Trump the African Dictator

We were warned by Trevor Noah, prior to the election, that Trump sounded a lot like an African dictator. Unfortunately, every day he and his regime are becoming ever more like one. The constant posturing for the sake of his ego, the lavish personal spending, the inability to accept criticism and of course the massive levels of corruption.

_97476408_louiseandsteve

Your tax dollars hard at work….

Trump promised to “drain the swamp” but instead, he’s done the opposite, with his cronies and family members increasingly using the assets of state for as their personal play things, be it to go shopping in Europe, holidays, or business trips abroad. The Secret service is at risk of going bankrupt given the huge bill its run up guarding Trump during his trips to Florida every weekend (where the state pays the cost of putting him up in his own hotel) or protecting and providing transport for his relatives on business trips to sign deals abroad, something that is in clear violation of the constitution.

Again, this is all reminiscent of the sort of corruption African autocrats are famous for. However, there is another aspect of African autocracies that Trump demonstrates – his supporters. African dictators maintain their hold on power through violence and intimidation of voters (which least we forget, Trump supporters also engaged in last election), but that only goes so far. A key feature of their rule is the fact that they have a core group of supporters, typically 20-33% of the population who will back them no matter what.

Make no mistake, the supporters of African dictators such as Mugabe or Obiang Nguema are well aware of the corruption and abuse of power that goes on. But they back such dictators regardless of this, because they are a member of the same tribe. Indeed, some even see a silver lining to such corruption as they expect the dictator to “share the cake. They look the other way to him embezzling billions in state funds in the hope that a few crumbs fall from the table which they can scoop up. Indeed, a candidate who actually ran on a promise to “drain the swamp” would probably lose votes.

And this is the role many in the Republican party have now fallen into. Many still back Trump not because they are unaware of the corruption allegations, or because they don’t understand just how serious his abuse of office is. Actually quite the opposite. The GOP is now a tribe, a cargo cult and they see it as necessary that they back their leader regardless of how bad he gets or how big a cliff he dives the country off.

This in of itself suggests that the conventional wisdom, that we must merely wait for investigations against Trump to conclude and see him impeached, or wait for the next election and see the GOP devastated in polls, might not work. If he’s this bad now and a hard core of the GOP are still backing up, its not going to be that straight forward to unseat him. And don’t expect future elections in the US to be free and fair.

Instead, we need to start treating Trump the same way that any African autocrat is treated if he is to be removed from power. And that means recognising that the checks and balances aren’t going to work. It means refusing to recognise his office and refusing to do business with any firm that does business with him or his companies (a list here, TK Maxx and Amazon being the key ones in the UK, along with Uber of course).

Indeed a boycott of US industry as a whole (encouraging firms to re-register themselves abroad and thus threatening a collapse in tax revenue) is really the only way forward. Its exactly how they brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Advertisements

The dangers of Trump on Korea

173742

Prior to getting caught by his lies as regards protesters at Charlotteville, and thus being exposed as the racist that he is, Trump was busy trolling the North Koreans. Which isn’t so much a case of waving a red rag at a bull, its walloping the bull across the nose and then calling it gay. Its worth reviewing the situation here, as it reveals the dangers present in having the likes of Trump in the White House.

Firstly its worth looking back at North Korea’s history, or more precisely the North Korean propagandists version of its history. They say, we didn’t start the Korean war, nobody knows which side started it. The controversy over who started this war is only a controversy in North Korea. All other sources agree that it started after Kim Il-Sung, acting under orders from Stalin, sent his armies north.

Stalin calculated that he could achieve a quick and easy victory here and score first blood in the cold war. The regime of Syngman Rhee was not popularly supported, given that he was every bit as brutal as the regime up the north (if not worse). Also there weren’t that many American troops in the South prior to the start of the war because Rhee and the Americans didn’t trust each other. Incidentally, the North Koreans also try to claim that the Rhee & the US were planning to hand Korea back to Japan. The idea that Rhee, who had been implicated in plots to kill the Japanese royal family, would go along with that is obviously absurd.

So by all accounts it looked like a slam dunk, all Kim needed to do was kick down the door and the whole rotten mess would collapse before the US could do anything. There’s an old military saying that all plans survive until first contact with the enemy and this was very true in Korea. Firstly, the South Koreans by and large resisted (they disliked Rhee, but they disliked the Communists even more), costing the NK army valuable time. Secondly, the Americans pulled off an amazing feat of logistics, moving troops first into the path of the NK army to halt its advance, then undertaking a sea borne invasion deep behind enemy lines.

Thirdly, seeing the UN as just League of Nations 2.0 (a talking shop where nations left passive aggressive notes on the fridge for one another), Stalin underestimated the blow back he’d get as a result. The Russians were at the time boycotting the UN (over issues related to Berlin and Taiwan) and thus were unable to prevent the US getting a resolution passed which authorised military force against North Korea.

Now while this UN resolution was clearly taking liberties with the UN, equally it was a corner Stalin had painted himself into. If there’s one positive we can draw out from the Korean war (there ain’t many), it was how countries started to take the UN a little more seriously afterwards. Either way, this put Stalin in a tight spot, as he couldn’t directly assist North Korea, as that would be going against a resolution from the UN (which Russia had helped to found). So as the NK army was routed in the South and forced to retreat, Russia was forced to rely on the Chinese to repel the Americans.

This is perhaps the tragedy of the Korean war, it amounted to two superpower blocks basically blasting the crap out of each other and the Koreans, both north and south, getting caught up in the cross fire. Its a bit like one of those movie scenes where the two protagonists getting into a gun fight in someone else’s home/place of business and basically thrash the place, then move on and leave him to clean up the mess (if he’s still alive).

If North Korea has a motto, it would have to be “with friends like ours, who needs enemies”. Its “allies” have repeatedly screwed the country over, so it probably explains North Korea’s isolationist policy of Juche. The trouble is, that Juche doesn’t work. Consider that prior to them adopting this policy, back in the late 1970’s the North Korea economy wasn’t in that bad a shape, there GDP was significantly higher than in neighbouring China and not that far behind South Korea. Since then the Chinese economy has grown eight fold while the North Korean economy has contracted (with a slight recovery in recent years). North Korea has gone from a net food exporter with good modern farming methods, to one which can’t feed itself and is dependant on welfare from abroad. It merely serves as a poster for everything that is wrong with isolationist economics of the sort Trump or the brexiters peddle.

The other major policy of North Korea is what CIA agents refer to as the crazy gang” gambit, often expressed using the acronym CFC for Crazy, Fearsome and Crippled. The logic is that nobody will attack them because, while there is little doubt the NK army can be defeated, the cost of that victory will be high and the winner will face the enormous costs of essentially rebuilding the country from scratch.

However there is a fatal flaw in this combination of Juche and CFC. It means the North Koreans, have to be constantly playing brinkmanship with their neighbours. THey need to do this for reasons of domestic politics and to ensure that the supplies that China sends that keeps the regime going continue to roll in. And they must be careful not to be seen to back down as that could leave the regime vulnerable on the domestic front. The trouble is that this is simply not a long term sustainable strategy as it requires everyone else to be the grown ups and naturally with Trump, that’s unlikely to be the case.

