cliffs and the sea, making expansion very expensive. £1 billion would only be the appetiser. Of course, unless the UK paid for a further upgrade on the French side, this won't solve the problem. When the French applied extra security checks in 2016 people going via Dover had to queue for 14 hours or longer, the A20 was closed, and truck-jams covered miles of motorway.
At least the government could pay their way to some sort of a solution there, but what about the extra bureaucracy for every exporter? One document that will have to be filled in is the "single administrative document", 54 boxes, for every goods declaration. The government could provide a 50p-a-minute helpline, of course.
What about the extra warehousing and inventory required to allow for delays? It is hardly the government's job to be building warehouses - and given their record on homes needed right now, would you give them the job anyway?
Just how scared is 'the EU' about a hard Brexit anyway? France and Germany stand to do rather well out of it. Romania would be take a bit of a hit, but most members don't really care either way. They have more important things to deal with.
The clock is ticking and we have no clear strategy. Knuckling under to the hard Brexit headbangers would be a betrayal of our country's future and of our children's future. The Tory party needs to come together to agree on, collectively support, and successfully negotiate a beneficial trade agreement with the EU. Some ministers will need to go and we will have to pay upfront, but the benefits will keep rolling in.
However, their zealotry means that they are unable to actually think critically about what such preparation would involve. Ignoring the problems that can't be 'prepared for', such as the imposition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and also ignoring the problems that will have to be solved no matter what flavour of Brexit is forced down our throats, such as chemical regulation and access to nuclear materials, we are left with problems which will cost a lot more than a quarter of a billion pounds to even get started on.
The Calais upgrade is costed at £800 million over six years. The upgrade is only to get it up to scratch for current purposes. Leaving the single market means Dover will need to be expanded to cope with the demands of custom inspections - not only staffing and inspection areas, but also holding areas where transport can wait its turn. Dover is hemmed in by cliffs and the sea, making expansion very expensive. £1 billion would only be the appetiser. Of course, unless the UK paid for a further upgrade on the French side, this won't solve the problem. When the French applied extra security checks in 2016 people going via Dover had to queue for 14 hours or longer, the A20 was closed, and truck-jams covered miles of motorway.
At least the government could pay their way to some sort of a solution there, but what about the extra bureaucracy for every exporter? One document that will have to be filled in is the "single administrative document", 54 boxes, for every goods declaration. The government could provide a 50p-a-minute helpline, of course.
What about the extra warehousing and inventory required to allow for delays? It is hardly the government's job to be building warehouses - and given their record on homes needed right now, would you give them the job anyway?
Just how scared is 'the EU' about a hard Brexit anyway? France and Germany stand to do rather well out of it. Romania would be take a bit of a hit, but most members don't really care either way. They have more important things to deal with.
The clock is ticking and we have no clear strategy. Knuckling under to the hard Brexit headbangers would be a betrayal of our country's future and of our children's future. The Tory party needs to come together to agree on, collectively support, and successfully negotiate a beneficial trade agreement with the EU. Some ministers will need to go and we will have to pay upfront, but the benefits will keep rolling in.
Ice cream and swimwear
Sterling has dropped 15% since the referendum. On the face of it, this should make our exports cheaper and so increase sales. This would fit with the Brexit plans to strike trade deals across the world and become a trade-led economy.
It hasn't worked yet. All Mr Fox, the secretary for international trade, could boast about recently was an increase in income from exports of ice cream and swimwear. However even the apparent rise in ice cream income is mostly due to exporters getting more pounds per scoop, sales have barely changed.
One issue is that British industries 'add value' now rather than actually manufacturing things. We import parts and export the finished product. The values of the imports and exports almost cancel out.
A more worrying issue is that firms seem to be just banking their extra profits instead of investing them in developing new markets or adding capacity. Last year non-financial firms banked £74 billion - a record.
Clearly companies won't invest until they feel safe to do so. Until Britain's future is more certain they will sit on a comforting pile of cash.
Government supporters of the export-oriented Singapore model should be supporting British industry. Supporting British industry means supporting a well-defined exit strategy with clear goals. Supporting a well-defined exit strategy means supporting Mrs May as she negotiates with the EU.
It really it very simple. To realise their dream the Tory Brexiteers need to rally behind Mrs May, right now.
It hasn't worked yet. All Mr Fox, the secretary for international trade, could boast about recently was an increase in income from exports of ice cream and swimwear. However even the apparent rise in ice cream income is mostly due to exporters getting more pounds per scoop, sales have barely changed.
One issue is that British industries 'add value' now rather than actually manufacturing things. We import parts and export the finished product. The values of the imports and exports almost cancel out.
A more worrying issue is that firms seem to be just banking their extra profits instead of investing them in developing new markets or adding capacity. Last year non-financial firms banked £74 billion - a record.
Clearly companies won't invest until they feel safe to do so. Until Britain's future is more certain they will sit on a comforting pile of cash.
Government supporters of the export-oriented Singapore model should be supporting British industry. Supporting British industry means supporting a well-defined exit strategy with clear goals. Supporting a well-defined exit strategy means supporting Mrs May as she negotiates with the EU.
It really it very simple. To realise their dream the Tory Brexiteers need to rally behind Mrs May, right now.
Saturday, 28 October 2017
The Whore of Babylon
Apart from the £1.5 billion bung, why would the DUP want to support a government committed to Brexit, given the likely dire effects on Northern Ireland?
It may be relevant that one faction of the DUP claims the EU is controlled by the Luciferian global elite. They point to the EU's symbol of Europa riding a bull, which is according to them quite clearly the whore of Babylon "sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy". This beast (found in the Book of Revelations) represents the world government led by the Antichrist.
Evangelicals see other indications of the demon princes' plans for world subjugation under cover of the EU - in particular a poster (later withdrawn) promoting the European Parliament which clearly shows the EU rebuilding the Tower of Babel.
Evangelical Tories in the UK don't openly commit to these views, though Tory MP David Burrowes said voting Leave was a Christian duty, Pastor Paul Hedger branded the EU as anti-Christian, saying "my responsibility is to help people see things the way God does", and Giles Fraser, a Guardian columnist, exhorted "the laity and other clergy to persuade people" to vote Leave.
It doesn't all go one way, however. Christians who voted Remain may well have been led to their decision by reflections similar to those of Mark Woods, editor of Christian Today:
It may be relevant that one faction of the DUP claims the EU is controlled by the Luciferian global elite. They point to the EU's symbol of Europa riding a bull, which is according to them quite clearly the whore of Babylon "sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy". This beast (found in the Book of Revelations) represents the world government led by the Antichrist.
Evangelicals see other indications of the demon princes' plans for world subjugation under cover of the EU - in particular a poster (later withdrawn) promoting the European Parliament which clearly shows the EU rebuilding the Tower of Babel.
Evangelical Tories in the UK don't openly commit to these views, though Tory MP David Burrowes said voting Leave was a Christian duty, Pastor Paul Hedger branded the EU as anti-Christian, saying "my responsibility is to help people see things the way God does", and Giles Fraser, a Guardian columnist, exhorted "the laity and other clergy to persuade people" to vote Leave.
It doesn't all go one way, however. Christians who voted Remain may well have been led to their decision by reflections similar to those of Mark Woods, editor of Christian Today:
Would Britain be "better off" outside the EU? It's impossible to say. But that is not, perhaps, the right question. Arguably a better one is, "Would the nations of the EU be more prosperous, more just and more secure with Britain inside it?"
Leaving is so very hard to do
The Department for Exiting the European Union already has an annual budget of £1.5 billion and a staff of over 200 officials, but that is just the start of it.
The European Chemicals Agency has confirmed that 6000 'substance registrations' by UK companies will be void after Brexit. Companies will need to re-register using an EU proxy.
60% of our chemical exports go to the EU, but that isn't the real concern - the UK will still be a member of the EU in May 2018 (the deadline for substance registration), and companies are legally required to register anything they produce, whether for export or not.
To help confuse matters, the UK government says that they will create their own post-Brexit register.
Meanwhile, the Home Office has a lot of extra work in prospect - officials want the same deportation rules to apply to EU citizens and non-EU post-Brexit. In particular that means that anyone sentenced to more than 12 months in prison must be deported: 6,171 offenders were deported last year, at a cost of £850 million. If the new rules were already in place then the Home Office would have had to deport around 26,000 EU citizens too - costing another £3.6 billion.
Not to mention concerns about our nuclear reactors and medical treatments using radionucleotides, as Mrs May wishes to exit Euratom as well as the EU.
Let us hope that DEXEU are keeping up.
The European Chemicals Agency has confirmed that 6000 'substance registrations' by UK companies will be void after Brexit. Companies will need to re-register using an EU proxy.
60% of our chemical exports go to the EU, but that isn't the real concern - the UK will still be a member of the EU in May 2018 (the deadline for substance registration), and companies are legally required to register anything they produce, whether for export or not.
To help confuse matters, the UK government says that they will create their own post-Brexit register.
Meanwhile, the Home Office has a lot of extra work in prospect - officials want the same deportation rules to apply to EU citizens and non-EU post-Brexit. In particular that means that anyone sentenced to more than 12 months in prison must be deported: 6,171 offenders were deported last year, at a cost of £850 million. If the new rules were already in place then the Home Office would have had to deport around 26,000 EU citizens too - costing another £3.6 billion.
Not to mention concerns about our nuclear reactors and medical treatments using radionucleotides, as Mrs May wishes to exit Euratom as well as the EU.
Let us hope that DEXEU are keeping up.
Bags of red tape
One of the claimed benefits of Brexit is the clearing away of towering thickets of red tape that are supposedly strangling our entrepreneurial spirit.
It is strange then that Defra, led by Mr Gove - a Bretremist sans pareil, is trumpeting the addition of further layers of tape. Even odder is the fact that this is red tape based on EU directives, though Defra claims the measures as their own:
It is strange then that Defra, led by Mr Gove - a Bretremist sans pareil, is trumpeting the addition of further layers of tape. Even odder is the fact that this is red tape based on EU directives, though Defra claims the measures as their own:
- The plastic bag charge: Defra says this shows the UK is a "global leader in protecting oceans and marine life." However, we brought this in much later than many other EU countries. Maybe Defra means we are ahead of most African countries?
- Banning ivory trading: Gove says this puts "the UK front and centre of global efforts to end the insidious trade in ivory." As our new rules are simply a copy of the rules decided by the EU (and the USA already has a ban) it would be more accurate for him to say that they bundle the UK onto the 'me-too' bandwagon.
Rather than publicising fake wins, Defra should be sorting out Britain's food situation post-Brexit. They might note that I am quite happy for them to claim my own modest proposal as their own.
Dig for Victory
The National Farmers Union reports that since the referendum there has been a drop of 17% in the number of seasonal workers coming to the UK to harvest fruit and vegetables - that is one in six staying home even before Brexit.
Post-Brexit none of those workers will be allowed in, so farmers will need to employ locals or give up.
Meanwhile, EU food imports (making up 70% of what we consume) will become more expensive. A cabinet minister says we can simply grow more here.
Tripling our food production is rather a tall order. Quite apart from where we would grow it all, who would do the work, given that we will be banning migrant labour?
Fortunately, Ms Leadsom has the answer - forcing students into the fields. With Mrs May shamelessly nicking Labour ideas, it isn't too surprising that the right-wingers want to bring in classic communist policies.
I would like to suggest a more British alternative, one that fits well with Brexiteers' jingoism. Revive the wartime campaign "Dig for Victory", requiring people to grow their own vegetables, converting their garden or working an allotment. We might even re-introduce rationing in order to encourage participation.
If we are to make a success of Brexit we will need to pull together. "Dig for Victory" recalls a time of national unity and purpose. Let us call on the "Dunkirk spirit" once more.
Post-Brexit none of those workers will be allowed in, so farmers will need to employ locals or give up.
Meanwhile, EU food imports (making up 70% of what we consume) will become more expensive. A cabinet minister says we can simply grow more here.
Tripling our food production is rather a tall order. Quite apart from where we would grow it all, who would do the work, given that we will be banning migrant labour?
Fortunately, Ms Leadsom has the answer - forcing students into the fields. With Mrs May shamelessly nicking Labour ideas, it isn't too surprising that the right-wingers want to bring in classic communist policies.
I would like to suggest a more British alternative, one that fits well with Brexiteers' jingoism. Revive the wartime campaign "Dig for Victory", requiring people to grow their own vegetables, converting their garden or working an allotment. We might even re-introduce rationing in order to encourage participation.
If we are to make a success of Brexit we will need to pull together. "Dig for Victory" recalls a time of national unity and purpose. Let us call on the "Dunkirk spirit" once more.
Friday, 27 October 2017
Grow your own
At the moment we import 70% of our food from the EU. It will take time to replace this with home-grown food or imports from other countries if we exit without a trade deal.
Why should that be a concern? After all, EU farmers will still want to sell to us whether we are in the single market or out of it.
The concern is the cost. If we crash out of the EU without a deal and fall back on WTO tariffs or worse then we will have to pay WTO tariffs on all our imports. Note that under WTO rules we have to charge/pay tariffs unless there is a negotiated agreement - we can't simply casually agree to ignore them, even if neither side wants them. Tariffs on trade within the EU single market are around 1%, WTO tariffs are higher - a lot higher for food and textiles. For example, Ireland exports mostly food to the UK. Tariffs will add around 18% to the price they must charge for their products.
These increased costs will obviously mean prices increase. Meanwhile our exports will also be more expensive (those tariffs again) so will be less competitive. Our volume of exports to the EU will fall by over 20%. Around 10% of our current exported products will no longer even be worth exporting as no-one will buy them. Some entire product categories will essentially disappear - the clothing trade will fall by 99%, sugar/confectionary 95%, meat/flour 90%.
These effects, combined with the continued fall in real wages, means UK living standards will be squeezed even harder.
The response of Mr Grayling, a cabinet minister no less, is that all we have to do is grow more in the UK. This comment is so fatuous it simply underlines that there is no plan.
Whatever the long-term intentions of the Brextremists, right now they must accept that we need a transitional deal. They should support Mrs May in her negotiations and stop posturing about payments. The price of an agreement is far less than the price of no agreement.
Why should that be a concern? After all, EU farmers will still want to sell to us whether we are in the single market or out of it.
The concern is the cost. If we crash out of the EU without a deal and fall back on WTO tariffs or worse then we will have to pay WTO tariffs on all our imports. Note that under WTO rules we have to charge/pay tariffs unless there is a negotiated agreement - we can't simply casually agree to ignore them, even if neither side wants them. Tariffs on trade within the EU single market are around 1%, WTO tariffs are higher - a lot higher for food and textiles. For example, Ireland exports mostly food to the UK. Tariffs will add around 18% to the price they must charge for their products.
