+With my tolerance of hot weather capped at around 25 degrees C, I don’t think I’ll be travelling to New Orleans anytime soon. This coming week the city is predicted to have a period of temperatures between 40 to 46 degrees C. A weeks-long heatwave has developed in the southern US states, which is no doubt a combination of climate change and this year’s El Nino. Things have cooled here in the UK, where temperatures rose to around 30 degrees C, but we still have reports of hotter than average sea temperatures surrounding the UK of around five degrees higher than normal. So—interesting that the UK Climate Change Committee has reported that UK progress on tackling climate change is ‘worryingly slow.’ To which the government has responded with its worn old statement that tackling climate change is a top priority (as in tackling crime, crumbling schools, a stricken NHS, mental health, sewage, etc., etc. are all ’top' priorities). Now environment minister (Lord) Zac Goldsmith has resigned, seemingly endorsing the Climate Change Committee’s conclusion. Nothing to do with being named and shamed the day before as a diehard fan of Boris Johnson of course. If government backwardness on climate action was the real reason for Goldsmith’s resignation, why on earth did he resign in the first place—surely the place to put things right is within government? If his departure was anything to do with climate change, then its significance has been entirely blown away by media focus on yet more Partygate fall-out. Silly man.
+Electoral Calculus, which aggregates polling on voting intentions now has Labour on 475 seats and just 100 for the Tories. I don’t believe this is a likely outcome, but it is testimony nevertheless to the outstanding leadership of, of, err, errrr . . . +Following my blog on the state pension triple lock the other day, rapid responses have come from the major parties (who knew I wielded such influence?). The i reported Wednesday that ‘Secretary of State Mel Stride, who is responsible for overseeing pension reviews, said on Wednesday that the Conservative party would maintain the policy into the next election.’ This caught the No.10 press office off-guard, who declined to back up Stride’s confidence. Meanwhile, the article continued: ‘Sources said Labour has no plans to change the way pensions and benefits are calculated at the moment, meaning both would continue to rise with inflation under a Labour government.’ Trust me, I’m a ‘source.’ For ‘the moment.’ +Here's a crime tackling policy suggestion the Tories could take up in their manifesto. It would appeal to their base. (Item spotted in Pickering's excellent Beck Isle Museum)
0 Comments
One question political parties will be keen to duck before the next general election is what to do with the ‘triple lock’ (an increase based on either the rate of inflation, increase in average earnings or 2.5%) on state pensions? Already deep in a hole, the Tories will not want to say too much about the triple lock, given the ageing demographic of their support. Labour may hope to pick up some of that support, so will be as obtuse on the subject as possible. As for the LibDems, who cares? With UK inflation obstinately high, it looks like the next uprating based on September’s inflation figure could be around six to eight per cent. Let’s watch out for little hints of what is to come. I imagine some Tories may say we’re going to keep the triple lock, but we’ll introduce means testing. Another rise in the pension age seems inevitable. I wouldn’t be surprised if in order to allow politicians to carry on saying ‘we’re keeping the triple lock’ it will be applied only to the Pension Credit element of those who qualify for Pension Credit, i.e. the worse off. Since many who would qualify don’t apply for it, this would be by far the cheapest option.