Also the danger with Trump is he might intentionally try to start a war with North Korea to distract from domestic politics (his impending impeachment for example). However, as I discussed in a prior post, this could escalate very quickly and end very badly. The Republican’s concept that they can safely leave Trump in charge and then quietly knife him at a time when it is convenient for them to do so is simply not a sensible strategy.

Brexit border troubles

32989682383_f01ee2f8ca_o

The Northern Irish border

I’ve discussed before how much of the Tories rhetoric regarding brexit falls apart if they want to keep an open border with southern Ireland. The Irish government has pointed out that this will be unworkable if they UK ends free movement and has therefore suggested that the border posts are moved to all entry ports onto the Island of Ireland, effectively turn Northern Ireland into a British overseas territory, which happens to share a land border with the EU.

They are prepared to help the British in some way with border control on the Island of Ireland, which it has to be acknowledged is a major concession by the Irish (they are in no way obliged to do anything), but there’s a limit to what they can do. If a Polish migrant shows up, we can take a photo of him, scan his passport, etc. tell him sternly not to go to Northern Ireland, but if he goes outside the airport and hops on a bus straight to Belfast, well there ain’t a lot we can do about that.

Now the Tories tell us, oh we’ll rig the border with cameras and electronic monitoring equipment. Ya so you’ll get a picture of our Polish migrant’s bus going North as it always does at that time every day. Short of the Polish guy stick his head out the window while holding his passport, this electronic border won’t work. And he can always just live in the South and commute by car to work in the North. And the Tories do realise there’s at least 200 crossing points and that’s just those on the main trunk roads, some of which cross the border multiple times in a few miles. And as the picture above shows, much of the border is simply open hillside, or a farmers field.

And if our Polish migrant gets to a ferry port keep in mind there are no customs controls, nor border guards. You need photo ID to board a ferry, but there’s no passport control. There’s some British transport police and some rent-a-cop security guards on duty. But regardless of how suspicious they are that someone with a Polish driving license might be a fence jumper, they can’t really do anything. And anyway, I know plenty of non-British people with a British driving license (all you need to do is request one and so long as you’ve a European driving license they’ll give you one) and similarly you can easily get an Irish one if you are from the EU. So there will be no way to stop these migrants getting into the rest of the UK.

So what the Irish are basically saying is that the proposed UK immigration controls won’t work, they’ll be just window dressing to fool the bigot brigade into thinking they’ve got tight border controls. This perhaps is where the Irish are being a little naïve, Theresa May and co probably know they won’t work because they don’t actually want to restrict immigration, they just want to pretend they are. But either way the Irish solution does kind of make sense, doesn’t it?

Well not if you’re the DUP (who are debating whether next they should have traffic lights set up so that orange means go and green means stop, or whether they should ask for the Giant’s causeway to be extended to Scotland). They naturally worry that this will loosen the ties between them and the UK, and thus be a step towards reunification. And this is where Theresa May’s decision to go into coalition with the DUP was very foolish, as she’s now likely to be forced to either give in to the Irish, and then potentially see her government collapse, or concede to the DUP and have no effective border controls post-brexit (and once the bigot brigade catch her at that, they’ll stop voting Tory and start voting UKIP or BNP).

The Irish have already indicated that if they don’t see some movement from the UK on this issue, they might not co-operate with the British post-brexit, potentially leading to a breakdown in policing along the Irish border. Which is bad news, because as I’ve pointed out before, its not people we should be worrying about as regards the Irish border, its goods and contraband. The smugglers will have a field day. Those cameras will get nice lovely pictures of lorries filled with cigarettes, booze, petrol and even meat or milk heading North.

And with the UK outside of the free trade area and 10-30% tariff on all sales, plus tax rates up 20-30% on top of that they will make a killing. And speaking of which, many of these smugglers are associated with terrorist organisations, so most of that funding will fill the coffers of various dissident groups in the North. The drop in tax revenue and a flood of cheap goods will bankrupt the northern Irish economy and undermine the economy of the rest of the UK (once “washed” in Northern Ireland it will be impossible to stop this contraband making its way on to ships and into the UK mainland), making reunification a matter of when rather than if.

And its not just cheap fags and booze that the smugglers will be shipping, but drugs as well and weapons. The rough and rugged terrain of the Irish west coast, with its thousands of bays and inlets is impossible to police. So the focus instead is mainly on going after the dealers in the major cities and the smugglers shifting it off the Island. Without co-operation with the Irish police about the only thing that will get cheaper in the UK post-brexit is the street price of crack cocaine.

There are essentially only three ways this can end 1) The UK goes for a soft brexit and remains in the single market with free movement. 2) A hard border likely leading to the troubles reigniting and the British army gets to referee IED bombing contests between the different factions….forever….while the northern Irish economy implodes, this will likely lead to…..3) Northern Ireland unites with the South and leaves the UK. The Brexiters have to pick which these three options they want.

White house chaos

tele_cartoon_2.png

There’s a story I missed picking up on a few months back, as I was away at the time, concerning Trump’s mental state and whether he is fit for office. Given recent events, I think this needs to be discussed.

As David Pakman outlines, it has been commented that Trump’s behaviour, his erratic speaking style, constant gaffes and flip flops, memory loss, cartoon like racist views, his difficulty with stairs could all be symptoms of the onset of dementia. This could well explain for example, why he insists on having his family members around him, as part of their job is to support him given that he’s essentially not able to function in the job by himself. And several leading experts have voiced concerns, although they do point out that without a personal evaluation its difficult to say for sure.

And if true this does change everything. When we say Trump could be removed from office by the Republicans any time they feel like it, this is literally true if these stories are correct. Under the terms of article 25 of the US constitution, the cabinet (many of them hand picked Pence loyalists) could vote to remove him from office, citing the above factors and that would be that. Congress would have to endorse it, but obviously one assumes they’d quietly run it by congress first to ensure their little coup was going to succeed.

And we’ve been here before with Reagan, who is now known to have been suffering from the early symptoms of dementia during his presidency (which would eventually become full blown Alzheimer’s), which severely restricted his capabilities to function as president. It also left him dependant on his wife (and her astrologer!), creating a massive security risk. And it was widely rumoured that a contingency plan was in place to remove him from office under article 25 if there was ever a major crisis.

I have to say, having had relatives with dementia, it does kind of make sense this theory. But equally, I don’t know what he was like before. It could be he always was an dumb narcissistic racist, whose gotten a little dumber and more racist as he’s gotten older. You’d need a proper medical evaluation to tell either way. But here’s the thing, the fatal weakness of the US constitution is that it places opinion above fact. If enough of the cabinet believes him to mentally unfit to hold office, that’s all that matters.

Now one assumes that when it came to congress, they’d probably insist on some sort of medical evaluation. Assuming Trump refuses, or gets that quack hair doctor of his to do it, they’ll take that as defacto confirmation, because again, facts don’t matter to congress, only opinion. If they are of the opinion he’s mentally unfit (i.e. they reckon they’ll get re-elected if they oust him) that’s all that matters.