These increased costs will obviously mean prices increase. Meanwhile our exports will also be more expensive (those tariffs again) so will be less competitive. Our volume of exports to the EU will fall by over 20%. Around 10% of our current exported products will no longer even be worth exporting as no-one will buy them. Some entire product categories will essentially disappear - the clothing trade will fall by 99%, sugar/confectionary 95%, meat/flour 90%.
These effects, combined with the continued fall in real wages, means UK living standards will be squeezed even harder.
The response of Mr Grayling, a cabinet minister no less, is that all we have to do is grow more in the UK. This comment is so fatuous it simply underlines that there is no plan.
Whatever the long-term intentions of the Brextremists, right now they must accept that we need a transitional deal. They should support Mrs May in her negotiations and stop posturing about payments. The price of an agreement is far less than the price of no agreement.
UK credit rating downgraded again
Moody's, an international credit rating agency, has downgraded the UK's rating once more. They had already reduced our rating from AAA (the top rating) to AA1, they have now cut it to AA2. S&P, another large agency, has already demoted our credit-worthiness by two places, from AAA to AA, and a third major credit rating agency, Fitch, has also downgraded us to AA.
The reasons for these downgrades are concerns over Brexit's economic effect, the lack of clear government policies and a weak prime minister.
Meanwhile, the Office for National Statistics has revised its estimate for net foreign investment, reducing it by £490 billion. This is due to two things - overseas companies reducing their investment in the UK and the ONS correcting an accounting error. Ignoring the correction, foreign investment is down £160 billion. Still a big chunk of change.
The reasons for the reduced investment are concerns over Brexit's economic effect, the lack of clear government policies, a weak prime minister and the likely loss of tariff-free access to the largest free market in the world.
This international loss of confidence in Britain's economic future is also the cause of the precipitous decline in the pound.
If the Brextremists really do want Britain to succeed then they should be the ones calling for firm government and insisting on a fast deal. That means they need to support Mrs May rather than undermine her, they need to disown Mr Johnson who has his own agenda and cares nothing for Britain's future, they need to accept (and even better - understand) the upfront cost of a good deal rather than the far greater cumulative cost of no deal.
Project Fear is now Project Nearly Here. If the Brexit headbangers refuse to change their script, if they insist on driving us into penury despite the warnings and the mounting evidence, then we have to ask what their real motives are.
The reasons for these downgrades are concerns over Brexit's economic effect, the lack of clear government policies and a weak prime minister.
Meanwhile, the Office for National Statistics has revised its estimate for net foreign investment, reducing it by £490 billion. This is due to two things - overseas companies reducing their investment in the UK and the ONS correcting an accounting error. Ignoring the correction, foreign investment is down £160 billion. Still a big chunk of change.
The reasons for the reduced investment are concerns over Brexit's economic effect, the lack of clear government policies, a weak prime minister and the likely loss of tariff-free access to the largest free market in the world.
This international loss of confidence in Britain's economic future is also the cause of the precipitous decline in the pound.
If the Brextremists really do want Britain to succeed then they should be the ones calling for firm government and insisting on a fast deal. That means they need to support Mrs May rather than undermine her, they need to disown Mr Johnson who has his own agenda and cares nothing for Britain's future, they need to accept (and even better - understand) the upfront cost of a good deal rather than the far greater cumulative cost of no deal.
Project Fear is now Project Nearly Here. If the Brexit headbangers refuse to change their script, if they insist on driving us into penury despite the warnings and the mounting evidence, then we have to ask what their real motives are.
Tuesday, 24 October 2017
Why come to the UK?
There are around 911,000 Poles currently living in the UK. Almost all have arrived in the past 15 years.
So why come to the UK rather than other EU countries? Before the Brexit referendum the UK was booming with full employment, and our GDP second only to Germany's. Poles came knowing that if they worked hard they would earn a lot more than they would in Poland. So that is what they did, and Polish workmen have become a byword over the past decade.
Meanwhile, over the last ten years Polish GDP per person has increased by around 50%, while in the UK it has barely changed. Since the referendum the pound has depreciated against the Polish zloty by 20%. Together with the uncertainty of what will happen post-Brexit and the increase in hate crimes, this has meant that the UK is no longer a good place for Poles to work. This year the number of people coming to the UK from the EU8 (which includes Poland) was matched by the number leaving.
So it seems that at least that Brexit promise may be fulfilled. Admittedly it isn't because we have 'taken control' of our borders. It is because we have lost control of our economy.
Let's hope that this works out over the long run. Maybe once we have chucked out all the foreigners who are willing to work hard in low-paid jobs we can give those jobs to British people. By then British workers may even be glad to take the jobs, to learn how to work hard for little money, which may help to push up Britain's woeful productivity. As the continued freeze on benefits shows, the nation can't afford to keep subsidising people who aren't producing as we chuck out the people who are producing.
So why come to the UK rather than other EU countries? Before the Brexit referendum the UK was booming with full employment, and our GDP second only to Germany's. Poles came knowing that if they worked hard they would earn a lot more than they would in Poland. So that is what they did, and Polish workmen have become a byword over the past decade.
Meanwhile, over the last ten years Polish GDP per person has increased by around 50%, while in the UK it has barely changed. Since the referendum the pound has depreciated against the Polish zloty by 20%. Together with the uncertainty of what will happen post-Brexit and the increase in hate crimes, this has meant that the UK is no longer a good place for Poles to work. This year the number of people coming to the UK from the EU8 (which includes Poland) was matched by the number leaving.
So it seems that at least that Brexit promise may be fulfilled. Admittedly it isn't because we have 'taken control' of our borders. It is because we have lost control of our economy.
Let's hope that this works out over the long run. Maybe once we have chucked out all the foreigners who are willing to work hard in low-paid jobs we can give those jobs to British people. By then British workers may even be glad to take the jobs, to learn how to work hard for little money, which may help to push up Britain's woeful productivity. As the continued freeze on benefits shows, the nation can't afford to keep subsidising people who aren't producing as we chuck out the people who are producing.
Sunday, 22 October 2017
Fair play
Brexit will be hard. We will be poorer as a nation, we will have to make painful decisions on what we can afford and what we can't. We will be poorer ourselves, wages down, living standards down, and a reduced safety net.
We can't avoid any of that but we can get through it. The 1970s show us that. Hard choices can lead to far-sighted decisions, setting Britain up for success in the years to come.
The real damage threatened is to our institutions. The UK is rightly respected for its political system and legal system. Our politicians have managed to create a tax and welfare system more progressive than Sweden's, we have a gap in life expectancy between rich and poor which is smaller than that in almost every other developed country, and a person's chances in life depend less on his or her parents' wealth than it does in almost any other country in the world (including the USA) - the British reputation for fair play is clearly still well deserved.
These things cannot be achieved by a single headline policy, they develop from many decisions made over many years. Decisions made on both sides of the political divide, often building on what their ideological opponents first started. Politics is about working together.
Right now our two main parties are riven by internal dissent. Labour appears more coherent simply because they are not in power. Brexit has caused this factionalism, and the resultant in-fighting is preventing any progress on preparing the UK for not only Brexit's consequences, but for even bigger problems coming our way.
Mr Hammond is trying to keep a level head. He has had to abandon financial prudence, continue with quantitative easing, and agree to borrow more rather than pay down the national debt. However, he is still looking ahead to when the bills will come in. At the moment we won't be paying, it will be our children. They will be paying our pension, paying for our health care, and paying off the public debts that we ran up.
It's a hard job, though, when the Brextremists give him a hammering for not lavishing money on preparations for a hard Brexit - something we should be doing our best to avoid.
Mrs May does appreciate the problems that are coming. She has talked about the Just About Managing, and supports energy price caps. She even suggested retired people with their own house should pay for their own care rather than expecting young workers who can't afford to buy a house to cough up. She backed off soon enough though when the flak started firing, though fair play to the health minister, Ms Doyle-Price, who still publicly supports the idea.
Another suggestion is to reduce the rate of income tax for the under 30s. Given that many are choosing to access higher education and have to pay for the privilege - which older generations didn't - this sounds like fair play too.
We know what is coming, we must prepare for it - Brexit or no Brexit. However, these policies, or better ones, will need backbone and commitment to implement, they will need a united party behind them. It is now up to individual MPs to make that happen, and it may only be possible if the moderates, the sensible, thoughtful ones, simply come together, leaving the ideologues behind.
We can't avoid any of that but we can get through it. The 1970s show us that. Hard choices can lead to far-sighted decisions, setting Britain up for success in the years to come.
The real damage threatened is to our institutions. The UK is rightly respected for its political system and legal system. Our politicians have managed to create a tax and welfare system more progressive than Sweden's, we have a gap in life expectancy between rich and poor which is smaller than that in almost every other developed country, and a person's chances in life depend less on his or her parents' wealth than it does in almost any other country in the world (including the USA) - the British reputation for fair play is clearly still well deserved.
These things cannot be achieved by a single headline policy, they develop from many decisions made over many years. Decisions made on both sides of the political divide, often building on what their ideological opponents first started. Politics is about working together.
Right now our two main parties are riven by internal dissent. Labour appears more coherent simply because they are not in power. Brexit has caused this factionalism, and the resultant in-fighting is preventing any progress on preparing the UK for not only Brexit's consequences, but for even bigger problems coming our way.
Mr Hammond is trying to keep a level head. He has had to abandon financial prudence, continue with quantitative easing, and agree to borrow more rather than pay down the national debt. However, he is still looking ahead to when the bills will come in. At the moment we won't be paying, it will be our children. They will be paying our pension, paying for our health care, and paying off the public debts that we ran up.
It's a hard job, though, when the Brextremists give him a hammering for not lavishing money on preparations for a hard Brexit - something we should be doing our best to avoid.
Mrs May does appreciate the problems that are coming. She has talked about the Just About Managing, and supports energy price caps. She even suggested retired people with their own house should pay for their own care rather than expecting young workers who can't afford to buy a house to cough up. She backed off soon enough though when the flak started firing, though fair play to the health minister, Ms Doyle-Price, who still publicly supports the idea.
Another suggestion is to reduce the rate of income tax for the under 30s. Given that many are choosing to access higher education and have to pay for the privilege - which older generations didn't - this sounds like fair play too.
We know what is coming, we must prepare for it - Brexit or no Brexit. However, these policies, or better ones, will need backbone and commitment to implement, they will need a united party behind them. It is now up to individual MPs to make that happen, and it may only be possible if the moderates, the sensible, thoughtful ones, simply come together, leaving the ideologues behind.
FTSE at a new high
Brexit has pushed up the value of companies listed on the London stock exchange. The FTSE 100 index, a list of the 100 top companies by share value, is at a record high, and there is more to come.
Champers all round? Maybe not. The reason the FTSE is so high is that it includes a lot of multinationals which earn their revenue in foreign currencies. Every time the pound falls their revenue stated in pounds goes up. Even though it hasn't changed - or may even have gone down.
The reason that the FTSE is at a record high is that the pound is at a record low, and is most likely going to fall further, unless Mr Davis and Mrs May sort out their double act, fast.
Champers all round? Maybe not. The reason the FTSE is so high is that it includes a lot of multinationals which earn their revenue in foreign currencies. Every time the pound falls their revenue stated in pounds goes up. Even though it hasn't changed - or may even have gone down.
The reason that the FTSE is at a record high is that the pound is at a record low, and is most likely going to fall further, unless Mr Davis and Mrs May sort out their double act, fast.
Economic boom ahead
Decades of underfunding for road maintenance and increases in road traffic mean that potholes are becoming ever more common. The RAC have attended 63% more pothole-related breakdowns so far this year when compared to the same period last year.
The increase in life expectancy in the UK is the slowest in Europe - in tandem with a reduction in spending on adult social care and only a minimal increase to NHS funding, while the number of over-65s grew by 17%.
The UK trade deficit grew to £5.6 billion - a record - even though the weak pound favours our exporters and punishes importers. Despite the rise in prices people are not reducing their purchases of imported products.
Meanwhile the IMF predicts a global economic boom - but they say that the UK will miss out on it due to the inflationary effect of the pound's precipitous fall. They forecast growth of 1.5% for the UK compared to 3.7% for the rest of the world.
The IMF prediction is based on a controlled rise in rates and a successful Brexit negotiation. An abrupt rate rise or a lack of an agreement could cause a lot more trouble.
Britain needs to get back to earning its keep. Mrs May has to get tough with her backbenchers and sort out Brexit as soon as possible. She needs to face up to the Brextremist headbangers who want to do a runner, default on our debts and hope to set up trade deals while the bailiffs are banging on our front door.
It is going to be rough for a while, we need all the friends we can get.
The increase in life expectancy in the UK is the slowest in Europe - in tandem with a reduction in spending on adult social care and only a minimal increase to NHS funding, while the number of over-65s grew by 17%.
The UK trade deficit grew to £5.6 billion - a record - even though the weak pound favours our exporters and punishes importers. Despite the rise in prices people are not reducing their purchases of imported products.
Meanwhile the IMF predicts a global economic boom - but they say that the UK will miss out on it due to the inflationary effect of the pound's precipitous fall. They forecast growth of 1.5% for the UK compared to 3.7% for the rest of the world.
The IMF prediction is based on a controlled rise in rates and a successful Brexit negotiation. An abrupt rate rise or a lack of an agreement could cause a lot more trouble.
Britain needs to get back to earning its keep. Mrs May has to get tough with her backbenchers and sort out Brexit as soon as possible. She needs to face up to the Brextremist headbangers who want to do a runner, default on our debts and hope to set up trade deals while the bailiffs are banging on our front door.
It is going to be rough for a while, we need all the friends we can get.
The silence of the turkeys
A large number of Conservative MPs understand that Brexit is going to cause long-term damage to the UK and are pro-Remain, they know that they have been elected to do their best for their electorate, for all of Britain, yet many of them have buckled to the pressures put on them to support Leave.
For some it may be fear of physical threats to them and their family: A Labour MP resigned after receiving four death threats from Leave supporters, Conservative MP Ms Soubry received death threats which said she should be 'Jo Coxed' - referring to the MP who was murdered by a Leave supporter. For others it will be their careers that they wish to protect. For some it will be because their constituency favoured Leave. Some are putting party loyalty above all other considerations.
A large number of Labour MPs understand that Mr Corbyn is going to cause long-term damage to the Labour Party, they know that the last time the party stampeded into the wilderness of the hard left it took a decade to recover. Labour has provided only four prime ministers in its history, all of whom have been moderates. Yet those MPs too are acting like turkeys talking up Christmas.
One of the saddest sights of the conference season was the Labour deputy leader, the man who had promised to prevent a Corbyn take-over, standing on the Labour conference stage forlornly singing "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn".
Both parties project a phoney unity while behind the scenes they are both fundamentally divided.
Both the Conservative party and the Labour party have been taken over by extremists. The moderates need to screw up their courage to the sticking point and come together in the centre - with the Lib Dems or without. The extremists will have burnt themselves out in a decade, but we don't have time to play a waiting game. Britain's future is in the balance right now. We need a party which offers sane options and reasoned debate right now.
