Local election autopsy

download

With the local election results in, they make for grim reading for labour. They lost several mayoral election and 382 council seats. Should anyone doubt the disaster Corbyn is leading the party into, well here’s the evidence. Indeed you could tell it was bad by the fact that even before the counting had even started labour was already making excuses and had essentially already conceded defeat.

Firstly, the good news, UKIP were more or less wiped out, losing all but one of their seats. This to be honest isn’t that surprising, given that the Tories have spent the last few years turning themselves into UKIP. Voting for UKIP was always a protest, hence why they tended to do well in local elections or EU elections with low turn outs. However, once people had a UKIP councillor and realised what a total nob they’d voted for, they are forced to confront the fact that they voted for local government paralysis. The end result was they were always going to do badly in any election where people spent any longer than 5 seconds deciding who to vote for.

C_GDtC9XcAQh61Q.jpg

Also it should be remembered that the far right parties in the UK (and the rest of Europe) do go through this cycle of doing well, then fighting with each other, imploding, only for another head of the hydra to rise up. Many UKIP members, including Farage himself are ex-members of the National Front or the BNP. So I fear rumours of the far right’s death in the UK are greatly exaggerated. Even if UKIP do now implode, I won’t be surprised if another racist party comes along to take their place, with basically the same people in it.

But back to labour, let us look at four areas, in Glasgow they lost control of the council to the SNP (thanks to a strong swing away from them towards the Tories), in Methyr a similar thing happened, and they lost two Mayoral elections in Teeside and the West Midlands.

Labour losing in Glasgow to the Tories? WTF! Seriously! This is the sort of town where even the Unionists don’t vote Tory. I recall a past EU parliament election where the Tories got just 2,500 votes. By law of averages, half of those were probably spoilt ballot papers. And most of the locals would see that many Tory votes as a reason to form an angry mob and hunt these Tory bastards down and run them out of town. When Thatcher died there was actually a party held in George’s square. Well under Corbyn, labour are now losing elections in Glasgow.

And they also lost control of Methyr Tydfil, the constituency of the labour party’s founder, down in the Welsh valleys. This area was devastated by the miners strike, so if you want to die quickly, go into a bar in Methyr and say something positive about Thatcher. I used to live down the valley from here and one of the reasons why they had to burn Thatcher rather than bury her, was because many of the miners in this part of the world were threatening to go and dance on her grave (or piss on her grave). So they’d have needed to build a dance hall and public toilet on her grave site! But labour now can’t defend seats in a place like this.

However, it is Teeside and the West Midlands that have me most worried. Here labour lost Mayoral elections they should have easily won. Both these areas saw a strong leave vote in the EU referendum (not everywhere, but in certain parts) and Corbyn’s whole justification for his brexit strategy is to keep voters in districts like this on side. And, much as I’ve been warning for some time now, its a strategy that has comprehensively failed. Labour support has gone down, not up. There was a swing in these districts towards the lib dems too (remainers turned off by Corbyn’s pro-leave rhetoric), although they didn’t win that many seats (overall they lost seats thanks to the strong swing to the Tories).

For those unfamiliar with Teeside or the West Midlands, these areas include a large number of people who I would describe as “working class social conservatives”. These are the sort of people who don’t like change, who are insular and suspicious of foreigners, go to church regularly and by and large they don’t really buy into the labour party’s socialist leanings, yet they still vote labour. They do so because they have bitter memories of the unholy mess Thatcher inflicted on them. The West Midlands is fairly multicultural, with a wide variety of ethnic groups, Irish, Nigerian, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc. Again, quite a lot of these would be regular church (or Mosque) attenders, they tend to be socially conservative, but they have also historically voted labour. And they do so because they are well aware of the racist undercurrents within the Tory party. The Tories might think that when they dog whistle with a nod and a wink nobody except their racists allies hear them. Well I’m afraid we all hear it. Hence why large blocks of people in the UK have historically voted labour, even those whom you would otherwise put in the “conservative” camp.

So what worries me, is that I would see these results as a sign that these communities, faced with the choice between UKIP-lite and a hard left Corbyn, are opting for the Tories. As they see it the choice is to be either shot by Corbyn’s red brigades or poisoned by May’s hard brexit. And they are opting for the poison, after all maybe they can find a cure to that later. And it is in districts like this, but with a stronger Tory base, where the general election will be fought. In short if labour is losing in these four districts in the local elections, areas where historically they won’t even need to bother campaigning, well what chance do they stand in other areas where support for them is historically only marginal?

And the response from Corbyn and his supporters? To make excuses and blame everything and everybody, the voters for a low turn out (actually a low turn out tends to benefit the smaller parties, not the bigger parties or the governing party), the Tories, the lib dems, even accusing his own party of disloyalty. Much as a bad tradesman blames his tools a bad leader blames his rotten luck and his own staff for his failings. A truly awful boss blames his customers (or voters). Is it fair the Tories are holding an election now? No, but in warfare you rarely get to chose the time and place of battle, fate or the enemy chooses it for you. Politics is much the same.

C943oK7XsAAdzQo

And if staff are disloyal, well that does kind of suggests you ain’t very good at the job of being a leader. Only a bad leader spends all his days accusing his staff of disloyalty. As I’ve pointed out before its not Corbyn’s left wing views that are the issue. Most labour MP’s are not secret Blairites, Tories in all but name, with Thatcher tee-shirts under their suits (as Corbyn would have you believe). I’ve met MP’s before and most are actually fairly left wing, maybe not as left wing as Corbyn, but certainly more to the left than your average person. What puts them off Corbyn is that they see him as unelectable and utterly clueless when it comes to running a political party.

Case in point, the tale of lieutenant Sobel. He was the drill instructor who took easy company (of band of Brothers fame) through basic training. By all accounts he was tough on his trainees and drill them rigorously. Many veterans credit him with preparing them well for combat in Normandy. However, he was hopeless as a field commander. During training exercises in England, he got his men lost, marched the company into an obvious ambush and worse still he refused to listen to advice from others (a bit like Corbyn). As a result, on the eve of D-day, all of his NCO’s simultaneously resigned and requested transfers (again a bit like the labour party under Corbyn!). The Army promptly replaced him. Which might seem harsh, but if a leader is looking over his shoulder and questioning his men’s loyalty and the troops are starting to question his orders, before they’ve even made contact with the enemy, the worse thing you could do is send them into combat. That would be leading lambs to the slaughter.

And its kind of the same with labour. Corbyn has some excellent qualities. He’s a good orator and he’s good at calling out the Tories lies and hypocrisy. If I wanted to organise a protest, he’s the person to call. But he’s not a leader. While it might seem crazy for labour to change leader so close to an election, the truth is labour is doing badly because they don’t have a leader and haven’t had one for nearly a year.

In short labour faces a choice between two unpleasant, but distinctly different post-election scenarios. One where Corbyn remains leader, leads the party to its worse defeat in living memory and the Tories win with a landslide that exceeds Tony Blair. He then refuses to go and leads labour into political annihilation and obscurity, probably sinking left wing politics in the UK for a generation. Or he resigns, the party deputy leader takes over, they get a poll bounce and while I doubt they could win, they might just cut down that Tory majority. And that’s crucial because the smaller the Tory majority, the more leeway labour has to prevent a hard far right brexit.

Advertisements

Gibraltar and article 50

gibraltar

Brexit threatens to make a monkey out of the UK

The EU’s response to article 50 was fairly conciliatory and to be honest about as good as the UK could expect. If the EU wanted to be nasty, they could have taken the opportunity to pull funding from all EU farm subsidies, university research and development aid to the UK for all projects that would end post-brexit. Then slap all UK students in EU universities with a massive bill for their fees and ex-pats with fees for healthcare costs. They could have given MEP’s the day off, stopped Farage’s salary packed him off on the Eurostar home, handed out bottles of Champagne and declared a new EU wide holiday “so long suckers day”. But they didn’t.

But instead the plan seems to be to sort out the exit from the EU first then talk about a trade deal. This is as good as the UK is going to get. As one MEP pointed out, brexit is in of its self painful enough (self inflicted) punishment, the EU doesn’t have to be nasty. As for the Theresa May’s plan to essentially play chicken and brinkmanship with the EU, this is the equivalent of her driving towards the EU in a mini cooper, while the EU is in a truck driving towards her. And given that the EU has to balance out the consensus of 27 member states, its a truck that’s on cruise control. The EU won’t blink first. The eurozone crisis should have made that fairly obvious.