And coincidentally, this 100 facts is trumped by someone else’s opinion extends to impeachment proceedings. An impeachment trial is no more a proper trial than one held before Judge Judy….and that’s being insulting to day time television! If impeachment was determined with the same standards of a proper legal trial they would have impeached G. W. Bush and Reagan (although he might have gotten off on the basis of diminished responsibility), Nixon would have been perp walked out of the White house in hand cuffs and Bill Clinton would have gotten off Scot free. So in theory if enough republicans and democrats decide to oust Trump, he’s gone.

Another possibility, one that is perhaps more scary, is that the GOP are well aware of Trump’s mental incapacity. Indeed, this is the whole reason he’s in the job. Which is better, a competent president, or one who is easily manipulated into doing the things they won’t dare do (such as the recent business regarding transgender soldiers), whom they can blame for everything that goes wrong and who is so dogged by scandal, corruption and suspicion that he can be removed from power at the drop of a hat.

And again, this was the accusation made regarding the Reagan presidency. For the duration of his term, America didn’t have a president, they hired an actor to play the role of president, while the Republicans got on with the job of running the country.

And scarier still is the half and half possibility, which I actually think is closer to the truth. Yes Trump isn’t the full shilling, he probably he shouldn’t be president, but he’s sufficiently in charge of his faculties to see the danger, as are his family and loyalists. He knows that a move against him will happen sooner or later. This in itself probably explains the recent efforts by Trump to purge the cabinet of Pence loyalists, as part of of an effort to stack his cabinet against an article 25 push. However, this will probably result in political paralysis. It could ultimately have the opposite effect, if cabinet members fear he might remove them, they are more likely to back Pence if and when the time comes.

And Trump was also apparently trying to see if he could pardon himself or his family even before any trial has taken place. Well firstly, no he can’t pardon himself and furthermore this is a tacit admission that they’ve done something wrong. In the UK, one of the conditions of a pardon is that you drop all legal appeals, which was one of the issues with the Megrahi case. As the law sees it innocent people don’t want to be pardoned, certainly not prior to their trial, as that denies them their day in court and the opportunity to clear their name.

Furthermore, by pardoning people to stop an investigation, this could be seen as obstruction of justice. Now while yes, it has happened in the past that a president has pardoned those close to him who had been prosecuted, notably in the Scooter Libby case. But on those occasions everyone on both sides of the aisle just wanted to draw a line under the issue, so they pushed some leaves over it and tiptoed away. The problem for Trump is they won’t drop the matter, he’ll have just signed his own political death warrant by issuing such a pardon.

So with Trump and the GOP starting to fall out out, its going to make for interesting times…I hope nobody’s going to expect anything useful out of America sometime soon…..like a trade deal. Trump might not be making America great again, but its making politics more interesting!

To shoot and terrorise

a67c914f6bd54af79eccae759674baaf

The shocking murder of a Australian women at the hands of US police last week has highlighted the massive problem that American gun culture has created. If being killed by one of the millions of people with guns in the country wasn’t enough of a risk, there’s also the risk of being killed by the cops who are supposed to be there to protect them. The statistics speak for themselves, you are 70 times more likely to be killed by the police in American than you are in the UK and 28 times more likely than in Germany.

Of course, was this story about someone who was black, or a migrant from Mexico rather than Australia, it probably won’t have attracted this much attention. But at least the cops in Minneapolis are being consistent in their cover up (equal opportunities incompetence). The body cameras were suspiciously turned off at the time (as was the dash cam on their car). They’re claiming they heard a loud noise, then they said they feared an ambush (from a blonde woman in her PJ’s?), which all sounds a bit like the excuses Oscar Pistorius was making after he murdered his girlfriend. Next thing you know they’ll claim the dog ate the evidence.

There is in essence a fatal flaw in the right to bare arms mantra of the the NRA. Ya, you’ve got the right to bare arms, but those rights also give the cops the right to blow you away (or anyone else who looks suspicious). Tell the cops they can take your gun from your cold dead hands and they’ll say, well suit yourself, bang!

Now this is not to say there haven’t been deaths at the hands of police in the UK. For example the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of British police (they thought the Brazilian was a suicide bomber) or the death of Ian Tomlinson (which they initially tried to blame on anti-capitalist protestors). But you’re talking a handful of incidents every now and then, compared to what is a daily event in the US.

And again this is only a fraction of the 33,636 total gun deaths in the US per year, nearly a hundred a day. As the BBC recently reported (in a documentary), in one weekend back in 2015 there was 184 shootings and 87 deaths.

bi-graphicsodds of dying

In the US a gun owner is statistically 5 times more likely to accidentally shoot himself or be killed by the cops than he is to be killed by a terrorist

In short the carnage on the streets of the US is many times worse than that inflicted by ISIS in recent attacks across Europe. It is to say the least deeply ironic how the NRA try to use the fear of terrorism to justify mass gun ownership. In truth, it is no wonder there’s not been many terrorist attacks in the US, because ISIS knows they’d struggle to kill any number significant enough to feature as more than a blip on the total US firearms related deaths per year or even per day.

Of course the reason why US cops are so jittery is precisely because of this high gun crime rate. They know full well that right to carry laws and lax gun controls means every little incident they get called out too, be it a drunk being rowdy, a domestic incident or a cat up a tree in the wrong part of town could result in them facing a stand off against an armed attacker. Every hobo, kid or any sudden movement could be someone with an AR-15 looking to blow them away.

By contrast, police are less jittery in Europe because its a lot less likely they’ll encounter someone armed with a gun. Now while it is true that some European countries have very strict gun laws, Ireland or the UK for example, this isn’t true across all of Europe. Joerg Sprave discusses German gun laws on his vlog and as he reveals you can buy quite a lot of firearms in Germany legally, even things like the MP5 (which is banned in many US states!). Switzerland too has fairly liberal gun laws. The difference between these countries and the US is that there is no 2nd amendment, you have no right to bare arms, the state may allow you to do so (but its at their discretion), if you can prove you have a legitimate reason to want to own one (and saying you want to shoot people or for self defence will generally mean instant disqualification) and you’re not a criminal or insane.

There’s also few carry laws in Europe and how firearm incidents are treated is very different. In short, if you bring a gun into any situation, regardless of the circumstances, e.g. you caught a burglar in you’re own home and he attacked you, you’ll be going to jail unless you can explain how it is you happened to be armed at the time and why you had no other choice (in Germany guns must be kept in a locked gun safe and the ammo in a separate location, so the cops would legitimately question how you could find and load the gun in advance).

And keep in mind, as Joerg also points out in another video, German self defence laws are anything but liberal, they give you quite a lot of leeway to defend yourself, family, property or even your honour. But the one thing they don’t give you the right to do, is act like an asshole and run around with a gun, while drunk or stoned mumbling about your 2nd amendment rights.

Now granted the situation isn’t universal across Europe. In the UK you catch a burglar in your house you are practically obliged to invite him downstairs for some tea and crumpets. But my point is that while there are guns in circulation in Europe, they are more strictly controlled.

So while police in Europe do need to be wary of the possibility of a gun appearing in any incident, it is a fairly rare event. Criminals in Europe, while they will have access to firearms, they will generally not carry them around on a routine basis because A) that would give the cops a reason to arrest them straight away and B) they can’t get a gun license (because, oddly enough, we don’t allow those with a criminal record to own a gun in Europe), so any firearm they acquire will be via the black market, which will be very expensive. Hence, the cops this side of the Atlantic aren’t as jittery as police in the US.