For some it may be fear of physical threats to them and their family: A Labour MP resigned after receiving four death threats from Leave supporters, Conservative MP Ms Soubry received death threats which said she should be 'Jo Coxed' - referring to the MP who was murdered by a Leave supporter. For others it will be their careers that they wish to protect. For some it will be because their constituency favoured Leave. Some are putting party loyalty above all other considerations.
A large number of Labour MPs understand that Mr Corbyn is going to cause long-term damage to the Labour Party, they know that the last time the party stampeded into the wilderness of the hard left it took a decade to recover. Labour has provided only four prime ministers in its history, all of whom have been moderates. Yet those MPs too are acting like turkeys talking up Christmas.
One of the saddest sights of the conference season was the Labour deputy leader, the man who had promised to prevent a Corbyn take-over, standing on the Labour conference stage forlornly singing "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn".
Both parties project a phoney unity while behind the scenes they are both fundamentally divided.
Both the Conservative party and the Labour party have been taken over by extremists. The moderates need to screw up their courage to the sticking point and come together in the centre - with the Lib Dems or without. The extremists will have burnt themselves out in a decade, but we don't have time to play a waiting game. Britain's future is in the balance right now. We need a party which offers sane options and reasoned debate right now.
Saturday, 21 October 2017
On The Move!
A report from the Legatum Institute shows that voters are strongly disenchanted with capitalism, calling it greedy, selfish, corrupt, divisive and dangerous. Voters heavily favour regulating business and capping executive pay, and are overwhelmingly in favour of nationalising utilities, while they are also willing to pay higher taxes to fund things such as increased spending on the NHS. A YouGov poll shows that a majority of people identify themselves as centrists politically while locating Labour well to the left of centre and the Conservatives well to the right on the political spectrum.
There is certainly space for a new centrist party and there are many MPs who would abandon their current party, both on the left and right. They are only lacking a leader.
Mrs May would be perfect: her views match those of the voters, she works by consensus and she is captive to her own party's Brexit headbangers.
Sadly, this solution seems unlikely. Mrs May is loyal and too unimaginative to see how much good she could do by stepping out. Moreover, it would be asking too much of the Labour rebels to accept her as their new leader.
Mr Johnson would do it if he thought that he would win the general election, but he would end up in a party of one. Apart from him there appears to be no one with the ambition and the will to risk rolling the dice.
It would be interesting to run similar polls in France, where a new party has swept to power, headed by a young and untested leader and having many députés who have spurned their former parties. Mr Macron worked in government and in business before he formed En Marche!, including some time in the post of Minister of Economy and Finance. However he never stood for office until his presidential bid.
What Britain needs now is someone like him, someone who will take the best ideas from our current political establishment and filter out the dated doctrine. Mr Macron's example gives hope to centrists. We aren't restricted to shuffling the political pack. The time is right for someone new.
There is certainly space for a new centrist party and there are many MPs who would abandon their current party, both on the left and right. They are only lacking a leader.
Mrs May would be perfect: her views match those of the voters, she works by consensus and she is captive to her own party's Brexit headbangers.
Sadly, this solution seems unlikely. Mrs May is loyal and too unimaginative to see how much good she could do by stepping out. Moreover, it would be asking too much of the Labour rebels to accept her as their new leader.
Mr Johnson would do it if he thought that he would win the general election, but he would end up in a party of one. Apart from him there appears to be no one with the ambition and the will to risk rolling the dice.
It would be interesting to run similar polls in France, where a new party has swept to power, headed by a young and untested leader and having many députés who have spurned their former parties. Mr Macron worked in government and in business before he formed En Marche!, including some time in the post of Minister of Economy and Finance. However he never stood for office until his presidential bid.
What Britain needs now is someone like him, someone who will take the best ideas from our current political establishment and filter out the dated doctrine. Mr Macron's example gives hope to centrists. We aren't restricted to shuffling the political pack. The time is right for someone new.
Forced labour
I have done fruit picking - I managed one day and then decided the dole was better. It seems most of the UK agrees with me, which is why we depend upon immigrant labour for harvesting.
With Brexit looming farmers are trying their best to lure the natives back onto the land. One wine estate is offering "luxurious, refitted barns" for a "working holiday" - pay £8 an hour. Another has gone for broke by offering a "harvest experience" at £45 a time - you pay them £45 to help harvest their crops.
Sorry guys, you can rebrand bottled tapwater - after all it is still water - but rebranding back-breaking low-paid work as a treat?
Other farmers are trying to make the job itself more attractive, with better pay and better conditions. The problem is that people want a 40-hour a week job, during reasonable hours, a job that lasts all year and has career prospects. They want to live at home and have a reasonable commute. Fruit picking can't offer any of those.
Even benefit claimants can't see an upside. The work is seasonal so they have to keep reapplying for benefits, and combining the short period of paid work with the low pay they don't even come out ahead over a whole year.
Ms Leadsom and Mr Nuttall - both with pretensions to be prime minister - have an even more disturbing idea: forced labour. They want to make students do the work.
This is an idea pioneered by totalitarian states such as the Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mao's China and Polpot's Cambodia. Assuming 'Nutt-som' stop short of collectivisation then it is clear how it could be organised in a free market economy. The higher education academic year would be adjusted to fit harvest times and students would have their debt paid down in proportion to their labour. Dedicated Stakhanovites might even pay it all off.
It seems like a good wheeze - the harvest comes in and student debt is vanquished.
Well, it might just work in a communist state, but the 'free' in free market leads to unavoidable consequences. Clearly it would be politically difficult to force students to do this, and even if it was made mandatory - just as with the military draft - the rich kids will escape it. So it will be the poor students who do the work while the rich kids get the summer jobs in industry or travel overseas.
It is worrying not just that these two 'free-marketeers' are advocating introducing core communist policies but also that they can't see the immediate and obvious consequences.
It is even more worrying if they do.
With Brexit looming farmers are trying their best to lure the natives back onto the land. One wine estate is offering "luxurious, refitted barns" for a "working holiday" - pay £8 an hour. Another has gone for broke by offering a "harvest experience" at £45 a time - you pay them £45 to help harvest their crops.
Sorry guys, you can rebrand bottled tapwater - after all it is still water - but rebranding back-breaking low-paid work as a treat?
Other farmers are trying to make the job itself more attractive, with better pay and better conditions. The problem is that people want a 40-hour a week job, during reasonable hours, a job that lasts all year and has career prospects. They want to live at home and have a reasonable commute. Fruit picking can't offer any of those.
Even benefit claimants can't see an upside. The work is seasonal so they have to keep reapplying for benefits, and combining the short period of paid work with the low pay they don't even come out ahead over a whole year.
Ms Leadsom and Mr Nuttall - both with pretensions to be prime minister - have an even more disturbing idea: forced labour. They want to make students do the work.
This is an idea pioneered by totalitarian states such as the Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mao's China and Polpot's Cambodia. Assuming 'Nutt-som' stop short of collectivisation then it is clear how it could be organised in a free market economy. The higher education academic year would be adjusted to fit harvest times and students would have their debt paid down in proportion to their labour. Dedicated Stakhanovites might even pay it all off.
It seems like a good wheeze - the harvest comes in and student debt is vanquished.
Well, it might just work in a communist state, but the 'free' in free market leads to unavoidable consequences. Clearly it would be politically difficult to force students to do this, and even if it was made mandatory - just as with the military draft - the rich kids will escape it. So it will be the poor students who do the work while the rich kids get the summer jobs in industry or travel overseas.
It is worrying not just that these two 'free-marketeers' are advocating introducing core communist policies but also that they can't see the immediate and obvious consequences.
It is even more worrying if they do.
I'm not a Corbynista
Odd isn't it? The Labour Party has now turned into the Nasty Party - antisemitism being the most glaring example - while the Tories have become the Loony Right, with Brexit headbangers doing their best to drag us over the no-deal cliff edge.
The Tories used to have the reputation of fiscal responsibility. But Mrs May has blown that one. Poor Mr Hammond has tried to hold the line, only to be screamed at by those headbangers.
The Conservative Party is being controlled from the back benches, the Labour Party by Momentum, while the Lib-Dems and UKIP have faded into irrelevance.
It is unlikely that there will be a leadership challenge mounted against Mrs May - who on earth would want her job? She has no control and yet she has all the responsibility. She will be blamed for the car-crash when we leave the EU, though it is her divided party that is destroying our negotiating strategy.
When we go into the next general election the Tories will have been (barely) in power for three terms, the economy will be failing, wages falling, prices increasing. No matter what Labour offer they will win. The only reason a challenger would step forward now would be so they could say they did have a crack at being PM. No wonder Mr Johnson is the leading contender. In some ways he would be the perfect mascot as we confidently trip over our own ego into a vat of economic custard.
The concern is that when Labour win they will win heavily. Their current policies are radical and our economy will not be ready for more punishment. Attempting to transition instantly from Brextremist hard Right low regulation policies to a hard Left high regulation statist economy will be a disaster.
Ironically, Mrs May's socialist leanings combined with her preference for consensus means that she would be perfect as leader of a new party formed from the many MPs (Labour and Conservative) who fundamentally disagree with their own party's direction.
I might even vote for her myself.
The Tories used to have the reputation of fiscal responsibility. But Mrs May has blown that one. Poor Mr Hammond has tried to hold the line, only to be screamed at by those headbangers.
The Conservative Party is being controlled from the back benches, the Labour Party by Momentum, while the Lib-Dems and UKIP have faded into irrelevance.
It is unlikely that there will be a leadership challenge mounted against Mrs May - who on earth would want her job? She has no control and yet she has all the responsibility. She will be blamed for the car-crash when we leave the EU, though it is her divided party that is destroying our negotiating strategy.
When we go into the next general election the Tories will have been (barely) in power for three terms, the economy will be failing, wages falling, prices increasing. No matter what Labour offer they will win. The only reason a challenger would step forward now would be so they could say they did have a crack at being PM. No wonder Mr Johnson is the leading contender. In some ways he would be the perfect mascot as we confidently trip over our own ego into a vat of economic custard.
The concern is that when Labour win they will win heavily. Their current policies are radical and our economy will not be ready for more punishment. Attempting to transition instantly from Brextremist hard Right low regulation policies to a hard Left high regulation statist economy will be a disaster.
Ironically, Mrs May's socialist leanings combined with her preference for consensus means that she would be perfect as leader of a new party formed from the many MPs (Labour and Conservative) who fundamentally disagree with their own party's direction.
I might even vote for her myself.
Tit for tat
The lessons of the Bombardier affair should be heeded by the no-deal Brextremists. The USA and Canada have a trade deal (NAFTA), but when Boeing decided to use its leverage to shut down a foreign rival the US administration jumped to do Boeing's bidding. The US Commerce Department imposed punitive duties of 220% on the Bombardier aircraft - far greater than Boeing asked for.
The reason given was that Bombardier had benefitted from unfair subsidies given by the Canadian government and so the planes were being sold at less than fair value. The fact that Boeing is heavily subsidised by the US government was irrelevant.
Post-Brexit we will be in a similar position - our access to the EU market will depend upon a trade agreement and how well that works will depend upon both our adherence to EU regulations and our economic strategy.
Mrs Merkel has warned that if, for example, UK environmental regulations were to be relaxed then the reduced cost of complying would have to be balanced by added duties on our exports, to ensure fair competition.
This is sensible and fair. It also prevents a 'race to the bottom' where countries cut all regulations in order to compete.
However, Bombardier's troubles demonstrate that in real life 'sensible and fair' depend on one's viewpoint. Once we are cut adrift from Europe the EU will have no interest in supporting and protecting our industries, the members will be supporting their own industries. In many cases it will be in the EU's long-term interest to encourage our current industries to relocate to Europe anyway. It makes no sense for euro-clearing services to be based in London. It makes no sense for EU-made car parts to be exported to the UK for assembly and then the cars re-exported to the EU.
The most important lesson, however, is that it won't be the politicians who will be in control. It will be the producers. Any large industrial sector has a lot of political muscle, from contributing to party funds, from the votes and actions of their members. A case in point is the French farmers who are always ready to take direct action by blocking roads and destroying imported food.
We need to secure a free trade deal with the EU. If Mrs May and Mr Davis cannot manage this then we need someone who can. Leaving the EU is going to put us in a weak position. Leaving without a deal will put us in the worst of positions. The no-deal Brexiteers would discover that those sunny uplands suffer a lot of bad weather.
The reason given was that Bombardier had benefitted from unfair subsidies given by the Canadian government and so the planes were being sold at less than fair value. The fact that Boeing is heavily subsidised by the US government was irrelevant.
Post-Brexit we will be in a similar position - our access to the EU market will depend upon a trade agreement and how well that works will depend upon both our adherence to EU regulations and our economic strategy.
Mrs Merkel has warned that if, for example, UK environmental regulations were to be relaxed then the reduced cost of complying would have to be balanced by added duties on our exports, to ensure fair competition.
This is sensible and fair. It also prevents a 'race to the bottom' where countries cut all regulations in order to compete.
However, Bombardier's troubles demonstrate that in real life 'sensible and fair' depend on one's viewpoint. Once we are cut adrift from Europe the EU will have no interest in supporting and protecting our industries, the members will be supporting their own industries. In many cases it will be in the EU's long-term interest to encourage our current industries to relocate to Europe anyway. It makes no sense for euro-clearing services to be based in London. It makes no sense for EU-made car parts to be exported to the UK for assembly and then the cars re-exported to the EU.
The most important lesson, however, is that it won't be the politicians who will be in control. It will be the producers. Any large industrial sector has a lot of political muscle, from contributing to party funds, from the votes and actions of their members. A case in point is the French farmers who are always ready to take direct action by blocking roads and destroying imported food.
We need to secure a free trade deal with the EU. If Mrs May and Mr Davis cannot manage this then we need someone who can. Leaving the EU is going to put us in a weak position. Leaving without a deal will put us in the worst of positions. The no-deal Brexiteers would discover that those sunny uplands suffer a lot of bad weather.
Pros and cons
There are many pros and cons about Brexit. Mr Johnson's "saving £350 million" is a definite con. And what a con. We get half of that back, so the actual payment is £165 million - about 1% of our total public spending. We pay that for friction-free access to a market which takes 50% of our exports (excluding gold), and for the power to make decisions that affect that market such as agreeing regulatory standards. Not to mention the added benefit of visa-less travel for holiday makers and retirees who want a place in the sun.
The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that our public finances will be £15 billion worse off post-Brexit - ignoring the costs of employing more civil servants to administer trade deals, to regulate medicines and other goods, and to police international agreements on things such as nuclear materials. Far from a bonfire of red tape, Brexit is threatening to become a tape factory. At least the Brexiteers have decided to try to keep immigration high in order to avoid the economic shock of thousands of tax-paying workers leaving. Though many are leaving anyway.
