A spoiler alert for the EU elections

_106764262_sineadhensey.jpg

The UK’s local election results (in England, Scotland wasn’t voting this time around) have shown a massive swing away from the pro-brexit parties, towards pro-remain parties. Now while it is certainly true that local elections tend to be fought over issues such as fortnightly bin collections and the cost of the Christmas lights, certainly there’s clearly something of a trend here that’s a bit too obvious to ignore.

_106790584_final_change-nc

At the end of the day, even if you are voting on local issues, who do you want in charge of local affairs? The party that proposed brexit, got a deal and then voted against it. Or the party that backed remain, but voted in favour of article 50 and who has been sitting on the fence ever since, with the party leadership trying to come up with an excuses for why they should vote for a Tory brexit plan they all hate. Or maybe you’d rather put some grown up’s in charge instead? And its also worth remembering that as these elections didn’t include London or Scotland, its probable the swing on this issue is if anything understated.

This is exactly the point I’ve been making for sometime. Corbyn and May seem to think that if they can just sneak brexit through, that’s it done and dusted, all the 17 million or so who voted remain, many of whom can show very real personal loss and hardship brought onto them by brexit, will go away and shut up about the issue forever. Well obviously no, they won’t. As the economic impact of brexit takes effect it will mean that instead support for rejoining the EU will grow. Corbyn’s plan is to let brexit happen and then blame the Tories. But, as these results should make clear, the outcome of a Tory brexit is voters backing pro-EU parties, not other forms of euroscepticism.

So they’ve got the message loud and clear, we’ll be having a 2nd referendum then. LOL! Nope, both party leaders are arguing instead that a strong swing to remain indicates support for their policy. May wants a 3rd vote (or is it a 4th vote? honestly I’ve lost count!) on her deal (once she’s changed the font). Corbyn seems to think it means voters defecting from him to the lib dems and greens means they want labour to back May’s deal this time (brexiter logic, don’t even try to understand it!).

As I’ve said before, so long as Corbyn (aka Captain Ahab) is party leader, labour are a pro-leave party. He will prioritise getting brexit through over becoming PM or reversing Tory austerity. Even thought labour is overwhelmingly a remain party, labour voters need to remember you are essentially voting for a Tory brexit by voting labour. It doesn’t matter what you vote for at conference, or what’s in the party manifesto, Corbyn has consistently shown he will ignore both and push through his own agenda. And you can also be guaranteed, even when he does go, he’ll make sure his own hand picked successor (eurosceptic and clueless) takes over.

But, what’s really troubling me is the upcoming EU elections. I’d be inclined to vote Green party in these. While its claimed the UK’s EU elections operate on proportional representation, its a flawed version of PR, as it doesn’t include a transferable vote (and hence tends to favour the major parties). A party needs about 15% of the vote per seat in Scotland. And last time the lib dems and greens split about 15% of the vote between them (so no seats for either party).

European Parliament VI 26 04 2019 SCOT

However, now Change UK threaten to split a pool of about 20% of the vote 3 ways. This means that when you add that to the SNP’s 40%, 60% of Scottish voters will likely vote for pro-remain parties. Add in labour’s 14% (Scottish labour is very much a remain party, even more so than in England) that works out at support at 74% for remain. However, thanks to Change UK’s spoiler action, its possible the seat allocation will split more like 50/50.

Why didn’t Change UK do an election deal with the other parties and run on a joint ticket? And worse still, while no lib dem or greens got elected in Scotland last time, several did get elected in English constituencies. Change UK spoiler action now threatens to cost these MEP’s their seats (in fact one of their candidates recently pulled out for this very reason, she doesn’t want to stand and help brexiters get elected).

Looking at the UK wide polls add up the pro-remain parties and they do have a lead (although a narrow one at that) and again you add in labour and support for remain represents a majority. But inevitably the media won’t report that. They will focus on seat allocation (which will likely split 70/30 in favour of leave) or which individual party got the most votes or seats (which will be Farage and his gallery of ghouls).

So my advice to anyone in the UK is don’t vote for Change UK. Check your local results and opinion polls and back incumbent pro-remain MP’s (in Scotland that would be the SNP, in England Greens and lib dems, in Wales Plaid Cymru). And whatever you do, don’t vote for labour either (the media will count that as a pro-leave vote). Certainly if there’s a big shift in support in Scotland, whereby the green’s stand a chance, I might well vote for them and I’d advise everyone else to watch the polls closely and do the same. But the priority this time is maximising the number of remain supporting MEP’s who get elected. Particularly when you understand what’s going on in the rest of Europe.

I appreciate what Change UK is trying to do. They know that the Tories are now just enablers of fascism and xenophobia. The nasty party. That Corbyn is a pighead numpty, who hasn’t changed his views on anything since 1970 and hasn’t got a clue how to win an election. However simply compounding the main parties mistakes while waving a pro-remain flag isn’t progress. A hard defeat might snap them back to reality and force them to change tactics (such as doing forging an alliance with the lib dems).

Advertisements

Parliament cracks on brexit

leak

The roof of the house of commons leaks – insert brexit inspired metaphor or joke of your choice below

One of the founding myths of brexit was that at the last minute, the EU would crack and give the UK everything it wanted. Instead the opposite seems to be happening. Boris & Mogg, having derided May’s deal as “worse than remain”, “a betrayal of leave voters” or that it would turn the UK into “a vassal state of the EUvoted for her bill last time ….which probably had something to do with her offering to resign (which just goes to show their motivations have always been selfish opportunism).

May meanwhile, apparently troubled by the risk of the UK breaking up in the event of a no deal, seems to be trying to prevent it (at last!) by offering indicative votes (which she previously whipped her MP’s against), considering a long extension, holding EU elections and opening talks with the spawn of satan the leader of the opposition comrade general Jeremy Corbyn.

brexit_gig

Now granted, these talks are unlikely to go anywhere, clearly the goal is to ensure labour shares the blame for whatever follows (be it no brexit, hard brexit or a long delay). And while Corbyn wants brexit to go ahead, he can’t be seen to support it. Allowing enough of his MP’s to “rebel” on key votes (e.g. stopping a peoples vote or even his preferred option a customs union) is one thing. But openly backing brexit would split his party, or force him to go along with what was agreed at conference, which was that if they can’t get an election labour backs a people’s vote (with remain on the ballot paper). And we can’t have that now can we (as remain would almost certainly win and Corbyn would have to hide in the woodshed again for 6 months).

And MP’s, aware that May is just winging it and Corbyn ain’t going to do diddly squat have panicked and are now desperately trying to get their own bill through parliament that will legally force the PM to request a long delay. Of course brexiters in the lords (where remain holds majority support) are trying to frustrate it and filibuster, complaining, with no hint of irony, of “the tyranny of the majority. Okay, so forcing a hard brexit that nobody voted for (only about 37% of the electorate voted leave, closer to 25% when we account for those who weren’t allowed to vote and support for May’s deal is as low as 6%), without any sort of consultation either with the opposition or remainers is implementing “the will of the people”. But a majority of parliament voting for something, that probably isn’t far off the majority opinion of people in the UK (delay brexit to avoid a no deal) is a tyranny. Asking the people to vote twice on something is undemocratic, but asking MP’s to vote on the same bill 3, or maybe even 4 times is okay thought. Conservative logic, don’t ever try to understand it.

But anyway, my point is, its all too little too late. May’s deal is basically dead, even if it goes through it might now be subject to legal challenges (as its questionable she’s followed parliamentary procedure). Any agreement Corbyn reaches with May will be meaningless, the withdrawal agreement can’t be changed at such short notice and the political declaration isn’t legally binding. May’s replacement could simply renege on anything signed. Pushing a bill through to stop no deal at this late stage has no real teeth (that would require a nuclear option to force the revocation of article 50 on the 11th of April if all else fails), it can be delayed for long enough to be meaningless.

And the EU has to agree to any extension. And May has asked for an extension, which the EU has previously turned down for solid legal reasons. If brexit is delayed until June 30th and the UK doesn’t hold elections for MEP’s, then what happens if the UK needs a further extension? After the EU’s elections, there will be nobody in a position of authority in Brussels to offer such a thing until mid July at the earliest. What if the UK were to revoke article 50 on the 29th of June and thus plunge the EU into a constitutional crisis? So no, its either a no deal brexit at the end of the week, passing May’s deal and then leaving on the 22nd of May. Or coming to the EU on the 10th of April with a solid plan, which would probably have to include participating in European elections and either a general election or referendum (or both). Pick one of three options. My guess? An accidental no deal is the most likely outcome.

What I’d argue has been laid bare here, is not how dysfunctional the EU is, but how broken the UK parliamentary system is (and I don’t just mean the roof!). To those who say brexit broke the UK parliamentary system, actually I’d argue it was broken all along, its just they’ve been very good at papering over the cracks until now.

They claim that the EU is undemocratic, when it is painfully obvious that it is the UK government that is undemocratic. The UK’s FptP system means an MP can be elected with just 25% of constituency votes. And a party can get a majority of seats with just 35% of all the votes (so about 25% of all voters once turn out is accounted for). Hell even Hitler had a stronger democratic mandate than many recent UK governments. And many stand in safe seats where losing is nearly impossible. Hence why several of Corbyn’s lackies (and several Tories) in seats that voted strongly remain, can back brexit and not have to worry about any blow back.