Yes, they will encounter the odd dump street punk who takes things too far (or a jihadi), but these are rare events. As a UK drug cop once told me, you can tell when your dealing with hardened criminals, because they will never get caught with anything incriminating, chill out straight away, not say a word (other than “where’s my lawyer?”) and co-operate fully. Its the angry young crack heads who start shouting and running their mouth (with the cop diligently writing it all down in their little notebook, while going ya, ya, sure mate as they searching him/his car/home and finding plenty to lock him up on) those are the ones you have to watch out for, as they can kick off at the drop of a hat.

So all in all, one has to conclude that the high rate of police deaths (if not gun deaths in general) in the US are clearly a result of America’s lax gun laws. And naturally incidents like this unfortunate event in Minneapolis simply breeds distrust in the cops and the authorities.

Worryingly, this might well be the entire intent of the extreme gun policy taken by Republicans. As this article discusses there’s been a long standing effort by some wealthy neo-liberals to destroy trust in US institutions, as this strengthens their hand. If nobody trusts the police, they’ll turn to vigilante’s and private armies, which means any billionaire becomes immune to prosecution, because there’s no way he can be arrested.

And Trump plays into this. His supporters, even though they are all too aware that he colluded with the Russians, is engaging in African dictator level corruption in the White house, simply don’t care, they’ll back him whatever happens. Which is exactly what the rich elites want. By undermining the office of the president, Trump ensures it will scarcely matter who is president in future, it could be Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders or Jeb Bush, they will essentially be a toothless figure head.

And the thing gun advocates need to realise is that sooner or later a crack down is going to come (not least because once these lax gun laws have served their purpose the Republicans will turn against them). People will tire of the carnage and they’ll vote for parties who will change things.

Its worth remembering that while the 2nd amendment is quite old, how it is interpreted now is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of the US gun legislation, barely a decade or two old. Prior to this the situation was very different. So by wedding the 2nd amendment to this carnage, they are simply guaranteeing that if and when that crack down comes, it will be repealed, all of their gun rights will go and they will look on the “liberal” gun laws of Europe with envious eyes.

Should Bitcoin be banned?

Wana_Decrypt0r_screenshot

One feature of recent cyber attacks was how the perpetrators behind these ransomware programs wanted to be paid in Bitcoins. This isn’t that surprising, Bitcoin has become the preferred currency on the dark web and the criminal underworld. It is increasingly used for money laundering, tax evasion, to buy drugs, prostitution, fund terrorism or to even hire assassins.

While there is some “legitimate” bitcoin activity, this mostly seems to be restrained to speculative trading of bitcoins, operating exchanges or mining” of new bitcoins. Indeed one of the flaws in the ransomware attacks is that its likely to prove very difficult for the perpetrators to recover these funds without being found by the authorities. And the evidence is that very few of those effected paid up. However, its possible they might not care, the whole point of the attacks might just be an investment scam, to create an artificial jump in prices, allowing them to sell high and buy low.

If bitcoin is a vision of a libertarian world, it shows everything that is wrong with that vision. Indeed, as we speak bitcoin is a war with itself, largely because without any central regulating authority, there’s nobody to make the important discussions about how it should operate. This has resulted in the speed of service slowing to a crawl, at one point recently people were waiting 3 days or more for a trade to go through (not exactly convenient if you’re buying a cup of coffee!).

So it is perhaps high time for government’s to consider whether they would be better off just banning bitcoin completely. Now Bitcoin bugs will tell us this is impossible, however by doing so they simply show how naive they are to how governments, currencies or the law works (which of course is exactly the problem with libertarians!).

While bitcoin is technically legal in most countries, this doesn’t mean itslegal tender. In most countries there is no obligation to use the legal tender for all trades. In the Northern Ireland for example, its not uncommon for shops to accept euro’s. Around a number of US airbases in the UK dollars will sometimes be accepted. And in Argentina, where I was recently, they’ll often take euro’s or dollars. Indeed, even barter is legal in many forms (e.g. part exchange of vehicles, companies accepting payment in kind, etc.). In short, so long as you pay any taxes that are due, the government doesn’t really care what currency you use. In other words, bitcoin is in most cases not legal approved, but its not illegal. There’s a very big legal difference between the two.

In fact banning bitcoin would be scarily easy. All that would need to happen is for a couple of governments to get together (say the EU and the US) and ban the sale or ownership of bitcoins, citing the numerous examples of its misuse I’ve quoted above. At this point all the “legit” bitcoin businesses will either have to fold or move overseas. And given that the currency will tank in value at the same time, my guess is most will either fold, or find a way of establishing a new currency that conforms to this new legislation.

This means the number of bitcoin trades will decline significantly. Now bitcoin advocates think they “the gov’mint” can’t trace them. Well law enforcement says no, we can trace bitcoin trades if we have to, but its a lot of hard work. Given that virtually all the remaining bitcoin trades will be criminal in some nature they’ll find things a lot easier as the number of trades will drop significantly. In effect the criminals will lose their cover. Indeed given that even owning bitcoins is now a crime in of itself, even criminals will want to offload them, else they could be prosecuted for simply owning bitcoins, in much the same way Al Capone was imprisoned not for racketeering and murder, but for tax evasion.

So while there will continue to be some trade in them after such a ban, outside the west, much of the network that supports those trades will vanish and the currency will probably become too unstable to survive, particularly if a legally acceptable (and government regulated) alternative that is better supported then appears.

Of course the message to bitcoin bugs is for them to realise that they are not invulnerable. If they don’t do something to tackle the criminal use of bitcoin, eventually national government will do it for them, likely by wiping bitcoin out of existence.

Why tuition fees have to go

I’ve long argued that exorbitant tuition fees English students are required to pay are a generally bad idea. I’ve described before the impact they’ve had on the running of universities and how they’ve turned universities into money hungry corporations. How it has resulted in students increasingly seeing their degree as a commodity to be bought, not something life changing they are earning through hard work. I certainly see the benefit of students making some contribution towards their studies, after all not everyone gets to go to uni and fees do make universities less dependant on the whims of government. However, the more and more I look on it, the more I feel that given the choice between the no-fees system of Scotland or the supermarket uni’s of England, fees are just not a good idea and should be scraped.

dgdfgfdgfgfhgfgfggfg.jpg

The arguments put forward for fees are that they would give student better value for money in their education, more choice, it would increase funding to critical courses, such as medicine and engineering and it would cut student numbers. As these statistics show, in all three cases they have failed and the opposite has happened. Students, saddled with increasingly high levels of debt have becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their courses. Given that engineering and medical courses are more expensive to operate, the mercenary nature of some universities has seen them cut back on these course, as well as shutting down various specialised courses and restricting student’s choices (I don’t think I’ve worked in a uni where one course or another wasn’t in the process of being wound down).

sgfdfhfgfggfhfghfghgfh

As for cutting student numbers, they’ve been going up until recently. This is just as well, for as I discussed in a prior article, we are entering into an increasingly technology driven age where its going to be harder and harder for anyone without some sort of qualification (a degree, college cert, trade, etc.) to stay employed.