Of course the bit that got the tabloids worked up was how the EU appears to be backing Spain over Gibraltar. This is hardly surprising. Put yourself in the EU’s shoes. Suppose your a boss of a company, two employees are in dispute with one another over something. One is one of those nightmare employees who is always causing problems, who fortunately has already given his notice. The other is not your most dedicated employee, but he’s certainly loyal and generally pulls his weight. Who are you going to back up?

Personally, while I understand why Gibraltar’s citizens want to be part of the UK, I can’t understand why the UK wants with Gibraltar (I’m told by ex-pats its a grotty little tourist trap), nor what Spain wants with it either. Personally, I’d try and sell it to Morocco or some gullible Saudi sheik. However, Gibraltar’s post-brexit status does hammer home the sorts of issues the UK will face post-brexit. If the UK wants to maintain air links with Gibraltar, that will require EU agreement. So everything will have to take a week long sea voyage there or go through Spain (or possibly even Morocco). If the UK imposes strict border controls on the EU, then the EU will reciprocate, Gibraltar citizens will need a visa just to go into Spain to go shopping and visa versa. Trade and tourism will collapse. Leaving the EU common market and suddenly all the food and resources the colony needs gets slapped with tariffs ranging from 10-30%. In short, unless the rest of the UK is willing to pay a lot of money to subsidise Gibraltar, it will become non-viable pretty quicly. The locals will all leave and the UK will own a ghost town.

Naturally fighting talk about going to war to protect Gibraltar is just plain silly and shows how far divorced from reality the brexiters have strayed. Are they seriously proposing to attack a NATO ally because the Spanish make Gibraltar pay an extra 20% more for olive oil and they make the locals fill out the same sort of visa application form the British make Spanish fill out upon arrival at Heathrow?

But the thing is this will apply to the whole of the UK as well, Gibraltar is merely a microcosm of the problem. Any immigration controls or restrictions on free movement of people or goods, will be reciprocated by the EU. Smugglers, both those on the Irish border and the channel ports will be having a field day. An interesting article for example about the lengths smugglers of tea would go to in days gone by to outwith the tax man.

Furthermore, given that Spain has now indicated that it won’t block Scotland joining the EU, this suggests a secret horse trade has gone on. The EU has given Spain some leeway over Gibraltar, in return for which they will not object to Scotland joining the EU in the event of a yes vote. I warned before that if Tories plan to rely on “the Spanish option” to block Scottish independence, that’s not going to work….of course if Gibraltar really wants to put the cat among the pigeons, the thing to do would be to vote to join Scotland (they’d get to join the EU again and piss off the Spanish!).

But certainly if you heard a popping noise this Friday that was the sound of the brexiters bubble bursting. It should be obvious now that they are not in the driving seat. The UK’s options are to take the best deal the EU offers them, or screw the country over by exiting without a deal. Which isn’t much of a choice.

EU collapse fantasies

theresa_may_the_brexit_negotiations__tjeerd_royaards-564x391

Press brexiters on the fact that they’ll get a worse deal outside the EU than inside it, they’ll go into denial, why would the EU cut itself off from its main trading partners…..well largely because you dickheads voted for brexit! Case in point, UK airlines have now been warned they’ll need to move their base and refinance such that they are majority EU owned and based, if they want access to EU airspace. David Davis himself more or less conceded this week, that yes, the UK will be worse off. At this point, forced to accept that yes, it is all but inevitable that the UK is going to get a pretty raw deal, they’ll mumble something about how the EU will probably collapse anyway. This fantasy of the EU crumbling, just because the UK leaves, tells us a lot about brexiters.

Firstly I would have to agree that the EU as an institution has never been more vulnerable. I’d rate the chances of it falling apart at about 25%. Now if you’re a eurocrat, that’s a pretty scary thought, a 1 in 4 chance of the EU breaking up. That’s a big red warning light that should be going off in Brussels. Certainly the need for reform of the EU post-brexit is urgent. Unfortunately for the brexiters, this reform will likely involve making it more democratically accountable (e.g. an elected EU president), more centralisation of certain powers (including possibly NATO) and to balance that all out, more regional autonomy with perhaps a multi-speed Europe. In short, everything brexiters don’t want to happen.

But that still leaves a 75% chance that the EU will survive this crisis. Part of the problem the brexiters don’t understand is that getting another country to leave the EU, aside from Greece and Italy (who many in the EU want to leave!), isn’t going to be easy. Much was made by the Daily Mail of the “success” of the Dutch and French fascist parties recently, with them leading opinion polls. Unfortunately, leading an opinion poll in most cases means getting just 25-30% of the vote.

While in Britain the Tories won a majority with the support of only 37% of the vote, things are a little fairer in Holland and most EU states with proportional representation. You want a majority, then you need 50% of the votes (which the Tories haven’t gotten in decades), about half of what the Dutch fascists are currently getting. The chances of Le Pen winning a run off, even if the other candidate was a potted plant, is somewhere between slim and zero.

And even if they could win an election and put an exit from the EU on the ballot, its not quite as straight forward as it was in the UK. The UK is also leaving the EU on the basis of support from only 37% of the electorate (the 70% turn out times the 52% support in the referendum), closer to 27% if we factor in the many millions of EU citizens and UK citizens living abroad who were denied the right to vote in the referendum. In most of the rest of the EU, the idea that 37-27% of the electorate (most of them old geriatrics who’ll be dead before brexit goes through) is not democracy, its perversion of democracy. Generally election rules in these countries would require something as radical as leaving the EU to gain +50% support (i.e. a majority of the electorate, not a plurality of those who showed up on the day). Its doubtful you could get that in the UK, so even less so in the rest of the EU.

Screenshot_25_06_2016_11_07.png

Hence the brexiters are likely to be disappointed to learn that the EU will likely survive. And in fact, that’s just as well because its better for the UK that there is an EU. If there’s a worse case scenario than a hard brexit from the EU, its a hard brexit and then the EU breaking up shortly thereafter. That means the UK has to go and negotiate deals with each of the 27 member countries, and they’ll all have a host of competing agendas. We might get a trade deal with Germany for auto parts, by conceding on allowing free movement of German citizens into the UK, only for the French to slap a 25% tariff on all car parts travelling through their ports unless we rebrand Cheddar Cheese la merde anglais.

Indeed, this is precisely the problem with brexit, it involves the UK delegating important decisions to Brussels (or Washington and Bejing), fooling itself that its taking control, but leaving it up to the EU to be the responsible grown up and pass all the regulations and laws that will ultimately govern UK trade. So by conjuring up such EU breakup fantasies, what the brexiters betray is that they have no plan, no big idea.

And also by pandering to such EU breakup fantasies they show that they simply do not care. They don’t care that people are losing their jobs (e.g. Heriot Watt just announced 100 jobs to go and put the blame squarely on brexit), they don’t care that young people are now migrating in droves (the talk among my students seems to be where to immigrate to after graduation, given the lack of graduate places), or British citizens with an EU spouse are being forced to leave the country. They don’t care that people have lost money due to the collapse in the pound, with prices now gradually creeping up with inflation rates going up.

Granted they probably will start to care when they realise they can’t afford retirement anymore and that many of the retirement perks the government showers on the grey vote are starting to be withdrawn. Case in point, many councils can no no longer afford to pay for elderly care homes anymore and there are chronic staffing shortages, so services are starting to be withdrawn. And with the son or grandson the old brexiters were relying on to look after them in old age having now immigrated, they’ll find there’s nobody left in the country to look after them. And I can’t say I’ll have much sympathy.

And given that polls do show that people will not accept a hard brexit or any deal that leaves the country worse off, its very likely that either parliament might come under pressure to reject the deal Theresa May gets (and remain in the EU). Or in a decade or two (once all the old racists have died off), its possible that another referendum will be held and the UK will rejoin the EU.

In short, this brexiters EU collapse fantasy is essentially an admission that they know they’ve screwed themselves and the country over for ideological reasons, just so they message their fragile egos. Is the equivalent of some fool who burnt his house down for the insurance money, but the company refused to pay, so now they want everyone else to burn their houses down too just so they can feel a little less foolish.