It is a poor reflection on Mr Johnson that he keeps repeating the £350 million lie. He is not a stupid man - this is a ploy. He has no compunction about lying in order to get what he wants - whether it is a mistress, political power, or a monument to his ego. Such a bare-faced lie reveals his view of his supporters. It may well be that he is cleverer than them, but he is making a mistake if he thinks that they are stupid.
The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that our public finances will be £15 billion worse off post-Brexit - ignoring the costs of employing more civil servants to administer trade deals, to regulate medicines and other goods, and to police international agreements on things such as nuclear materials. Far from a bonfire of red tape, Brexit is threatening to become a tape factory. At least the Brexiteers have decided to try to keep immigration high in order to avoid the economic shock of thousands of tax-paying workers leaving. Though many are leaving anyway.
It is a poor reflection on Mr Johnson that he keeps repeating the £350 million lie. He is not a stupid man - this is a ploy. He has no compunction about lying in order to get what he wants - whether it is a mistress, political power, or a monument to his ego. Such a bare-faced lie reveals his view of his supporters. It may well be that he is cleverer than them, but he is making a mistake if he thinks that they are stupid.
Friday, 20 October 2017
Taking back control
Mrs May has pushed another half a million into poverty with the benefit freeze, mostly workers in low-paid jobs - the JAMs she was going to protect. The average 25-34 year old now has loans totalling £11,485 - money which they are spending on essential living costs rather than luxuries. They have to rent as they can't afford to buy, and rent eats up a quarter of their income - 50 years ago it was only a twelfth. Even the place they can afford is getting smaller.
25,000 operations were cancelled last year due to a lack of beds. Nurses and midwives are being lost (1,738 last year) while emergency admissions are rising. Older patients are waiting twice as long to be discharged as they did five years ago, because there is nowhere for them to go. 'Physician associates' are taking on doctors' duties, including performing minor operations.
Jails are now so full that the government has had to do a U-turn on closing the most dilapidated ones. The police increasingly rely on unpaid workers to plug in the gaps left by budget cuts - there are over 38,000 volunteers now in policing roles. Police budgets are to be cut by another 7% even though they are now expected to deal with terrorism as well as domestic crime. The Met is losing another £400 million, so has stated that from now on they won't even try to investigate 'low level' crime.
Growth is at its weakest since 2013. Inflation is at its highest since 2012. Wage growth isn't keeping up - meaning real wages are still falling. Our current account deficit is 5.2% of GDP. Our budget deficit is £50 billion.
Meanwhile the Brexit juggernaut has been give a new bung of a quarter of a billion pounds, with more promised. That is on top of the £1.5 billion payout to the DUP - a payment made to by Mrs May so that she could remain in charge of the Brexit negotiations - and the £100 million a year to the Department for Brexit.
What is this money buying us? Our chief negotiator is joining the Brextremist chorus of 'no deal', so what on earth are we paying for?
It is time for us to take back control.
Mrs May needs to appoint someone who can actually negotiate a deal - she shouldn't have to take over when things get tough. Our new negotiator needs to get the deal hammered out soon - we have a lot to sort out at home and we need stability to do that.
If she can't do that then we need to find someone who can. Someone who is able to stand up to the Brexit headbangers. Someone who can say no to Brexit if necessary.
25,000 operations were cancelled last year due to a lack of beds. Nurses and midwives are being lost (1,738 last year) while emergency admissions are rising. Older patients are waiting twice as long to be discharged as they did five years ago, because there is nowhere for them to go. 'Physician associates' are taking on doctors' duties, including performing minor operations.
Jails are now so full that the government has had to do a U-turn on closing the most dilapidated ones. The police increasingly rely on unpaid workers to plug in the gaps left by budget cuts - there are over 38,000 volunteers now in policing roles. Police budgets are to be cut by another 7% even though they are now expected to deal with terrorism as well as domestic crime. The Met is losing another £400 million, so has stated that from now on they won't even try to investigate 'low level' crime.
Growth is at its weakest since 2013. Inflation is at its highest since 2012. Wage growth isn't keeping up - meaning real wages are still falling. Our current account deficit is 5.2% of GDP. Our budget deficit is £50 billion.
Meanwhile the Brexit juggernaut has been give a new bung of a quarter of a billion pounds, with more promised. That is on top of the £1.5 billion payout to the DUP - a payment made to by Mrs May so that she could remain in charge of the Brexit negotiations - and the £100 million a year to the Department for Brexit.
What is this money buying us? Our chief negotiator is joining the Brextremist chorus of 'no deal', so what on earth are we paying for?
It is time for us to take back control.
Mrs May needs to appoint someone who can actually negotiate a deal - she shouldn't have to take over when things get tough. Our new negotiator needs to get the deal hammered out soon - we have a lot to sort out at home and we need stability to do that.
If she can't do that then we need to find someone who can. Someone who is able to stand up to the Brexit headbangers. Someone who can say no to Brexit if necessary.
What do we want?
The banking industry wants passporting rights with the EU so that London can retain its position as the centre of EU financial services. Without those rights many companies will have to relocate to the Continent.
The Creative Industries Federation want free movement for creative talent - the industry is worth £87 billion and generates 10% of our service exports. Without free movement the talent will go elsewhere.
Farmers want seasonal migrant labour to bring in the harvest. Without the workers the crops won't be planted, or will be left to rot in the fields.
Export businesses want to keep tariff-free access to the EU - our largest external market. Without friction-free access they won't be able to compete with companies still inside the EU.
Universities want to keep their 127,000 EU students. They also want to keep the EU academics that work here - a sixth of UK academics are from other EU countries. Currently our universities are among the best in the world. If we lose international talent then our ranking will slip, and so the number of international students will fall. Currently these generate £25 billion for our economy, and contribute 14% of our universities' income. Without them our universities will have to close departments, cut facilities, and reduce research.
What do we want? We want a negotiated trade agreement and we want it soon.
What does our chief negotiator want? He wants us to prepare for 'no deal'.
The Creative Industries Federation want free movement for creative talent - the industry is worth £87 billion and generates 10% of our service exports. Without free movement the talent will go elsewhere.
Farmers want seasonal migrant labour to bring in the harvest. Without the workers the crops won't be planted, or will be left to rot in the fields.
Export businesses want to keep tariff-free access to the EU - our largest external market. Without friction-free access they won't be able to compete with companies still inside the EU.
Universities want to keep their 127,000 EU students. They also want to keep the EU academics that work here - a sixth of UK academics are from other EU countries. Currently our universities are among the best in the world. If we lose international talent then our ranking will slip, and so the number of international students will fall. Currently these generate £25 billion for our economy, and contribute 14% of our universities' income. Without them our universities will have to close departments, cut facilities, and reduce research.
What do we want? We want a negotiated trade agreement and we want it soon.
What does our chief negotiator want? He wants us to prepare for 'no deal'.
Thursday, 19 October 2017
What's our BATNA?
The Brextremists keep repeating "no deal is better than a bad deal", but by 'no deal' they mean falling back on WTO rules.
This is their BATNA - their Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.
So is defaulting to the WTO better than a bad deal? Clearly from the point of view of trade any deal would have to be better than no deal.
Air travel? No deal means our aircraft will mostly be grounded, as they will not be allowed to enter other countries' airspace. Airlines are already planning for this pratfall. When people book flights departing post-Brexit there will be a notice explaining that no compensation will be paid if the flight is grounded. Thomas Cook has already added this condition to its post-Brexit holidays. Worryingly, the government's transport secretary said the issue could safely be ignored for "some considerable time". (Who ARE these people?)
What about our EU debts? This is where 'no deal' would appear to be a good deal. Just walk away from our financial responsibilities. Sadly, Brexit's success requires the UK to strike lots of advantageous trade agreements to make up for losing our preferential access to the largest single market in the world. Governments won't be over-eager to make deals with a brazen deadbeat.
At least immigration will go down - won't it? The Brexiteers promised us that. Well, err... I don't know how to break this to you... And don't even ask about Boris's £350 million for the NHS.
So the Brextremist BATNA is much worse than any deal. That's not all - the WTO option itself will need negotiation, so it is not even a real BATNA. A real falling-off-the-cliff, non-negotiated Brexit will mean our trade being strangled by punitive WTO duties.
Fortunately, Mrs May and Mr Hammond understand this and are doing their best to strike a deal. Unfortunately for the Brexit headbangers, the rest of the EU also understand this and will offer us a deal that suits them. Their BATNA is the UK crashing out and having to beg for crumbs from their table, which isn't much worse for them than a negotiated settlement.
We have a choice right now, we can accept that Brexit was unplanned, we have no road map, we have no competent driver, and there will be more nasty shocks coming. We need some breathing room, so we should pay up on our promises in return for transition time and for market access.
If the Brexiteer vision of free-trade Britain isn't just another of their marketing ploys then this is the obvious way to go. Pay now and reap the rewards later. The sums owed are tiny compared to the trade gains Leave promised.
The alternative is to thumb our nose as we jump over the cliff, then spend the next couple of decades picking up the pieces and trying to glue them back into some sort of economy.
This is their BATNA - their Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.
So is defaulting to the WTO better than a bad deal? Clearly from the point of view of trade any deal would have to be better than no deal.
Air travel? No deal means our aircraft will mostly be grounded, as they will not be allowed to enter other countries' airspace. Airlines are already planning for this pratfall. When people book flights departing post-Brexit there will be a notice explaining that no compensation will be paid if the flight is grounded. Thomas Cook has already added this condition to its post-Brexit holidays. Worryingly, the government's transport secretary said the issue could safely be ignored for "some considerable time". (Who ARE these people?)
What about our EU debts? This is where 'no deal' would appear to be a good deal. Just walk away from our financial responsibilities. Sadly, Brexit's success requires the UK to strike lots of advantageous trade agreements to make up for losing our preferential access to the largest single market in the world. Governments won't be over-eager to make deals with a brazen deadbeat.
At least immigration will go down - won't it? The Brexiteers promised us that. Well, err... I don't know how to break this to you... And don't even ask about Boris's £350 million for the NHS.
So the Brextremist BATNA is much worse than any deal. That's not all - the WTO option itself will need negotiation, so it is not even a real BATNA. A real falling-off-the-cliff, non-negotiated Brexit will mean our trade being strangled by punitive WTO duties.
Fortunately, Mrs May and Mr Hammond understand this and are doing their best to strike a deal. Unfortunately for the Brexit headbangers, the rest of the EU also understand this and will offer us a deal that suits them. Their BATNA is the UK crashing out and having to beg for crumbs from their table, which isn't much worse for them than a negotiated settlement.
We have a choice right now, we can accept that Brexit was unplanned, we have no road map, we have no competent driver, and there will be more nasty shocks coming. We need some breathing room, so we should pay up on our promises in return for transition time and for market access.
If the Brexiteer vision of free-trade Britain isn't just another of their marketing ploys then this is the obvious way to go. Pay now and reap the rewards later. The sums owed are tiny compared to the trade gains Leave promised.
The alternative is to thumb our nose as we jump over the cliff, then spend the next couple of decades picking up the pieces and trying to glue them back into some sort of economy.
Monday, 16 October 2017
Never give a sucker an even break
Mrs May is doing her utmost to push Brexit negotiations forward. The chief negotiator for the EU, Mr Barnier, is supporting her. So why are Germany, France and Romania dragging their heels?
As we knew when we began, the EU has decades of experience in conducting complex negotiations. We have Mr Davis. However this isn't about our incompetence or intransigence. The negotiations have barely begun - the trade negotiations are yet to start at all - and already Mr Davis has caved in spectacularly fast on key points.
Mrs May has also made extravagant promises to the EU. Admittedly, she is refusing to put them in writing, and we all know how much her promises are worth. She may not even be around long enough to break them.
Meanwhile, German politicians are focused on sorting out the workings of the new coalition forming after their recent election, and Mr Macron is busy trying to face down the entrenched French unions - a task that none of his predecessors managed.
However, none of the above explains why Germany has introduced a three-month discussion window to 'determine the EU's mandate'. Experts say this could be sorted in three days. You would almost think that they are playing at 'brinkmanship', pushing us as far as possible in order to extract as many concessions as possible.
Surely not - that would risk us simply pulling out, jumping off the cliff and defaulting to WTO rules (if we can). The EU wouldn't want that - we are such an important trading partner!
50% of all our non-gold exports go to the EU, and yet we have an influential section of the Conservative party who are willing - even eager - to toss that overboard. Only 8% of EU exports go to the UK. It is not at all surprising then that there are many in the EU who feel that no deal is better than wasting time on negotiations, time that could be better spent on other, more important, things.
After all, if the UK is going to go it alone, then we will be desperate to strike trade deals. Who better to do a deal than our nearest market, the largest in the world, and one that we have already a lot of experience with? That'd be the EU then. Of course, being desperate we may have to accept rather uncomfortable conditions.
The remaining EU countries may see this as an all-round win, but are too canny to say: Get shot of a reluctant member who has a special deal; dampen anti-EU feeling as the damage Brexit does to Britain becomes clearer and clearer; tempt businesses to relocate from the UK; and then cash in by doing a great export deal on better terms than currently possible.
To cap it all, they don't even need to feel guilty: "Well, they did it to themselves. They chose to leave and we need to consider our own best interests first."
Or, as the Americans put it: "Never give a sucker an even break."
As we knew when we began, the EU has decades of experience in conducting complex negotiations. We have Mr Davis. However this isn't about our incompetence or intransigence. The negotiations have barely begun - the trade negotiations are yet to start at all - and already Mr Davis has caved in spectacularly fast on key points.
Mrs May has also made extravagant promises to the EU. Admittedly, she is refusing to put them in writing, and we all know how much her promises are worth. She may not even be around long enough to break them.
Meanwhile, German politicians are focused on sorting out the workings of the new coalition forming after their recent election, and Mr Macron is busy trying to face down the entrenched French unions - a task that none of his predecessors managed.
However, none of the above explains why Germany has introduced a three-month discussion window to 'determine the EU's mandate'. Experts say this could be sorted in three days. You would almost think that they are playing at 'brinkmanship', pushing us as far as possible in order to extract as many concessions as possible.
Surely not - that would risk us simply pulling out, jumping off the cliff and defaulting to WTO rules (if we can). The EU wouldn't want that - we are such an important trading partner!
50% of all our non-gold exports go to the EU, and yet we have an influential section of the Conservative party who are willing - even eager - to toss that overboard. Only 8% of EU exports go to the UK. It is not at all surprising then that there are many in the EU who feel that no deal is better than wasting time on negotiations, time that could be better spent on other, more important, things.
After all, if the UK is going to go it alone, then we will be desperate to strike trade deals. Who better to do a deal than our nearest market, the largest in the world, and one that we have already a lot of experience with? That'd be the EU then. Of course, being desperate we may have to accept rather uncomfortable conditions.
The remaining EU countries may see this as an all-round win, but are too canny to say: Get shot of a reluctant member who has a special deal; dampen anti-EU feeling as the damage Brexit does to Britain becomes clearer and clearer; tempt businesses to relocate from the UK; and then cash in by doing a great export deal on better terms than currently possible.