I set my research department on to the question, to see where Labour’s policy stands. In 2017 the policy was clear—keep the triple lock at least until 2025—and that policy survived until the 2019 election, so is the one our current cohort of MPs supported and were elected on. But the water was muddied when Rishi Sunak temporarily dropped the triple lock in 2021—Labour MPs did not oppose that move, leaving Labour in ‘a position so contorted that Simone Biles would struggle to achieve it, and so diluted that it’s virtually homeopathic’ according to Andrew Fisher, Corbyn’s former policy director. (I’ve learnt that Simone Biles is a gymnast.) And last year things were no clearer, with frontbencher Lisa Nandy trotting out the old cliché ‘let’s wait and see what the books are like when we come into government,’ but with another frontbencher Jonathan Reynolds saying the triple lock is safe. The triple lock could be a determining factor in the 2024 general election, not least for pensioners who still have mortgages. Labour needs to get its act together. There’s a challenge for ‘Sir Trust Me, I’m Not A Plant.’ ‘Sir Keir Starmer won’t freeze out Mandelson over Epstein friendship’ is a headline in today’s Daily Telegraph, picking up on the story in Tuesday’s Financial Times. No surprises there then. The paper repeats a quote (made on Mandy’s behalf by an anonymous spokesperson) that ‘Lord Mandelson very much regrets ever having been introduced to Epstein.’ I wonder when this regret crept in? Obviously not when Jeffrey Epstein was in prison for sex offending. I think we can call this the Prince Andrew syndrome, where you discover that you hardly knew your good friend, in fact if push came to shove you might tell yourself that it was barely an acquaintance. Speaking through his anonymous spokesperson (I wonder who that is?) Mandy, as is so often the case seeks to work behind a veil. The problem for him is that he will have to keep his head down for quite some time to avoid questions on the subject. One such question is whether the two actually did share ‘business’ together. Mandy’s anonymous friend says their relationship had no business aspect. That contradicts what Virginia Roberts said (Daily Mail, 7/3/2011) ‘I remember him being at the house in New York and I was introduced to him at a dinner party. He and Jeffrey talked business together. I assumed they were in business together. I was never asked to give him [Mandelson] a massage.’ Poor old Peter. Given Roberts took Prince Andrew to the cleaners I don’t think we should dismiss her claim out of hand. Mandy should have a proper sit down chat with Emily Maitlis.
Avid readers of this blog will recall (31st May) that I wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons proposing that the next person to be classed as the most senior MP—the so-called ‘Father’ or ‘Mother’ of the House– should be a woman, reflecting the fact that men still, by far, dominate the benches and so would likely cling on to the role for ages. The most important role of said senior member is to preside over the election of a new Speaker, but I’m sure they may find many other things to do too. I received a reply to my letter yesterday. (Getting a reply is more than I can say for that other great Commons luminary, the Leader of the Opposition.) The Speaker’s reply is here. I was somewhat surprised to find that the Standing Orders of the House are in the hands of the government—but of course all legislation in one form or another requires government approval (and Commons time). So I will press on.
There’s some reportage in the UK about the organisers of the Glastonbury festival banning the screening of a film--Oh Jeremy Corbyn the Big Lie—which regurgitates claims that Corbyn was stitched up. Apparently the organisers were threatened with the big anti-Semitism stick, and folded. This, despite Corbyn’s huge welcome by the crowd at a previous festival. Well, Glastonbury is just another big business, isn’t it—let’s not expect any actual lefty backbone there. A comment in the film has interested me, and it is something picked up by onetime Corbyn supporter, now wannabe Starmer MP, the journo Paul Mason. This is that Starmer ’worked with the CIA.’ This, according to Mason amounts to one of those silly conspiracy theories, totally devoid of evidence. As a conspiracy theory I don’t think it stands up, but as a nexus theory it’s got legs. By this I mean Starmer sits atop a conflation of establishment interests, so, e.g. when he was DPP he did what he could to facilitate the appalling judicial treatment of Julian Assange which continues to this day. Whether the CIA had anything to pass on to Starmer about Assange—who knows? It’s not inconceivable, is it? But it wouldn’t amount to a ’conspiracy,’ if it happened it would simply be a systemic routine. So in this regard the film doesn’t quite live up to Mason’s condemnation. He simply misses the point.
