It seems our new Labour government is paying close attention to the climate crisis, and following its analysis of the problem has decided it doesn’t exist. All those wildfires are nothing to be alarmed about. A report—kept secret– received by the government earlier this year suggested quite the opposite, and in so many areas of the country’s fabric of life it provided a dire vision of imminent collapse. But none of this should bother us, it seems, if the following report from the Telegraph today is anything to go by:
 
‘Ms Haigh, Mr Burnham’s de facto deputy prime minister, said: “We are stripping back what’s known as social value to focus it ruthlessly on that priority [growth]. “For too long, [public] procurement has tried to tick too many boxes. If you prioritise everything, then you’re prioritising nothing.” The Government will make job creation and skills development the only social requirements for businesses competing for the UK’s £385bn public procurement contracts from January. This will mean ditching a lengthy list of demands that include a requirement that suppliers bidding for big government contracts must commit to achieving  net zero emissions by 2050 and publish a carbon reduction plan outlining their plans to get there.’
​
Looks like the change Andy promised is going to be a change for the worse. ‘Net zero’ in some ways was always a bit of a con, so maybe that’s what the government concluded. But instead of ramping up efforts to tackle climate change it has set off in the opposite direction. 

I admit I didn’t pay much attention to the LIBOR scandal of 15 years or so ago. That was when some middle ranking bankers were prosecuted for manipulating the rates of interest banks charge each other to lend money. It was alleged they had done this in a conspiracy to enrich themselves, although being charged with conspiracy, the prosecution didn’t have to prove whom or by how much anybody was defrauded. It only had to be shown that the bankers acted in concert. At the time of the credit crunch the guilty ones were under a lot of pressure to keep rates low, so as to avoid suggesting to the market that their bank was in trouble. The higher the interest rate, the more people would think you were desperate for cash. Many banks therefore kept their rates artificially low, even though insiders knew the rates were unachievable in the market place. Several of these bankers went to jail for their part in the alleged conspiracy. But it is the argument of BBC journalist Andy Verity’s book ‘Rigged: The incredible story of the whistleblowers jailed after exposing the rotten heart of the financial system (Flint, 2023) that these middle ranking bankers tasked with setting the LIBOR rates were pressured from above to do what they did. Verity implies, with significant evidence that ‘above’ included the Bank of England, HM Treasury and even 10 Downing Street. He suggested they all wanted LIBOR manipulated to reduce the stress of the credit crunch. At this remove it would be nice to dip into some political diaries to see what people were thinking at the time (serious political diaries don’t seem to be published anymore, but I suspect many are written). As it is the only book I can lay my hands on is Alistair Darling’s ‘Back From The Brink (Atlantic Books, 2011) where he says, in his only reference to LIBOR:

‘The banking system was beginning to seize up, with banks becoming reluctant to lend to each other. The rate of interest at which banks lend to each other— the LIBOR rate—continued to rise, adding to the cost of borrowing.’ (p.24)
 
So it is reasonable to assume that HM Treasury would do whatever it could to keep rates as low as possible—even if published rates didn’t reflect reality. But nobody at the most senior level was prosecuted for their role in manipulating published rates. Darling’s book was written before the prosecutions of the lower ranking bankers began.
 
Perhaps we’ll have to wait another 15 years or so for government records to be released, showing how much collusion there was between top elected officials, Bank of England officers and chief executives. Could it be that if the top (and I mean the ‘top’) bankers were prosecuted like the juniors they commanded that they may drag some politicians down with them? Could this be why ‘top’ bankers never get prosecuted? It’s a clue, anyway.