Brexit review – 5 months on

139_181312-1024x776

Its about 5 months since the referendum, so where are we in terms of brexit? Well, if leaks from Whitehall are to be believed, nowhere. Theresa May claims that she’s come up with a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who won most cunning in show five times in a row. Only those leaks suggest that five months of work has actually produced…..nothing.

4865

Like a school kid who constantly refuses to do her chores because she says she’s working on her homework, we’ve now seen inside Theresa May’s schoolbook and there’s nothing there but a few doodles. There is no grand master plan for brexit and their probably never will be. A country of 60 million does not get to dictate terms to a continent of 500 million, we’ll get what we’re offered and we’ll have to take it.

And we can’t even guess what sort of brexit we’re going to get, the government’s apparent position sways between the hardest of hard brexits, the laughably delusional statements of Boris to more recently Theresa May implying to the CBI she’ll go for the softest of soft brexits and may take more than the two years to happen as she’ll try to negotiate a transition deal. In short brexit means brexit seems to mean whatever the Tories reckon will placate whichever audience they are talking too.

About the only certainty we can have about the brexit process is that the Tories will inevitably use it to go after hard won environmental protections and labour laws designed to protect the very “JAM” families they now pretend to be the champions of.

And what are labour up too? Why aren’t they trying to stop the Tories? Well because with Corbyn in charge they are a rudderless ship. Both he and the “muesli” brexiters in labour also want brexit, as they hope they can rebuild their socialist workers paradise on the ashes of the mess the Tories leave behind. Of course they’ll never get the chance to do so given the impossibility of them winning the next election.

Which brings us to the supreme court ruling due next month. Theresa May’s strategy here seems to be that of the typical arrogant Tory, assume you’ll get your way (ya that worked well in the referendum didn’t it!) and then run around in a panic when you don’t and blame others for the mess you waded straight into. Her plan B is to put a three line piece of legislation to parliament. That would be little short of an insult to the democratic process. The most important bill in recent UK history cannot be three lines long. Not least because such a bill would be too opaque and at risk of further court challenges.

czwn5ftwiaack6y

And keep in mind what parliament really wants here is to be consulted about the brexit process. They aren’t comfortable with the idea of turning Theresa May into an all seeing and all knowing dictator for some ill defined period and parliament reduced to that of a debating club. The government says they can’t involve parliament, because that would give away our (entirely non-existent) strategy. Well there’s a simple horse trade there, have a closed session of parliament and tell MP’s what Theresa May’s “bloody good idea” is. Then vote on article 50. Of course they won’t do that (because she doesn’t actually have a plan), and therefore there’s a chance of defeat in the commons. I’m doubtful the lords would endorse such a bill, as it would essentially be a case of the PM trying to cynically get around a court order. If the lords say no, then that puts a delay of at least 6 months to a year onto the process.

And the SNP and Northern Ireland assembly also want it determined if that have some say in the process. If the court says yes then that delays brexit yet further, or at worst kills it stone dead (or at least until after a border poll in Northern Ireland and an 2nd indyref in Scotland, this one called by Westminster).

And what is the state of the public finances? Well the guess is that we’re looking at a £122 billion hole in country’s finances, much of which will have to be borrowed. Its now likely the UK debt will exceed 90% of GDP by the next election (a level unseen since 1964) and likely exceed the symbolically important point of 100% within the next decade. And as former Chancellor Alastair Darling has pointed out this is arguably a hard problem to fix than he faced in the financial crisis . That was a temporary blip, this is an ongoing crisis that can only be stopped by massive public spending cuts or a significant hike in taxes.

And of course there’s the Trump factor. Some Tories were secretly hoping he’d win, as that would make things easy for the UK. But much as I warned, no, the only think we can be sure about trump is that he’s unpredictable. He’s now trying to instruct the Queen as to who she should pick as her Ambassador to the US. And his first instructions to Farage? go sort out those Scottish windfarms. Yes Trump things he’s entitled to dictate the energy policy of Scotland. And this is the great white hope of the brexiters!

Nigel Farage, the interim leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) holds a platter of Ferrero Rocher chocolates during a party in London

You’re ambassador, lord Farage will see you now

Actually my guess is that Trump may not be in power by the time negotiating with the Americans comes up, he’ll likely have been impeached or had a little “accident” before then. I still say there’s an outside chance he won’t even be inaugurated, especially with allegations of voter fraud now swirling. Bottom line, you can’t rely on the Americans to bail you out, they’ve got bigger problems to deal with.

Given all of the above you would question the logic of pushing ahead with the aggressive timetable Theresa May has set. It would make far more sense to now delay the brexit process for at least a year in my view. Trigger it say in 2018 instead. This would give time for the legislative hurdles to be dealt with and for the government to actually come up with a strategy and consult parliament about that process. Also the fact is that 2017 is not a good time to be negotiating such a thing, there’s elections in Germany and France this year and possibly in Italy too. We’re not going to get anything sensible out of the EU because they have no idea who will be in charge of these countries in 6 months time. Waiting a year would give time to resolve this, talks when they do start, will be at a much swifter pace.

Of course the downside to delaying brexit, the whole reason why Theresa May is insisting on her current strategy is that this would mean the 2020 elections would straddle the brexit process. We’ll be voting on the next parliament about the same time brexit talks are winding up. My response is, good that’ sounds like an excellent idea. It gets around calls within her own party and the lib dems for a 2nd vote on the terms of brexit. If you like the deal she’s got, vote Tory, if you don’t vote labour, if you’d rather stay in the EU after all vote lib dem, if you want hard brexit and become airstrip one of the Trump empire vote UKIP.

So if’s that simple you may enquire why is Theresa May going out of her way to avoid this? After all the poll suggest she’ll likely win the next election anyway. Well the answer is very simple, I suspect if we got the PM drunk and asked her that question the response would be BECAUSE YOU MORONS VOTED FOR BREXIT.

Many voted brexit because they feel the government doesn’t listen to them, it was an act of political self harm, a cry for help. However as I warned prior to the referendum the likely outcome wouldn’t be a government that’s more caring and listening. Its one that would be more hostile, authoritarian and much more willing to lie and deceive the public. After all voters have just shown they can’t be trusted with important decisions.

So let us be clear, this is why the PM is so reluctant to trust either the public or even her own MP’s with a vote. Because both have shown themselves to be woefully unqualified to make important decisions anymore. Brexit means chaos and brexit means a UK that is significantly more authoritarian. So congratulations to any brexit voters who voted for this.

The trouble with Corbyn

brookes_27_01_2016_1051142c

So labour have elected Jeremy Corbyn as its leader (again). However while he’s wildly popular with his party base, many others in the party, notably the PLP have serious misgivings and perhaps for good reason. Hence a split in the labour party is now a very real possibility.

Take for example Corbyn’s stance on Brexit. He’s spent most of the last few months going around apologising for the swivel eyed loons who voted for Brexit, trying to portray it as a revolt against globalisation. Well I don’t remember once hearing that word mentioned in the campaign, I seemed to remember a lot of xenophobic screaming about migrants and some BS lies about billions to the NHS. And while yes it is known that many neo-fascist parties are opposed to globalisation (not because they want more socialism, quite the opposite!), that still doesn’t make them you’re friends. However, it does hint that Corbyn secretly did vote for Brexit and he has no intention of opposing it.

labmember2

This puts him at odds with most of the country’s left leaning voters and indeed most of his own party, who tended to vote remain. It means that he’s chasing the votes of the 37% of the electorate who voted leave. However the Tories and UKIP have that voting block pretty much tied up. Meanwhile the 63% of the country who were either denied the opportunity to vote, or voted remain are left with nobody to speak for them. From a party politics point of view, this is a disastrous strategic mistake.

Left wing “Muesli Brexiters” as I prefer to call them (like Corbyn or George Galloway) are few in number, because most on the left are all too aware that leaving the EU is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Tories will now use it as an excuse to roll back all sorts of legislation protecting the environment, workers rights, pensions and access to welfare. All while trying to turn the country into a low tax haven (oh btw, the tax codes of tax havens do not make it cheaper to live there, often VAT rates are high, flat taxes dis-proportionally hit the poor and the general costs of living are high). And Brexit has given comfort to bigots to go out and hurl racist abuse. It has also made it harder to tackle many of the world’s pressing global issues, which require co-operation and collaboration, not division and selfishness.

