+A brief visit to friends in Northern Ireland, where the general election has a different flavour. Or not. Five candidates' leaflets have dropped through the letter box on the same day. Three seem to be taking a cue from the deeply original title of Labour's manifesto 'Change.' Sinn Fein stands for 'Positive Change.' The SDLP simply say 'Vote for Change.' The Alliance Party are 'Leading Change.' TUV Reform UK's (TUV stands for ‘Traditional Unionist Voice’) double sided A3 leaflet doesn't use the word change once. The UUP candidate doesn't highlight the word but eventually suggests that he can 'break the current cycle to deliver positive change for you, your family and community.'
Although Reform UK if given half the chance will 'stand by the union' it would be interesting to see, if elected in any consequential number in Northern Ireland how on earth they would propose coming to any agreement with a Labour government on the border issue. Sloganising won't cut the mustard. The simplest way of solving the problem of course would be for the UK to rejoin the EU, and since a good majority of Northern Irish people voted against Brexit, then what a popular option that would be, eh? But no, Reform UK say no to EU law and the European Court. They want 'a full Brexit so that the United Kingdom in all its parts enjoys full independence and economic freedom.' Reform's pact with TUV clearly sends the signal that they are now the fully formed successor to the alliance between the UUP and the Tories. Perhaps we'll see more Tories going the way of Ann Widdecombe who features in their leaflet. There's no sign of Farage, maybe the leaflet was already at the printers before he changed his mind again and became leader. Sinn Fein's DL sized leaflet doesn't have the space to say very much at all, but I did have the opportunity of watching their leader Michelle O'Neill on the BBC show 'The View.' Michelle's face appears on the leaflet but it doesn't say who she is. I guess everybody knows her, she is after all Northern Ireland's new First Minister. Like many politicians who have said things in the past which they now don't wish to repeat, Michelle told her BBC interlocutor that her position now means she cannot repeat her justification for IRA violence during the Troubles. And her apology for deaths then now extends to all families on both sides of the divide. It's a bit like when our Jeremy was asked to condemn anti-Semitism, he always had to say he was against all racism. Which was true, but still somehow sounded evasive. Anyway, Michelle's main mission is to knock on the door of HM Treasury and demand more dosh for N.I. Join the queue. Take Rachel out for lunch at The Ivy! 'Dear Friend, This election is about change' says the SDLP. They're the first to mention Gaza 'Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza while others had pints in the White House.' I don't remember Starmer having pints in the White House. Perhaps it happened when he was on one of his hush-hush visits to get his secret instructions. Never mind, 'with Labour on course to form a new government after this election - SDLP MPs will have unrivalled influence to change things here for the better.' You bet! The UUP is fielding Richard Smart 'FOR A NEW START VOTE SMART' - do I detect a hint of the poet in Richard? I have to say he says nothing else that comes close to poetry. What was that saying? 'Campaign in poetry, govern in prose'? What he has to say could fit in anybody's middle of the road manifesto. I don't think he'll get in. The Alliance Party, which is possibly the only historically sensible choice in this election has a different Michelle smiling against a bright yellow background. She promises 'Delivering a Green New Deal,' ensuring climate action is at the heart of all levels of government.' I hope that means she would reject any suggestion that N.I. might get its first nuclear power station. For starters. Only she and Richard Smart have put QR images in their leaflets. I am writing from the constituency of Strangford, currently held by the DUP. A pity they couldn't get their act together to provide a leaflet at the same time as the others. Not the only one though. I'm without sight of the Greens, an Independent and the Tories who also it seems are standing. In 2019 the DUP had a majority of c.7,000 over the Alliance Party on a turnout of only 56% This is no doubt what psephologist John Curtice might call 'one to watch.' +It was a sad affair watching the final leader's shouting match on the Beeb. Sunak apparently thought he could get the better of things by repeatedly interrupting Starmer who stood there with a look of exasperation on his face, which made him look like he wasn't standing up for himself. Neither of them provided an image of the 'vision man thing,' which looking back on it Tony Blair did do in 1997 (yes I know, never mind the vision content, focus on the Vision Look). In so many ways these two just merged into each other. All we know for sure is that Sunak's dad wasn't a toolmaker. And Starmer's dad wasn't a pharmacist. If this was a game of football, Sunak's rudeness would win on possession. But goals don't rely entirely on possession (I have now exhausted my knowledge of football). If the audience was a representative sample of the British population then it was disappointing that not a single question directly addressed the issue of climate change. Is the issue of betting on the date of the election really worth the precious time devoted to it, or even 'hot' issues like trans rights? Are these the issues that will determine civilisation's future, or lack of it? It will have been a relief to both leaders that they didn't have to talk about climate change. We would have heard some of the biggest lies of all.