‘Boomers brace for Burnham’s almighty cash grab’ is a Telegraph story today, say no more, it’s what we all expected. He’s going to go on a tax and spend spree and the undeserving boomer generation,  who are about to inhabit care homes up and down the country are going to have to pay more in taxes for the privilege. But hang on. They would have to anyway, wouldn’t they, using the bulk of their assets to pay for care fees? But what the Right abhors is the idea that the better off may have to ‘subsidise’ those geriatrics who never built up their assets over their lifetimes. The same objection could be made about the NHS, except here it’s people who rarely have to call on NHS services who may feel aggrieved that they are paying for something somebody else is making repeated use of. That is a thought not too often expressed loudly, since it could lead to an unwelcome backlash. The NHS is still a National Treasure, albeit creaking at the seams. And of course it can be privatised in other ways, deftly concealed behind the brand.

I wonder why the Right don’t object to insurance. Surely it’s unfair to pay when no claims are made, at a time when it’s always some feckless individual causing e.g. car accidents?  Insurance companies need to be kept in check, but it’s curious that we don’t see headlines like ‘Healthy and safe people face almighty cash grab.’ It’s time the idea of ’National Insurance’ was properly resurrected and I would even suggest everyone should pay it at progressive rates. But—I can already hear the words ’Andy’s death tax’ being bandied about. Let’s wait and see how the problem of paying for elderly care is going to be solved—if we live long enough to see the end of another review. 

 I signed up quite some time ago to one of those mass letter writing campaigns to MPs—this about the catastrophe in Gaza, which continues to be worse than dire (if that’s possible). MPs of course know when they are getting a letter crafted by a campaign group—many identical letters all arrive at the same time. In these circumstances it is perfectly reasonable for the MP to send a standard reply to all interlocutors representing their party’s position. I confess to almost having forgotten this instance, but I have just had an email from my MP which disappointingly reads like a totally untouched head office boilerplate reply. MPs even today should try to tweak their standard response a little to show that are not exactly the same as their other loyal colleagues (almost said clones).
 
Here is my MP’s response in full:
 
‘Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the ongoing situation in Israel, Gaza, and the wider Palestinian territories. Many constituents have written to me expressing deep distress about the scale of civilian suffering, the humanitarian emergency in Gaza, the continued threat to Israeli civilians, and the urgent need for a credible path toward peace. I want to assure you that I take these concerns extremely seriously, which is why I am sending another update.
 
We have now seen the hugely welcome agreement of President Trump’s peace plan, and it is vital that the UK now plays its part – alongside our international partners – in supporting the implementation of that plan, an objective recently affirmed by a UN Security Council Resolution, supported by the UK, our European allies and Arab states.
 
The immediate priority must be to maintain the ceasefire, secure safe and unrestricted access to Gaza for the UN relief teams and other humanitarian organisations and get aid flooding into Gaza at the pace and volume that is required to match the scale of the current crisis. The Prime Minister announced at the Egypt peace summit that the UK will allocate an extra £20 million of humanitarian support to provide water and sanitation to those in need, taking the total last year to £100 million. 
 
On 30th December, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland signed a joint statement on the Gaza Humanitarian Response, expressing serious concerns about the renewed deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza which remains catastrophic. The letter called the Government of Israel to take the following urgent and essential steps:
 
Ensure that international NGOs are able to operate in Gaza in a sustained and predictable way. 
Ensure the UN and its partners can continue their vital work.
Lift unreasonable restrictions on imports considered to have a dual use. This includes urgently needed medical and shelter equipment. 
Open crossings and boost the flows of humanitarian aid into Gaza. 
 
The UK is helping to lead transitional governance arrangements in Gaza, working closely with the Palestinian Authority on ensuring implementation of the vital reforms they have committed to make. We will also work with partners to ensure security in Gaza, through a ceasefire monitoring process, planning for the International Stabilisation Force, decommissioning of Hamas weapons and capabilities (based on lessons learned in Northern Ireland), and helping build the capacity of the Palestinian Security Forces.
 
In September, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the UK recognised the State of Palestine joining France, Australia, Canada and over 150 countries in doing so. This is an historic decision, taken by a Labour government, to protect the two-state solution and affirm the rights of Palestinians, delivering on our manifesto commitment. 
 