Perhaps of more interest to those who are wary of the Starmeroid clan is the story in today’s Financial Times about Peter (‘petie’) Mandelson’s links with the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear from the article that ’petie’ (as Epstein called Mandelson) and Mandy were good friends (a reproduced picture of a birthday celebration speaks a thousand words). Even when Epstein was in jail, Mandy (even as a serving minister of the Crown) enjoyed his hospitality, staying in Epstein’s house in New York. Does this explain why Mandy was so accommodating of the ‘filthy rich?’ Mandy stayed at Epstein’s house in June, 2009. Their relationship had already lasted several years, and judging by the FT article, Epstein had worked Mandy for a number of favours (that I have to say is my reading of the article). So I thought I would check out the index of Mandy’s book The Third Man (first published in 2010) for a mention of Epstein. Nothing, of course, despite the paperback edition suggesting it ‘Includes revealing new chapter.’ Well, not revealing at all then. Both of the above stories in their own way give a contemporary gloss to Adam Smith’s great insight ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.’ That word again, conspiracy. The ‘trade’ in today’s cases is the maintenance of the elite. The FT article can be read here: https://www.ft.com/content/07238b43-48e6-4e7b-96d2-d50a4ada4646 I think I’ve remarked on this before (now that I’m a septuagenarian I’m allowed to repeat myself) but it says something about our vaunted democracies that the rich and powerful can still be held to account by the law. Trump has been indicted (again) and faces a criminal court in August; Boris Johnson was found guilty by the Commons Privileges Committee and walked the plank; President Biden’s son has pleaded guilty to gun and tax offences (that wouldn’t be allowed to happen in Russia); in France, both Presidents Sarkozy and Chirac faced criminal charges; in Spain King Juan Carlos abdicated after some scandal or other; if I recall correctly Helmut Kohl of Germany faced some kind of untoward issue which seriously damaged his reputation. And let’s not forget Nicola Sturgeon, who was arrested and is now the kind of neighbour nobody wants, not with that bloody great camper van blocking your view. All in all, these are heartening episodes, which restore one’s faith a little in our imperfect system. But there’s the rub—the same rich and powerful people will have more lawyerly tricks up their nefarious sleeves to keep the long arm of the law out of reach. Prison doesn’t seem to be an option. How embarrassing to a nation would it be for a former Prime Minister or President to be mug shot and strip searched (what nuclear secrets would they find up Trump’s arse?). Trump of course has been relieved of having to have a mug shot taken on the grounds that ‘he is already very well known.’ Yes, careers and reputations can be destroyed, but I imagine that might simply multiply your speaker circuit rewards. There was a scene in the film ‘Legend’ about the Kray brothers, where we were told that in Reggie’s club in Soho, wealthy patrons loved the vicarious thrill of mixing with gangsters. Imagine that.
It seems the government will introduce a bill this week to prevent local councils from adopting policies supportive of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) approach to Israel. The BDS movement occupies an uncomfortable spot in global politics, and whilst no-one would be surprised to find that Israel itself aims to delegitimise BDS activity, some on the left (e.g. Noam Chomsky) also question aspects of the BDS movement. BDS’s enemies of course seek to portray it as anti-Semitic—an automatic response to anything or anybody who criticises Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. But as a form of protest, BDS is a perfectly legitimate and lawful expression long used in the international community to seek changes in the behaviour of other nation states. Currently Russia is the target of one of the most extensive BDS movements. Iran has been for donkey’s years. Venezuela has also been targeted. I wonder if a local council chose to adopt a policy of supporting a BDS position in regards to Russia, the omnipresent Secretary of State for ’Levelling Up,’ Michael Gove would be in the least bit concerned? Western hypocrisy will be on full display when this bill is debated. And I dare say that hypocrisy will be shared on both sides of the House. I cannot see Labour opposing a bill consonant with its previous adoption of the flawed IHRA definition of anti-Semitism (ironically adopted when Corbyn was leader). The debate—if and when a debate is to be had—should focus on the rights of people, individually or collectively to peacefully express their disdain for something they oppose. Interfering with such rights has become a hallmark of this government, and for fear of looking weak I predict our very own Director of Political Persecutions (Oh no, not him again!) will blithely go along with it.
Every time I turn on the news I now expect to hear some new earth shattering political news. Boris Johnson resigns as an MP under a burdensome vine of sour grapes. He’s followed by one or two of his lovers (in a strictly Platonic sense) of no consequence. Then we hear Nicola Sturgeon has been arrested. Something fishy going on there, and I look forward to reading Craig Murray’s blog on that subject, although he will naturally have to be very careful what he says. I must say in that regard perhaps this latest arrest of a top SNP person undermines Murray’s view that the Scottish justice system had been captured by the SNP. Any way, not to be outdone the UK’s leading party of cognitive dissonance ditched one of its key claims to being progressive, as Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves acknowledged that the City has a greater say in Labour’s policy formulation than the destruction of human civilisation, which is to say that the party’s commitment to spending £28 billion a year on the ‘green economic revolution’ has been ditched. And across the pond Trump faces 37 criminal charges and will be appearing in court next week. What exactly did he have mind when he shared those top secret nuclear plans with his janitor and bag man?