To cap it all, they don't even need to feel guilty: "Well, they did it to themselves. They chose to leave and we need to consider our own best interests first."
Or, as the Americans put it: "Never give a sucker an even break."
Sunday, 15 October 2017
Brexit cake
I went into a restaurant recently. Once I was seated the waiter brought me a menu. It had all the usual things on it - red tape a la mode, regulation soup - so I asked about the daily special. The waiter replied, "Today the special is Brexit cake!"
"How much is that?"
"Oh no, you don't have to pay us, we pay you! You get a discount of £350 million - each week!"
"Well, what is it - what are its ingredients?"
"The main ingredient is sovereignty but going light on the red tape - and all the ingredients we use are locally sourced, we avoid imported ingredients as much as possible."
"Sounds really nice - how come it hasn't been on the menu before?"
"Well, I'll be honest with you, sir, not many of us think it should be on the menu now. Our head chef tells people not to order it, and most of the waiters say the same."
"Why?"
"Well, it looks and smells lovely, but it has an awful aftertaste."
"Still, for £350 million... Maybe I should order it and put up with the aftertaste."
"Err, about that money. If you check the small print you will find that you never actually get to spend it. In fact, not only don't you get the money but we will be sending you a large bill after you leave the restaurant."
"So if it tastes awful and is incredibly expensive, why is the cake on the menu?"
"Well, there was a bit of a bust-up in the kitchens - there's been trouble brewing for a while. A couple of the sou-chefs wanted to serve it. Mr Cameron, the head chef, said he would put it on just so they could see no-one wanted it."
"And he was wrong?"
"That's the funny thing, sir. Around a third of our customers order it, and order it for their children and grandchildren - without even asking if they want to eat it. They have to force it down."
"Doesn't anyone return it to the kitchens?"
"Oh no, sir. You can't do that - you can't change your mind."
"How much is that?"
"Oh no, you don't have to pay us, we pay you! You get a discount of £350 million - each week!"
"Well, what is it - what are its ingredients?"
"The main ingredient is sovereignty but going light on the red tape - and all the ingredients we use are locally sourced, we avoid imported ingredients as much as possible."
"Sounds really nice - how come it hasn't been on the menu before?"
"Well, I'll be honest with you, sir, not many of us think it should be on the menu now. Our head chef tells people not to order it, and most of the waiters say the same."
"Why?"
"Well, it looks and smells lovely, but it has an awful aftertaste."
"Still, for £350 million... Maybe I should order it and put up with the aftertaste."
"Err, about that money. If you check the small print you will find that you never actually get to spend it. In fact, not only don't you get the money but we will be sending you a large bill after you leave the restaurant."
"So if it tastes awful and is incredibly expensive, why is the cake on the menu?"
"Well, there was a bit of a bust-up in the kitchens - there's been trouble brewing for a while. A couple of the sou-chefs wanted to serve it. Mr Cameron, the head chef, said he would put it on just so they could see no-one wanted it."
"And he was wrong?"
"That's the funny thing, sir. Around a third of our customers order it, and order it for their children and grandchildren - without even asking if they want to eat it. They have to force it down."
"Doesn't anyone return it to the kitchens?"
"Oh no, sir. You can't do that - you can't change your mind."
Henry VIII
Converting EU law into UK law will not be simple. EU-derived law refers to other EU laws and to EU bodies. These references will need to be changed to refer to UK laws and bodies. It makes sense to allow the civil service (the executive branch of the UK's government) to make changes without requiring Parliament to vote on all of them. This is made possible by 'statutory instruments', which are also called 'Henry VIII clauses'.
They are called 'Henry VIII clauses' because King Henry VIII introduced the principle in order to force through laws that he thought Parliament would oppose.
Clearly these are rather dangerous instruments. There is a good case that they should not be allowed at all - they were not used between 1547 and 1888, the time when Britain grew from a nation to an empire, demonstrating how unnecessary they are.
Even if we accept that they are worth using, clearly there must be strict controls. The power to change legislation without Parliamentary oversight could be abused.
For example Ms Patel, the International Development Secretary, has talked about halving "the burdens" of EU employment rights, while Mr Fox, the International Trade Secretary, wants the labour market to be deregulated. The Tory government has stated that the powers will be used to "correct" laws and admit that there will be no restrictions on ministers changing bits they "do not like".
In pursuit of these powers Mrs May has just ensured that they now have control over a key committee called the Committee of Selection. This committee selects the people who will carefully go over legislation and raise concerns about any issues.
Normally the make-up of the Committee of Selection follows the make-up of the House of Commons, to reflect the votes cast in the general election. Mrs May has engineered a Tory majority on the committee - a majority they do not have in the Commons. This means controversial legislation will be considered by MPs carefully selected for their loyalty rather than for their objectivity.
British Parliamentary democracy takes the separation of powers as a basic principle: a legislature to pass, amend or rescind laws; an executive to enforce the law; and a judiciary to resolve disputes. These keep each other under control. Statutory instruments give the executive the power to alter laws, leaving only the judiciary to challenge them.
Given that these instruments are to be used for Brexit, it is worth remembering the reaction of many to the judiciary ruling on previous Brexit legislation.
Do you really want the executive to have unchallengeable power?
If Henry VIII clauses must be used, then they must be carefully limited. The legislation they refer to specified precisely and the purpose of the power stated, and they must be time-limited.
If you are concerned about a minority government bulldozing their policies through, if you believe in 'sovereignty' and that we should 'take back control', if you fear that Mr Corbyn will win the next election and use these powers to impose his own policies, then you should make your voice heard. One way is to sign this petition.
They are called 'Henry VIII clauses' because King Henry VIII introduced the principle in order to force through laws that he thought Parliament would oppose.
Clearly these are rather dangerous instruments. There is a good case that they should not be allowed at all - they were not used between 1547 and 1888, the time when Britain grew from a nation to an empire, demonstrating how unnecessary they are.
Even if we accept that they are worth using, clearly there must be strict controls. The power to change legislation without Parliamentary oversight could be abused.
For example Ms Patel, the International Development Secretary, has talked about halving "the burdens" of EU employment rights, while Mr Fox, the International Trade Secretary, wants the labour market to be deregulated. The Tory government has stated that the powers will be used to "correct" laws and admit that there will be no restrictions on ministers changing bits they "do not like".
In pursuit of these powers Mrs May has just ensured that they now have control over a key committee called the Committee of Selection. This committee selects the people who will carefully go over legislation and raise concerns about any issues.
Normally the make-up of the Committee of Selection follows the make-up of the House of Commons, to reflect the votes cast in the general election. Mrs May has engineered a Tory majority on the committee - a majority they do not have in the Commons. This means controversial legislation will be considered by MPs carefully selected for their loyalty rather than for their objectivity.
British Parliamentary democracy takes the separation of powers as a basic principle: a legislature to pass, amend or rescind laws; an executive to enforce the law; and a judiciary to resolve disputes. These keep each other under control. Statutory instruments give the executive the power to alter laws, leaving only the judiciary to challenge them.
Given that these instruments are to be used for Brexit, it is worth remembering the reaction of many to the judiciary ruling on previous Brexit legislation.
Do you really want the executive to have unchallengeable power?
If Henry VIII clauses must be used, then they must be carefully limited. The legislation they refer to specified precisely and the purpose of the power stated, and they must be time-limited.
If you are concerned about a minority government bulldozing their policies through, if you believe in 'sovereignty' and that we should 'take back control', if you fear that Mr Corbyn will win the next election and use these powers to impose his own policies, then you should make your voice heard. One way is to sign this petition.
Thursday, 12 October 2017
Only joking
If the Bombardier bust-up didn't convince you then maybe Jeremy Shapiro will. An Obama aide, he has said that our "special relationship" with US is only special to us. Rather like a philandering spouse, the US representatives assure us how important we are to them... until they meet the next delegation who then becomes their most special darling.
They joke amongst themselves about our overweening pride, that we swallow this hokum and even boast about how we are their one and only. They twit us to our faces - Mr Shapiro used to insert references to the 'the Malvinas' (the Argentinian name for the Falkland Islands) into press conferences.
We aren't the only cuckold: 14 of 25 EU countries believe they have a special relationship with the US. Mr Shapiro said our relationship was much the same as the rest That hardly rates as special - more like being 'friends' on Facebook.
On the other hand, maybe we need to believe the most powerful nation in the world has a special regard for us. Like the man who brings presents to a beautiful call-girl, treating their relationship as significant for her, blinding himself to the other clients, because he needs the fantasy of connection to bolster his own self-regard.
There is a price. As Mr Shapiro says, "I think Donald Trump will be willing to exploit the UK's need for a special relationship to get a good trade deal."
Of course, we may well be grateful for whatever we can get. Chlorinated or not.
They joke amongst themselves about our overweening pride, that we swallow this hokum and even boast about how we are their one and only. They twit us to our faces - Mr Shapiro used to insert references to the 'the Malvinas' (the Argentinian name for the Falkland Islands) into press conferences.
We aren't the only cuckold: 14 of 25 EU countries believe they have a special relationship with the US. Mr Shapiro said our relationship was much the same as the rest That hardly rates as special - more like being 'friends' on Facebook.
On the other hand, maybe we need to believe the most powerful nation in the world has a special regard for us. Like the man who brings presents to a beautiful call-girl, treating their relationship as significant for her, blinding himself to the other clients, because he needs the fantasy of connection to bolster his own self-regard.
There is a price. As Mr Shapiro says, "I think Donald Trump will be willing to exploit the UK's need for a special relationship to get a good trade deal."
Of course, we may well be grateful for whatever we can get. Chlorinated or not.
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
What's the rush?
The Brexiteers are getting their knickers in a twist again, after Mrs May explained to them that they would have to sit and wait quietly for their treat. They are wetting themselves over the prospect that they might have to wait an extra 24 months before they can finally climb to those sunny uplands.
Mrs May is trying to ensure that Brexit does not do too much damage to the economy, so she is planning an orderly, staggered, exit. She is, after all, charged with keeping the country's best interests at the heart of her decisions. If the country voted for Brexit then Brexit means Brexit, but it doesn't have to mean crashing through the emergency exit without even breaking the glass.
Why are the Brextremists so worked up about this? Why do they insist that the country stampede towards Brexit like a herd of lemmings that have spotted a cliff?
Let us assume that they aren't intent on damaging the country directly. So what is it about an orderly withdrawal that gets them so steamed up?
The only advantage of a fast Brexit is the speed itself. Why do they want Brexit done quickly, despite the damage it will do? Because they fear that some Brexit voters are realising that the promises were lies, there is no plan, and Project Fear has become Project Nearly Here. With such a narrow majority in the referendum it wouldn't take many to see sense and tip the balance towards Remain.
So the Brextremists rammed through the triggering of Article 50, they demonised anyone who stood up for democratic control of Brexit, and they howl at any hint of rational management of the negotiations.
No wonder the Tory party is destroying itself from the inside. The Brextremist members - like all fundamentalists - cannot compromise. You are either for them or against them, no matter what party you belong to.
Mrs May is trying to ensure that Brexit does not do too much damage to the economy, so she is planning an orderly, staggered, exit. She is, after all, charged with keeping the country's best interests at the heart of her decisions. If the country voted for Brexit then Brexit means Brexit, but it doesn't have to mean crashing through the emergency exit without even breaking the glass.
Why are the Brextremists so worked up about this? Why do they insist that the country stampede towards Brexit like a herd of lemmings that have spotted a cliff?
Let us assume that they aren't intent on damaging the country directly. So what is it about an orderly withdrawal that gets them so steamed up?
The only advantage of a fast Brexit is the speed itself. Why do they want Brexit done quickly, despite the damage it will do? Because they fear that some Brexit voters are realising that the promises were lies, there is no plan, and Project Fear has become Project Nearly Here. With such a narrow majority in the referendum it wouldn't take many to see sense and tip the balance towards Remain.
So the Brextremists rammed through the triggering of Article 50, they demonised anyone who stood up for democratic control of Brexit, and they howl at any hint of rational management of the negotiations.
No wonder the Tory party is destroying itself from the inside. The Brextremist members - like all fundamentalists - cannot compromise. You are either for them or against them, no matter what party you belong to.
Tuesday, 10 October 2017
The Prisoner
An audience member on Question Time has pointed out that although Mrs May has had to field a lot of flak for her conference speech, it is the party which is the real shambles.
The woman noted that the calamitous Tory conference did not even attempt to address "the key issues that are facing us today. Which is serious underfunding in the police, in education and in our health service. And the other defining issue of our century – which is how on earth we are going to enact this ridiculous decision to leave the European union... it isn’t just the Prime Minister, it’s the shambolic lot behind her who are pretending they know what they are doing when they clearly don’t.”
Mrs May wants to make Britain a fairer place, to reduce inequality and give everyone a chance. Consider her attempted policies, such as helping the 'Just About Managing', putting workers on company boards, capping energy prices, making it easier to buy a starter home.
The policies are socialist rather than capitalist - many have been borrowed from the Labour Party. They are not a good fit for a party aiming to turn us into a global trade centre, a Singapore-upon-Thames. So why is Mrs May allowed to announce them, and why are they discarded within weeks?
It could be that they are poorly thought through and in the light of day they show their weaknesses. It could be that Mrs May is ADD and can't stick to one thing for long. Or it could be that the party powerful allow her to announce these policies for the publicity value, for the voter appeal, but then force her to drop them once the news value is spent.
Mrs May took on the leadership of a disunited party committed to a Brexit many of its MPs would prefer to disown. Her own cabinet vie for her job, her MPs threaten to remove her. She is nominally the party leader, but her power is illusory, she is frustrated in any change she attempts and has no idea whom she can trust. She is Number Six in The Prisoner.
Mrs May will not be able to achieve anything. Her goals are not shared by her party, she does not share her party's goals. She has no support, she has no power. It is time for her to go.
The woman noted that the calamitous Tory conference did not even attempt to address "the key issues that are facing us today. Which is serious underfunding in the police, in education and in our health service. And the other defining issue of our century – which is how on earth we are going to enact this ridiculous decision to leave the European union... it isn’t just the Prime Minister, it’s the shambolic lot behind her who are pretending they know what they are doing when they clearly don’t.”
Mrs May wants to make Britain a fairer place, to reduce inequality and give everyone a chance. Consider her attempted policies, such as helping the 'Just About Managing', putting workers on company boards, capping energy prices, making it easier to buy a starter home.
The policies are socialist rather than capitalist - many have been borrowed from the Labour Party. They are not a good fit for a party aiming to turn us into a global trade centre, a Singapore-upon-Thames. So why is Mrs May allowed to announce them, and why are they discarded within weeks?
It could be that they are poorly thought through and in the light of day they show their weaknesses. It could be that Mrs May is ADD and can't stick to one thing for long. Or it could be that the party powerful allow her to announce these policies for the publicity value, for the voter appeal, but then force her to drop them once the news value is spent.