And of course nearly all of the real power in parliament lies with the PM, the leader of the opposition and (to a lesser extent) the speaker. Three MP’s, elected by a perhaps 30,000 votes each can basically overrule the votes of the remaining 50 million voters…and all three are among the safest of safe seats in the country (so its questionable if even their constituents have much of a choice!).

They claim that the EU is out of touch, yet it is clear that it is MP’s who are out of touch. While they squabble and play their games of thrones, the country is gradually descending into recession and despair. And its also painfully obvious that MP’s are utterly clueless not only as to how the EU works, but how their own parliamentary system works. Hence we have the PM trying to submit bills multiple times and having to be told no, you can do that. Or how every week the ERG quotes out of context some clause in EU or WTO rules, only to get smacked down by legal experts. Or on the remain side, an inability to properly organise a consensus around an alternative to the PM’s plans. And now they’ve probably left it too late to do anything, because IT TAKES TIME TO PASS A BILL! If they were serious about stopping no deal, they should have initiated this process back in December when May first delayed the first meaningful vote. Now its just pissing in the wind.

Of course the difference between the UK and either the EU or the national governments of many EU states is that, unlike the UK, they all have written constitutions. These documents lay out in clear detail what MP’s (or MEP’s) can do, what they can’t do, what are the limits of state authority, what is the position of the courts in all of this, when there should be a people’s vote, etc. And given that most elected officials across Europe are elected via proportional representation, this more or less forces them to work together. Consensus politics is the norm.

By contrast in the UK, its more normal for one party to govern, the other to vote against everything and whinge to the tabloids how the government is pandering to the EU and wrecking Britain. Then when the roles reverse, they spend half their time trying to unpick what the last lot did, while the other side nit pick and whinge to the tabloids that the government is pander to the EU and wrecking Britain.

So remain or leave, if there’s anything we’ve learnt from the brexit process began its that we need to take a leaf out of Guy Fawkes book. And I don’t mean getting rid of the building (that said its falling apart and would probably make sense to just demolish and rebuild it), I mean the UK’s system of government is fundamentally flawed. It needs to be completely torn down and replaced at every level.

d480e72a7168386e2a8e29685d1e725e

One possible solution?

A written constitution (which presumably will require a referendum to alter), proportional representation, a reformed judiciary, the elimination of numerous hereditary property rights, breaking the class system (which sees a disproportionate number of CEO’s and MP’s coming from a handful of public schools), replace the house of lords with a democratically elected upper house, changes to a massively unfair social welfare system (that doles out cash to wealthy pensioners without means testing, but drives genuinely poor people to food banks or forces them to sleep in doorways while their benefits are means tested).

I’d argue that if you want to waste 20 years of parliamentary time on something (and that’s about how long brexit and the post-brexit negotiations are going to take), leave the EU alone and focus on this project instead.

Ending the anarchy

bpanews_aab72727-43e2-4be5-8b6f-5b78e8ac390c_embedded241935581

Back in the 12th century the UK went through a traumatic period in its history, known as “the Anarchy” where two factions of the ruling Normans fought for control of the country, each supporting rival rulers. In this 18 year period, the many commoners were left to fend for themselves, as the lords fought, brigands ravaged the countryside and “the saints slept”. Well brexit has now driven the UK into another anarchy, as effectively the country does not have a functioning government.

The latest nickname for May is LINO, leader in name only. Hard to nail down, but easy to walk over. She sits surrounded by a cabinet of fools, which she is not the leader of. The traditional UK policy of cabinet collective responsibility having been abandoned some time ago. Hell at one point last week the brexit secretary gave the cabinet’s speech in support of a bill, then voted against it! Ministers are united in their incompetence, for which none are at the slightest risk of being sacked over (like Chris Grayling, aka Failing Grayling, Calamity Chris whose cost the country over a billion through shear incompetence and still in his job).

And can you blame them. May spent the last few weeks going around, threatening her party, the ERG and the DUP with a long delay if they didn’t vote for her deal. But to no avail. And parliament then subsequently voted to rule out no deal (which makes sense as it might not be legal to implement it) and request a long extension from Brussels. Then came her cabinet meeting last week in which a bunch of her brexit supporting minsters shouted at her and threatened to resign. And rather than fire them all on the spot (as any actual PM would have done) she just sat their nodding and saying nothing, turned around afterwards and said, we’ll only ask for a short extension (so in other words the ERG & DUP now have absolutely no reason to vote for her deal), then tried to turn the people on their own MP’s, blaming them rather than her and the hard line brexiteers for the mess the country is in.

No wonder the EU thinks she’s lost the plot. I mean they tell her to show up with a plan to the summit in Brussels and she basically shows up looking like a kid whose dog actually did eat her homework, forcing them to come up with a plan for her. And while the grown ups did the hard work, she was forced to sit in windowless room waiting for several hours while the UK’s fate was decided by the EU (that’s taking back control!).

4031

And not to be outdone in incompetence, Corbyn, walked out of a meeting with the PM because Chuka Umunna happened to be there. That’s how childish things have become. I ain’t sitting in a room with him, he called me a big fat meanie…and he smells. Corbyn will sit in a room with Hamas or Sinn Fein, but coffee with Umunna is a bridge too far.

And Corbyn (plus most of the labour front bench) were not only absent from yesterday’s rally (biggest demo in UK history, I’d have been down too but that would have involved using Chris Grayling’s railway service!), but according to labour party members he sent a sneaky notice out to them advising them to work on local party affairs this weekend. I’ve never heard of a labour party leader advising his members not to show up to a protest…well other than Tony Blair of course!

skynews-put-it-to-the-people_4617134

Such a large show of support for remaining, a million people, the largest protest in UK history (contrasting that with support for leave consisting of a few hundred following Farage on a pub crawl), should have politicians sitting up and taking notice. Not to mention the article 50 revocation petition which has attracted over 5 million signatures. Well think again.

Politicians are by nature very slow to change course. I’m reminded of the story of how in the command economies of the soviet union, they’d set up committees to decide on the latest fashions, but by the time they actually got around to producing the clothes, nobody wanted them, as they were now out of fashion. The only difference with the UK parliament is that its probably easier to unseat a member of the soviet politburo that it is a UK MP in a safe seat. Such is the unfairness of the UK’s FPtP voting system.

For any UK politicians looking to advance their careers, best to ignore the people (what have they got to do with anything? Hell many of them voted leave in the first place!), hooking themselves to the brexit wagon is the best way forward. You want to be a future Tory leader/minister? You’ve got to join the hard brexiteer gang. And in labour, you’ve got to join Corbyn’s cabal, proclaiming lip service to the idea of a people vote, while actively working to undermine such a possibility (he had his party members abstain from a vote on a people’s vote the other week).

And the only way this is going to change if MP’s are faced with the threat of losing their jobs, or seeing their party destroyed. This unfortunately is how UK politics works. Unless you are prepared to go all the way, you’ll be walked all over, just like PM LINO. The reason why the ERG and the DUP are commanding so much attention in the brexit process isn’t that they command a majority (even amount Tories), its because they are prepared to burn the house down to get their way. So remain supporters need to be willing to do the same.

Everyone in that rally, or anyone who supports a people’s vote, needs to go away and figure out who their MP is and consult their voting history. If they are a leave supporter, then you need to tell them (I’d show up in their constituency office) they have lost your vote, not just for the next election but permanently, unless they succeed in reversing brexit.

Consider that over 26,000 have signed the article 50 petition in Corbyn’s own constituency that’s not far off his majority of 33,000. Yes, if enough people in his constituency were to commit to it, one of the safest of safe seats would suddenly become a marginal seat. Corbyn could actually face a Michael Portillo moment of being unseated over brexit. And any labour party members need to quit the party (ideally by cutting your membership card in half in front of your labour MP). Doesn’t mean joining TiG, or the lib dems (although the greens are a close match), you can always rejoin later. But so long as you support labour, you support leaving at any cost, even if it means leaving with no deal. Only when confronted with the reality that they are going to get annihilated next election can we expect to see any change of course from either the Tories or labour.

And the sort of action needed? That means parliament needs to take control of the situation. Neither May or Corbyn can be trusted anymore. They’ve made promises and broken them, even going against decisions already made by parliament (which would technically put them in contempt of parliament) or votes at party conferences. And while I’d prefer a people vote, arguably the window of opportunity for that has now closed. I’d argue the only realistic option left is to simply cancel brexit altogether. If, after he’s finished his pub crawl, Farage wants to have another go, let him win a general election first and then have a 2nd referendum.

The fall of the Roman Republic: Lessons for the modern world

Maccari-Cicero-e1456699770141-1000x418

I stumbled on this youtube channel, Historia Civilis which, amongst other things, presents the fall of the Roman republic in quite an interesting and entertaining way. Worth a look, if you are a history buff. It occurred to me however, that the downfall of the Roman republic presents several valuable lessons for us in the modern world. As one can see parallels with current events and those leading up to the fall of the republic.

At the heart of the matter were three men, Julius Caesar (who presumably needs no introduction!), Pompey (the veteran general, not the football team) and Crassus (the richest man in Rome and victor over Spartacus). These three men formed the a loose alliance known as the Triumvirate in order to help push their various political agendas through the Roman parliament, the senate.