To draw an analogy, imagine Corbyn’s trying to sell burgers at an old firm game. Rather than parking at the Celtic or neutral supporters entrance, he instead drives his green coloured biofuel powered burger van down to the Rangers end and tries to sell them Hipster Vegan burgers made of Tofu. Chances are he’ll do very little business, get accused of being a Papist sent to poison them and earn a plastic fork in the eye for his trouble.

So far this lack of action, either during the referendum or afterwards, hasn’t really eroded his support base, but inevitably it will. We’re in a sort of “phony war” stage on Brexit, the really bad news hasn’t arrived yet. Inevitably once it does arrive and people start losing their jobs, their rights and employment protections, many of those who just voted for him as labour leader will realise he intends to do nothing to help them (because ultimately he wants Brexit). Obviously at that point he may not be so popular. But understandably many in the party don’t want to wait for that. As it means labour essentially sitting on its hands through one of the most important periods in recent UK politics.

Corbyn’s supporters have tried to portray anyone who opposes him within the party of being Blairites and left wingers in name only. While this is a fair point when it comes to the likes of Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson, but many in the party, including Owen Smith or Tom Watson are certainly not Blairites. And while they might not be as left wing as Corbyn’s its not his left wingness that worries them, its his unelectability. As a comedian joked at the Fringe, he’s turned PMQ’s into Gardener’s question time. “Prime Minster I have a letter from a David from Rotherham and he has problems with his NHS services…..and his Azaleas”.

The PLP are all too aware that the majority of the public just aren’t that turned on by Corbyn’s policies, poll after poll and meetings in their constituency offices has told them that. And regardless of their own views on the matter (its not as if they have to agree with every policy coming out of labour HQ), they know that the UK’s first past the post system makes trying to win an election on such a platform very difficult, if not impossible. Ultimately the PLP’s concern is more a matter of job security that ideology. They reckon he’s going to cost them their seats and that they will lose those seats to UKIP and Tories.

 

cthj-z5xyaanc7o

Corbyn actually polls below “don’t know” and is less popular than an incumbent PM

One of the dangers for the Tories with pulling the pin on the Brexit hand grenade was always the risk that in the fallout that followed a hard left leader would come to power and he’d be then in the position to roll back market capitalism and run the non-doms out of town. However I would argue this is now very unlikely to happen. Corbyn has positioned himself such that come the next election the hard Brexiters will pivot towards UKIP, while those who want to see it stopped or a 2nd vote (on the terms of it or to rejoin the EU) will pivot towards the lib dems, greens and in Scotland the SNP.

Now the irony is that the Tories having gone to all this trouble to kill off UKIP, its quite possible UKIP will emerge from the next election stronger than ever. Ordinarily this would spell defeat for the Tories, the FPP system meaning they should lose seats to labour. But Corbyn’s labour party will also be haemorrhaging votes (he’s already down 9% in the polls, despite all the problems in the Tory party). Consequently the balance of probability is (and I’ve seen polling analysis which suggests this is now the most likely outcome) the Tories will still be the largest party, although they may fall sort of a majority. Note that as they’d then have to go into coalition with either UKIP or the lib dems, that would all but guarantee a 2nd vote on Europe in some way shape or form.

Corbyn’s supporters will say, but the media have been against him from day one. And yes, I agree, they have not given him fair treatment. If he rescued a baby from a burning building, they’d accuse him of being anti-fire and taking jobs away from hard-working firemen. But he has sort of made things easy for them, what with going around in dodgy tracksuits and that whole traingate business. If you lean over in front of your enemy and he kicks you up the arse, I mean what did you think was going to happen?

2709286-main_image

When I first saw this photo, I’d didn’t click it was Corbyn, I thought it was going to be a story about some chav who robbed a charity shop

And if Corbyn thinks the media are being hard on him now, wait until we are in an actual election campaign. While inevitably Brexit and its fallout will impact on the next election, it will not be the terms under which it is fought. No, the next election will be fought on the unsuitability of Corbyn for the post of PM. The Tories will make sure of that. I mean look at what they did to Ed Miliband and all they had to go on was him looking awkward for a split second while eating a bacon roll. Can you imagine what they’re going to do to Corbyn? What the labour party members decided to do last week was vote to let an old guy get dragged into the street and watch him get beaten senseless for the next few years.

labour-splits-final

After Corbyn looses the next election, the balance of probability is that the Blairites will take over again and they’ll change the voting rules to make damn sure this never happens again. They’ll pivot the party to the right and labour will essentially become the equivalent of the democrats in America. Alternatively the party splits, either before the next election or not long after it. This new party (we’ll call them the UK Democrats, because that’s essentially what they’ll be) gradually takes over labour’s position, becoming a slightly more centrist version of the lib dems (perhaps even merging with them), while Corbyn’s labour, robbed of much of its voters, finance and support declines and joins the ranks of the many other parties of the socialist left, whom it spends the rest of the time fighting with.

Perhaps I can illustrate the danger Corbyn posses via my own position. I’m exactly the sort of left wing voter he’ll need to persuade to vote labour next election if he’s to win. I’ve voted labour in the past and I’ve voted for other left wing parties before (Greens, SNP, etc.). I generally vote labour back in Ireland, noting that they are a “proper” labour party in Ireland, not any of this new labour nonsense. So will I vote labour in the next UK election with Corbyn in charge? NO! Is it because he’s too left wing? No, nothing to do with that. I voted remain, I want someone who speaks for the 63% of us who didn’t vote leave. Corbyn is clearly not up to the task. Ultimately, he has very little chance of getting elected. If I want to see left wing or liberal policies implemented, I’m better off voting lib dem or Greens (or in Scotland SNP). They have some chance of implementing those policies as a coalition partner in a future government and are providing much more robust opposition to the Tories at the moment.

cthzwxvxgaajx__

Quite a few labour members have posted on twitter them cutting their labour party membership cards up after Corbyn’s re-election

So the question to Corbyn supporters is, if you can’t persuade me to vote for him, or the thousands of his own party members cutting their membership cards in half this week, what chance do you have of persuading the millions of centre ground voters (who will decide the next election) to vote for him? Labour have just voted to lose the next election. Its time for Corbyn and his supporters take take a healthy dose of Realpolitik.

Weekly roundup

Veto warning

NINTCHDBPICT000234294290

At a conference to discuss the post-Brexit future of the EU, the UK was warned that the EU would make leaving “very painful”, if any form of immigration controls were included. Indeed, the threat was made of a possible veto of any deal by four Eastern European countries, if the UK refused to guarantee freedom of travel. Its unclear if this applies to just current EU citizens in the UK or future arrivals. However, the message is clear, the Brexit position on immigration is not going to be allowed, it is not and never was a deliverable possibility.

But we do 60% of our trade with the EU the brexiters claim, why would the EU jeopardise that? Well because it might be 60% of the UK’s trade, but its only about 10% of the EU’s trade. And certain countries will bear the brunt of that. Others, such as the Eastern European countries making these threats, will not be seriously effected. There is no way the rEU or the UK can bully them out of a veto. So if the UK tries to stonewall the EU, as the three brexiters seem to plan on doing, they will be in for a rude awakening.

Keep in mind at the point where this veto will be made it would be at the back end of negotiations where the UK has likely just days or weeks away from essentially being chucked out of the EU and EEA if it doesn’t get a deal. In such circumstances a panicked climb down by the UK seems very likely.

As always my suspicion is that cooler heads will prevail long before we get to this stage. Some sort of horse trade will be done, EU citizens will have to fill out some forms and will not be entitled to benefits for a few years (although that could result in a rebate of their taxes back to their country of origin). The swivel eyed loons will be told they’d got immigration controls, but in truth nothing substantial will have changed.

 

Academic poaching

And as if to underline what’s at stake here, there have been warning about how much of the UK’s key science centres are now a risk of being poached. Either individual scientists, or the entire institutes themselves might well move in the next few years.

figure-5

As I mentioned in previous posts, a lot of the funding for these institutes comes from the EU. And they also get quite a bit of private sector funding too (often the EU funding is dependant on them raising matching funds from the private sector). And many research centres and university’s in Britain will have a small network of high-tech start ups around them, which will both assist and be dependant on the success of said institute at securing funding. Getting that funding outside the EU gets very complicated very quickly. Freedom of travel is also crucial to science and I can’t see how these institutes could function if that were to end.