Oh, and Henry Kissinger has just celebrated his 100th birthday. At times like these I wish I was a conspiracy theorist. But I’m sure there will be plenty of people out there connecting all the dots . . . +Up until about a week ago, nobody had heard of Jamie Driscoll, the Labour executive mayor of North Tyneside. But now a lot more people have, thanks to his disbarment by Labour to get his name onto the shortlist for a newly created regional mayor candidacy in his area. By all accounts Driscoll has been successful in his last four years as mayor, but his crime, in the eyes of the anonymous puffed up pigeons who control these things, is that he shared a platform with Ken Loach, the film director who was expelled from Labour a while back for not toeing the party line. Other Labour mayors have come to Driscoll’s defence. That I’m sure will be held against them for future reference. This affair I think is one of the most dispiriting developments yet in the sorry tale of Keir Starmer’s pathetic ‘leadership.’ Purge, purge, purge—such things have always happened (I know from experience) but never on the industrial scale now mounted. Is this a formula for electoral success? I doubt it. Such moves test the patience of members who normally would throw themselves into the electoral battle. The only thing remaining to speak positively about is ‘Well, we could be a bit better than the Tories’ or—maybe wishful thinking here—Labour’s collective social conscience is stronger than theirs. It’s not a lot to go on, but it’s just sufficient to keep the spirit alive.
Frankly, despite the desire of candidates up and down the country to get local party members out door knocking, I suspect that the central party doesn’t care about that as much as what they can purchase on social media. It is clear that members can be a bit of nuisance, and may (horror upon horrors!) have independent views as to how society ought to be organised. Yesterday I referenced a quote taken from a book by Tom Baldwin, Ctrl Alt Delete. This book is invaluable in its dissection of the current decrepit nature of our politics, and I will return to it. I don’t think I have read a better account of how things are going, even if it was published five years ago. It charts a destructive curve we are still on—and which those in power don’t know how to escape. +Anyway, here’s another quote taken from Baldwin’s book that made me laugh out loud (for some reason): ‘One journalist, who insists on speaking anonymously, complains ‘I might ask Jeremy Corbyn about his position on Brexit and he’ll reply by saying ‘”Well, what I really want is world peace.” I’ll try again and he’ll say “I find it very strange you don’t seem interested in asking me about world peace.” You never know if the trolls will emerge– and what began as a perfectly reasonable question will end up with me then hating world peace.’ Which is to beg the question ‘What is the real question?’ As ever, in politics, the real question is too often beyond what is considered reasonable. Cheerio Jeremy! ‘There are truths that technology does not alter. The opinion polls throughout Ed’s leadership consistently showed that a majority of voters did not see him as a potential Prime Minister . . . You can have a targeted online and ground campaign, you can have 5 million conversations, but if people don’t believe or relate to the messenger or the message they are not going to be persuaded.’
So sayeth former Blair/Brown era cabinet minister Douglas Alexander (quoted in Ctrl Alt Delete, by Tom Baldwin, Hurst, London 2018 p.170). I couldn’t agree more, albeit with a caveat. Whilst technology may not make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear, I believe it does have a certain capacity to facilitate persuasion, and artificial intelligence will assist develop this capacity—by targeting a relatively small group of people who are persuadable, particularly in key swing seats. (I have written on this subject a bit more in Lobster Lobster Issue 86 (2023) - Lobster (lobster-magazine.co.uk)) But having somebody as leader who doesn’t look the part makes the whole job harder. Alexander was talking about Ed Miliband, but could just as easily have been talking of Jeremy Corbyn (peace be upon him). And today, why would the qualities of dullness, deviousness and divisiveness attract voters? We had a debate in our local Labour party last night about the place of negative campaigning in politics—arising from the ugly role social media played in a local by-election—and one view was quite persuasive that it influenced many voters. So, perhaps technology may not convince people about your positives, but it may serve well the demolition of your opponents. I seem to recall BT many years ago publishing research that showed bad news attracted much larger audiences than good news. Maybe this explains why our dull, devious and divisive leader has sought to personally attack Rishi Sunak. ‘His failings are bigger than mine!’ he seems to be saying. |
Archives
November 2024
|