Key among there demands was money. Pompey and Caesar needed financing to maintain their armies (Crassus was also keen on various tax reforms), but also there was the issue of looking after their retiring soldiers (after all if they didn’t look after them, nobody else would sign up and pretty soon they’d have no army and a lot of angry ex-soldiers gunning for them). There was also the issue of land reform, putting land the republic owned to better use (possibly by settling the former soldiers and commoners of Rome on it). Caesar was also keen on making northern Italy a formal part of the Roman republic (many of his soldiers came from here, which means they’d all become voting citizens and would likely give him control of a vast voting block).

So a lot of their demands, weren’t that unreasonable……unless you were a member of the Roman upper classes of course! They formed a conservative faction within the parliament, the Optimates (or conservatives, think the GOP), who were opposed by the Populares who favoured the commoners or plebs (think the democrats). The triumvirate really didn’t care who was in charge so long as they got their way. But there was a tendency, particular with Caesar, to favour the populists.

In essence friction caused by the conservatives attempts to block the triumvirate’s demands led to an increasingly hostile and partisan mood in parliament, ultimately eroding support for the senate. This eventually spilled onto the street, with political debate becoming increasingly tribalist, hostile and eventually violent. Then fighting began between the triumvirate members, which led Pompey to align himself with the conservatives.

Towards the end the two factions morphed from populists v’s conservatives to Caesarian’s v’s Pompeyan’s, with both sides effectively backing a dictator, while accusing the other faction of being autocrats tying to put a dictator in charge. After Caesar’s victory the senate basically became a rubber stamp facility for him to get his way. After his assassination by senators, things got even worse, leading to the rise of the first Emperor (Augustus, Caesar’s adopted son and chosen successor), upon which it eventually became little more that a debating club.

The “will of the people” can be used to justify anything, even dictatorship, slavery and genocide
Beware of anyone who cite’s “respecting the will of the people” as the justification for their actions….but then seems suspiciously reluctant to allow the people’s wishes to be confirmed in some sort of free and fair vote. This went on all the time in ancient Rome, where it was used to justify pretty much anything, murder, ignoring the law, violating parliamentary procedure, genocide, slavery, burning down of temples or public buildings, theft and ultimately dictatorship.

f7c7652382ca18d95e2de4f94ca25cdb

Roman legions enact the “will of the people” by enslaving non-Romans

In short, the many checks and balances we have in society exist to stop autocrats doing this. Part of why the Roman republic collapsed was because many choose to ignore those checks and balances, in order that they could “respect the will of the people”.

And another factor was how populists manipulated the public. While the Roman republic was a democracy, it wasn’t a very fair one, it decidedly favoured the rich (even when we ignore the corruption and bribery that went on). Part of the reason why the plebs began backing extremists was probably out of a certain level of frustration with how the upper classes treated them (why does that sound familiar). They also backed Caesar, in part because some of his policies did appeal to them. But mostly because the Optimates hated him.

Beware of ideologues bearing grudges
Good politics is about good compromise. And there were several ways that the disputes between the populists and conservatives could have been resolved. But passions ran high on both sides and eventually the senate descended into partisan politics, where bills were passed more as a means of scoring points against rival factions, rather than any real purpose (such as you know like maybe running the country!). And needless to say, filibustering and numerous acts of skulduggery were rife. In effect the senate stopped governing Rome, which created a power vacuum and it was inevitable something else would come along to fill the gap. And the void was filled by the autocratic rule of first Pompey and later Caesar (then later on an emperor, important to note that at no point was Caesar appointed emperor).

Again, one can draw direct parallels with modern politics. On any topic, healthcare or gun control in the US, brexit in the UK, there are a number of ways a compromise could have been reached to resolve these issues. But the parties (notably the conservatives) have refused to compromise. Again, this leads to a government that doesn’t govern. One that misuses procedures to ensure nothing gets done (or railroad through legislation that clearly doesn’t have majority support). Parliament fiddles while Rome burns. As Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

God is a busy person, he seems to be always on everyone’s side….and always against your opponents
Modern day politicians, particularly those on the right, are always banging on about religion. Being very quick to say how their policies are inspired by Jesus….which leads one to wonder how they managed to skip the bit in the bible about Jesus throwing the merchants out of the temple, or claiming that it would be easier for a richman to ride through the eye of a needle than get into heaven. Well, misusing religion to justify your policies aren’t a new phenomenon. It happened regularly in ancient Rome.

For example, at one point Julius Ceasar managed (by which we mean bribed) to get himself elected to the post of Ponitfex maximus, effectively the Roman equivalent of the Pope. He then set about exploiting this for political gain. And his opponents would do likewise, getting legislation they didn’t like or elections they disagreed with overturned on the basis of “bad omens”. Naturally this proved to be a major problem as it led to a general breakdown in the rules of the house.

Beware of “spontaneous” street protesters turning violent
Like I said, the tribal politics on the senate floor quickly spilled out onto the street and political debate took on a darker more tribal tone. While pushing, shoving and maybe the odd punch up were not that uncommon in Roman politics, gradually this fighting became worse and worse. Eventually, people started carrying weapons to political events. And it was only a matter of time before they started using them, leading to much violence and blood on the streets of Rome.

One can draw direct parallels with, for example the tea party types showing up with the guns outside polling stations, or the recent harassment of politicians in the UK outside parliament. Hence why its important that this behaviour gets nipped in the bud, presumably by making it illegal to use violence to pervert the political discourse (or the threat of it and I don’t see how showing up with a gun to a rival political rally, or a polling booth in a predominantly black distinct can be interpreted any other way). Its worth noting that under the laws of the Roman republic you could be executed (or banished) for showing up armed at political events (or so much as laying a finger on certain government officials). While that’s probably going a bit too far today, but some time in the clink to cool their heels would seem appropriate.

Not least because this violence in Rome wasn’t initially as random as it seemed. Its quite clear that many of these thugs were working on behalf of various members of the triumvirate. Similarly, call me paranoid, but I find it more than a little coincidental that the tea party’s stated goals just happened to meet those of plutocrats in the GOP (and its strange they seem to ignoring the fact they’ve reneged on a number of the tea party’s stated goals and nobody’s making a fuss about it). Similarly, are we to believe that these yellow vest protesters in France are a “spontaneous” anti-government protest….which just happens to align itself with the goals of the far right.

The problem in Rome was that this violence soon ran out of control. Which should hardly come as a surprise, that’s kind of what happens with a brawl. Its easy to throw a punch, what’s harder is getting everyone to stop. Those behind the violence were soon fighting each other, with Roman citizens, the senate and triumvirate getting caught up in the cross fire. Things came to a head with two factions, one led by Milo (from the conservative faction) and the other mob led by Clodius (of the popular faction) fighting each other in the streets of Rome. This violence eventually led to Clodius being murdered by Milo’s gang and Milo being expelled from Rome.

Eventually this violence on the streets forced first Pompey and later Caesar to move armies into Rome to put down the violence….and maybe help them rigsupervise” an election or two. This is of course the danger. Look at any other country (recently in Brazil or Venezuela for example) and once the military start getting involved in policing protests, they get involved in the politics. And its difficult to predict the outcome of that. Because in the end the Roman senate, and its inability to reconcile its own differences, left them faced the choice between two dictators.

Cooler heads don’t always prevail, smart people do stupid things and never underestimate a dumb person
One of the things we often get told, is oh don’t worry, nobody wants a no deal brexit/Trump dictatorship, cooler heads will prevail. Why our leaders are smart people, they’ll come up with an answer. Well that’s not what happened in Rome. In fact very smart people did very dumb things, leading them to be out manoeuvred by street thugs (such as Milo, Clodius) and the less than intellectually gifted (such as Mark Antony). Largely because they were too caught up in their own ideology and too busy settling petty scores with their rivals.

Take the Roman senators Cicero and Cato. I’m guessing that even if you know little about Roman history, you’ve probably heard of them. They were two of the sharpest minds in the Roman world. Yet they committed various howlers during this period that I suspect even Trump could have seen coming. At one point for example, Cato got tricked into taking up a task in Cyprus, which put him out of the senate at a crucial time. While Cicero found himself on the run facing trumped up charges. They’re own arrogance became their undoing.

By contrast, the members of the Triumvirate weren’t exactly a bunch of heavy weight intellectuals. In fact some accounts suggest Pompey was kind of “slow” and not exactly the sharpest tool. However, they managed to command armies in battle and lead them to stunning victories. And they outmanoeuvred their political opponents on several occasions.

In fact, one could argue the most sensible of the triumvirate was the one you hear the least about, Crassus. He cashed out early, gaining control of the wealthy province of Syria. So he kind of made off like a bandit. It could have ended well for him….if he hadn’t made the crass decision to start a war with the Parthian Empire and dying on the battlefield.

battle_carrhae

Crassus died on the battlefield fighting a pointless and illegal war in what is now modern day Syria….why does this sound familiar?

The frog in the saucepan isn’t true, but the political metaphor is correct
There’s the old saying that a frog put into boiling water will jump out, while you put him in tepid water and warm it up he’ll sit there and get cooked to death. Well firstly, its not true (yes somebody has actually checked!). But the political metaphor is correct. Like I said, the decline of the Roman republic was gradual. At no point did either Pompey nor Caesar declare themselves emperor (although they were made dictators). It would be difficult to put your finger on the exact point where the republic’s collapsed.