So the price the UK could pay, is much of its very best and brightest, everything from Fusion energy research to graphene could potentially move overseas in the next few years. Then again, many Brexiters seem to be the anti-science troglodytes who’d rather go back to the 1950’s. Well be careful what you wish for……

 

ITT Tech

ar-160909700-jpgmaxh400maxw667

Just prior to the Brexit vote the Universities minister issued two statements which caused great concern in academia. The first was his intention of allowing for-profit universities in the UK. The 2nd was his statement that “some providers may exit the market”, or in other words, the government is okay with the thought of universities going bankrupt.

Well we had a warning this month of what the likely consequences of such a policy would be. ITT Tech, the parent company of several for-profit universities across the US went bankrupt just before the start of term. This left tens of thousands of students out of pocket and with no university place to start or continue their studies at. Many of them have now been left in limbo.

And the reasons for their collapse? Poor standards of education, well below those of mainstream universities and accusations of predatory practices. ITT tech students were some of the the most heavily indebted students in America. And incidentally some of that debt was owed to the US government. Students are now refusing to pay back these loans, arguing the collapse is the fault of the government for failing to regulate ITT tech properly.

So I would ask anyone in the Tory party or any government minster, do you really want to see this sort of scandal play out in the UK? And before you answer that question, take out an electoral map of the UK, work out how many marginal seats are in (or near) a university town and after you’ve worked out how, estimate by how much you’d lose the next election, perhaps then you might decide to reconsider this policy.

.
Tweeting twits in cars

cellphones-and-cars

There was recent talk about increasing the number of penalty points for mobile phone use in cars to 6 . In some respects I can see the point of this. Far too often I’ve seen people driving along, not just talking on a mobile held to their ear, but texting with it. And I mean sometimes when I’ve been cycling or walking along at night I’ve noticed drivers gliding along with their face down at the phone, trying to drive with one hand and half an eye on the road. You do have to worry about some people.

However, the danger with such knee jerk legislation, is that it can often lead to overzealous enforcement by the police. Keep in mind the cops have done people for blowing their nose at a traffic light or threatened to arrest a four year old child for riding a kiddies bike on the pavement. Given the cops an inch in the UK and they will take things to an illogical extreme.

What counts as mobile phone use in a car? For example, I’ll sometimes use my mobile as an Mp3 player. Now I’ll plug it in and set everything up before I start driving, but occasionally I might need to just hit the volume button or turn it on/off (without taking my eyes off the road of course and only when its safe to do so). Does that count? Should I get 6 points for that? Now okay, maybe you say yes it does count, in which case I suppose I’ll just listen to the radio instead, will adjusting the volume on the radio now get me 6 points? Because its essentially doing the same thing. Or how about adjusting the air-con, or the sat nav? Keep in mind that there are time you’ll need to adjust these systems for safety reasons (e.g. its night, the sat nav display is too bright so you turn it off or tap it into night mode, your coming up to a busy junction, you hit the mute button on the radio so it doesn’t distract you, windows start to fog up, you need to clear them, etc.).

And I bring this up because it has a legal bearing for me. I have an Irish license and while the Irish government does transfer points issued by the UK authorities onto Irish license, they don’t give the UK courts a rubber stamp. We have this long standing principle in Ireland of “rights” and “due process”. And any Irish court would likely take a dim view of saying doing such and such a thing with a mobile is enough to lose you your license, but doing the same thing with the car radio is okay. Indeed the Irish government has been having difficulty securing convictions for its own laws against in car mobile use.

And to go slightly off topic, but there’s a Brexit dimension here. While I suspect the transfer of penalty points across the Irish border will continue (its a bilateral agreement and nothing to do with the EU) I’m not sure about other EU countries. I suspect any such rules the UK has with the rest of the EU will end with Brexit. Meaning Polish lorry drivers will be able to not only use their phones while driving without fear, but speed as fast as they like and park wherever they like and there’s basically nothing that plod can do about it other than go whistle Dixie. Keep in mind I already know people from the continent who regularly just tear up parking tickets they get in the UK and put them straight in the bin. Such rules are difficult to enforce at the moment, post Brexit it will be impossible. And again its the tendency of the UK legal system to ignore the basic principles upon which any proper legal system is supposed to work that’s to blame.

But I digress. Clearly one has to wonder how out of hand such measures could get and how difficult it becomes to enforce. Might I suggest a more common sense approach. If you are so addicted to your phone that you can put it down for a few minutes while driving maybe you need to decide which is more important, your ability to drive safely or your phone? Keep in mind that if you travel by public transport instead not only can you text and tweet to your hearts content, but many buses and trains theses days come with free wifi. #OMG

And in much the same way that anyone stumbling out of pub with car keys is likely to be rugby tackled and subject to a citizens arrest these days, if you see someone in the car behaving recklessly with a phone (or turning his head away from the road and trying to tune the radio), point out to them how dangerous this is. #where_did_that_tree_come_from? #Sad face

 

Unsporting behaviour

There was some controversy this week when one of the Brownlee brothers helped the other across the line to win a bronze medal. The British media looked on this as brothers in arms, or good sportsmen ship. Ah, no! I’m afraid its what’s known as “cheating”.

The rules of individual sports like the triathlon are very clear, you cannot assist in any way another competitor, nor can they or should they except such help. Riders have been disqualified in the past just because a spectator (never mind another runner) was seen to push them. Until a few years ago triathletes weren’t even allowed to slipstream during the cycling stage of a triathlon. Giving or accepting aid like this isn’t just against the rules, it violates the very spirit of the sport itself.

Put it this way, if a Polish or Chinese athlete had done the same thing and a British athlete had been denied a medal, would the UK media be reacting the same way? Probably not. We can’t have one rule for those who are popular with the media (and have a good sponsorship deal) and another rule for everyone else. There’s little point in getting worked up about Russian doping, if were going to apply the full weight of the law to one group of athletes and ignore them for others.

So while I hate to be mean, but both brothers should have been disqualified for this. And should another “hand of god” like moment happen in a future football match, I don’t want to hear any English whinging about how unfair it all is. You’ve gain just as much, if not more, unfair advantage in sports as everyone else.

 

Not so fancy bears

And speaking of sports there were more revelations about the medical records of British athletes. Now to be fair, if the Russians are trying to tar everyone with the same brush, they are failing. What these records show is that the sort of massive state sponsored doping isn’t going on in the UK or US. However, that’s not to say all of the UK’s athletes are angels. The revelations do flag up some worrying questions.

Quite a few appear to regularly be benefiting from what’s called TUE’s basically an excuse to use a banned substance for medical reasons. The problem is that known drug cheats like Lance Armstrong were known to use these as a way of getting around tests, when they realised (or feared) they might fail a test. So an athlete regularly getting these, while it doesn’t prove anything, it certainly doesn’t look good. In short, anyone who believes doping begins and ends with Russian, think again.

 

The Empire club

A restaurant in Australia is in hot water after calling itself the Colonial club, a sort of colonial themed restaurant for public school boys who are ignorant of history. Naturally this is causing much offence and there are calls for it to be closed down. One wonders if they do a Jallianwahla Bagh cocktail, or an Irish Famine potato salad or how about the Hola special?

What is it about Empire that the Brit’s don’t get? One of the Brexiters put up a tweet (in reaction to another one showing the EU top of the medal table at the Olympics) claim the British Empire “won” the Olympics. British need to understand that to some people this is the equivalent of going up to a Polish person and saying how much better they were under the third reich. There are only two occasions where bringing up the British Empire isn’t going to get you in trouble:
A) You’re Prince Philip (we sort of expect this stuff from him!)
B) At a memorial for the victims of a British empire massacre, explaining why it was so terrible

 

The joys of Hitchhiking

A French hitchiker in New Zealand went beserk this week after spending 4 days by the side of the road and not getting picked up. To be honest, I think if you are hitch-hiking, you need to have a better strategy. And in a remote area, you need to have a plan B in case you don’t get picked up, e.g. walk to where you want to go and if you don’t get picked up along they way, you’ll get there anyway. Or have a public transport option you can call on.

One of the issues I take with this story was how he was called “a spoilt millennial”. First of all, Millennials are really an invention of marketeers who like to segment people into neatly defined groups. An many of those qualities they ascribe to “millennials” don’t actually gel with the facts, as this Adam Conover video discusses. I teach a lot of “millennials” and I know of just as many who are spoilt selfie takers with a sense of some sort of god given entitlement, as I know similar people from previous generations. It certainly does not fit the description of the average Millennial I know. Indeed it was mostly baby boomers with there sense of entitlement who voted for Brexit, not millennial’s (whom the baby boomers screwed over).