We remain steadfast in our belief that a two-state solution is the only path to justice for Palestinians and enduring security for Israelis. 75 years ago, we were rightly proud to recognise the State of Israel, and our commitment to the security of Israel and its people remains unwavering. Now, we recognise Palestinian statehood, as the inalienable right of the Palestinian people.
 
There is a long way still to go to preserve the ceasefire, and to bring the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to an end, but the UK will continue to do all that we can to seize this chance for a better future and to secure lasting peace and security in the region, both for the people of Israel and the people of Palestine.
 
I recognise the deep concern many residents feel about the prospects for peace and justice in the region. It is clear that only a credible political process, one that recognises the legitimate rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, can deliver lasting security and stability. I will continue to support efforts that prioritise de‑escalation, humanitarian relief, and a renewed commitment to a negotiated two‑state solution.
 
I understand how personal and painful this issue is for many people in our community, and I am grateful to everyone who has taken the time to share their views with me. Please be assured that I will continue to raise these concerns in Parliament and to advocate for a response that reflects our shared values of humanity, compassion, and respect for international law.
 
Thank you again for writing to me on this important issue.’
 
Searching my sent emails I can’t find the original campaign email, which came from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, but I’m willing to bet that it asked my MP to DO SOMETHING—not just about me ‘sharing my concerns’ and earning a pat on the head. Whilst it is true that what is happening in Gaza (and the West Bank) is an ‘ongoing situation’ that is such management speak in the current circumstances it beggars belief. Oh! I am outraged by the ‘ongoing situation’ - is this a line from ‘The Office?’ Then we read that the ‘two state solution' is the way forward for everyone’s security, even though Netanyahu, backed by his cabinet has absolutely ruled it out (so has Trump, effectively) and in both Gaza and the West Bank Israel’s military colonialist venture continues. As regards the ‘Trump peace plan’ this is dead in the water—everyday Palestinians are being murdered and their land being stolen. Starmer didn’t act on his decision to diplomatically recognise Palestine. We will have to wait and see whether Burnham does anything concrete on that front—such as stopping all support for the genocidal regime. So, I can’t say I am much impressed by my MP’s response, which is cliché ridden and detail free and was possibly written a few months ago. I'd have been embarrassed to send it out.

+Maybe it’s too soon to say but I think there’s a prospect that all the talk of a multi-party political landscape may be just that: talk. Yes, the two party hegemony of the post war era is clearly over, the Labour/Tory share of the vote has reached a low ebb, but the point is it still remains significant. And now that we supposedly live in a multi-party condition it remains to be seen what a test of that in maybe three years time will look like. Essentially, the same old choices are going to have to be made. All things being equal—and heaven knows how events might intervene—the question will be what can the state afford to do to look after us? Because that’s what we want it to do. And, consequentially how will everybody pay their fair share? It may well be that some parties duck the question. They will be found out. I can foresee a reaction against untested parties and an electorate retreating to old nostrums. Perhaps the real question is, in our near presidential parliamentary system, who’s personality and perceived flawless character will win voters’ hearts?
 
+Memory Lane: I saw on the clickbait (the Telegraph in a rather reasonable obituary) that one of the ’red’ Liverpool MPs Terry Lewis has died. He left the Commons in 2005 and the Labour Party in 2010, rejoining in 2015 when Corbyn was elected. I knew him slightly since he and another old socialist (communist?) MP Bob Wareing used to drink in the Paviours Arms just off Marsham Street after the final division. They like me must have had flats in Pimlico. Listening to them castigating Tony Blair was always entertaining but I suspect they suspected me of being to the right of Joseph Stalin. The Paviours sadly no longer exists, having made way for luxury flats, of which there is a shortage in London. The thing about the pub (apart from the two old renegades) was that its interior was original art deco and was in my opinion worth saving. My efforts to see it preserved came to nought. A pity—it could have been a popular feature in the V&A, perhaps with two waxwork MPs propping up the bar. 