Mrs May took on the leadership of a disunited party committed to a Brexit many of its MPs would prefer to disown. Her own cabinet vie for her job, her MPs threaten to remove her. She is nominally the party leader, but her power is illusory, she is frustrated in any change she attempts and has no idea whom she can trust. She is Number Six in The Prisoner.
Mrs May will not be able to achieve anything. Her goals are not shared by her party, she does not share her party's goals. She has no support, she has no power. It is time for her to go.
Monday, 9 October 2017
Pulling together
Europe certainly doesn't seem to be hurting due to the uncertainty of Brexit. The European Central Bank is extending quantitative easing to the end of 2018 in an attempt to keep a lid on the strengthening Euro. No such concerns for us, as the pound continues its slide.
Depreciation is not necessarily a bad thing, as it makes our exports appear cheaper - though this hasn't seemed to do much for our export figures. This shouldn't be a real surprise as the same lack of effect was seen the last time the pound tumbled in value. Explaining this is a bit more difficult, but the consensus is that our exports are generally not price sensitive, or they use a lot of imported components so a falling pound doesn't make much difference to their price when exported again.
However a weak pound should at least mean people will prefer to spend their money at home, so maybe our domestic economy will get a boost. Of course that relies on consumers having money to spend. Unfortunately the weak pound means imports are more expensive, pushing up the cost of living, and wages are not keeping up with it. Despite this people are sticking with their job even as pay falls, preferring a secure job to a possibly temporary pay rise.
So people have less money coming in. Up to now they have made up the difference by borrowing, and borrowing a lot - banks have been ordered to put aside an extra £10 billion to limit the carnage when people find they can't pay this money back. Essentially, your savings will be used to bail out bankrupts.
Understandably, as debts mount banks are turning off the taps, so now people are digging into their savings instead - in fact, households are now saving less than at any time in the past 50 years.
Sensibly they are also reducing their spending - consumer spending has been going down over the past five months. The downside is that less money is going into the economy. Businesses are starting to notice this, with manufacturing slowing and orders drying up. This then has a knock-on effect on businesses supplying other businesses, as projects are put on hold.
One way to counter this is to increase productivity. We have the highest employment rate since 1971, so the best option is for each person to produce more per hour. Strangely the UK has not improved productivity for ten years, while other countries have made great progress.
Improving productivity requires investment. Investment requires confidence in the future. So if the UK really is going to become an international trading hub our government needs to sort itself out pronto and start leading the country. We need to know what to expect, we need to know the plans in detail and be confident that the promises will be kept.
In the end it doesn't matter what colour the rosettes are, we need a government which pulls together rather than one that pulls itself apart.
Depreciation is not necessarily a bad thing, as it makes our exports appear cheaper - though this hasn't seemed to do much for our export figures. This shouldn't be a real surprise as the same lack of effect was seen the last time the pound tumbled in value. Explaining this is a bit more difficult, but the consensus is that our exports are generally not price sensitive, or they use a lot of imported components so a falling pound doesn't make much difference to their price when exported again.
However a weak pound should at least mean people will prefer to spend their money at home, so maybe our domestic economy will get a boost. Of course that relies on consumers having money to spend. Unfortunately the weak pound means imports are more expensive, pushing up the cost of living, and wages are not keeping up with it. Despite this people are sticking with their job even as pay falls, preferring a secure job to a possibly temporary pay rise.
So people have less money coming in. Up to now they have made up the difference by borrowing, and borrowing a lot - banks have been ordered to put aside an extra £10 billion to limit the carnage when people find they can't pay this money back. Essentially, your savings will be used to bail out bankrupts.
Understandably, as debts mount banks are turning off the taps, so now people are digging into their savings instead - in fact, households are now saving less than at any time in the past 50 years.
Sensibly they are also reducing their spending - consumer spending has been going down over the past five months. The downside is that less money is going into the economy. Businesses are starting to notice this, with manufacturing slowing and orders drying up. This then has a knock-on effect on businesses supplying other businesses, as projects are put on hold.
One way to counter this is to increase productivity. We have the highest employment rate since 1971, so the best option is for each person to produce more per hour. Strangely the UK has not improved productivity for ten years, while other countries have made great progress.
Improving productivity requires investment. Investment requires confidence in the future. So if the UK really is going to become an international trading hub our government needs to sort itself out pronto and start leading the country. We need to know what to expect, we need to know the plans in detail and be confident that the promises will be kept.
In the end it doesn't matter what colour the rosettes are, we need a government which pulls together rather than one that pulls itself apart.
Sunday, 8 October 2017
Eff off
Most people have seen the video of the famous fridge magnet fail at the Tory party conference. As Mrs May struggles to bind her party together using nothing but hot air, letters of the vacuous slogan behind her fling themselves to the floor in despair.
However, all was not as it seemed. After careful frame-by-frame analysis by our GCHQ-trained video disinformation experts we can reveal what really happened.
In the published video it appears that the F falls off. This is Fake News (or, more accurately, ake News). Our source confirmed that Tory minions doctored the tape before release. Fortunately we have been able to reconstruct the original video:
In out, in out, shake it all about
Labour's shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, Mr Smith, has had quite a lot of stick for his comments about finding a "unique and imaginative" solution to the problem of reinstating a border between Ulster and Eire.
To some extent the criticism was well-deserved, as his suggested solution (Ulster remaining in the EU) is not one that is guaranteed to be achievable, and doesn't allow for 'soft failure'. However, at least he is thinking and talking about it, at least he is putting up ideas.
Even if we fail to agree a deal with the EU, and then the US blocks us from defaulting to WTO rules, we will make do. We survived the 70s and came back. We can survive worse. But failing to settle the border question satisfactorily could well mean the return of terrorism to Northern Ireland, soldiers on British streets, children shot or blown up.
Ulster didn't even vote to Leave - Remain won by a good margin. The EU has been a very good deal for Ulster. They are being dragged out into the cold against their will.
So whatever damage we do to the UK as a whole by leaving the EU, we have a moral duty to ensure that Ulster is not riven again by sectarian violence.
In system engineering fail-soft means that if something goes wrong then the system can still function, albeit below par. Given the chaos at the heart of our government we should be aiming for the best but assuming the worst.
In the worst case scenario (from the point of view of 'controlling our borders' Brexit) there is no border control: EU citizens can use Ulster to enter the UK, while smugglers can effortlessly avoid duty. The smuggling would be more of a concern to the EU than to us so they would presumably institute targeted checks - e.g. on large freight vehicles.
The next step up would be a 'hard but permeable' border. Checkpoints set up on major routes, checking passports but nothing else. Of course, these would be easy to evade if you know the area. This would be easy to build up from the current situation, but wouldn't be much more effective than the previous option.
From there? Well first we need to decide what we really mean when we talk about 'control over our borders', and how much we are prepared to sacrifice to gain that control. A Trumpian solution might even prove popular, given how much support it has there - though I hope that is never seriously considered here.
To some extent the criticism was well-deserved, as his suggested solution (Ulster remaining in the EU) is not one that is guaranteed to be achievable, and doesn't allow for 'soft failure'. However, at least he is thinking and talking about it, at least he is putting up ideas.
Even if we fail to agree a deal with the EU, and then the US blocks us from defaulting to WTO rules, we will make do. We survived the 70s and came back. We can survive worse. But failing to settle the border question satisfactorily could well mean the return of terrorism to Northern Ireland, soldiers on British streets, children shot or blown up.
Ulster didn't even vote to Leave - Remain won by a good margin. The EU has been a very good deal for Ulster. They are being dragged out into the cold against their will.
So whatever damage we do to the UK as a whole by leaving the EU, we have a moral duty to ensure that Ulster is not riven again by sectarian violence.
In system engineering fail-soft means that if something goes wrong then the system can still function, albeit below par. Given the chaos at the heart of our government we should be aiming for the best but assuming the worst.
In the worst case scenario (from the point of view of 'controlling our borders' Brexit) there is no border control: EU citizens can use Ulster to enter the UK, while smugglers can effortlessly avoid duty. The smuggling would be more of a concern to the EU than to us so they would presumably institute targeted checks - e.g. on large freight vehicles.
The next step up would be a 'hard but permeable' border. Checkpoints set up on major routes, checking passports but nothing else. Of course, these would be easy to evade if you know the area. This would be easy to build up from the current situation, but wouldn't be much more effective than the previous option.
From there? Well first we need to decide what we really mean when we talk about 'control over our borders', and how much we are prepared to sacrifice to gain that control. A Trumpian solution might even prove popular, given how much support it has there - though I hope that is never seriously considered here.
Let's vote again, like we did last summer
...around and around and around again.
First it was the Lib Dems demanding a second referendum - and look how popular that made them. Now it is Labour's Mr Khan saying, "we the people should take back control with a final vote on the [Brexit] deal."
Popular votes run on lies and misinformation, they are fuelled by emotion and rhetoric. As Clement Attlee said, a referendum is a "device of dictators and demagogues". Now this is as liable to being misunderstood and misapplied as Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". The point is that both patriotism and popular votes are easily abused.
Mr Khan would be suggesting a very sensible, very democratic option if circumstances and the issue were different. The issue could be complex and controversial, the only requirement is that most people have an opinion about it, and that the decision they are making and the grounds they are making it on are crystal clear. It doesn't even have to be a yes/no decision. For example a vote on the latest date abortion should be allowed would be a proper use of a referendum.
So why not a yes/no vote on accepting a Brexit deal? Because the grounds for choosing are so unclear. A large proportion of Leavers simply wanted to reduce immigration, many others wanted more money for the NHS - the Leave campaign promised both of these things in order to win votes but then, once the votes were in, denied they had ever promised such things, telling us there won't be any more money and that immigrants will keep on arriving.
They lied and got away with it because it was so easy to do. The issues are incredibly complex, interdependent and long-term. Boris Johnson can still wheel out the "£350 million for the NHS" lie because on the surface it feels right - leave the EU and surely we save the money we currently send to them? If you take the time to go through the detailed facts and their consequences you find the money is no more than a mirage, in the same way that I could say I "saved" £30 by not buying a railcard.
The final deal will be far more complex than a railcard. The costs and benefits will only be reckoned over many years. So we will once again be at the mercy of single-issue voters swayed by fact-lite rhetoric. Ordinary people won't take the time to work through the details, even if they were given them truthfully - and fair enough that is what MPs are employed for. Some people may try to reckon it up, but how many will have the moral courage to switch their vote?
We don't need another referendum, we need a clear plan for the future, we need concrete aims that our politicians will honour. Good deal, bad deal or no deal, we will survive Brexit, but until we know where we headed and what we are prepared to sacrifice we cannot make a success of it.
First it was the Lib Dems demanding a second referendum - and look how popular that made them. Now it is Labour's Mr Khan saying, "we the people should take back control with a final vote on the [Brexit] deal."
Popular votes run on lies and misinformation, they are fuelled by emotion and rhetoric. As Clement Attlee said, a referendum is a "device of dictators and demagogues". Now this is as liable to being misunderstood and misapplied as Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". The point is that both patriotism and popular votes are easily abused.
Mr Khan would be suggesting a very sensible, very democratic option if circumstances and the issue were different. The issue could be complex and controversial, the only requirement is that most people have an opinion about it, and that the decision they are making and the grounds they are making it on are crystal clear. It doesn't even have to be a yes/no decision. For example a vote on the latest date abortion should be allowed would be a proper use of a referendum.
So why not a yes/no vote on accepting a Brexit deal? Because the grounds for choosing are so unclear. A large proportion of Leavers simply wanted to reduce immigration, many others wanted more money for the NHS - the Leave campaign promised both of these things in order to win votes but then, once the votes were in, denied they had ever promised such things, telling us there won't be any more money and that immigrants will keep on arriving.
They lied and got away with it because it was so easy to do. The issues are incredibly complex, interdependent and long-term. Boris Johnson can still wheel out the "£350 million for the NHS" lie because on the surface it feels right - leave the EU and surely we save the money we currently send to them? If you take the time to go through the detailed facts and their consequences you find the money is no more than a mirage, in the same way that I could say I "saved" £30 by not buying a railcard.
The final deal will be far more complex than a railcard. The costs and benefits will only be reckoned over many years. So we will once again be at the mercy of single-issue voters swayed by fact-lite rhetoric. Ordinary people won't take the time to work through the details, even if they were given them truthfully - and fair enough that is what MPs are employed for. Some people may try to reckon it up, but how many will have the moral courage to switch their vote?
We don't need another referendum, we need a clear plan for the future, we need concrete aims that our politicians will honour. Good deal, bad deal or no deal, we will survive Brexit, but until we know where we headed and what we are prepared to sacrifice we cannot make a success of it.
There's gold in them thar exports
Our second-biggest export is gold. This is because other countries like to keep their gold in our vaults ($300 billion worth currently), as we have earned a reputation as a stable democracy and so a safe place to keep it.
Oddly, even though we don't produce the gold, we don't refine it, and we don't add any value to it - we simply store it - gold exports are counted in our export trade figures. Remember this isn't even gold that we have bought and then sold on. It is as though we counted the cars of people going on holiday to France as exports.
This leads to some very misleading results. Gold comes ahead of pharmaceuticals and oil in those figures. Worse, the apparent jump in exports after the referendum was in fact due to many investors asking for their gold back. Rather than indicating overseas customers piling in as the pound fell, buying cheap British-made goods, it indicated a steep fall in confidence in the UK. Owners were willing to pay to move their gold to places they now regard as safer and more stable than the UK.
Most of the gold is sent outside the EU, meaning that stripping it from the figures tips the trade balance towards the EU. The corrected figures show that we do well over 50% of our overseas business with our nearest neighbours.
Not only does this mean that the Brexit-supporters' trumpeting of trade figures gives a falsely rosy view of our post-Brexit position, but the flight of gold confirms that overseas investors are spooked.
Far from being good news, our export spike is a clear warning.
Oddly, even though we don't produce the gold, we don't refine it, and we don't add any value to it - we simply store it - gold exports are counted in our export trade figures. Remember this isn't even gold that we have bought and then sold on. It is as though we counted the cars of people going on holiday to France as exports.
This leads to some very misleading results. Gold comes ahead of pharmaceuticals and oil in those figures. Worse, the apparent jump in exports after the referendum was in fact due to many investors asking for their gold back. Rather than indicating overseas customers piling in as the pound fell, buying cheap British-made goods, it indicated a steep fall in confidence in the UK. Owners were willing to pay to move their gold to places they now regard as safer and more stable than the UK.
Most of the gold is sent outside the EU, meaning that stripping it from the figures tips the trade balance towards the EU. The corrected figures show that we do well over 50% of our overseas business with our nearest neighbours.
Not only does this mean that the Brexit-supporters' trumpeting of trade figures gives a falsely rosy view of our post-Brexit position, but the flight of gold confirms that overseas investors are spooked.
Far from being good news, our export spike is a clear warning.