Brexit now comes with a price tag

passportseu2.jpg

The Tories have been accused of pulling the pin on the Grammar school hand grenade, not because they think its a good idea, but because they want to distract from the shambles of the Brexit fallout. We’ve already learnt that a points system isn’t going to happen. Then it was a restriction on entry unless migrants had a job. They’ve gone quiet on that one too now, so presumably that’s been ditched also, for what should be obvious reasons. Now they seem to be planning on requiring entrants to have a work visa.

What’s wrong with that? Well because it constitutes what Sarah Palin would describe as “central planning”. Its distinctly anti-business and authoritarian. Decisions on recruitment will be taken away from employers and they’ll be left at the whims of government policy. This is the sort of thing that will result in crops rotting in the field, projects put on hold because of a lack of skilled labour or businesses shutting down as they can’t get the staff they need. Inevitably employers will relocate outside of the UK to the rest of the EU where they can recruit more freely. Indeed its interesting to note that the post-Brexit shares rally now appears to be over, the FTSE 100 & 250 have been falling for the last few days, possibly because the penny is finally dropping that it might not be business as usual.

Keep in mind that British citizens count towards inward migration figures. And perhaps not surprisingly UK nationals make up the vast majority of those entering the country. Last time I checked the figures of those entering the UK to permanently take up residence 83,000 of them (25%  of the total if we include students, 55% if we exclude students) were British. As the EU states will reciprocate with any restrictions, its likely that what you’ll see is a slight drop in EEA citizens coming, cancelled out by a sudden jump in UK citizens coming home permanently. Only difference is instead of getting nice young Polish people with skills the country needs, we’ll be getting older people (in many cases retired) who’ll be taking more money out of the state than they contribute.

The only way net migration could be cut to “the tens of thousands” is by bringing in North Korea like border controls and essentially banning British people from moving abroad (or moving back to the UK).

immigration-statistics07-q1-2015

Its likely that the only way this visa idea would work is by doing something along the lines of the Swiss, with no specific restrictions on numbers allowed in, just so long as they fill in the necessary paperwork. In other words it will be an empty formula, consisting of a bit of form filling and paying a fee. It will change nothing, aside from making the job of EU citizens coming in, or British going out, that little bit more bureaucratic.

And speaking of the Swiss, a situation in Switzerland whereby the people voted for immigration restrictions mirrors the situation in the UK. The Swiss tried to stonewall the Europeans, the EU refused to budge, guess whose blinked first? Yep, the Swiss seem to be on the verge of caving in. They’re looking for some window dressing so that they can claim to be compiling with the wording of the referendum decision while perverting its original intend, much as Theresa May will be doing in about two years time.

And if the stakes weren’t high enough, there’s the matter of the Etias. This was an anti-terrorism measure proposed back in 2011, similar to the visa entry system to the US. Whereby non-Schengen citizens (i.e. anyone outside the EU, Norway and Switzerland) will have to pay a fee and fill in an online form 72 hours before entering the EU. Now originally the UK was supposed to get a pass on this, or some sort of opt in. However, given the recent talk of immigration restrictions, its increasingly unlikely the UK will get any leeway from the EU (short of the UK joining the single market without condition).

Now for a tourist having to apply 72 hours in advance of travel to the EU is just plain inconvenient. But to some British, airline staff, truck drivers, salesmen, its potentially crippling. We could see waves of these people loosing their jobs, replaced by EU citizens or their company relocating across the channel. Its increasingly likely I would therefore argue that the UK will be sent packing with their tail between their legs once these Brexit negotiations start. The EU won’t get nasty, they don’t need too. All they’ll do is read the UK the riot act and force them to confront the cold hard facts of life.

Indeed the very fact Theresa May has resorted to chucking around dead moggies and bringing up Grammar schools, does tend to suggest they know they’re not going to get their way. And the frustrations seem to be building. Liam Fox, who was recently sent packing by the Australians (he’d been talking up the possibility of a trade deal with them), went so far as to insult UK small business owners for not being suitably patriotic. Ya, like the Russian cosmonauts who weren’t suitably patriotic enough to hold their breath for ten minutes after their soviet leaders sent them up in a shoddy capsule. Business leaders have naturally pointed out they are doing the best they can but some dickheads decided to have a referendum on EU membership and that’s kind of screwed them over.

In short, the Tories lies on Brexit are starting to catch up with them.

Brexit betrayals continue

480 (1)

Before the referendum Brexit voters were warned that they were being conned. But Brexit was simply a means to an end for many in the leave camp, the goal being to further their own careers or line their pockets, they didn’t care about the consequences. They would betray the votes as soon as the referendum was over. And indeed time and again this has been proven right. The £350 million a week to the NHS claim didn’t even last 24 hrs. The vote leave website was shutdown and scrubbed clean within hours of the vote. And given the likely impact of Brexit on staffing and NHS costs, its inevitable the current problems in the NHS will only get worse post-Brexit.

One of the main issues during the debate was immigration. We’ll get a points system they were told. As I for one discussed sometime before the vote, no you’re not going to get a points system, because that would be silly and it won’t work. Low and behold, we’re now told we no there’s not going to be a points system. As I pointed out in a recent post, Theresa May has two choices, she can betray the UKIP bigot brigade and keep borders open, or she can betray the middle classes, pensioners and business tycoons who put the Tories in power, by leaving the single market. Given that its quite clear that the three Brexiters in her cabinet have no clue what to do about immigration, it seems increasingly likely she plans on betraying the bigot brigade.

Yes some window dressing will be applied, Theresa May has shown herself to be a masterful user of the so-called dead cat approach (see here and here). There’s talk for example of a rule that EU migrants will have to have job before moving over. Or in other words they do the job search over the internet, come over on a tourist visa for the interview (or do it via Skype) and then apply for residency. No doubt firms offering to “employ” migrants on a zero hours contract (for literally zero hours) for a fixed fee will soon spring up. The same way some fake colleges are being used to help non-EU migrants to come in. In short it will change nothing. In fact given that the UK leaving the EU will make it easier for genuine refugees from within the EU to claim asylum in the UK, and there’s a good chance of current customs arrangements ending in Calais. So its likely more will be coming in not less, post-Brexit.

And given that the UK will essentially be handing over sovereignty for a whole host of areas to the EU, as part of some Norway model plus, its difficult to avoid the argument that the UK will be worse off with less control over its trade policy. And keep in mind that one of the areas where the UK will retain some leeway is in areas such as employee rights. i.e. those pesky EU laws that stop your boss forcing you to retire because your seen as too old, or the laws protecting your right to strike or join a union, or guaranteeing you can’t be forced to work unreasonable hours. Its difficult to see a Tory government resisting the temptation to roll back these laws.

Farmers were warned that leaving the EU would mean an end to farm subsidies. The leave camp were very careful to say that they won’t end subsidies, or that they would, depending on which audience they were talking too. Well now its likely farm subsidies are going to come under a twin pronged attack. On the one hand there is the environmental argument that subsidies should only be paid out if they provide real environmental benefit. On the other hand, its difficult to see the government paying such generous subsidies to such a small group of voters. And wealthy landowners will be well aware that cutting this lifeline would present them with the opportunity to buy up small holdings and add them to their estates (then likely rent it back to the same poor sod!).

And what about those fishermen who sailed boats down the Thames? Well they’ve already been told not to expect any increase in catch quota’s post-Brexit. I was in Norway at the time of the vote and have been in Iceland before. Their main bone of contention with the EU is over fisheries, not because the EU is too strict but that it isn’t strict enough. And the expert advice is that UK fish catch levels should if anything, get cut.

In short, Brexit voters have been conned on a scale unseen in electoral history. Now politicians do tell porkies from time to time, but I’ve never seen such a outright and blatant betrayal of voters. What Brexit voters need to understand is that those when you saw those Tory placards saying “take control” that slogan wasn’t aimed at the common voter, but at other rich and wealthy elites who fund the Tory party, as Brexit is going to allow one of the biggest transfers of power and wealth within the UK for many generations.