I would also argue that neither Pompey nor Caesar set out to become an absolute ruler. They were certainly greedy and ambitious men, but I don’t think they intentionally destroyed the republic, no more than Cato or Cicero intentionally hastened the decline of the senate. It just sort of happened that way. Because once they pulled the pin on the autocrat hand grenade, they couldn’t put it back in.

One of the reasons for example, why Caesar marched on Rome, was that he was facing the risk of prosecution for his actions as consul several years earlier. Just prior to his assassination he was made consul for life (which was one of the reasons why he was killed of course), because he didn’t want events to repeat themselves (he was planning to leave the city and go off campaigning again). And one can draw direct parallels with modern dictatorships. Castro in Cuba, Maduro in Venezuela, Trump in 2020 or Putin in Russia. In other words, the boiling frog applies to the would be dictators as well.

Vincenzo_Camuccini_-_La_morte_di_Cesare

The Ides of March, Roman senators express no confidence in Ceasar’s rule.

Of course, Caesar’s violent death at the hand of 23 senators, several of them his friends and allies (notably Brutus), was unfortunately to set something of a precedence for future Roman rulers. Indeed, a horrible histories fun fact about Rome was the frequency with which Emperors met their doom at the hands of the praetorian guard, the men who guarded emperors while they slept. And of course, we can draw similar parallels to many recent dictators (Gaddafi or Saddam for example). In short, being an autocrat can be hazardous to one’s health.

Beware the law of unintended consequences
Which brings us to the final and perhaps most important point, it is remarkably easy to break a democratic system. Many people in the west, having lived their entire lives in a democracy, having never witnessed the sort of civil unrest or break down of the social order seen in other countries don’t seem to be aware of this fact. Hence they just don’t have any concept of life without it. We’re not even aware of the idea. Hence how Francis Fukuyama can naively proclaim the end of history, without getting laughed out of the room.

After all, think how the Romans at the time of the republic felt. Their republic was many centuries old. From Rome they controlled a quarter of the world’s population and half the known world. No doubt, they too were supremely confident that the republic would survive anything, even a little political crisis, that seem to just drag on and on. After all they’d faced similar crises in the past. If there’s one lesson we can draw from the Roman republic, its that the surest way to kill a democracy, is probably to assume it will never fail.

Now this will be something that some will react with glee to, as truth be told, many on the right (and some on the left too) want to bring down democracy. But be careful what you wish for, as you are unlikely to have any control over what replaces it.

Like I said, neither side the Optimates nor the Populares wanted the republic to become an empire, but that’s what ended up happening. So similarly, Putin in his efforts to undermine the EU needs to think carefully of the consequences. Because while he might break up the EU, NATO (which is the thing that really worries him) remains as united as ever. Does he really want NATO forces on his border, run by various populist mini-Trump’s itching for a fight, while inviting other states, such as Ukraine or Georgia to join (and basically encircling him).

Or alternatively, I’ve heard it argued that the problem with the EU is its too decentralised. A federal state (not unlike the “united states of Europe” Churchill once argued for) with a democratically elected president, plus an upper and lower house might be the solution. So anyone committed to break up the EU needs to be aware the danger is that by provoking such a crisis, the very EU superstate of their nightmares might be what replaces it. And similarly, the Tories, in their effort to create a fantasy cartoon Britannia 2.0, might end up driving the country to the extremes (a far left or far right government) or even cause the UK to break up.

And plutocrats in the GOP who want to shrink the US government and drown it in the bath thumb, ya and what will be the end game after that? I see two possibilities, an authoritarian fundamentalist Christian administration (think handmaidens tale). And if you think Bernie Sanders is anti-business you need to read the bible sometime (some of the stuff in it would make Ocasio-Cortez look like Rand Paul). Alternatively, you might find the wealthier and generally left leaning parts (Eastern seaboard, new England & Northern states) of the US cede from the union, forming either their own country, or perhaps merging with Canada (Super Canada?).

My point is, be careful what you wish for. It might come true and you might find you preferred the status quo, but by then it will be too late.

The supreme irony

brexit-dads-army-irish-border-cartoon

The UK government recently announced their plans as regards no deal and what tariff’s they’d charge. And they’ve proposed to drop nearly all down to zero, except those for agricultural products. This will disproportionally impact on Ireland more than any other country.

However, as the Irish PM noted, there’s a supreme irony here. A clause in the tariffs makes NI exempt from these, so Irish goods can cross into NI without being effected by any tariffs (and visa versa), unless they cross the Irish sea into Britain. So the customs border will now be at the Irish sea.

Of course, as you may recall, the EU’s original proposal to May was to put the customs border post-brexit, on the Irish sea. But May said no to that, in order to placate the DUP. And recall, the only reason the backstop exists, is because of this. So the brexiteers have spent the last few months arguing over something and refusing to back May’s deal, yet now they’ve essentially just caved in to the EU’s original proposals and not a peep out of either the ERG or the DUP. One is forced to the conclusion they only opposed the NI backstop because the Irish and the EU were in favour of it (which isn’t entirely true, the Irish and EU went along with it as better than the alternative of a chaotic no deal).

Of course there is a crucial difference, the EU’s proposals were carefully written by those very same Brussels eurocrats the Brexiteers love to demonise, in order to make sure that they were legally watertight (to prevent smuggling or abuse) and won’t be subject to legal challenge (at the WTO for example)….which is kind of what we need those eurocrats for! While by contrast, the Tories tariff proposals were hastily drafted on the back of a fag packet by some of the most incompetent people to ever hold public office. Hence these measures will likely prove to be wide open to abuse.

There would for example, be nothing to stop someone shipping Irish beef into NI, stamping “made in Britain” on them, then importing it all into Britain tariff free. Or cheating of cigarettes and alcohol tariffs and undercutting UK businesses. Any post-brexit immigration controls are now in name only, as the wide open Irish border makes it impossible to enforce them. And both the UK and Ireland will likely see disputes launched at the WTO claiming unfair advantage is being given. So while it stops a hard border for now, its a recipe for chaos long term and all but guarantees hard border eventually.

Meanwhile parliament has voted overwhelmingly against no deal and in favour of extending article 50, yet not providing any alternative to it. Which is like the Titanic voting for the iceberg to move out of the way. They’ve also rejected the option to vote for a 2nd referendum, largely because Corbyn won’t back it (I told you he couldn’t be trusted to keep his word). Which is a pity, because the UK now faces three options. May’s deal (which everyone hates, support runs currently at just 6%) or no brexit, or no deal by accident (which will likely lead to either of the other two once the economic consequences kick in).

Screen-Shot-2018-10-31-at-10.53.12-435x330

And contrary to their protestations, the real reason parliament don’t want to give the people a 2nd vote, isn’t because they feel support for brexit is as strong as ever (option polls say its faltering), or they fear the far right exploiting it (they are exploiting the chaos in parliament anyway!). No the real reason is that we’re in this mess thanks to the 1st referendum and many MP’s simply doesn’t trust the people any more. Much as I predicted prior to the referendum, the consequences of brexit are that the UK people will never be trusted by any UK government with a decision of this magnitude ever again. That in effect is what you voted for.

Brexit: How a country lost its mind

DjDIIpIXgAAAWZ8

I know I keep banging on about brexit, but the thing is it will directly impact people in the UK and beyond (the joke goes an Englishman, an Irishman, a Welshman, a Scot and an Ulsterman go into a bar, the Englishman decides to leave and all the rest have to as well) for decades to come, a reality a lot of people are very slow to wake up too.

For example, just this week the Irish government broke the glass on its emergency contingency plans for a no-deal brexit. They did this because they (and the EU) are responsible grown ups and, unlike May, they know they can’t simply wait and hide under their desk until the 28th of March, hoping a unicorn rides to their rescue.

DwP7pgbXcAkHFyj.jpg

Buried amongst the many provisions of this bill is a clause which means all UK driving license holders cannot drive in Ireland in the event of a no deal brexit (nor in the rest of the EU without an international driving permit). While there’s been speculation about this, it confirms something that had been long feared. Hence all British living in Ireland  now have a little over month to exchange their licenses.

If this sounds unfair, consider that there’s the issue of how do the Irish police British drivers if their license is issued by a third country outside of the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Because in the event of no deal brexit I (on my Irish license in the UK) could literally drive past a speed camera at 100 mph, doing doughnuts while drunk as a skunk. What are you going to do, take my license away? How? My license is issued by a third country whose legal system is completely different from the UK’s and which treats evidence from things like speed cameras very differently (basically to a Irish court, what you’ve got is a picture of a car on a road, unless that photo clearly shows who is driving, simply assuming it was the license holder is applying a presumption of guilt and thus said evidence is inadmissible in court).

However, the official advice in the UK is that even in event of a no deal brexit, Irish (or EU) driving license holders will still be able to drive in the UK. In fact, we can’t exchange our licenses until or unless they expire, or you hit 67 (none of which is going to happen to me for sometime). So it raises the question, given that the UK government is so massively unprepared for brexit and my point above, is this really their final position? Because if not (I suspect its not), the implication would be that I should apply for a UK license right now and give up my Irish one, but that would mean I won’t be able to drive if I go back to Ireland.