However thanks to the brexit effect and Tory cuts to student grants they are now getting their wish and student numbers are down slightly this year, by about an average of 4%. Now within the meta data there are some alarming numbers, with a 23% drop in nursing, this on the back of a 96% drop in EU nurses coming to the UK to work. So this raises the risk of some serious staffing shortages in the NHS in a few years time.

Another impact of brexit, is that not only have lecturers and researchers begun to leave the UK, but UK universities too are looking to establish campuses in Europe. I recall suggesting that this might happen in the event of brexit a few years ago, and well, now its happening.

Meanwhile students in the UK are now looking at leaving uni with an average of £57,000 in debt. That is a lot of money to end up owing, made worse by the fact that the interest rates are now set to go up to 6.1%. Indeed this is sufficiently high that it for most graduates earning an average entry level salary they will will struggle to pay off just the interest on that loan, and will likely see the principal written off, which basically means the taxpayer pays it.

student_debt_ifs_2017

So in effect the entire student fees system is little more than a tax on millennials to exploit the fact that they don’t vote, while pensioners (who either went to uni for free or paid a fraction of the amount) get an above inflation pension rise every year. Of course, increasingly, it seems the millennials aren’t willing to pay this “tax” and will vote for a party that promises to scrap it and the brexit voting pensioners can go spin on it (again I recall pointing out something like this might happen after a leave vote).

Also we need to consider a more fundamental issue, effectively by raising tuition fees Osborne and Cameron pulled an old fashioned accounting trick. The accumulated student debt in the UK now exceeds £100 billion, which we’ve established will mostly be written off, but the government won’t have to pay that off for a good few years. So in effect they set up a sort of buy now, pay later scheme and create the illusion that they were cutting the deficit.

_96834257_outstanding_student_loans_uk_624_v2

Now “only” £100 billion doesn’t sound so bad against the back drop of a UK debt level of £1,737 billion, 86% of GDP, noting that it was only 65% of GDP when the Tories took over (and the Tories were elected because they claimed that labour had let the debt get out of control). However given that student debt is rising at about 16% a year, so it will be closer to a figure of £300 billion in 2025 (not accounting for inflation). Add in the expected cost of brexit and its economic impact (another £100-200 billion depending on the breaks) and its not too difficult to see how the UK’s debt levels could exceed the critical threshold of 100% of GDP within a decade, worse than every European country, other than Italy and Greece I might add.

uk-debt-since-95.png

If want to scare away your creditors, you can do it very easily if they discover that you’ve been playing silly buggers with them and there’s a whole block of off the book debts that you’re on the hook for. This is what happened to China recently. The rating agencies cut China’s credit rating due to concerns about debts run up by state owned companies. I was in China at the time and suffice to say, they were less than pleased about this, pointing out that its highly unlikely that all of these debts would go bad all at once and that China’s economy is in a vastly more healthy state than any western state.

Well the danger is that at some point the penny will drop, the rating agencies will apply a similar logic to the UK and we could see a ratings agency downgrade of the UK debts (again!), both public and private. A rating agency cut remember will make everything more expensive, mortgages will go up, personal loans, car loans and yes student loans. So its altogether bad news. Oh and since we are talking about it, as things stand the rating agencies are jittery, telling the EU to go whistle over the brexit bill, you might find its the Chancellor who is whistling if that provokes another credit rating cut.

Now the Tories will probably argue that this is the whole reason why they are trying to sell off student loan debts to the banks. However this risks making the situation worse. Firstly the whole reason for increasing the interest rate was to facilitate this sale. But increasing the interest rate on any loan will increase the default rate yet further. You are also selling off an asset which you know is going to be defaulted on. Its like sub-prime mortgages all over again. And you are creating a mechanism by which a contagion of debt can spread from one institution to another (or to the government). Again, the whole logic behind the Chinese debt downgrade isn’t that the rating agencies doubt China’s ability to pay, its their worry that a default on a loan in rural Gansu province, could lead to the collapse of one local bank and then ricochet through the system until it threatened the finances of the whole country.

Furthermore, saddling young people with an economic millstone and putting them under the thumb of the student loan company (who are known to “punish” students for disloyalty to the UK by ramping up their interest rate), leaving them living on baked beans for many years and putting off important spending decisions (such as buying a house) is not good for the economy. It could lead to economic stagnation (which would prompt another rating agency downgrade!). And why should banks get to profit from that?

So all in all, something has to give. In the first instance, if we don’t actually expect students to pay off this debt mountain, then why make them. Set up a debt forgiveness scheme and cut down student debts to more manageable levels.

As for fees, I still do think that students should pay something for their education, if they can afford to do so. A graduate tax is one idea, or some smaller, more limited level of fees. Alternatively, as pensioners will directly benefit from graduates (i.e. doctors & NHS nurses), maybe going after wealthy pensioners and taxing them (or breaking the triple lock on pensions) might be another solution.

But certainly the current system is just a recipe for disaster. It will lead to skill shortages in key areas, its creating a third level system that is increasingly unfit for purpose and could actually threaten the financial health of the country.

Trading delusions

20170204_BRD001_0

They had something on the BBC the other night about the possible impact of brexit on trade, in particular on food prices and the UK food industry. Here’s a summary article from the BBC news website.

As I’ve mentioned before, one of the problems with the BBC, is that in the interest of “balance” and “fairness” they’ll have some expert on telling us what’s likely to happen, then they’ll turn to some swivel eyed right wing loon, to give the opposing view.

Two terms that keep cropping up with the brexiters are “new and exciting trade deals” and “push into new emerging markets”. Well first of all, why do you need a new trade deal with the other countries? Via the EU the UK already HAS a perfectly good set of trade deals. Brexit means the UK will have to spend several decades renegotiating those deals. The idea that a country of 60 million is going to get a better deal than a trading block of 400 million is clearly absurd.

Granted the TTIP trade deal between the EU and US looks like its dead, but to be honest that was kind of tainted to begin with. Its demise is probably a good thing. The danger now is that the UK will find itself forced to sign up to some version of that which blatantly favours the US, which could see the sell off of the NHS.

As for “new and emerging markets”, where exactly are these places? Have we found a new continent recently? I know we’ve been finding exoplanets recently, but its a bit early to be thinking of trade deals. Granted, as most brexiters seem to live in the 19th century to them “the orient” or “the south seas” might be a new and mysterious place, but we’ve been trading with these countries for years.

iau1301a-800x533

Is this this what the brexiters mean by a new emerging market?

Given that the bulk of this TV programme seemed to be about food and beef, I can tell you, having been to Argentina and China in the last 12 months, they have a perfectly adequate supply of food and its very cheap. Indeed, that’s the problem, they don’t know the meaning of the word “small portions” in either country. There is no way the UK could undercut local prices. And given how much of the UK is owned by foreign multinationals, its not as if it will ever be a straight “us” versus “them”. It will be one UK based but Chinese owned firm, against an American owned firm in China.

tx5night2

The new iconic London taxi….owned by a Chinese firm…who bought it off a Malaysian company

Indeed the danger is the other way around, that these countries with there lower production costs will flood the UK market with cheap produce and bankrupt UK industry. One of the things about trade deals is that if everyone wanted a perfectly free trade deal, then all you’d have to do is get both sides to sign a single piece of paper with “no tariffs” written on it. But nobody wants that because it would decimate their industry as the other side dumps goods at ultra-low costs (in some cases made at below the cost of production thanks to state subsidies). This is why the devil in any trade deal is in the detail. And inevitably the UK is going to struggle to get anything more favourable than the EU has managed to get.