0 Comments
Spotlight on Blackburn, where the blogger and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray is on the ballot paper for George Galloway’s Workers’ Party. I’ve never been to Blackburn and know next to nothing about it—but in the local elections the issue of Gaza galvanised some in the Asian community to break from Labour, and it seems they initially backed Murray as their parliamentary candidate. He thought he had a good chance of winning. But now it seems he is retiring from the race (although his name will remain on the ballot paper). This appears to have happened after an independent Asian candidate challenged Murray for the Asian vote. It was decided that Murray should stand back after he lost on a toss of the coin as to who should champion the cause. There are two other independent candidates.
Blackburn has always been Labour, at least since 1955 when the seat was created. At the last election Labour’s candidate won with over 60% of the vote, and the Conservatives have always come second. So when it comes to predictions, my bet is that Labour will march home again, the Tories may lose their second place (a Reform candidate is standing) and the independents will mop up behind. The Gaza issue will undoubtedly play a role, but it is a single issue, and it may not be a determining factor for the 48% of Blackburn’s population that describe themselves as ‘ethnic white.’ I suspect the high levels of deprivation in Blackburn will play a more significant role. Craig Murray has stood here before, in 2005 against Jack Straw. He came fifth with 5% of the vote. It seems the Iraq war was not a determining issue for voters then. It seems that Craig is now a bit of a non-person for the Workers Party. Their candidates’ webpage still lists his name, but the his website link goes nowhere (below). Has Gorgeous George got that same ruthless streak as Our Great Leader? +The Evening Standard carries an interview with Jeremy Corbyn, that nice old gent who is standing in Islington North. One revealing bit: ‘It’s hard to get Corbyn to admit to mistakes as leader. “What I regret most was trusting in people who clearly were not going to be supportive or loyal,” he says. “I wish now I’d removed far more people from offices within the party… not so much Parliament, I can’t control that so easily — but within the party.”’ Yes indeed, he’s too nice for his own good. You do need a little bit of ruthlessness in politics. I have said before that one of Corbyn’s first acts as leader should have been to sack the General Secretary (or as we call it, giving him a peerage). But Corbyn left things too late, and the party hierarchy assiduously worked to undermine him. For Corbyn to say that he trusted these people suggests that he was rather credulous—surely he must have known beforehand that he couldn’t trust them? John McDonnell I doubt would have had any qualms. And he always looked comfortable wearing a suit. Having said which, I hope Corbyn wins his seat, so we can all look forward to his first question to shape shifter Starmer in Prime Minister’s Questions. +Yesterday I may have sounded a wee bit sceptical about Labour’s vision of insulating five million homes. That scepticism stems partly from my own experience as a councillor trying to promote the Tories’ warm homes scheme. It was a crap scheme, but one had to try. It didn’t work and the scheme was dropped, albeit without the fanfare with which it was launched. Here I will look at another home insulation issue. The BBC’s You and Yours programme the other day reported how some guy had fallen for the spray foam insulation sales talk and has now faced multiple problems. Coincidentally I saw this ad (left) on clickbait. £1,500 off! If you are eligible. There’s a subtle hint in the word ‘eligible’ that there’s a formal, perhaps even official test of criteria. It suggests of course that some people may not be eligible. But whose insulation service is being advertised? Actually, nobody’s in particular. This is merely a lead-generating marketing campaign, run by a company called Desquared Marketing Ltd. If you fill in their online ‘eligibility’ test, they will no doubt then forward your name to several companies that subscribe to their service. If you go ahead, your ‘voucher’ will be applied to the final cost. It is inconceivable of course that a quoted price might already have factored in the ‘discount.’ A search on Google ‘how good is spray foam insulation?’ brought up first an advert for a company based in Cambridgeshire (below). So, there’s clearly an issue with spray foam insulation, or perhaps more to the point I suspect with some spray foam installers. I cannot say whether it is a good or bad thing—the point here is that home insulation carries its own risks to the unwary. The big question is how will Labour ensure that its home insulation scheme is thoroughly regulated and policed? It seems these days, thinking of the PPE scandal that people with no experience or qualifications can get in on the act, with the taxpayer picking up the tab. Will there be independent regulators, or will the industry be allowed to mark its own homework? +Today I’m looking at Labour’s manifesto to see what it says about foreign policy and defence. Will this be a weak point, given Starmer’s worse than hopeless stance on issues like Gaza, and his abject, unquestioning obeisance to the Atlanticist dogma? It seems that come what may, Labour is determined to spend 2.5% of GDP (a meaningless figure) on defence—merely to match the Tories’ pledge. At the same time, Labour is committed to having a strategic defence review, so it seems the money is to be found before we even know what it’s to be spent on, excepting, of course the nuclear ‘deterrent’ which Starmer has pledged to use. So that’ll take up a good slice of the 2.5% What’s the point of having a defence review? It’s just an excuse to kick the can down the road. What, after all, would be the outcome if the review found that our army was 50% understaffed and maybe needed a 25% pay upgrade to boost recruitment? Nothing much, guaranteed. What would happen to the grip the defence industry has on the MoD, with their inflated estimates and cost overruns? I say put a former RAF supplier accountant (me) in charge and root out the cosy relationships which I doubt any Labour defence minister will dare tackle, as they credulously soak in the executive wisdom of one of our greatest exporters, BAE Systems (and make no mistake, defence manufacturing will play an important part in Labour’s manufacturing growth agenda). So I would dare to suggest that in the field of defence, Labour represents no change whatsoever. Our rundown armed forces (as opposed to Trident) will continue to deteriorate.