Now consider that there are about 600,000 Irish in the UK, some of whom will also have Irish driving licenses. Even if only a small fraction of them are effected, say 250,000, how would the DVLA cope if all of us applied for a UK license next week?  And what about EU citizens? If say a million of them also now apply, can the DVLA cope with 1.25m licensing applications in a few weeks? Which raises the question of whether you’d want to risk posting off your license knowing it will get lost in a sea of post that will hit the DVLA (where talking about several shipping containers full of post on its way to Swansea).

And this isn’t really that serious for me, I don’t drive very often so I can cope without a license for a few months, or even semi-permanently. But spare a thought for someone who needs their car to get to work, or drives for a living (either a brit living in Ireland or an Irish trucker living in the UK). That means they can’t work.

And if incorrect government advice left someone unemployed surely that’s grounds to claim compensation. Can the UK courts cope with a few hundred thousand compensation claims? If a driver decides, not unreasonably, that they are going to keep driving on their EU license regardless. And if and when they are caught with an EU/Irish license, would those charges stick in court? (given that they’d been given incorrect advice and the government had proven itself woefully incapable of doing something as simple as issuing a driving license).

This is kind of the problem with brexit, right from the start the people in charge are utterly clueless and don’t know what they are doing. For example, they argued that in the event of no deal why we can avoid chaos at the ports by just waving trucks through, or maybe just those covering vital supplies like food. If the EU/Ireland chooses to put in place customs controls it will be them punishing themselves. And for 2 years everybody, the EU, foreign diplomats, trade experts, bloggers like me, the 3 blokes in a pub, have been screaming at them, no you can’t do that, it would be illegal and kind of stupid.

The UK would have to be willing to wave through every vehicle coming through every port of entry to the UK and remove all customs controls and tariffs (so you’re leaving the EU in order to have no trade policy and no border controls whatsoever?). Under WTO rules and international law, you can’t selectively ignore the rules for one category of goods, or goods from one country, but impose them on another. Someone, most likely a company in the UK (who won’t be able to compete in such a scenario) or a non-EU country (such as China or the US) will complain and sue the government (and the EU), probably within days. Hence in the absence of a trade agreement (and you’re not going to get that without paying the EU divorce bill), customs checks are inevitable.

And the government seems to have quietly caved in to this reality recently, announcing that they will be applying WTO tariffs on food for example. Of course this confirms that Northern Ireland and Kent are a month away from becoming lorry parks, that food prices are going to soar and there’s a real risk of shortages (due to growing seasons the UK’s winter crops aren’t due to be harvested until April…and without EU farm workers it won’t get harvested of course!). So we’re going to get the opposite of no checks and no tariff’s, everything’s going to be checked and charged, which raises all sorts of logistical questions, does the UK have enough customs officials to cope? What happens when companies in the UK dependant on trade with the EU go bust? (and sue the government no doubt!).

Expect the next iteration to be, this is very unfair I mean maybe we can let some goods in without checks or tariffs, after all its not like we grow lots of olives in the UK, or certain foods out of season, and its beneficial to keep tariffs and checks at zero on as much as possible….you mean you want a customs union? Don’t you think you should have said that like maybe two years ago, instead of chasing unicorns!

What’s that you say, invoke the blitz spirit, bring back rationing, keep calm and carry on. Panic and freak out is more likely the end result. Such a policy would be well to the left of Corbyn, akin to those of Maduro in Venezuela. Is anyone seriously suggesting that, having left the EU because it sets too many rules, the solution is to bring in a government that is so authoritarian it literally decides how much and what everyone is allowed to eat and who gets to starve. You know you’re in crazy times when the hard right of the Tory party are advocating the policies of Maduro.

And where is Corbyn in all of this? Busy trying to settle petty scores with his ex-Mp’s. I’d call it fiddling while Rome burns, but in truth Nero almost certainly never did that, so it would be most unfair to compare him to Corbyn. Nero might have been a tyrant, but even he knew that life is about priorities.

This is the problem with brexit and has been since the start of the referendum campaign. There is no plan, there never was one and there never will be. Because leaving the EU was an act driven by ideology, mostly by public school educated toff’s who’d been indoctrinated with a vision of new British empire, which will magically come about, if we get the pesky EU and its laws (and offshore tax investigators) out of the picture. In the absence of plans, the brexiteers (which includes Corbyn remember) have presented instead fantasy after fantasy, each of which in turn has been shot down, not so much by the EU, but by reality and pesky little “facts“.

And this is not going to end on the 29th of March (remember brexit is a process not a destination), it will probably continue for a decade, or however long it takes for the UK to break up. Faced with this, one has to question the wisdom of continuing. Whether or not revoking article 50 completely (no 2nd referendum, just withdraw it) is the most sensible solution. But unfortunately sense and reason departed this island sometime ago. The official motto of the UK these days has to be “go sell crazy some place else, we’re all stocked up here

Some other news

Splitters!

This week seven eight members of the Judean people’s front labour party split from the party, blaming Corbyn’s toxic leadership style. And its entirely possible that they will be just the first of many out the door, with dozens others apparently considering quitting, particularly if Corbyn tries to steer the party towards supporting May’s brexit plans.

SPLITTERS

This was followed up by several centrists Tory MP’s jumping ship too. This is arguably a good deal more significant, as it means that technically May no longer has a majority, even with DUP support. Fortunately for her, Sinn Fein don’t sit in parliament (because they are a party of protest and taking their seats would involve doing something useful), so she can still get thing through (thanks to so-called “Republicans“), but only by a margin of one (yes if one Tory or DUP MP says no, that’s it the bill fails).

To be honest, I’m not surprised, in fact I’m only surprised it was only a handful and it took this long. In truth these MP’s didn’t leave labour (or the Tory party), the labour party left them. Its now the cult of the one true Corbyn (v’s the cult of the one true brexit). I mean seriously, labour members need to read through “top ten signs you are in a cult” and compare and contrast to the labour party under Corbyn. The only thing you can do in a cult is get out quickly, you aren’t going to convince its leader to change. Corbyn will take the party over the cliff and then expect them all to line up and drink the kool aid.

_105685541_03c84b49-d11e-4009-aa8d-6f7dae54cad0

Corbyn’s labour party might be all about him, but its not a cult, Corbyn’s honour!

Indeed the reaction of the labour party to these events is very cult like. They called for byelections (so you think the referendum result should stand now and until the end of time, but constituents who voted for their MP last year should be made to vote again, even though the odds now are they’re will be another election within a few months). Or they want to ban MP’s from leaving their parties (ya and why don’t we put shock collars on em and not let them out in public without little star armbands). One labour MP even speculated that this all might be an Israeli plot (not that antisemitism is a problem in labour!).

At the other extreme, some of Corbyn red shirts have been egging on these MP’s to quit for sometime. And now they are having a nice laugh about it all. But consider this is what happened in France with Macron. He left the socialist party and everybody in the party laughed. Then gradually more and more joined from both major parties until it was the largest party in parliament. Needless to say, they stopped laughing sometime ago.

While I’d consider a UK version of En Marche unlikely (thanks to the FPTP electoral system), but an electoral alliance with the lib dems, Greens and SNP is a very real possibility (meaning they’ll avoid standing against one another next election). These three parties could also form what’s called a “technical group within parliament, giving them more say (they could table bills, ask for parliamentary time, or if enough labour MP’s leave, potentially even challenge Corbyn for the post of leader of the opposition).

Do the electoral maths and baring a massive swing to either the Tories or labour, it might be impossible to form a government without one or more of these centre ground parties. Which means there could be a 2nd referendum on the EU sooner rather than later. So what’s the point in forcing through a brexit deal nobody seems to want, if within a year or two there’s a 2nd referendum? Won’t it be better just to have the people’s vote now?

Brexit news

While I want to avoid dwelling too much on brexit, its like a elephant of the room for everything right now. Oddly enough the Dutch government now has a brexit mascot, which appears in TV adds in the form of a big blue monster, which is an apt metaphor (thought I reckon they should have given it Boris’s blonde hair, Gove’s glasses, Mogg’s bowler hat, jackboots for Tony Robinson and a pint and a fag for Farage). Which of course also just goes to show how much better the EU is at preparing for brexit compared to the UK.

_105644256_mediaitem105644254

Case in point, the ferry contract given to a company that didn’t actually have any ships. The government, under Failing Grayling (who unbelievably is still a minister, probably because he makes the rest of them seem vaguely competent), says that no money was spent on this, as the deal is now off. But its only been cancelled because one of the Irish parties involved walked away. And they claim they were never formally part of the deal in the first place (they’d never signed any contracts).

theresa_may_and_her_brexit__marian_kamensky

And yes it has cost taxpayers money, some £800k to “consultants. Although quite what they were consulted on is unclear. About the only redeeming feature of those behind this ferry contract was they were members of the good old boys network and they were British. Because all of the other ferry contracts (indeed most of the contracts related to no deal perpetrations) are being handled by European companies. Yes, if brexit means brexit, it means millions to EU firms to ferry stuff across the channel, including those blue passports.

Its also being confirmed that the government is going to be sued by Eurotunnel over their handing out of these no bid contracts (Eurotunnel used to own a ferry company at the low cost end of the scale, which they were forced to sell off by the government some years ago, citing competition concerns). This is likely to be the first of many brexit related lawsuits. And rather foolishly, the government isn’t doing the sensible thing and settling this case out of court. Which raises the possibility of ministers (or even the PM) being hauled in to testify under oath.