Which brings us to the debate over the 4.4 million petition to re-run the referendum. In the absence of that I think it is fair to argue that Parliament should vote on the matter, prior to invoking article 50, it should be free vote, in both houses. After all this is the very job Parliament exists for, to stop the people being conned into doing something that is neither in their best interests nor the country’s.

Sunday service

A few stories that caught my eye over the last week……

Blackouts & Newspeak

With Hinkley C now hanging in the balance, the National Grid seem to be waking up to the realisation that its unlikely we’ll be getting any new power infrastructure in time to offset the likely decommissioning of the UK’s ageing coal and nuclear plants. So they seem to be putting their faith in energy efficiency measures instead.

PF-Energy3_2118937b

Keep in mind a few years ago, I was scoffed at for making such a suggestion at a conference by someone from NG, who felt such measures were unnecessary or that they won’t work (he was trying to argue the case for Hinkley C and how the ground would open and swallow the country if it isn’t built). And these very measures were part of the so-called “Green crap” Cameron cut to keep his allies in the fossil fuel and nuclear industry happy, just a few years ago. So there’s a certain “newspeak” element to this whole story as a result.

Now, I’m all for energy efficiency measures. I have long argued they are a big part of the solution. If we can’t build renewables quickly enough (nor nuclear for that matter) to meet the growing need for power and reduce carbon emissions, then we need to cut consumption. However, this road to Damascus conversion ignores three crucial points.

Firstly, there’s a law of diminishing returns in play here. You can make some big drastic savings early on (if you build the right infrastructure of course), but beyond a certain tipping point, you’ll be scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Energy efficiency, by saving people money, can actually encourage further energy use. Think about it, if I could double the fuel economy of your car, you’d probably drive it more regularly won’t you? Ultimately you still need to be producing power, and you will need to build some new power plants (be they renewable, fossil fuel fired or nuclear). This whole crisis is a result of the UK government’s failure to adopt a long term energy policy, throwing one industry under the bus after another, to the point nobody in their right mind would invest in a power station in the UK (renewable, nuclear or otherwise) unless you basically bribe them.

Secondly, a lot of the better energy efficiency measures require changes to how the grid works. They will not go ahead unless the government gives firm signals that it is adopting an appropriate long term energy policy. For example, the most obvious way of cutting carbon emissions is to switch from a handful of centralised thermal power stations, to a network of smaller decentralised CHP plants. Even running on fossil fuels, this cuts carbon emissions by at least 25%. Some European countries get 40% of their electricity from such power stations. They can also effectively backup intermittent renewable energy sources. But again, without building the hardware, you can’t implement it. And they will only work as part of a coherent overall strategy.

And thirdly there’s the ticking clock. Any energy plan for the UK needs action to be taken now. There are no quick fixes, no easy short cuts. Those boats sailed some time ago. The government has to take action asap and put its money where its mouth is, or any energy plan no matter how well meaning it is, will fail.

Irish apple…..and not the fruit!

For years Apple had been playing the double Irish tax dodge, only to recently get caught out. The EU’s just tapped them for 13 billion euro in back taxes. To put that in prospective, that’s about Ireland’s health budget for a year.

132148_600

Oddly enough rather than Leinster house cracking open champagne bottles and starting to work out what we’re going to spend all this money on (that’s enough to buy every adult in the country about 900 pints of the black stuff…now there’s a thought…), they are thinking of appealing. Why? Okay it does hurt Ireland reputation a bit, but so what, if Apple was here for the reasons it claims (i.e. to take advantage of a well educated workforce, I know they do a lot of co-funded research with Irish uni’s), then this ruling shouldn’t change anything.

If they were here for the tax dodge then feck em. They want to piss off back to California, fair enough. The Brexiters were dancing a jig about how Apple might move to the UK. That’s unlikely as the rate of taxation in Ireland is still lower than the UK’s. And lets be clear about what the Brexiters are proposing, they think that British tax payers should subsidise the profits of one of the world’s largest and most profitable companies. Seriously? Try selling that one in the middle of the next election! Voting for Corbyn suddenly starts to sound like a good idea.

So I say hang’em out to dry!

Olympic hijackings

And speaking of which, Brexiters have been trying to talk up how great everything is post-Brexit. They’ve picked up on everything from the Olympics, ignoring the fact how most medal winners are mostly young people, i.e. the people who voted remain, plus quite a few are from immigrant families and won’t be here if the UKIP brigade had its way, doubly so if lottery funding was ended, as some on the right have been long calling for. UK sports also receives money from the EU btw.

Speaking of which, Trump has been unusually quiet about the Olympics. Probably because it doesn’t fit into his narrative of a “broken” America, when they are finishing top of the medal table. And if Mexico isn’t sending the US their best, how about those Mexican American medal winners? Or what about the American Muslim and Jewish athletes? How unamerican of them to train hard and win medals! I particularly like Libertarian Gray Johnson’s tweet, he questioned if Trump was only watching the Olympics to see how high the Mexican pole vaulters could go.

Oh and incidentally, while many athletes didn’t want to talk about Brexit or Trump, those that did ain’t exactly supporters.

Brexit blues

But I digress, Brexiters have also jumped on the slightest hint of good economic news, ignoring the fact that things like factory output or employment figures often reflect conditions several months ago, i.e. before Brexit was announced, or can be thrown off by seasonal factors.

The real threat from Brexit was, and still is long term trends. As the saying goes its the bears that get you in the end, not the stags running for cover. Brexiters might want to spare a thought for example to the workers at Catepillar in Northern Ireland, who were told this week, hundreds of whom were losing their jobs. Further job losses appear to be imminent in ICL. Its possible they may follow in Ford and Nissan over the next few months and years, with other car makers likely to follow. Lloyds of course axed 3,000 last month over Brexit.

Solent News

Indeed recruiters argued that they were seeing a slow down in recruitment levels even before Brexit, as companies brought in hiring freezes in advance of the referendum. In some sectors recruitment rates are now “in freefall, as many companies have held onto those hiring freezes since then. Also even if you’ve been given leave to recruit, as my uni’s been finding, its next to impossible to hire new staff. Think about it, if you’ve got a job already would you risk changing jobs in the present climate? If you move jobs and your new employer decides to start down sizing, it will likely be last in first out, so who in their right mind would want to move? They only way we can recruit now is by hiring people on contract and paying them exorbitant day rates.

And yes, I’m aware there are employment laws meant to prevent LIFO type layoff’s, however I think you’ll find the fine print says they are EU laws. And the chances of a Tory government protecting the rights of employees is somewhere between slim and none.

Now all of this was inevitable. As I’ve pointed out before, UK manufacturing is going to take a hit and Northern Ireland is going to have it the worst post-Brexit. Companies aren’t going to rush for the exits, but they will slow down investment in the UK and stop hiring. Of course this will leave UK factories uncompetitive, meaning any time things are looking lean, they will inevitably pull production in UK firms first, particularly those in Northern Ireland. So let’s not kid ourselves people are losing jobs, or the opportunity to get a job as a result of Brexit. And if you think things are bad now, wait a few years!

Ambushed on Brexit

Indeed Theresa May appears to have been ambushed at the latest G20 talks, by both the Japanese and Americans, who are starting to put the squeeze on the Brits. As I mentioned in prior posts a UK government post-Brexit is going to come under enormous pressure, from international leaders, business, the army and even the government’s own civil servants. This means Brexit, actually might not mean Brexit, or it might just mean the UK becoming a sort of side kick to the EU (sorry, hero support!).

A winter of discontent?

The doctors are threatening a 5 day strike, so I hope everyone’s feeling fit and healthy and not planning on getting ill for a while. And southern rail is still in the grip of industrial action by disgruntled staff…while announcing a £100 million in profit! In both cases the employers are blaming the workers for the strikes…or even Jeremy Corbyn! Which is a bit like overloading a donkey with stuff and then getting angry with the donkey when it collapses from exhaustion.

1-junior-doctors-corbis

The fact is that the government’s policy of squeezing doctors isn’t working, its creating major problems for the NHS. And their policy on privatisation (health care or the railways) is inherently flawed. So their solution is to paper over the cracks and pretend they aren’t there. And likely thanks to Brexit, make strikes harder to hold in future. Will this means things improve post-Brexit? No! Doctors will likely move overseas, we’ll find it even harder to recruit new ones and similarly the situation on the UK’s trains will get even more strained.