Cameron's legacy
The Brexit clock is ticking. Mrs May has yet to make her goals clear, so talks on the trade deal are still in limbo. EU diplomats and businesses doubt that she could push her plans through anyway, with her weakening grip on her party, unable to fire her enemies or even reshuffle her cabinet. Even the editor of the Conservative Home website calls the party "directionless".
The recent conference fiasco is the cherry on top. Her failing voice, the P45 prank, the set collapsing around her, even the unauthorised use of the song "You've Got the Love". The problem is that these accidents echoed her actual position - she has no strong voice, either in the EU or her own party, and doesn't know what to say; she does have ministers who are openly angling for her job; the Tory party, the country, the negotiations are all in disarray; and she has claimed the right to speak as if she speaks for us, and for parliament, without consultation.
If this series of setbacks had happened during Mr Corbyn's speech he would have come through unscathed. He has taken a strong and clear position, his party back him - even those who would prefer to see him dethroned stand and sing his theme tune (no need for Labour to try to steal one). Those accidents happening to him would not resonate and would be forgotten in a day.
They do resonate with Mrs May, so it is no surprise that a rebellion has been declared - MPs will be canvassed by the mutineers this weekend. It is no better in the cabinet. Up to five cabinet ministers are considering resigning due to Mrs May's secrecy about her Brexit plans, which means that even at the top no-one knows whether their own Brexit goals will be met.
Iain Duncan Smith was toppled only a month after his disastrous 2003 conference. His replacement, Michael Howard, was elected unopposed. This time the field of candidates is wide and if this revolt succeeds then the leadership battle will plunge the Tories deeper into the maelstrom.
It is time for the Tories to shape up. We need unity and direction in our government if we are to negotiate any sort of deal over Brexit. So far we have seen an inexorable slide into disarray.
If the current Tory leadership cannot pull the party together then it is not yet too late for something radical, but the Tories will not be able to offer it. Frustratingly, it seems that no-one else can either.
Let this be a salutary lesson to others. This sort of change requires strength and vision. With only a third of the country supporting Brexit, with undefined goals, with no preparation, with only a minority of MPs really behind it, how could we ever have made a success of it?
May has given it her best shot. She is not up to it, but what chance did she have? Truly, this is Cameron's legacy.
The recent conference fiasco is the cherry on top. Her failing voice, the P45 prank, the set collapsing around her, even the unauthorised use of the song "You've Got the Love". The problem is that these accidents echoed her actual position - she has no strong voice, either in the EU or her own party, and doesn't know what to say; she does have ministers who are openly angling for her job; the Tory party, the country, the negotiations are all in disarray; and she has claimed the right to speak as if she speaks for us, and for parliament, without consultation.
If this series of setbacks had happened during Mr Corbyn's speech he would have come through unscathed. He has taken a strong and clear position, his party back him - even those who would prefer to see him dethroned stand and sing his theme tune (no need for Labour to try to steal one). Those accidents happening to him would not resonate and would be forgotten in a day.
They do resonate with Mrs May, so it is no surprise that a rebellion has been declared - MPs will be canvassed by the mutineers this weekend. It is no better in the cabinet. Up to five cabinet ministers are considering resigning due to Mrs May's secrecy about her Brexit plans, which means that even at the top no-one knows whether their own Brexit goals will be met.
Iain Duncan Smith was toppled only a month after his disastrous 2003 conference. His replacement, Michael Howard, was elected unopposed. This time the field of candidates is wide and if this revolt succeeds then the leadership battle will plunge the Tories deeper into the maelstrom.
It is time for the Tories to shape up. We need unity and direction in our government if we are to negotiate any sort of deal over Brexit. So far we have seen an inexorable slide into disarray.
If the current Tory leadership cannot pull the party together then it is not yet too late for something radical, but the Tories will not be able to offer it. Frustratingly, it seems that no-one else can either.
Let this be a salutary lesson to others. This sort of change requires strength and vision. With only a third of the country supporting Brexit, with undefined goals, with no preparation, with only a minority of MPs really behind it, how could we ever have made a success of it?
May has given it her best shot. She is not up to it, but what chance did she have? Truly, this is Cameron's legacy.
Friday, 6 October 2017
Forget Brexit
Maybe we should forget the Brexit negotiations for the moment and get our WTO problems sorted.
After all, all our effort will have been wasted if we don't have an agreement at the end of it. Current progress is so slow that this looks less and less likely. If we do tumble off the cliff edge then we will need the WTO to partly break our fall. Do we split our negotiating team or prioritise?
Senior EU diplomats question whether Mrs May is able to deliver on any promises she makes: "What are her commitments worth if she is gone?" They even question whether she knows what she can promise, "The Tories have to decide what they want... We want clarity." However, resigning would simply mean leaving Brexit negotiations in limbo for three months while choosing a new party leader.
Our foreign secretary has positioned himself as being against anything but the hardest of Brexits, yet Mrs May is too weak politically to get rid of Mr Johnson."Can we seriously talk about a transition when... her government is so publicly split?" said an EU source.
The situation is not helped by Mrs Merkel's poor showing in the recent elections. Her party's long-time coalition partner has gone into opposition so as to prevent the far-right from being the majority opposition, so she is having to forge new alliances and doesn't have any time for a sideshow such as Brexit.
German business leaders (including representatives from Airbus, Siemens and Deutsche Bank) are publicly preparing for a hard Brexit.
If Mrs May doesn't get her act together right now then we will need to do the same.
After all, all our effort will have been wasted if we don't have an agreement at the end of it. Current progress is so slow that this looks less and less likely. If we do tumble off the cliff edge then we will need the WTO to partly break our fall. Do we split our negotiating team or prioritise?
Senior EU diplomats question whether Mrs May is able to deliver on any promises she makes: "What are her commitments worth if she is gone?" They even question whether she knows what she can promise, "The Tories have to decide what they want... We want clarity." However, resigning would simply mean leaving Brexit negotiations in limbo for three months while choosing a new party leader.
Our foreign secretary has positioned himself as being against anything but the hardest of Brexits, yet Mrs May is too weak politically to get rid of Mr Johnson."Can we seriously talk about a transition when... her government is so publicly split?" said an EU source.
The situation is not helped by Mrs Merkel's poor showing in the recent elections. Her party's long-time coalition partner has gone into opposition so as to prevent the far-right from being the majority opposition, so she is having to forge new alliances and doesn't have any time for a sideshow such as Brexit.
German business leaders (including representatives from Airbus, Siemens and Deutsche Bank) are publicly preparing for a hard Brexit.
If Mrs May doesn't get her act together right now then we will need to do the same.
I fought for your future
A comment from a demonstrator in the recent People's March for Europe particularly resonated with me: “I want to be able to look my grandchildren in the eye and tell them, ‘I fought for your future’.”
I realise though that most Leavers would also say exactly that. So the question to be answered is: in a post-Brexit UK what would their grandchildren reply?
'British values'? Values are not ever static - consider our attitude to divorce, for example. We can be sure that whatever values our grandchildren hold they won't be ours.
If we are talking housing and school places, then they will point out that those problems were caused by poor government policies and a lack of investment, and that Brexit made it worse through its effects on government finances.
If we are talking economics then they will explain that Brexit made them poorer and delivered lower living standards.
If we ask them about the NHS they will point out that without immigrant nurses and other staff the NHS crumbled - "and whatever happened to that £350 million a week?"
If we are talking trade then they will ask why we tore up a tariff-free trade agreement covering over 40% of our exports.
At least Brexit will have given them sovereignty. Let's hope that they think it was worth it.
I realise though that most Leavers would also say exactly that. So the question to be answered is: in a post-Brexit UK what would their grandchildren reply?
'British values'? Values are not ever static - consider our attitude to divorce, for example. We can be sure that whatever values our grandchildren hold they won't be ours.
If we are talking housing and school places, then they will point out that those problems were caused by poor government policies and a lack of investment, and that Brexit made it worse through its effects on government finances.
If we are talking economics then they will explain that Brexit made them poorer and delivered lower living standards.
If we ask them about the NHS they will point out that without immigrant nurses and other staff the NHS crumbled - "and whatever happened to that £350 million a week?"
If we are talking trade then they will ask why we tore up a tariff-free trade agreement covering over 40% of our exports.
At least Brexit will have given them sovereignty. Let's hope that they think it was worth it.
WTO rules
At the moment the UK is part of the EU. The EU has import/export quotas allocated to it by the WTO. When we leave the EU these will have to be sorted. The government plan was to simply split the existing quotas between us and the rest of the EU.
Essentially, the tariff rate quotas impose a low tariff up to a certain volume of imports of a certain item, above that volume a much higher tariff is charged. The purpose is to protect domestic producers from a flood of cheap imports out-competing them.
The US, Canada and NZ, amongst other nations, have objected, saying that simply splitting the quotas "would not be consistent with the principle of leaving other WTO members no worse off".
They argue that access to the divided UK/EU market would be of lower value due to the reduced flexibility compared to a single market, so new quotas will need to be decided and signed off by all WTO members.
So more negotiations loom, and ones where we need as much international support as possible - it is a pity that our foreign secretary spends his time offending other countries when he isn't busy intriguing against his party leader.
The US's actions (together with the Bombardier affair) should surely put to rest the fond hope that brown-nosing to them would give us a quick trade deal. Mr Trump is putting America First, as promised.
Let us hope that our EU negotiations make fast enough progress - the 'cliff edge' beloved of Brextremists now seems to be hanging over an abyss. We may end up with no trade agreement and no WTO rules.
Essentially, the tariff rate quotas impose a low tariff up to a certain volume of imports of a certain item, above that volume a much higher tariff is charged. The purpose is to protect domestic producers from a flood of cheap imports out-competing them.
The US, Canada and NZ, amongst other nations, have objected, saying that simply splitting the quotas "would not be consistent with the principle of leaving other WTO members no worse off".
They argue that access to the divided UK/EU market would be of lower value due to the reduced flexibility compared to a single market, so new quotas will need to be decided and signed off by all WTO members.
So more negotiations loom, and ones where we need as much international support as possible - it is a pity that our foreign secretary spends his time offending other countries when he isn't busy intriguing against his party leader.
The US's actions (together with the Bombardier affair) should surely put to rest the fond hope that brown-nosing to them would give us a quick trade deal. Mr Trump is putting America First, as promised.
Let us hope that our EU negotiations make fast enough progress - the 'cliff edge' beloved of Brextremists now seems to be hanging over an abyss. We may end up with no trade agreement and no WTO rules.
Big bank flees...
...Catalonia, due to fears of Catalexit. Relocating their headquarters to Alicante will allow it to continue to operate under EU regulations. A second bank (the fourth largest in Spain) is considering doing the same.
Fortunately our banks operate within the UK so surely there won't be any issue when we are cast adrift from the EU?
Well, the relocating bank does own the TSB, so could they be gearing up to move out of the UK too? Another Spanish bank with a lot of business in the UK is Santander. Our other big banks are British-based but operate internationally. Each bank will be asking itself where best to base itself, as will other companies. Clearly, relocation will lead to job losses and reduce the UK tax take.
And businesses are becoming more and more worried by Brexit. Is it any surprise, with the shambolic evidence of the Tory conference being enough to shake anyone. However, of greater concern are the incoherent policies, aimed at short-term vote-gathering rather than long-term economic health.
The Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out that an energy price cap for consumers would simply mean higher prices for businesses.
The EEF (representing 5000 manufacturing companies) want a comprehensive transition agreement before the end of the year to avoid boardroom decisions "going against UK plc".
The CBI commented "every day wasted is lost investment and jobs not created."
Still, every cloud has a silver lining. The Dutch company TMF Group - estimated worth £1.4 billion - is planning to move its headquarters to London, saying, "The UK's exit from the EU could actually present an opportunity to us."
They specialise in helping businesses relocate across borders.
Fortunately our banks operate within the UK so surely there won't be any issue when we are cast adrift from the EU?
Well, the relocating bank does own the TSB, so could they be gearing up to move out of the UK too? Another Spanish bank with a lot of business in the UK is Santander. Our other big banks are British-based but operate internationally. Each bank will be asking itself where best to base itself, as will other companies. Clearly, relocation will lead to job losses and reduce the UK tax take.
And businesses are becoming more and more worried by Brexit. Is it any surprise, with the shambolic evidence of the Tory conference being enough to shake anyone. However, of greater concern are the incoherent policies, aimed at short-term vote-gathering rather than long-term economic health.
The Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out that an energy price cap for consumers would simply mean higher prices for businesses.
The EEF (representing 5000 manufacturing companies) want a comprehensive transition agreement before the end of the year to avoid boardroom decisions "going against UK plc".
The CBI commented "every day wasted is lost investment and jobs not created."
Still, every cloud has a silver lining. The Dutch company TMF Group - estimated worth £1.4 billion - is planning to move its headquarters to London, saying, "The UK's exit from the EU could actually present an opportunity to us."
They specialise in helping businesses relocate across borders.
Thursday, 5 October 2017
Send out the clowns
It is hard to know what Mr Johnson is up to. Is he simply a loose cannon? Is he staunchly defending his vision of a hard Brexit? Is he angling to be fired and so be well clear when the Brexshit hits the fan? Or is he trying to place himself in pole position as Mrs May's replacement?
In a recent poll of Tory members he was top pick as the new leader (23%), and he has made various not-so-subtle hints that his ambition is Number 10.
This is the man who betrayed his wife and then lied to her and to his party. The man who paid for an abortion for his mistress while complaining the bill was too high and suggesting she blame someone else for the pregnancy.
So he got a girl in trouble and when he realised the cost tried to avoid his responsibilities.
He has already got our own Britannia into serious trouble, and is lying about the cost. If he becomes leader of the Conservative Party then there is no doubt that Mrs May will be his preferred scapegoat. However it is us who will pay the bill.
His recent antics, including a 'joke' about clearing corpses from a resort, have made him very unpopular with senior Tories. Of course, Mr Trump is proof that that is not necessarily a bar to the top job.
The real problem is that none of the other candidates for leader have what it takes either. Too old, too young, too staid, too inexperienced. Mr Johnson's strength is that he is a populist, able to work a crowd.
Of course, there is another possibility, far more serious and a proven successful leader, soundly beating Labour in the 2016 election. Unfortunately she is not eligible as she does not have a seat in Westminster. However Ms Davidson has led the Scottish Conservatives for five years. There is no sensible reason that she is barred from leading the party nationally, it would only require a simple rule change to make her eligible.
It's that or we risk joining the US in singing "Send in the Clowns".
In a recent poll of Tory members he was top pick as the new leader (23%), and he has made various not-so-subtle hints that his ambition is Number 10.
This is the man who betrayed his wife and then lied to her and to his party. The man who paid for an abortion for his mistress while complaining the bill was too high and suggesting she blame someone else for the pregnancy.
So he got a girl in trouble and when he realised the cost tried to avoid his responsibilities.