Meanwhile, the brexitous continues. We have the story of another airline failing over brexit, news that Honda is indeed shutting down its Swindon plant at the cost of thousands of jobs (been on the cards for months, expect similar announcements from other firms shortly). We have a report from the bank of England confirming that the economy is now slowing down and, even thought brexit hasn’t even happened yet, its already cost the economy £80 billion, or about £800 million a week (so the slogan on the bus claiming an extra £350 million a week was, much as I predicted, off by a factor of negative £1150 billion a week…should we really be trusting the fate of the economy to people this bad at maths?). According to the brexit job losses counter btw, this takes the total brexit related losses to over 200,000 (about an average of 1,500 job losses every week since the referendum).

Oh and yet another brexiteer billionaire is jumping ship, heading off to Monaco to get a passport. Because brexit is going to make us all so rich, we won’t need his tax money anymore.

5c45e1083600000b05680c91

The Tories unveil their new election slogan

In fact this is kind of the point about brexit many are missing. As this excellent piece from the director of Policy Research (IPPR) points out, brexit does not mean a medieval siege. There might be shortages afterwards, but that will be the fault of a bungling UK government. The real trouble starts when the UK finds itself competing against a trade block of over 500 million people, with the EU dangling carrots in the face of UK businesses to tempt them over the channel. And with no hope of getting trade deals on the same terms the UK currently enjoys (to date the UK has signed just 7 out of the 69 it needs which covers only about 1/8th of the overseas trade the UK does with countries outside the EU) , never mind getting better terms, it means the slow quiet dismantling of the UK economy.

Brexit means ??????

And just to add confusion to confusion, Michael Gove told farmers recently that the UK would be bringing in heavy tariffs to protect farms  from external competition. This runs contrary to the suggestion that the UK would wave through food shipments to avoid lengthy queues at the border, as well as to preserve the good Friday agreement. In effect he’s saying that yes Kent and Northern Ireland are going to become lorry parks in a months time, food prices are going to soar (tariffs can be as high as 50% on food), shops might run out of food and a show down with Washington is looming over the GFA…..or maybe he’s just copying May’s policy of winging it and saying whatever the audience wants to hear so he can get out of the room without being lynched.

gove_donkey.png

Of course this serves to explain why the UK is so unprepared for a no deal brexit. Because even with a few weeks to go we’ve no idea what the government’s policy is. What documents the government has published are often vague and directly contradicted by another department. “fucked if we know” seems to be the official government policy.

Gunboat undiplomacy

DYcOUqTWsAAvAoM.jpg

Meanwhile Failing Grayling (and Gove) has some competition for the prize of most incompetent minister, from defence minster Gavin Williamson. He claimed that the UK’s defences forces would have its “lethality enhanced, although quite how the EU has been holding the UK back wasn’t really explained (no doubt he believes all those bent banana’s and H&S regulation was stopping squadies doing their jobs). He’s also talked about forward deploying the UK’s new carriers in the Caribbean and Pacific and send the new carrier on a world tour.

Given that his department is shouldering a multibillion pound overspend one has to wonder where the money to pay for all of that is going to come from. Plus the thorny issue of the fact that the carriers aren’t currently in commission and don’t have any planes operating off them. And recall those planes are the controversial F-35 (an excellent aircraft….so long as the enemy doesn’t have an airforce and spoiler alert, both the Russians and Chinese do!).

And forward deploying the carriers would leave them vulnerable to sneak attack (I don’t know if Gavin’s heard of Pearl harbour?) by long range anti-ship missiles, either ballistic or air launched. And its worth noting that China, India and Russia all have such missiles. And Russian TU-22’s long range anti-ship aircraft also operate out of bases on Cuba and Venezuela.

Perhaps inevitably these comments went down like a lead balloon in Beijing, forcing the Chancellor of the exchequer to cancel his trip to China after the Chinese took offence. And I mean, can you blame them? Tip to brexiteers if you want to get trade deals off people, it might be a good idea not to go around sabre rattling and threatening to park aircraft carriers off their coast.

And just to show that he’s not alone in incompetence, Liam Fox and Jeremy Cunt Hunt managed to piss off the Japanese, to such an extend it seems they were prepared to walk away from trade talks, as they tried to apply the hard sell on the Japanese. Needless to say, it takes some skill to have pissed off both the Chinese and Japanese in a single week. But they need to realise, you are not double glazing salesmen trying to pressure some old granny into a sale. Trade deals take time and requires compromise (because as noted, you ain’t going to get a deal as good the EU enjoys). This is kind of what being outside the EU looks like.

Of course in his brain fart, the defence secretary allows the brexiteer mask to slip, and betrays the dreams of empire 2.0 and another era of gunboat diplomacy. But it also shows how out of touch they are with the realities of the modern world. How most of the world doesn’t share their nostalgia for the British empire (quite the opposite in fact). How the likely response to a British warship in their waters isn’t going to be a favourable trade deal, but a blunt order to turn around asap or we’ll sink you.

Holocaust denial

Case in point, consider the recent comments from Jacob Rees Mogg in which he attempted to deny the British use of concentration camps during the Boer war. Because the truth is that the UK invented the concentration camp, not the nazi’s, and tens of thousands died in these camps.

In fact what is interesting about these comments is how few of the major news media covered his comments. Those that did gave similar apologetic’s to Mogg (typically by saying Dunkirk & Churchill over and over again, after all it was the Boer’s fault for dying in the camps basically, not the British for setting them up) or just ignored the whole thing. Even the BBC didn’t run a story on it, despite the fact he made the comments on the BBC’s question time. Which just goes to show, Mogg was expressing an opinion that is widely shared by many ex-public school boys.

In fact it is interesting to compare how the media ignores the institutional racism and bigotry within the Tory party, yet the slightest hint of anything within labour is blown out of all proportion. Yes there is definitely an antisemitism problem within labour (this is one of reasons for the recent defections), but the media are making a big deal out of it because they can and its a cheap shot they can take against Corbyn. But they are also willing to ignore far worse within the Tories, UKIP or the DUP. I mean imagine if one of labour’s MP’s was to express a similar view to Mogg about the holocaust. There would be uproar.

These public school boys in the UK have been subject to a level of indoctrination and radicalisation on par with the sort you’d get in an ISIS run madrasa. As far as they are concerned the British Empire was a glorious thing and they were doing the world a favour by conquering them (and shooting a few locals every now and then, forcing them into concentration camps, stealing their grain, etc.). Why the colonies (and I’ve heard that term used to describe countries in the modern day) were only forced out of the empire by a bunch of bed wetting liberals back home and many in places, like India, yearn for the day when the Empire returns.

If you’re a neutral scratching your head unable to understand why the Tories aren’t supporting May’s deal (knowing its the best they’ll get), this is why. As far as these public school boys are concerned, they did the EU a favour by joining and now that they’re leaving, why should they have to pay. After all they might not afford the EU the privilege of trading with their vast (and non existent) empire.

Dark satanic take aways

A recent episode of the BBC’s panorama focused on the dark side of takeaways. Recently in the UK, there’s been a sharp rise in the number of takeaway apps, which means you can just dial in to your local takeaway, place an order online and about ten to thirty minutes later your food is delivered.

katie-roadtrip-restaurants-deliveroo-20.jpg

However, as the report shows, your food might not be coming from an actual restaurant. The firms behind these apps have been setting up, so called “dark kitchens, which are basically kitchens in windowless shipping containers under an overpass, or on waste ground somewhere. This raises a number of issues.

For example the fact such apps don’t include any information about hygiene ratings (which actual restaurants and takeaways have to provide). And there’s been worrying stories about to what extent such restaurants understand issues related to allergies (The panorama team ordered a meal, sent it away for testing and found it contained stuff it wasn’t supposed to). And some restaurant owners claimed that they were pressured into purchasing slots towards the top of the list of local takeaways (suggesting that if you pay enough you’ll be the first a customer sees, regardless of how good or safe your food actually is).

And these dark satanic mills of our time are also often set up without planning permission. Which is a bit of an issue for local residents who suddenly have to contend with mopeds coming and going all night. What this all shows is how the disruptive effects of the internet aren’t always positive once they move into the real world. And how there is a need for governments to keep on top of events and not be afraid to regulate new industries to stop things running out of control.

Unfriending Facebook

Case in point, facebook. This week saw a UK parliamentary committee turn in a scathing report, going so far as to call the company “digital gangsters and calling for facebook (and google) to be regulated. A good idea, the UK should do that. But isn’t facebook’s European headquarters in Ireland? So how exactly are you going to regulate them after you leave the EU? What’s May going to do? Threaten to unfriend Mark Zuckerberg.

images

Jokes aside, my guess is that we could well see the pendulum swing from one extreme, where internet companies have been able to do what they want, when they want, not even bothering to pay taxes. To now facing heavy government scrutiny and regulation. Which is both a good thing (a crack down on fake news and the unethical practices of some internet firms is long overdue) and bad (given the potential danger of governments meddling in social media or censoring content).

Broken Britain

One of the reasons some have given for voting leave in the UK relates to the abject poverty now present in parts of the country. We now face a scenario, where homeless people dying on the streets is becoming a more common occurrence, where 14 million people in the country now live in poverty to the point where the UN is feeling the need to get involved. And perhaps with good reason. For as food bank use has soared, Dickensian diseases such as rickets have re-emerged in the UK.