Even competing against the US presents problems. Their farmers use all sorts of practices banned in the UK, growth hormones in cattle, feedlots, chlorinated chicken. Its enough to make you want to go veggie….until you realise how much of America’s cereal crop is of full of GMO’s. And US farmers receive very high levels of farm subsidies. Indeed, even US industry is heavily subsidised in some sectors (usually in the form of massive sweat heart deals to supply equipment to the military, FEMA or USACE), such as construction equipment, aircraft and vehicles, the very industries the UK is anxious to defend.

_91530997_protectionist_policies_g20_v2

Far from being the land of small government and free enterprise, the US is one of the most interventionist and protectionist regimes in the world

The idea of UK firms like JCB competing against titans like Caterpillar (America) or LiuGong (China), both with the backing of world superpower behind them is just laughable. And UK beef farmers with a few hundred acres competing against an Argentinian farm half the size of Wales, don’t think that’s going to work…particularly after anyone abroad google’s “British beef” and the first thing that comes up is “mad cow disease”.

The only way that UK firms could compete is by copying the same tactics. E.g. After these pro-brexit farmers go to the wall, the local laird (who helped bankroll the leave campaign) buys up their farms, rips up the hedges and country side and turns the entire county into one massive feedlot. Now if we are lucky he might hire a couple of destitute farmers on as farm hands. But then again, he might just sneak in some migrant workers instead. It depends who is suitably desperate for work.

The Tories next big flip flop – immigration

sub-buzz-2939-1467471133-1

Police were called to escort away a deranged woman who was found squatting in a building in central London, screaming stuff about “brexit” and “Dalmatians“. An appeal to re-home her has appeared online

I made a point in one of my previous posts about how conservatives have a tendency to flip flop, happily willing to sacrifice even the most scared of right wing cattle just to get them through some short term crisis. Well its quite likely that the Tories next big flip flop will be on immigration, which is not great news for the brexit bigots, seeing as this is the whole reason why they voted leave in the first place.

Last week, Jeremy Cunt Hunt was caught leaving Downing Street waving a piece of paper (picked up by a high resolution camera) which talked about how the NHS now feared the consequences of people fleeing Britain post-brexit. Of course this “leak” was almost certainly deliberate. This sort of stuff has happened often enough now that it can’t be just an accident. Indeed the very fact that Hunt reckoned he could get away with this should tell you just how weak Theresa May’s position now is.

2500

That said, what Mr Cunt Hunt was alluding to was not idle paranoia. There has been an alarming drop in migrant numbers notably in nursing (which has seen a 96% drop in applicants from the EU in one year), farming (where a critical shortage of labour now threatens the harvest) and engineering. And its becoming obvious that the numbers will fall further post-brexit with many EU migrants here already talking of leaving and many of those on the continent reluctant to come to a country they now see as xenophobic and racist.

This could potential leading to skill shortages and falling tax revenue. And no we can’t just recruit from within the UK. Where are we going to find several thousand extra nurses a year? Even if we started up a whole bunch of nursing courses tomorrow, it would be four years before the first ones graduate….and they’d probably go work abroad (as some significant portion of UK nurses and doctors chose to do) because they don’t want to have anything to do with the sweatshop conditions of the NHS under the Tories.

Even things like fruit picking are not easily solved. Hire the UK unemployed to do the fruit picking? Ya, ok and you do know the harvest season lasts for like a few weeks, what are they supposed to do the rest of the year? Many of the unemployed you are looking to recruit are “townies” who have little experience of the countryside (I’ve visions of them wandering through the mud in trainers frantically trying to google what is this brown stuff on the ground? And are cows carnivorous?) and have no clue how to harvest crops. By contrast, farm workers from Eastern Europe are happy to come over for a few weeks, live ten to a bedroom, make a bit of cash before heading back to their home country for the harvest there. Ultimately getting British workers to do the farming, even if that was possible, will push up prices by at least 50%.

And suffice to say if replacing farm workers is that hard, what about technical jobs like engineer or academia? There is a quiet orderly withdrawal of academics from the UK going on. Keep in mind that recruiting academics isn’t easy, it can take years to fill a senior academic vacancy.

And anyone who says, but immigration controls won’t interfere with recruitment, no it will, its already doing so. I came across this example on Twitter of a job (looks like a management one) which requires the applicant to be a permanent resident of the UK.

But hasn’t Theresa May made a very “generous” offer of residency to EU citizens here already? Ya she’s promised a settlement which will leave them with less rights than a Jar of Jam. Keep in mind like for like will apply, the EU might well restrict the immigration status of UK citizens in the EU in return. Which will make it all but impossible for certain large UK companies to function (such as Airbus, which has made clear a lack of free movement of workers will have consequences). The flow of migrant workers, filling key skills shortages (and paying taxes), could be replaced by a exodus of retirees streaming in to overcrowd an already overcrowded and stretched NHS.

State interference in a company’s ability to recruit seldom ends well. You are basically putting in place a massive trade barrier. Its ironic how many Tories claim to be neo-liberals, when in fact capital controls or high taxes are less restrictive to a company’s competitiveness than restrictions on immigration. For example, remember how Trump got that factory in Mexico cancelled and created all those American jobs? Well first of all, he had to pay the company off (so it cost the government money). Secondly not a single auto job was transferred to the US, the company exec’s simply took one look at this orange skinned baboon in chief and pulled the brakes on further expansion. So all he did was stop a couple of hundred Mexicans from getting jobs. And what’s the chances that some of them have ended up in the US looking for work?

41167368 - 16_01_2017 - MEXICO-ECONOMY-TRUMP-FORD-FACTORY_0

Trump’s immigration plan has led to abandoned factories and companies scaling back on recruitment

Oh, and one of the US companies in question, has just announced they are about to start laying off workers in the US. This is of course not really a huge surprise. In a crisis a company has two choices, expand, which isn’t really an option for much of the US auto industry right now, as they lack the cash reserves or growth potential to do that (restricting trade with overseas markets means they have no room to expand, unless he can get everyone in the US to buy a 2nd or 3rd car). So the alternative is the company “rationalises” or “explores efficiency savings”….which is corporate speak for “sack people”. While I’m no fan of the Austrian School, there can be something of a stopped clock element to it sometimes. The trouble is that conservatives tend to ignore them.

Back in the UK, brexit has started to give business leaders the jitters, again due to the potential impact of immigration controls. Hence why the CBI recently called for an indefinite delay in leaving the single market. And again, this is not idle paranoia or remoaning, the first year after the referendum reveals some very worrying trends, as this post discusses. UK GDP growth has nose dived, inflation is soaring at a time that average earnings are flat-lining or falling. While the UK trade balance was initially doing well (thanks to the drop in the value of the UK pound), its now starting to tighten.