Astonishingly there are nearly 1300 former MPs still with us (about half of them these days are ex-Prime Ministers). There have been a few big turnovers it has to be said in the last few years. Now, in the wake of the murder of Anne Widdecombe, there’s a fear that ex-MPs as well as serving members need enhanced security. Personally I think the threat is inflated, which is not to say it doesn’t exist. Most ex-MPs are as obscure now as they were when in office. But there’s no telling what nutters will do next, and we are usually talking about people with mental issues who go out on killing sprees. (No doubt I’ll be called out on that one.) So, the advice to former MPs is to let your local police force know of your existence in their area. I’m not sure what that’s meant to achieve. More patrols down your street? (Any patrol would be an improvement.) There are suggestions of having a ’safe room.’ and perhaps panic buttons. For current MPs the Reform UK party are suggesting a fund of £100 million to secure their safety. This is a lot less than what Farage apparently needs (£5 million) but it still works out at £153,000 per MP. If this could be extended to former MPs it might pay for some new double glazing, with security glass of course. Well, I’m up for that. No, not seriously. Looks to me like Reform UK are keen to set up a new expenses scandal.

Big confession: I have no interest in football whatsoever. It’s boring. But having said that, in the final of the World’s Greatest Event In Human History, I hope Spain beats Argentina. The latter country is run by a mini-me Donald Trump, and the former is run by Pedro Sánchez, who has refused the US military access to Spanish facilities in pursuit of Trump’s war on Iran. Hence Trump doesn’t like Sánchez. Who incidentally leads something called the Socialists Workers Party. Maybe this is why Keir Starmer hinted at his preference for Spain, freed as he is about to be from sucking up to the Great Orange Idiot. Of course, the game may be called off if the Canadian wildfire smog has its way.

+I referred to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) a couple of blogs ago. MMT has been floating around for quite a while as an alternative to the way governments think about paying for the common good. We’ve all been brought up to believe that governments budget just the same way we do in our tiny insignificant households. Politicians talk absurdly about not ‘maxing out the credit card’ - except of course when it comes to bailing out the banks with quantitative easing (I love that bit about ‘easing’ - it’s so smoothing isn’t it, all the way to your obscene bonuses and asset enrichment). I think at the heart of MMT I can read a demolition of the distinction between capital investment and current expenditure. These are loaded terms, as so much in economic discourse is, with implied values attached to certain words, some of which are meant to strip them of equivalent—beneficial—value. MMT I think suggests that the common good is attained both in human terms and concrete and steel. Governments say it’s OK to ‘borrow’ (they prefer to use the term ‘invest’) as much capital as it deems necessary for infrastructure, but investing in education for example is current expenditure and so should be captured in a balanced (i.e. non deficit) budget. It is I hope you will agree a false distinction.
 
+The Corbyn dream of a left-wing alternative to Labour - ‘Your Party’ - seems to be in a bit of mess, although isn’t that the way these days? Crispin Flintoff reports that
 
‘Your Party is facing an internal crisis at precisely the moment when a strong, united socialist movement is desperately needed.
At the centre of the dispute is a special meeting of the party’s Central Executive Committee held on 12 July. Those who attended say the meeting was properly convened under the CEC standing orders after three members had been prevented from attending an earlier meeting. Fourteen CEC members reportedly attended at its peak. Votes of no confidence were then held in Chair Jenn Forbes, Secretary Dawn Aspinall and Membership Officer Cassi Bellingham. Those present say each vote passed by the required majority and that the three officers should therefore be deemed to have resigned from their positions.
That account is strongly disputed.’
 
There is a strong whiff of the 1980s here. I wonder how many entryists are tackling the pressing political issue of the day: how to smash each others’ faction. In doing so they have probably lost sight of the fact that the Greens have set themselves up nicely as the left alternative to Labour.  Your Party has sunk into irrelevance.