Granted this is a little unfair on the EU (whose structural funds have actually helped parts of the UK in peril), when this is mostly the fault of Tory policy, either those of the Thatcher era or a decade of punishing austerity. Indeed, even the government has recently had to acknowledge the link between the roll out of their Universal Credit system and a rise in food banks.

But we are where we are. And where we are is that the Tories are quietly ignoring this inconvenient little fact, which should hardly come as a surprise (when have they ever cared about working people in this country?) and pushing through with a brexit policy which will leave many in the country even worse off. In short if you voted leave as some sort of cry for help, I’m afraid what you voted for was to be ignored and forgotten even more than before.

And across the pond, similar trends exist in Trump’s America, with poverty on the rise. In fact, an interesting video here from ABC about the death of the American dream. But isn’t Trump’s new tax cut going to help out struggling families? Oh it will help alright, to push the over the edge and onto the bread line. In effect he’s raised taxes for most Americans, cutting them only for the super rich like him.

And I know its cruel to say so, but seriously, why is anyone surprised? You vote for parties that favour the 1% and surprise, surprise the screw over everyone else and make themselves richer. Did anyone really expect that the Tories would push for a socialist friendly brexit? (or end austerity after the referendum result). Or that a professional conman like Trump, whose spent his whole career screwing over his own work force and investors, would behave any differently once in office. As the old saying goes people vote for the government they deserve and that’s what they’ve gotten.

Unfit for office

Speaking of Trump, everyone had a good old chuckle about how the president spends an inordinate amount of his time on “executive time (an average of about only 3 hrs of actual work per day), which is basically code word for him sitting around watching Fox news, tweeting, ringing up his friends and supporters, or bouncing off the walls about the horrible things the NYT says about him.

But I think there was a meaning to this story that was missed. Basically, Trump has, consciously or subconsciously, been deemed by the US government, lobbyists and even his own White house staff as unfit for office. So much so that they see good reason to involve him as little as possible in any actual decision making. Preferring instead to leave the boss baby puttering in his presidential play pen, only taking him out or involving him in matters where its legally required (i.e. they need his signature on a piece of paper).

Consider that previous presidents tended to have a fairly full schedule, as numerous people beat a path to the White house door looking for some of the president’s time. Senators, congressmen, ambassadors, lobbyists for corporations or NGO’s, department heads from the various branches of government, etc. Clearly all of these people are avoiding contact with the White house because they judge that Trump is just too incompetent to be of any actual help. So the US under Trump is something of a rudderless ship. But worse still, that also means that there’s ample opportunities for well juiced in cronies of Trump to line their pockets.

And on the topic of Trump an interesting article here about the potential floodgate he could be opening, if say a future US president were to invoke “the Trump rule” and declare a national emergency to fight climate change. Powers said president will be able to exercise include being able to divert tens of billions of dollars to renewable energy, being able to rescind oil drilling contracts, cease energy industry assets or restrict supplies and apply restriction on cars and vehicles (e.g. mandate much lower speed limits or ban gas guzzlers altogether).

Jihadi jill

A young UK convert to ISIS recently turned up in a refugee camp. And even thought she’s unrepentant (even saying ISIS terrorist attacks against the UK were justified) she wants back into the country. And Trump, no doubt acting under orders from Moscow, seems to agree and wants her and other members of ISIS returned to their home countries.

This caused media fury, how can we let a supporter of terrorism into the country?….you guys do know that the DUP (who also have links with terrorists) are literally in government? Pot calling the kettle black I think. And, won’t it be better to get her back into the UK and prosecute her? That said, I’ll admit there is an argument to be made that by joining ISIS she rejected the UK and thus forfeited her rights to all of its laws and protections. Its a little late for her to turn around now and say that’s unfair. If she wishes to apply for citizenship again, fine, but presumably she’ll have to renounce terrorism and ISIS first.

Universities on the edge

The UK government recently released a study on student finance and among its recommendations is that fees should be cut, potentially by as much as 30%. This does kind of make sense. As I’ve pointed out before, students are getting a bit of a raw deal and as they often need to borrow money to go to uni (which they often don’t repay in full), so its just shuffling money around so the government can hide some of its debts off the books.

3845

However, what worries universities is there is no indication that the government is going to fill this funding gap with money of its own. So in short, universities are being asked to swallow a 20-30% cut in their income. Which raises the risk that some will go bust as a result.

Recall that university finances are under enough pressure right now, largely down to brexit, as they face raising costs (inflation making equipment and running costs higher, plus staff demanding higher salaries), falling number of international students (EU student numbers are down, but so too are those from outside the EU, as many are put off by the risk of a no deal brexit and May’s hostile environment, which has seen international students swept up in it) and the prospect of reduced research funding (once the EU turns off the tap). Oh and they are also facing rising pension costs too. So a cut to fees would be something of a prefect storm. Frankly, it won’t be a question of if a university went bust, it would be when.

Now the Tories seem to think this is okay. So what if a few ex-polytechnics go bust. Well firstly, we’ve already had this conversation, last year a university came close to bankruptcy and the government blinked first. This set a precedence. You can’t say to other uni’s (and their students), we’re only bailing out the ones posh kids go too, you pleb’s are on your own. No sorry, what applies to one has to apply to the others, otherwise the government risks being sued. And consider that some of the ex-poly’s have done really well for themselves. But at the same time some of the red brick institutions have declined (in fact of the uni’s I’d be most worried about its an even mix of red bricks, plate glasses and ex-poly’s).

And finally, the thing that really worries me is that the government won’t be able to blink and bail a uni out. Its creditors, looking to get their hands on its billion pound city centre real estate portfolio, might force it into insolvency. And like I’ve said before, once one uni fails (for whatever reason) its likely several more will follow, leaving the government with an awful mess to clean up afterwards.

Brexit, the Frankenstein child disowned by its creators

dw_ulkzwwaa0jed

The Guardian view of the no lobby after the vote….also the first of the paper’s “spot the fool competitions”

I came across a comment somewhere online comparing the UK parliament to a bunch of seven year olds. I immediately reported this comment to the moderators, as its grossly unfair…..to seven year olds!

This week the government suffered one of the worst defeats in UK history as May’s brexit deal was put to the house. Inevitably many pro-remain MP’s voted against this, no surprise there. But so also did many of the brexiteers! Like the Frankenstein monster, the brexiteers created this monstrosity and now having glimpsed their creation, they’ve recoiled in horror and disowned it. But yet, still it lives and it stalks the realm.

The funny thing is that most of those who voted in favour of May’s deal were the releaver block within the Tory party. These being MP’s who backed remain, but accepted the result of the referendum (flawed as it was). As one pointed out during the debate, he didn’t like May’s deal, but he (and his constituents) just wanted the government to get it over and done with, as they are all sick of hearing about brexit.

Well the bad news is, if your sick of hearing the phrase “brexit” buckle up, because your going to be hearing about it for at least a decade to come. As Sir Iain Rogers has pointed out, brexit is a process, not a destination. It will take ten years for the UK to completely untangle itself from Europe and sign new trade deals with the rest of the world (longer still in a no deal scenario). If you are sick of brexit, then nothing short of its cancellation will wipe it from the agenda.

So the question is, what next? Because having a few meetings (As May is currently doing) isn’t a plan B.

Well lets cross off the first option, May cannot keep putting her deal to parliament over and over again until they accept it. Parliamentary procedure states that you can only put forward a bill once in any particular parliamentary session. So in the absence of significant changes, or another election/referendum, it cannot be brought back to the house. Some clever use of legal language could allow one more go, but even that’s risky and she’d want to be certain it would work. Which means she needs to get the brexiteers to back it first.

But the brexiteers in her own party can’t back her deal. Why? Because, having sold the country on free unicorns and a land of milk and honey, backing her deal would end their political careers. Every election from now on, inevitably those empty promises would be brought up. They want it to go through for sure (ignore all the bravado about no deal brexit), but they also want to be able to create their own Dolchstoßlegende myth and blame the negative consequences on brexit on someone else (adamant that had THEY been in charge, oh it would have worked out soooo much better).

4252

A group of culture jammers called “led by donkeys” have been putting up bill boards showing past Tory promises on brexit.

So, what about the one true saviour Corbyn? He’s in a huff because May initially excluded him from any talks on a way forward (and visa versa). Well for once I agree with her. In fact, might I suggest a compromise. How about we take a potted plant from his allotment and put it in May’s office instead. Because it would make about as useful a contribution as he can.

Corbyn, even thought he’s also a brexiteer, has to oppose her deal (even though its actually quite close to kind of brexit he wants) for several reasons. Firstly, not invented here syndrome. He can’t be seen to back a deal proposed by a Tory PM. And openly supporting brexit is risky, given how strong opposition to it is in his party and how badly its going to impact his largely young and less than wealthy support base (while Tory brexiteers represent wealthier, older and often retired voters whose gold plated pensions will protect them from its worst effects). Supporting May’s deal amounts to Corbyn admitting the UK is worse off out than in and he just can’t do that.

And to be fair, supporting May is a risky game. This is the Tories we are talking about. If labour back May’s deal, the Tory narrative going into the next election will be, oh brexit was a disaster yes, but we all voted against May’s deal, while Corbyn and labour supported it….so you should vote Tory. Sounds stupid I know, but I guarantee you, that’s their plan. The problem for labour is that Corbyn is such a divisive figure, you don’t have to give voters a huge amount of reasons to vote against him.