He has already got our own Britannia into serious trouble, and is lying about the cost. If he becomes leader of the Conservative Party then there is no doubt that Mrs May will be his preferred scapegoat. However it is us who will pay the bill.
His recent antics, including a 'joke' about clearing corpses from a resort, have made him very unpopular with senior Tories. Of course, Mr Trump is proof that that is not necessarily a bar to the top job.
The real problem is that none of the other candidates for leader have what it takes either. Too old, too young, too staid, too inexperienced. Mr Johnson's strength is that he is a populist, able to work a crowd.
Of course, there is another possibility, far more serious and a proven successful leader, soundly beating Labour in the 2016 election. Unfortunately she is not eligible as she does not have a seat in Westminster. However Ms Davidson has led the Scottish Conservatives for five years. There is no sensible reason that she is barred from leading the party nationally, it would only require a simple rule change to make her eligible.
It's that or we risk joining the US in singing "Send in the Clowns".
It should be about trade
So it does look as though Schengen may be suspended. With the New Year claims of immigrants molesting women, with the UK's winning Leave campaign relying so heavily on promises of reducing numbers despite the high cost (promises now being ignored), with the rise of Far Right parties such as France's National Front, it is surely a sensible move to clamp down while feelings are so high. After all, once things calm down borders can be loosened again. If keeping borders open means that the xenophobes take power, then tightening controls is the right move. When the road becomes icy you slow down.
Still, it looks as though we will be well out of the EU anyway. Mr Juncker is calling for a eurozone finance minister, Mr Macron is backing a eurozone budget and a European defence force, as well as deeper integration of the digital services and energy markets. Are they aiming for a European superstate?
Or are they finally acknowledging that we were right (when we had a voice at the table)? Mr Macron wants community-wide harmonisation of core markets - something we have pushed for for decades. He is even suggesting the Common Agricultural Policy should be reformed.
The UK has always pushed for opening the EU up, for increasing its competitiveness and productivity, expanding trade internally as well as externally. We fought for the expansion of the club, and welcomed nationals from newly joined states when we could have kept them out.
We are a highly services-oriented economy with some world-beating sectors. If we can keep Brexit disruption to a minimum and retain access to the single market, then we will be sitting pretty, in at the ground floor as services go global.
For example, the UK education brand is a big earner. Mr Macron wants a pan-European higher education system - now there's a serious market. Financial services are another of the UK's strengths, and further European integration makes that potential market very large indeed.
However, we need access. Right now we are at a crucial point. If we pull up the drawbridge, then when we let it down in a few years and rejoin the EU, the core members will have everything sewn up.
If the Brextremists are serious about trade then they should do the first deals with our most important trading partner, and do them now. Trade should be the focus of the Brexit negotiations not point scoring, looking to Britain's future not our past. It will mean compromises - but that is exactly what deals are made of.
Still, it looks as though we will be well out of the EU anyway. Mr Juncker is calling for a eurozone finance minister, Mr Macron is backing a eurozone budget and a European defence force, as well as deeper integration of the digital services and energy markets. Are they aiming for a European superstate?
Or are they finally acknowledging that we were right (when we had a voice at the table)? Mr Macron wants community-wide harmonisation of core markets - something we have pushed for for decades. He is even suggesting the Common Agricultural Policy should be reformed.
The UK has always pushed for opening the EU up, for increasing its competitiveness and productivity, expanding trade internally as well as externally. We fought for the expansion of the club, and welcomed nationals from newly joined states when we could have kept them out.
We are a highly services-oriented economy with some world-beating sectors. If we can keep Brexit disruption to a minimum and retain access to the single market, then we will be sitting pretty, in at the ground floor as services go global.
For example, the UK education brand is a big earner. Mr Macron wants a pan-European higher education system - now there's a serious market. Financial services are another of the UK's strengths, and further European integration makes that potential market very large indeed.
However, we need access. Right now we are at a crucial point. If we pull up the drawbridge, then when we let it down in a few years and rejoin the EU, the core members will have everything sewn up.
If the Brextremists are serious about trade then they should do the first deals with our most important trading partner, and do them now. Trade should be the focus of the Brexit negotiations not point scoring, looking to Britain's future not our past. It will mean compromises - but that is exactly what deals are made of.
Porkers
Forget straight bananas, banning coffee machines and bagpipes, and mandating toys for pigs: Mr Gove has made up a new porker about the EU. He recently claimed that we could only sell one pig's ear per pig to China as the other one had a tag in it (maybe he meant the other one had bells on it...). He obviously blamed the EU for this barmy regulation - a barmy regulation he made up. For he made a pig's ear of this, clearly not understanding the actual regulation which says that an ear tag or a shoulder tattoo ("slap-marking" - no, not "slapper-marking") may be used.
The irony is that it is Brexit that threatens our pork exports to China. That export deal was finalised after seven years of negotiations and rests on EU regulations and EU law.
Oh well, at least we will be giving £350 million a week to the NHS,
The irony is that it is Brexit that threatens our pork exports to China. That export deal was finalised after seven years of negotiations and rests on EU regulations and EU law.
Oh well, at least we will be giving £350 million a week to the NHS,
Wednesday, 4 October 2017
Dancing to Mr Juncker's tune
Mrs May is starting to be more realistic about Brexit. She is even starting to give hints about what her aims are in the negotiations, though she is not one to follow through on her promises.
She accepts that we owe our European partners what we have promised them. She accepts that we need a transition period to give us some chance to refocus our economy. She accepts that we need regulatory parity with the EU during the process. Rather surprisingly, Mr Davis appears to be going along with her, a promising sign.
Ironically Mrs May's domestic influence is now negligible. Her own ministers announce Brexit 'red lines' that contradict hers, the chairman of the 1922 Committee controls her through his control of the Tory Brextremists, each headline policy she announces drops by the wayside within weeks. Her early zeal for reform appears to have been powered by her ex-advisers.
It may well be that Mrs May feels she is in a zugzwang at home, that whatever she does will make things worse, which is why she is doing nothing, why she retreats at the first sign of a challenge to her policies, why she stands silently by as her colleagues openly plot against her. Though she talks about fighting the next election, everyone else is discussing who should replace her.
Her softening stance on Brexit may be a sign that she has decided to stand up for herself, to push through her own vision of post-Brexit Britain, to ignore the Eurosceptic demands, putting the welfare of the British people before the fantasies of ideologues. What does she have to lose?
Or it may be that, as was predicted, our negotiators are entirely outclassed, and Mrs May is now dancing to Mr Juncker's tune.
She accepts that we owe our European partners what we have promised them. She accepts that we need a transition period to give us some chance to refocus our economy. She accepts that we need regulatory parity with the EU during the process. Rather surprisingly, Mr Davis appears to be going along with her, a promising sign.
Ironically Mrs May's domestic influence is now negligible. Her own ministers announce Brexit 'red lines' that contradict hers, the chairman of the 1922 Committee controls her through his control of the Tory Brextremists, each headline policy she announces drops by the wayside within weeks. Her early zeal for reform appears to have been powered by her ex-advisers.
It may well be that Mrs May feels she is in a zugzwang at home, that whatever she does will make things worse, which is why she is doing nothing, why she retreats at the first sign of a challenge to her policies, why she stands silently by as her colleagues openly plot against her. Though she talks about fighting the next election, everyone else is discussing who should replace her.
Her softening stance on Brexit may be a sign that she has decided to stand up for herself, to push through her own vision of post-Brexit Britain, to ignore the Eurosceptic demands, putting the welfare of the British people before the fantasies of ideologues. What does she have to lose?
Or it may be that, as was predicted, our negotiators are entirely outclassed, and Mrs May is now dancing to Mr Juncker's tune.
Tuesday, 3 October 2017
Chaos and mess
Lord Adonis, the head of the UK National Infrastructure Commission stated that, "eight-year-olds have a better grasp of the power dynamics" of Brexit than our chief negotiator, Mr Davis. The response from the Brextremists was simply 'fire Adonis'. Looking at Mr Davis's record surely firing him would be more sensible.
An EU ambassador has commented on the "chaos and mess at the heart of British government". The lead negotiator for the EU said that the UK government's "internal battle [means] we don't receive always a clear UK position."
The 'chaos and mess' means that investors and businesses are placing their money elsewhere - not least in the Eurozone.
The Bank of England reports that larger companies are "favouring direct investment overseas...and funds flowing into overseas or cross-border facilities". More and more small businesses in the UK are planning to downsize or close. UK car production is already falling. The XL Group (one of Lloyd's of London's largest insurance syndicates) is moving to Dublin, and others are making enquiries or shifting staff there - so many financial staff are relocating there that house prices are predicted to increase by 16% in the next two years (London prices are falling).
Is this inevitable? We were warned about the effects of Brexit and the predictions are starting to come true. However the worrying point is that we haven't even left yet. We are trading under the same conditions as we have over the past few years.
What then is the problem? The problem is uncertainty. The problem is Mrs May. Her refusal even now to give any hints as to her negotiating strategy, to declare her 'non-negotiables', her 'red lines', has meant that no-one knows what the UK is headed for. Not even her negotiating team apparently.
The Home Office under Mrs May would have been put in special measures if it had been a school. Instead Mrs May was promoted to lead the most important and most delicate transition that the UK has had to go through, with a divided party, a wafer-thin majority and no plan. She quickly threw away even the majority she did have and fired her closest advisers, while retaining an amoral clown bent on destroying her.
We really do need a strong leader to get us through this, but what a shambolic line-up there is on offer. We can only hope that Ruth Davidson drops her objections to becoming PM.
An EU ambassador has commented on the "chaos and mess at the heart of British government". The lead negotiator for the EU said that the UK government's "internal battle [means] we don't receive always a clear UK position."
The 'chaos and mess' means that investors and businesses are placing their money elsewhere - not least in the Eurozone.
The Bank of England reports that larger companies are "favouring direct investment overseas...and funds flowing into overseas or cross-border facilities". More and more small businesses in the UK are planning to downsize or close. UK car production is already falling. The XL Group (one of Lloyd's of London's largest insurance syndicates) is moving to Dublin, and others are making enquiries or shifting staff there - so many financial staff are relocating there that house prices are predicted to increase by 16% in the next two years (London prices are falling).
Is this inevitable? We were warned about the effects of Brexit and the predictions are starting to come true. However the worrying point is that we haven't even left yet. We are trading under the same conditions as we have over the past few years.
What then is the problem? The problem is uncertainty. The problem is Mrs May. Her refusal even now to give any hints as to her negotiating strategy, to declare her 'non-negotiables', her 'red lines', has meant that no-one knows what the UK is headed for. Not even her negotiating team apparently.
The Home Office under Mrs May would have been put in special measures if it had been a school. Instead Mrs May was promoted to lead the most important and most delicate transition that the UK has had to go through, with a divided party, a wafer-thin majority and no plan. She quickly threw away even the majority she did have and fired her closest advisers, while retaining an amoral clown bent on destroying her.
We really do need a strong leader to get us through this, but what a shambolic line-up there is on offer. We can only hope that Ruth Davidson drops her objections to becoming PM.
Monday, 2 October 2017
A special relationship
Bombardier's Belfast factory employs 4200 people directly, with the livelihoods of many more depending upon it - up to 10,000 UK jobs are at risk if it closes. The factory makes wings for the Canadian company's C Series Jet. A perfect example of what we will be aiming for post-Brexit.
...unfortunately.
The US aircraft company Boeing has complained that their rival's C Series Jet had received British and Canadian subsidies and so is being sold below its true market value, therefore it is unfair competition. Boeing has asked for a tariff of 80% to be levied on sales in the US.
Mrs May phoned Mr "America First" Trump, to persuade him to refuse this demand... unsurprisingly, far from refusing or reducing it the tariff has now been set at 220%.
Welcome to the reality of global trade. Global trade means complex supply chains, spanning the world. It means that a disagreement between Canada and the US could close a large factory in the UK and we have no recourse.
The story is even more complex than that. We have two contracts with Boeing which we could threaten to cancel, but Boeing have a large factory in the UK which they could close. Our military aircraft are also maintained by Boeing - and that means a lot more than polishing their engines. Boeing could quite literally lock up our fighter jets and throw away the digital keys.
Naturally the Belfast factory is also right in the centre of the DUP's political constituency - that's the same DUP that Mrs May gave a bung of £1 million to for their votes. As you can imagine, they expect Mrs May to sort it all out pronto.
There is some hope. The US and Canada both belong to a free trade association - NAFTA. Canada could appeal to them to squash the tariff.
A pity then that we are abandoning our own free market association, which currently takes 40% of our exports. Leaving the EU umbrella, with its tight interdependent trade links, makes us highly vulnerable to disputes such as this. As one example, our specialist automotive component manufacturers turn over £4 billion each year, with a market growing at 25% a year - a market which is mostly European. If tariffs are imposed then that puts 78,000 jobs at risk.
When Brextremists urge the Queen to kowtow to Mr Trump, when Mrs May trundles to the US, cap in hand, to beg for favoured treatment, the mantra is repeated: "The Special Relationship". How blind are those that will not see. They should be looking east, not west. We do have a Special Relationship, but it is one we are bent on destroying.
...unfortunately.
The US aircraft company Boeing has complained that their rival's C Series Jet had received British and Canadian subsidies and so is being sold below its true market value, therefore it is unfair competition. Boeing has asked for a tariff of 80% to be levied on sales in the US.
Mrs May phoned Mr "America First" Trump, to persuade him to refuse this demand... unsurprisingly, far from refusing or reducing it the tariff has now been set at 220%.
Welcome to the reality of global trade. Global trade means complex supply chains, spanning the world. It means that a disagreement between Canada and the US could close a large factory in the UK and we have no recourse.
The story is even more complex than that. We have two contracts with Boeing which we could threaten to cancel, but Boeing have a large factory in the UK which they could close. Our military aircraft are also maintained by Boeing - and that means a lot more than polishing their engines. Boeing could quite literally lock up our fighter jets and throw away the digital keys.
Naturally the Belfast factory is also right in the centre of the DUP's political constituency - that's the same DUP that Mrs May gave a bung of £1 million to for their votes. As you can imagine, they expect Mrs May to sort it all out pronto.
There is some hope. The US and Canada both belong to a free trade association - NAFTA. Canada could appeal to them to squash the tariff.
A pity then that we are abandoning our own free market association, which currently takes 40% of our exports. Leaving the EU umbrella, with its tight interdependent trade links, makes us highly vulnerable to disputes such as this. As one example, our specialist automotive component manufacturers turn over £4 billion each year, with a market growing at 25% a year - a market which is mostly European. If tariffs are imposed then that puts 78,000 jobs at risk.
When Brextremists urge the Queen to kowtow to Mr Trump, when Mrs May trundles to the US, cap in hand, to beg for favoured treatment, the mantra is repeated: "The Special Relationship". How blind are those that will not see. They should be looking east, not west. We do have a Special Relationship, but it is one we are bent on destroying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)