Labour’s foreign policy can be summed up as ‘my friends right or wrong.’But in the context of the Palestinian struggle, ameliorative words have to be spoken to try to stem the flow of support for pro-Palestinian candidates in the election. Thus the manifesto says: ‘Long-term peace and security in the Middle East will be an immediate focus. Labour will continue to push for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the upholding of international law, and a rapid increase of aid into Gaza. Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.’ A ’viable Palestinian state?’ This could only mean (if sincere) the removal of all illegal settlements on the West Bank and a return to the 1967 borders—something which the Zionists will not accept in a million years. Nor is it actually clear whether a Labour government would recognise Palestine immediately or tie it into some ongoing ’peace process.’ Which comes first? Given Israel’s recent condemnation of e.g. Norway and Ireland for recognising Palestinian statehood I really can’t see Starmer breaking away from his Zionist supporters to follow suit. Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy talks about ’progressive pragmatism’ or some such twaddle. This amounts to nothing more than ’we won’t step out of line’ or what one might call the Bilderberg Consensus. +Putin’s visit to North Korea ended with an exchange of gifts. Putin received a tea set and Kim Jong-un was given a Russian luxury limo. As I write the limo will be stripped down as the search for bugs proceeds. And maybe the tea set will be chipped too, so to speak. With my feet in a hot bowl of water and an ice pack on my forehead, I am ready to dig further into Labour’s manifesto. Today it’s the turn of energy policy. On this front it would be very hard to do any worse than the Tories, who egregiously seem to be back tracking even on their climate change targets. But of course we’ve seen Labour backtracking too, dumping its £28 billion per annum spend on green things in favour of £8.3 billion on ‘Great British Energy’ (GBE) over five years and £6 billion on home insulation over the same period, which it seems will help pay for five million homes to be insulated. As I have blogged before, there is a great danger that the lion’s share of any public investment in energy will be gobbled up by current and new nuclear power stations. Hydrogen also gets a few mentions amongst the new technologies to benefit from public investment—there’s a clear connection here with nuclear power, which in all probability will generate the electricity needed to create hydrogen. Hydrogen has to be created in sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile, especially for fuelling transport. I doubt that the timescales involved will have much bearing on reducing carbon emissions as soon as the manifesto writers would wish. Another technology is our old friend carbon capture and storage (C&C). C&C has been knocking on politicians’ doors for decades (indeed, going back to the days of the Miners’ Strike Arthur Scargill was always banging on about 'clean coal'), but to my knowledge hasn’t been rolled out on a commercial scale anywhere. The technology certainly exists, but to make it cost efficient is another story. I am also sceptical about the five million home insulation promise, at least if we’re talking about older properties. Put simply, unless there is some form of compulsion involved, take-up will be a challenge. Nowhere in Labour’s climate change commitments is there a mention of behaviour change. The idea is that we will reach our ’net zero’ targets without anybody noticing a thing. Therein lies the danger.