In Scotland, the Scottish economy is starting to struggle. Predictably (given their inability to understand cause and effect and the fact conservatives have the memory span of a goldfish), they’ve tried to blame this on the SNP and speculation about a 2nd indy ref.

WTF! So let me get this straight, thinking of having an indyref can cause a recession, even though when Scotland actually HAD one in 2015, it didn’t cause a recession….or is that just because that referendum was Cameron’s idea? (and obviously nothing bad that happens is ever the fault of the Tory party!).

The truth is that it has long been pointed out by economists that the Scottish economy is particular sensitive to the impact of any brexit, I recall pointing this out several years ago (back in 2011 in fact), so that the Scottish economy is now in a slump over brexit is not really a huge surprise, this is in line with long term predictions. And once the penny drops in Scotland that is is the fault of brexit, don’t be surprised if support for independence starts to rise.

So all in all, the Tories are going to come under massive pressure not to restrict immigration. Now they’ll talk the talk, make people fill out a lot of BS forms and pretend to do something, but essentially they’ll probably end up doing nothing meaningful. So if you voted for brexit to stop migration, well I’ve got bad news for you. On the bright side, migrants are paying for you’re retirement.

And if that sounds far fetched, well in some respects they’ve already flip flopped on immigration. I recall just a few months ago Amber Rudd on QT defending the ridiculously Byzantine immigration procedures (including an 85 page form) and how yes all EU migrants would have to fill this out and what’s wrong with that?….because the civil service will then have to read all 3 million of them (plus 6 million more for the Irish) and that will take a decade or more (they handle only about 150,000 a year at the moment).

And low and behold a few months later now they’ve said bollix to that, we’ll get all the EU migrants to fill in a form on a website and the Irish will be exempt. Good, I can apply for settled status for my friend in Portugal Ivan Proteus Freely as well as my German cousin Anita Bathhaus 😉 I mean its not as if they can check all 3 million online applications.

Jokes aside, the point is that the current Tory plans on immigration are simply unworkable. They won’t actually cut immigration by much (something that was predicted some time ago).You’ll simply replace short to medium term workers coming over to fill labour shortages (who pay taxes, but leave before they get old enough to become a burden on the state), with older British retirees (who will overload the NHS) and long term migrants from Asia (who tend to plan on staying for longer, as well as bring over their entire family).

I’ll finish by noting how quite a lot of those involved in the brexit negotiations (Dave2, the EU’s Bernier, Theresa May) are all keen mountaineers. Well in mountaineering we have an expression, often called the golden rule of mountaineering:

Going to the summit is optional, coming back down is compulsory

I’d make a sign with that written on it and hang it on the wall in the room where the brexit negotiations are going on.

Possible Tory leadership candidates

Screen-Shot-2017-06-17-at-07.00.27-1.png

The word around the camp fire is that we are probably just weeks, or maybe months, away from a Tory leadership contest (they even have a wikipedia page up about it already!). Theresa May is widely seen as a lame duck, whose job at the moment is to basically turn on and off the light of her office and that’s about it. Her advisers are gone, leaving her alone and vulnerable. Her recent announcement regarding the future rights of EU citizens was rejected by the EU. In part because it doesn’t go far enough. But also because the EU realises that it doesn’t matter what she says as she won’t be in the job for much longer.

So given such circumstances I thought it might be a good idea to review some of the runners and riders in the upcoming leadership contest. For those who aren’t vampires familiar with how the Tory leadership process works, there’s a first round of voting by MP’s which eliminates the candidates one by one until only two remain holding the still beating hearts of their opponents. Then there’s a 2nd round where senile bigoted pensioners the party faithful decide between the two.

_90167009_election_conservative_leader_inf624

Boris

So after a posh Etonian Bullingdon boy got the country into an awful mess, what could possibly go wrong if the Tory’s pick another Etonian Bullingdon boy as PM. Certainly Boris is very popular with the base and he’s a good deal more charismatic than Theresa May….then again a corpse has more charisma than her! Certainly he could take on Corbyn and have a good chance of winning an election. However, he’d be a risky bet I’d argue.

Firstly brexit. During the campaign Boris promised the sun the moon and the stars to the country. He made many contradictory promises ranging from the hardest of hard brexits to the softest of them. Initially he even suggested a leave vote won’t mean the country leaving as he could use that to negotiate a better deal (the EU intervened at this point and said what you see is what you get a leave vote means you are leaving). Now he could do this because as we now know, he didn’t actually want brexit. He saw it as merely a means to an end to wound his old rival Cameron, while earning himself some browning points for an eventual leadership challenge after he’d gracefully lost.

The problem for Johnson now is that in any election campaign his lies will come back to haunt him. He made promises he can’t possibly keep. If Corbyn had any sense (perhaps there’s labour’s problem, he doesn’t!) his first question in any debate with Boris will be “so when are we getting our £350 million a week?” and basically take it from there, roll out all of Johnson’s lies during the referendum campaign one after the other.

brexitbus-gettyimages-533670392.jpg

Also there’s a substantial anybody but Boris” movement within the Tory party. Many just don’t like him. They consider him too ambitious by far, too unprincipled and too incompetent. And there’s the usual toff infighting. At Eton he was Hufflepuff, they were all slytherin. But either way, there’s a significant number of the old guard in the smoke filled rooms who do not want him, which includes the Barclay Brothers (who are already canvassing for David Davis) as well as Rupert Murdoch. So while he’d likely win if he can get through to the second round of voting, the chances are he won’t make it through. He’ll be quietly knifed in the same way Gove knifed him last time. And we still don’t know what exactly went on between Gove and Boris. If there’s some sort of dirt he was threatened with, then its reasonable assume that threat will be made again.

Also while I could see him winning an election because lots of people think it would be a laugh to see what Boris gets up too. But on the other hand, if the country is reeling from brexit or some other crisis and the view is that we need a grown up in charge, then a Tory party led by Boris Johnson could well lose. So while he’s in with a shout, it would be a risky bet for the Tories to choose him.

Michael Gove

So Gove’s main selling point is….I don’t know either! But certainly his main claim to fame is that he’s the guy who knifed Boris last time. But that means that the pro-Boris brigade will support anybody but him. So its possible that he and Boris might essentially take one another out. In fact that’s probably why he’s back in the cabinet, so May has him plotting away against Johnson rather than plotting against her. Its like in King’s landing, you have little finger and…the fat one!…who are constantly plotting against one another and essentially countering each other in the process. Meanwhile Cersei Lannister Theresa May get’s on with her job.

And a reference to GoT is appropriate because the fact is he’s a sneaky lying two faced wee git. If he became PM they’ll be issuing stab proof vest to anyone going into Downing street. It would quickly become a place of intrigue with back stab and front stab happy courtiers plotting against one another, while the country burns around them.

And like Boris, he faces a problem in any election over all the lies he told during the EU referendum. Now while Boris might be able to dig himself out of that with the odd joke or Latin quote (a tactic that will wear thin over a month long campaign), Gove isn’t sufficiently charismatic (and way too stupid!) to do that.

So I would take a successful campaign by him as a sign the Tories have decided they want to take a sabbatical for awhile and are happy to let labour take over and sort out this brexit mess for them.