You could argue that both junior doctors and the southern rail company are the canaries in the coal mine for problems the rest of the NHS and the rail network will experience further down the line.

Corbyn caught out

And speaking of trains, Corbyn claimed to have sat on the floor the other week all the way to Newcastle, as the train was “ram packed”. But Virgin revealed that actually that wasn’t how things had panned out. Clearly this was a half arsed attempt at the sort of political street theatre other parties engage in all of the time. The trouble is that Corbyn is such a hate figure for many that he can’t pull something like this off. He seems to drive people to a level of maddening hatred. He’s less a party leader and more of a punch bag.

4906

Consider that I once lost my bag on a Virgin train. I reported it, but they were never able to relocate it. They knew the train, the carriage and the seat number I was in, how much trouble would it have been to go through the CCTV and try to trace the bag? But instead they were quite happy to look at the CCTV footage for several carriages on likely more than one train for several hours to see what Corbyn got up too. This should show you how far Corbyn’s opponents will go to stick the knife in….and how little Virgin cares about its customers.

SpaceX explosion

SpaceX the upstart rocket company founded by Elon Musk suffered a serious technical failure the other day, with a rocket exploding on the pad. They’ve not said why yet, but I could not help but notice that the explosion seemed to start at the upper stage. This suggests some sort of malfunction with the rockets controls (e.g. the upper stage motor fired early), or perhaps a flash fire further down precipitating upwards (think of a champagne bottle…just one filled with rocket fuel).

fire-spaceX-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8

Some have started to question if this accident now threatens the future of SpaceX. Well it shouldn’t. Rockets are the very definition of extreme engineering. The most reliable rockets in the world have a success rate of 92%….or put it another way they blow up 1:12 of the times they are launched. SpaceX’s record, if we count this explosion as its 2nd failure out of 29 attempts counts as a 1:14.5 failure rate, well below the best the rest of the industry can manage. Its just that most of the other rockets tend not to fail so publicly, so the media don’t notice.

And SpaceX has pointed that even if the rocket was manned, its escape rocket system would likely have saved the crew. So rumours of SpaceX’s demise are perhaps greatly exaggerated.

Pulling power

One of the first things you notice state side is how much bigger cars are there. There seems to be lots of people who opt for some outrageously large SUV or pick up truck. The perfect thing for towing the boat they don’t own up the mountain they don’t live near. I’ve always felt skeptical of these behemoths feeling they are more pony and less draft horse. Well now I’ve got proof.

truck-vs-landrover

Consider this video of a tug of war between a British Land Rover defender, with a 2.5L engine (at most 160 hp) and a kerb weight of about 1.6 tonnes (they do aluminium bodied versions that weight even less than this, I’m assuming this is the standard steel bodied version) against a Dodge Ram 3500 (Cummin’s Diesel version) with a 5.9L engine and weighing in at closer to 3 tonnes. Who wins?

Well if you watch the video, you’ll see its the Land Rover. Which is not that huge a surprise if you know anything about power to weight ratios. The Land Rover might be smaller and lighter, but that just means its got more power to devote to pulling the Dodge backwards. Driver skill and a manual transmission (with I assume a low torque selector and a diff-lock) also probably makes a big difference.

Plus a lower kerb weight means for lower ground pressure, an important feature in a 4×4 given the need to drive across muddy fields. Hence why real farmers or off road drivers use a Land Rover (or a range of other similar and more practical vehicles, the Toyota Hilux for example). While things like the Dodge Ram are aimed at men, with Trump like small hands, seeking to compensate for something else that’s very small.

td060916

Why free movement is important

FREE-MOVEMENT

The key dilemma for the Brexiters is over whether or not to preserve freedom of movement with the EU. Some seem to think we can bring in border controls (yet somehow avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland) and still be part of the European free trade area. But we can’t.

In short the UK can either go for the Norway model, i.e. no restriction on Europeans coming into the UK to work, you pay nearly the same you currently do to be a member of the European free trade area, you just loose your right to have any say in any future changes to how its organised. Or you can chose to be outside the European free trade area and take your chances. You’ve got to pick one, you can’t have both. Brexiters don’t seem to get this point, and don’t understand that free trade can’t function without freedom of movement, here’s why.

Well for starters there’s an ideological issue here. Restricting freedom of movement amounts to setting up a trade barrier at Dover. You’re telling employers they can no longer hire the best person for the job. You can’t take on Jerzy the nice hard working Polish guy with recent work experience in this field and a CV to die for. No, you have to hire Plank from the local job centre who has no relevant experience and likes to sniff glue. Bosses aren’t going to like it when the gov’mint starts looks over their shoulder and tells them how to run their business. Restricting employment for a company is like imposing a capital control on them. Already, even in academia, we’ve been finding it near impossible to recruit new staff, except by essentially throwing money at people, hiring them on temporary contracts at a very high rate of pay (which is probably not the best way to spend tax payers money). Inevitably some employers will move to Europe to allow them to recruit more freely.

Then there are the practical implications. We can “pretend” to be strict on immigration, but without proper border controls, people will leak in and just get jobs in the black economy. If there’s anything worse than Eastern Europeans coming in and working for minimum wage over UK citizens, its the poor and the desperate from all over the world being smuggled in by people traffickers (i.e. more money to organised crime) and probably working for well below the minimum wage, making it impossible for UK citizens to find work in certain sectors. So you’d need pretty rigid border controls, which will be expensive and will come with a host of unintended consequences (notably for Northern Ireland).

Inevitably if a company sending its product to Europe and its going to regularly get stuck for several days clearing customs, well obviously its not going to be able to compete with a European competitor, who can reliably deliver within a 24 hr turn around. Keep in mind many manufacturers currently rely on Just In Time processes, which means parts are moved from one factory to another, perhaps in another country, on the assumption that they will arrive promptly, with little delay. Given that 68% of the UK’s car production is destined for sale in the EU, often using parts manufactured in the EU, its going to be all too tempting to shorten supply lines by just moving the factory to the continent.

And also consider that if the French follow through with their threat and end current border control rules, the first time all of those refugees in Calais will meet a British border guard is after they make over the Channel, so “the Jungle” camp will simply be relocated to Kent.

And how does a company get its stock into Europe? If the UK restricts EU citizens right to work and free movement, the EU will respond in kind. So either the truck driver will need a work visa for both regions, or they’ll have to meet up on a cross channel ferry and secretively transfer cargo between two trucks. And btw if they have to pick one country to base their drivers in (then apply for work visas in the other) will they pick the UK (and have to pay drivers more) or some Eastern European country? Won’t want to be working for Stobart right now!

Also when you buy a product or service it often comes with an after a range of after sales support. If a company’s employees need a work visa to go to Germany to do tech support, how long do you think before either the company sacks its tech support in the UK and hires someone in Germany to do it. Or the German customer goes with an EU supplier, because even thought they are more expensive, they can guarantee support. UK companies will be forced to compete on price alone, which might be easy at the moment with the low value of the pound, but difficult if the pound recovers. And obviously Chinese and Indian can offer a substantially lower cost than any British firm. Keep in mind, I’ve seen several situations in industry over the years, where a contract went to an EU based supplier over a non-EU one, even thought the non-EU one was cheaper, simply because we knew we’d get better after sales support from the EU based bid.

Also there are laws and rules that come into play here. What’s worrying airlines and banks and why some are threatening to walk if the UK leaves the EU free trade area, is they may not have a choice in the matter. The laws that govern their operations, quite apart from good business practice, more or less obliges them to move the provision of those services to within the EU free trade area if Britain leaves.

Yes there is some wriggle room on immigration that the Europeans can offer. They could apply some window dressing that looks like immigration controls (but isn’t). For example by restricting migrants access to the UK benefits system. However that will likely be counter productive, given that the vast majority of EU migrants work and pay taxes (restricting their access to benefits will simply encourage those that can to not pay taxes and work in the black economy). Given that EU states will respond in kind, which could send waves of UK citizens heading here (so we’d see a small drop in EU citizens looking to work and meet skills shortages cancelled out by hordes of pensioners moving back so they can claim benefits here), the likelihood is such measures would leave the UK worse off financially.

Bottom line, Theresa May has to decide who is she going to betray. The businesses and middle class voters who put the Tories in office last election, or the swivel eyed Daily Mail reading neo-fascists, who voted for Brexit. She’s got to pick one, she can’t keep both groups happy.