One idea in the manifesto that seems not to have attracted much attention is this: ‘Labour supports the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism. This will protect British industries as we decarbonise, prevent countries from dumping lower-quality goods into British markets, and support the UK to meet our climate objectives.’ This would be a turnaround from the days when a Labour environment minister (Joan Ruddock) didn’t seem to comprehend that by offshoring much of our manufacturing to places like China our carbon emissions could be presented as falling. Now—if this proposal is enacted - there will have to be some way of measuring carbon emissions from imports. Somebody is going to have to come up with an international framework to fairly apportion emissions. Without such a framework we would inevitably be drawn into accusations of protectionism, and a trade war would be the result. As well as higher prices for imported goods, of course. I wonder who wrote this paragraph? Have they worked out the likely consequences? +Where to start with Labour’s manifesto? I think we need to start with what it says about democracy: the foundation of everything that is said and done to earn votes. The manifesto says ‘Labour has been transformed from a party of protest to one that always puts the interests of the country first. Now we are determined to do the same with our politics, returning government to the service of working people. This will require a reset in our public life; a clean-up that ensures the highest standards of integrity and honesty.’ Apart from reminding us that he is a toolmaker’s son, these words are at the core of Starmer’s message. To do what he says he’s going to do, he has to ensure ‘the highest standards of integrity and honesty.’ It barely needs repeating that he has failed these tests multiple times over the last four years. There is something of the headmaster in Starmer (he looks like one) when we’re told ‘British people are understandably cynical about appeals to come together in the national interest. But the challenges we face demand nothing less – it is the lifeblood of national renewal. This plan recognises that politics must make the first move in repairing that bond.’ ’Coming together’ in Starmer’s world has so far meant little more than carrying out the largest programme of purges in the Labour Party’s history. ‘Coming together’ here means being ‘one of us,’ in Thatcher’s famous phrase. Not a good start.
What else appears in the chapter entitled ’Serving the People?’ A few long overdue reforms of the House of Lords, such as getting rid of the remaining hereditary peers is, well, long overdue. A retirement age of 80 might also be a start in cutting the size of the upper house, but there’s no suggestion that Prime Ministerial patronage is to be ended, so as soon as some peers are ousted they are sure to be replaced. I am confident Starmer will want to use that power asap. Abolition of the Lords? Someday, never. Proportional representation for Westminster elections? Not a hope. If Starmer hopes to address public cynicism then he needs to think again. This won’t cut the mustard. More on the manifesto soon! +Trust in politics? Let’s return to our friend Roberto Weeden-Sanz, the Tory carpetbagger for the Scarborough and Whitby constituency. His refreshing comment in his leaflet that ‘Too often it feels like we are forgotten at the end of the A64. We need an MP who will enthusiastically champion the coast and our community’ sounds like a fitting tribute to his predecessor the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Goodwill, Conservative MP. Truth to power! But sadly our celebration of Roberto’s implicit criticism of Robert cannot last. He doesn’t seem to want to level with us about his background. He says ‘My family are from just north of Leeds and having spent much of my career working for a youth charity in London, I now live in Scarborough and work at a local café in Scalby.’ I imagine his volunteering ‘for years at a soup kitchen’ has prepared him well for that job. Elsewhere he has said that three generations of his family were in farming, but he doesn’t specify in which country, since his mother is Spanish. In fact as regards his parents it seems they were as near to farming as I am to performing in a rodeo in Wyoming. His mother worked at Santander bank and his father was an accountant. In London, which is where Roberto went to school, Latymer no less. The phrase ‘much of my career’ may also be usefully examined, since as he’s only about 30 years old Roberto’s career has hardly been formed. Did he choose youth charity work before or after he went into banking? Perhaps CV building came into it. Who knows? Here in Scarborough we have a Tory candidate called Roberto Weeden-Sanz, who claims to have descended from three generations of Yorkshire farming families. So he has, if you like a fair claim to being a Tyke. I’m willing to bet that if he was standing in Pontypridd he would have an equal claim to Welsh ancestors and ditto any seat in Scotland. Roberto in the meantime will be hoping that nobody clocks that he is a Kensington and Chelsea Borough councillor (hence his claim that he is a ‘local councillor’) and that he part owns a freehold property in London. All this on the wages of someone who says he works in a café at Scarborough Rugby Club! He skates over his other work in banking. Telling the ‘whole truth’ should be part of a legally binding oath all parliamentary candidates should take. Perhaps the same standard should be applied to party manifestos too.