David Davis

The Brexit secretary David Davis, whom I will hence forth refer to as Dave2, is another possible choice, seen as the right wing establishment’s preferred pick. And he’s even picked up an endorsement from Nigel Farage. While he did back brexit during the referendum, he largely kept his head down as he tried to avoid making enemies.

However as brexit secretary Dave2 is in a bit of a tight spot. Inevitably as part of the brexit process the government is going to have to make a lot of unpopular decisions and agree to things that will anger the Tory party base, as well as the rest of the country. And while the other candidates can dodge the issue to some extend, as brexit secretary Dave2 can’t. His signature will literally be on the offending documents. Indeed I assumed when he was appointed that he was given this job because he had no political ambitions beyond it, much as how Alastair Darling was given the task of fronting the no vote in the Scottish indyref. This is the sort of job you take on if you don’t mind ending your political career.

So I can’t really see him winning, either the leadership contest nor an election. But then again, with the right media support anything’s possible I suppose. With the Tories its not what you know but who you know that counts.

Phil Hammond

Chancellor of the Exchequer Phil Hammond has very much been the grown up in the room of May’s cabinet. He campaigned for remain and has spent the last year lobbying for as soft a brexit as possible. He’s also rowed back on some of his predecessor’s harsh austerity measures. If the Tories are going into an election facing a backlash against both brexit and austerity, they could do well by put him on the podium to say, look I didn’t start the fire, but I’ve been doing my best to put it out.

Of course Hammond’s greatest strength is his greatest weakness. He’s way too sensible to win a Tory leadership contest. The Tory party base, i.e. Daily Mail readers, don’t want some smart arse mansplaining to them why all their right wing fantasies are bollix. So I reckon he hasn’t got a huge chance of winning. This would create problems for the Tories however.

There’s a lot of Tories who think the lunatics are being allowed to take over the asylum. And a lot of them have coalesced around Hammond. It was widely expected that if May did win the election and get a large majority she’d have to pick between the Hammond brigade or the Boris brigade. And the expectation was she’d sack Hammond. So if he were to be treated badly this could be the sort of thing that would upset apple carts and lead to massive infighting, perhaps even a party split.

One possibility is him and perhaps Dave2 taking over as a sort of Triumvirate (with perhaps one of the other candidates, other than Boris, as the third) for the duration of brexit talks giving time for Boris to be disposed of a younger candidate to emerge, upon which time they resign and hand over power just before an election.

Michael Fallon

Another remain supporter in the running is Michael Fallon, the defence secretary. He’s largely stayed out of the brexit fray, much like Theresa May did prior to the referendum. So he can portray himself as the sensible compromise candidate that everyone can unite around. He’s reasonably experienced, having been appointed a junior minster by the wicked witch of Finchley Thatcher and then serving as a minster under John Major.

However he has a few skeletons in his closet. Firstly, as mentioned, he served in the Thatcher and Major governments. That’s like applying for a job in the South African government and putting on your CV how you used to do the same job during the apartheid regime. Recall how badly Michael Howard (another ex-Major cabinet member) performed in an election, largely thanks to comedy sketches like this. These are memories the Tory party have spent the last two decades trying to get the electorate to forget.

Secondly, there’s the expenses scandal. Now okay, lots of politicians got their hand caught in the cookie jar during that. Even Corbyn got caught out for a cheeky claim for a pair of wall hangers for his Azaleas (ok I’m making that one up, but its the sort of thing you could see him getting caught for). But Farron claimed for the mortgage on his house! Oh, and this is despite the fact that he lives just down the road from London in Seven oaks (about 30 minutes away by train). And he was chairing the Treasury select committee at the time of the scandal! This is fox in charge of the hen house sort of stuff. So he comes with a lot of excess baggage that could play very badly in any election.

Of course this is the problem with the Tories. There’s going to be Tories reading this and thinking, well what’s wrong with that? Everybody fiddles their expenses or taxes, don’t they? Ah….no! The majority of the electorate can’t afford a second home, or even a mortgage on the home they live in. This sort of stuff plays very badly in an election and could easily swing it the way of Corbyn in a tight race.

Dark horses

In addition there are several dark horses to consider. Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson is a good example. She’s actually managed to convince some Scots to vote Tory, which is a bit like talking an Inuit into buying a fridge freezer or a chicken to go into a KFC. Currently the rules say she’s not eligible as she’s a lying thieving jock not a member of the Tory party (the Scottish conservatives are a separate party from the Tories). She’s also not an MP and thus couldn’t be PM. However that could all change.

Amber Rudd is an obvious successor to May. But I’d argue she’s out of the running given how she only avoided a visit to the job centre a couple of weeks back by a margin of a few hundred votes. Any sort of a swing towards labour, and post Grenfell that’s almost certainly happened already, and she could lose her seat. In any election she’ll be spending most of her time knocking on every door in her constituency trying to hang onto her job. She’ll have no time to do anything else. And she still might fail, particularly if the lib dems and labour were to do a deal giving labour a clear run against her. So by electing her, the Tories could be facing another Michael Portillo moment come the next election.

Another dark horse is Stephen Crabb, who stood last time. His main selling point is….rugby? I don’t know he could maybe try a different approach to brexit talks, a bit like this bit from Flash Gordon.

There’s a couple of others in the running Liz Truss (the Tory cabinet’s official bimbo, given how the tabloids are constantly printing pictures of her arse!), Jo Johnson, Nicki Morgan or Priti Patel. All those in this list haven’t really screwed up too badly and won’t upset any of the major factions within the party if they won. Of course that in of itself is what probably rules them all out, the Tory party base don’t want a little miss sensible bossing them about.

Then there’s Nadine Dorries a member of the so-called “red Tory” faction. She has in the past written off Osborne and Cameron as a pair of “posh boys who don’t live in the real world. She’s sat on a number of important committees which have investigating the expenses scandal and tax evasion. So she knows where the body’s are buried. If the Tories are looking for an insurgent populist Sarah Palin of their own, she’s your candidate….if you can look past the fact she’s a flaming fruitcake who believes in abstinence only education and has filed multiple private members bills against abortion. So, like Boris Johnson, I doubt she’d make it through to the second round, the party establishment will see to that.

Put up or shut up?

So my assessment is that its difficult to see who will win. Boris Johnson is certainly the leading contender, but he’ll likely falter early. If he gets taken out, then it becomes a bit more of an open contest. Who wins will largely depend on how soon the Tories expect to be fighting an election and whether or not they want to win it. They might pick a sensible candidate, in which case the centre ground voters will swing behind the Tories and labour will get wiped out in a snap election.

But the danger for the Tories is that the swivel eyed loon brigade will back some nutter (like Andrea Loathsome Leadsom or Nadine Dorries) or a hard brexiter (at a time when the aftershocks of brexit are starting to impact on voters) and all but guarantee that they lose the next election.

Indeed, its worth finishing with a poll, which suggested that a change of leadership might actually hurt the Tories chances rather than improve them. Which does raise the possibility that May might pull the old Johnny Haymaker, resign and then apply for the leadership again and tell the party “put up or shut up”. So in the end they might find they are stuck with her, which needless to say slashes the odds for labour to win the next election.