​+As regular readers will know, I have been struggling with the phrase ‘late capitalism’ which I deem to be rather meaningless and even deceptive. I am still waiting to hear what it’s supposed to mean. I suspect the term is to be delivered with a knowing wink, which is about as much explanation one can hope for. However, it has occurred to me, late as I am to this game that we are entering a phase better described as late neo-liberalism. Reactionary forces are emerging fast and the structures which have supported neo-liberalism are being whittled away. One of neo-liberalism's drives, the unbridled globalisation of capitalism is under attack not least from the Right as exemplified by Trump. Its structures, exemplified by the Washington Consensus, the brief appearance of the so-called ‘Third Way,’ and international bodies such as the WTO are withered or withering. Added to this are the mounting pressures of climate change which will force more protectionist measures on national economies. Climate change doesn’t create the conditions for neo-liberalism to flourish but will leave capitalism untouched, To be trite, there’s money to be made in air conditioners. Indeed, a shed load of money will be made from climate change adaptations, sums which will make the money wasted in the UK on Covid PPE (£10 billion) seem puny in comparison.
 
So let’s reflect on the demise of neo-liberalism and the strange role played by the first Horseman of the Apocalypse, Donald J. Trump and his beckoning of Revelation (steady on —Ed). Further horsemen are on their way.
 
+I think I have had my first AI generated response to one of my blogs. It came from ‘someone’ whose name was spelt with lower case initials but at first seemed to be responding to the content of the blog. And then again, maybe it didn’t. It was hard to detect real meaning in what it said. Naturally I deleted the comment. I guess this could become more common. If there’s an upside I may be quoted as some ‘authority’ in a future ChatGTP response, which just shows how good things are going to get.

+In London last week and yes: Phew! What a scorcher! The atmospheric temperature got up to 34 degrees C, somewhat tamed by a light breeze. People seemed to be adjusting to it. The buses were another story. Metal and glass boxes trundling around at London’s usual slow pace, these instruments of torture must have registered temperatures in the mid forties. I didn’t actually see anybody faint, maybe I was thinking of my own consciousness too much. All the buses were bad, but the ‘Boris’ buses as ever were worse. Somebody seems to think that in a moving object air conditioning works better than simple ventilation. None of this I imagine matters much to the occupants of the fleets of black limos snaking around the congested streets, whose chauffeurs keep engines running whilst waiting for their masters and mistresses. I think they—the indulged passengers—might want to check that the overheating outside their cooled incubators might not lead to some infernal reckoning by the not-so-lucky. Only saying.
 
+On much the same theme the weekly Evening Standard looked at the city’s cultural scene and had a piece on private members’ clubs. Apparently there could be a glut of them developing. One new club opening soon will be the Leconfield ‘an exclusive business networking club planned for a former MI5 building founded by property tycoon Robert Tchenguiz and backed by former prime minister Liz Truss. Founding life memberships cost an extraordinary £500,000’ (Evening Standard July 9th) This I imagine will be the only club in town where a former PM will be serving behind bars. Yes, I’m jealous. I should have pursued membership of the Garrick when I had the chance. I would have voted to allow female membership. But not maybe for Liz Truss. But Truss’s club could be useful, as an ex-MI5 building it may still be fitted with lots of working listening devices, and if the club attracts lots of overseas (i.e. Chinese) business people, we could garner lots of commercially sensitive information. I expect this is why Liz is involved.
 
+At least with the heatwave happening in London, the rest of the nation got to hear about it.
 
+The Telegraph is telling us that if Our Andy appoints Red Ed (Miliband) as chancellor the wealthy are going to put their skates on and leave the UK. It doesn’t say whether that’s for good, or for the good. These threats, first circulated in the 1920s never materialise. More’s the pity. If Ed is selected as Chancellor we’ll see a lot more of this barely concealed right-wing anti-Semitism emerge. I only hope that the new managers of the economy have the good sense to look at alternative models of economic management, perhaps even considering such approaches as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Perhaps more on that in a later blog.