Wasn’t there a party called ‘Change UK?’ Has that defunct volcanic political pimple somehow taken over the Labour Party? I fear so. Anyway, after a brief sojourn in the Lake District, where there are more Tim Farron/LibDem posters than sheep (and why shouldn’t they have a say?) I am about to take a look at Labour’s manifesto, launched today. It appears the debate will be turning on taxation. Starmer is quoted in the Telegraph saying ‘Yes, we want to bear down properly on the non-dom tax status and make sure the super-rich pay their fair share in this country.’ Fair share? Pull the other one! It’s not just about foreigners taking the piss (so to speak, sorry to be vulgar.) How about our home grown super rich too, Sir Keir?
We’ve had the five missions, the six pledges (or was it the other way round?) and now we’ve got Labour’s spin on the triple lock. We pensioners love the triple lock, but this one’s different: no rises in income tax, national insurance or VAT, for the duration of the whole of the next parliament. Talk about locking yourself in. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests this triple lock will mean more significant cuts to public services. Since there will be no change to tax allowances, there will of course be an increase in the income tax take, without recourse to increasing tax rates, so the latest pledge is a bit of a ruse, so far as that goes. So, apart from some of the modest income raising schemes Labour has (ending nom-dom status, ending VAT exemption on private education, etc.) what could Labour do to raise money? I would like to suggest a ‘bandit tax.’
The bandit tax would be a tax raised on assets whose value has been artificially inflated thanks to quantitive easing (QE; since 2008/9 QE has amounted to £895 billion). One person who knows about these things had this to say about QE: "The particular form of QE benefits above all banks who have lots of assets - which are inflated by QE and people with assets generally [including] people in the property market, people who own companies, people in investment management like me," says hedge fund boss Sir Paul Marshall. "Owners of assets have all made out like bandits." ( ‘They were like bandits’ - how did the rich get richer? - BBC News ) As Marshall suggests, it’s not just the banks that have done well from QE, but as the main recipients of this largesse they should face higher windfall taxes (the LibDems have suggested this). Dare I say asset owners generally have benefited for doing bugger all. It might be hard for HMRC to directly distinguish between a QE bonus and a general appreciation of asset value, so the simplest solution would be to use Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to reap back something from unearned rewards. CGT should at least be levied at the same rates as income tax, but with much higher rates for the biggest gainers. Applied correctly, increasing CGT would not affect the majority of people. Funnily enough the Tories this year halved the CGT allowance and it barely seems to have raised an eyebrow. Most people will not be affected. If Labour were intent on tackling the wealth inequality gap, a bandit tax could fit the bill. I very much doubt Ms Reeves will go down that road. A lot of very rich people are now backing Labour. When I was researching my book on Tory party financing (Price of Power: The secret funding of the Tory Party, Vision, 1998) I came across a wholly opaque group of funders—unincorporated groups with names like Midlands Industrial Advisory Council, Northern Industrialists Protection Association or the United and Cecil Club. These outfits had no need to register anywhere and could channel money to the party whilst preserving donors’ anonymity. Within certain ineffectual rules, unincorporated associations still carry on funnelling money to the Tories. Labour on the other hand got much if not most of its money from the highly regulated trade unions, forced by Thatcher to hold regular members’ political fund ballots. I wonder if this asymmetry may be about to end. Many of the Tory clubs were self-described as ‘dining’ clubs. Now Labour has the ‘West Midlands Breakfast Club,’ (WMBC) which in the first quarter of this year donated £130,530 putting it in the top twenty donors of that period. Expensive breakfasts, those. The WMBC has a website which consists entirely of a single home page with its logo, a telephone number and an email address.
I sent an email to them: ‘I am wondering who you are and how you are funded. Thank you.’ I quickly got a reply from someone called Stephen Goldstein: ‘It is a non for profit group that meets on a regular basis. All members pay a subscription and initially, it was to support Richard Parker who successfully elected Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority. If you could send us your phone number, we could give you a call to discuss further.’ I replied: ’My only other question is whether you publish your accounts?’ and Mr Goldstein replied ‘we haven't yet published our accounts as our group is less than a year old.’ This may suggest the accounts will be published, but since unincorporated associations have no legal filing requirements, we’ll have to wait and see what if anything emerges. Immediately one can see the problem with this—it means that during an election period the original source of the money remains hidden. Starmer used a not dissimilar methodology to conceal the origin of donations to his leadership campaign. All this is perfectly legal, whether it’s ethical is another matter. Politico has a very good article on the subject of political donations from unincorporated associations, available here Britain’s political parties are quietly raking in millions. No one will say where it’s coming from – POLITICO . We’ll have to see whether the WMBC is setting a precedent for Labour. If it is, it is just another step backwards. |
Archives
October 2024
|