Take the no confidence vote, I mean seriously, does anyone in the commons really have confidence in May? Hell I doubt she has confidence in herself (how about we repeat it but with a lie detector, doubt you’d get a single vote in her favour). You’d expect at least a few of her party to be suitably fuming to back the motion. But no, to a person, they all voted with their PM. If there’s one thing that unites the Tory party, its stopping Corbyn becoming PM. And while they might not have confidence in May, they have less confidence in Corbyn.

On which point, consider his objection to dealing with May. He wants her to take no deal off the table. Well she can’t. Why? Well as laid out in bills, which passed in no small part thanks to Corbyn, no deal is now the default option unless parliament can agree an alternative (he was warned of this at the time by remainers in his party, he ignored them). She can give personal reassurances yes (which she’s already done, question is would anyone believe her!), but she can’t legally guarantee anything. Its like one of my students refusing to turn up to class because I won’t guarantee they’ll pass. In short, Corbyn, with two months to go, hasn’t got a clue what he’s doing (even less so than May). Even the lib dems seem to have given up on him, making it clear they’ll not support any further no confidence motions.

Doesn’t the failure of Corbyn’s no confidence motion mean he’ll now back a people vote, much like he promised at conference? LOL! These momentum types crack me up! I’ve watched with some bemusement over the last few weeks labour supporters going into meltdown, whinging why oh why is Corbyn ignoring our views and going back on what was agreed at conference…..because he’s Jeremy f*’king Corbyn (you did at least google his name before joining?). The only way he’s backing a 2nd referendum is if wild horses drag him there. And of course May ain’t going to support one either (that would require her having a spine and making a decision and they’d don’t call her the yellow submarine for nothing!). So some brave MP’s are going to have to grow a pair, defy the party whips and propose it.

And realistically the only obvious way to break the deadlock IS another referendum. This would give the brexiteers cover to back May’s deal, while also silencing the remainers (if they lose of course). Why would it have to be remain v’s May’s deal? Why not no deal v’s May’s deal? Well firstly, because no deal is a fantasy which would violate international law. Secondly, you’d need to get it through parliament and nothing with no deal on it is going to get passed. And thirdly, you’d have to extend article 50 and the EU won’t agree to anything that involves an option they oppose. They’d rather the UK just crash out.

So in theory, if you are a leave supporter you should now back a 2nd referendum. Not least because there is a rapidly closing wind of opportunity for one to go ahead. After that, it becomes a choice between no deal and no brexit. And no brexit is likely to win in that scenario. Once you exclude the crazies, those who’ll vote against anything, no matter how sensible regardless of the consequences, the commons is split between remainers and the aforementioned releavers.

The releavers want brexit to go ahead, but not at any cost. Many represent districts which will suffer immediate negative consequences from a hard brexit. Kent will become a lorry park, hospitals and shops in Scotland and the North of England will run out of supplies, factories in the Midlands will shut. The releaver block will support some form of sensible brexit for now. But the closer we get to the end of march, the more tempting it will be to just cancel brexit altogether. And you can be all but guaranteed some remain MP will put that forward closer to the day. And in fairness to the releaver MP’s, should it come to pass, they’ll have a point. They didn’t want to leave the EU in the first place, but respected the decision all the same. They tried to push it through, but the bexiteers choose to sabotage their own project.

So again, brexiteers need to choose, its May’s deal or remain….or hand it over to the people to decide in a referendum (which polls suggest would likely mean remain). You have to choose one of these options, or the decision will be made for you.

Corbyn the brexiteer unmasked

methode_sundaytimes_prod_web_bin_b49db2f0-5e63-11e7-a852-e6c7fb5977ff

So some labour supporters were shocked to learn last week that Saint Jeremy Corbyn, the lord and saviour, was actually a brexiteer, who has no intention of reversing or stopping brexit. Indeed, even if he gets his early election, he wants labour to campaign on a leave platform. Needless to say this is at odds with what was agreed at the party conference. And the fact that 90% of labour supporters voted remain and 86% of whom want another referendum.

Of course this is only news to those who never googled “corbyn” and “eu”. Or those willing to ignore the fact that he’s voted against every piece of pro-EU legislation that has ever come up. So it should only come as a shock to aliens recently arrived from outer Glaphobia. And the polls now show labour’s lead slipping, even despite the chaos within the Tories. In fact among young voters Corbyn’s support has fallen by 12% since the start of the debate on May’s deal. And those same young voters have previously indicated that if Corbyn was to back leave then support for him drops from 60% to as low as 26%.

In fact, just to highlight the insanity of Corbyn’s policy, let’s pick it apart. His grant scheme is to first win a confidence vote, get a general election, win it, then go to Brussels and get a better deal than May managed (in about 4-5 weeks, while she had 2 years). Well firstly, he ain’t going to win a confidence vote. The only way he’d convince all of the opposition parties and a handful of Tory rebels to back him is if labour were backing remain. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Even then in any election Corbyn’s brexit policy would fall apart in the first week. The EU have made clear there will be no re-negotiation. I’d guess they might be open to further discussion during the transition phase (and allowing an extended transition) but they’d probably insist and May’s deal being accepted as an interim solution. In short, Corbyn’s choices are May’s deal or no brexit. So he’s going to go to the country having provoked an election at one of the most inconvenient times in UK history, because he didn’t like May’s deal….only for his brexit policy to be May’s deal!

Voters will inevitably see this for what it is, a cynical power grab, and punish labour accordingly. And the idea of young millennial remainers, who are going to get screwed over by brexit (a right wing project that strips millions of both UK and EU citizens of their rights), going out and selling his leave policy on door steps is fanciful to say the least.

In the best case scenario, the vote’s he’ll lose to pro-remain parties of the left will be cancelled out by gammon’s, angry at May, voting for UKIP. But that still leaves the Tories the largest party and leading a minority government. The worse case scenario is a party spilt and a collapse in labour support. And in any event, the only way he’s getting into power is via a coalition. And none of the other parties will back any coalition with him, while labour adopts a leave position.

Of course, what Corbyn won’t mention is that not only does he wants leave, but he actually doesn’t mind if there’s a no deal. Because the chaos of a no deal might be what it takes to get the country to vote for him. However, if this is his plan, its a crap plan and it won’t work.

The Tories are clearly trying to position themselves so they can blame Corbyn for any no deal chaos. They’ll point out that they had a perfectly good deal with the EU, which would have passed if he’d have supported it (and, if like him, you are committed leaver there really is no other alternative to May’s deal). No doubt some pro-Tory hack will come out in the middle of any election with revelations from a whistle blower (real or fabricated) that the above was labour’s strategy all along. Again, the odds are he’ll still lose the election, possibly by an even larger margin, as the consequences of any no deal are likely to be strong shift to pro-EU parties (or the far right), not other forms of euroscepticism.

Bottom line, a labour party that is committed to leaving the EU at all costs, is a labour party committed to losing the next election no matter how badly the Tories screw up. Doubly so if Corbyn is in charge. Yes a policy of remain will cost them votes, but not as many as they’d lose by supporting leave.

And recall, we’ve been here before, Corbyn would be PM already if he’d been willing to do an election deal in 2017 with the other left wing, but pro-EU parties. He refused and as a result about a dozen Tories got in by margins of a few hundred votes or less. And he’d have destabilised and brought down the Tories by now, or killed off their EU withdrawal bill, if he’d been a bit more aggressive and willing to delay or disrupt the brexit process. I mean he’s had an open goal for the last month, which he’s failed to exploit. Bottom line, Corbyn has already chosen supporting leave over becoming PM. And as a result, he will almost certainly never be PM. So what’s the point in labour having him as its leader?

What’s that I hear labour party supporters say, well we’ll censure him. We’ll call an emergency conference on the matter and maybe even force a leadership contest if he doesn’t listen. LOL. Did you not learn anything at the last conference? Corbyn doesn’t give a damn what the members of the party want. He’s not changed his mind about anything since the 70’s. Trying to reason with Corbyn is a waste of time, his actual reasons for backing leave are simply wrong and ignores certain realities (notably that the EU does allow state aid, they just want to prevent states turning their state owned companies into monopolistic money burning machines). You’d have more luck trying to talk my neighbour’s cat into becoming vegan. And he sure as hell ain’t going to change policy just because a bunch of millennial’s had a vote and are worried about the post-brexit fate of the NHS. What, do you think the labour party is a democracy or something? As for a leadership challenge, that ship sailed some time ago.

The only alternative is to force Corbyn out and to do it quickly. And failing that, set up a new pro-EU labour party. That means his MP’s need to resign the party whip en-mass, give him a week to resign (changing policy isn’t good enough, he’s flip flopped so often you can’t trust him anymore at his word) and if he doesn’t, switch to another party (or set up their own party). And his supporters heed to follow their lead, notably those in Momentum, leaving labour and joining the lib-dems, SNP, greens (or this new party) all at once. Only then when confronted with the threat of total annihilation can we expect any form of movement on Corbyn’s part. But even that’s unlikely to succeed.

The Founding Fallacies of Privatisation – University bankruptcies loom

cambridge-university_hero-1530x860-700x415

For sometime I’ve been speculating about the consequences of the Tories/New labour defacto privatisation of universities. As a result, some universities haven gotten in way over their heads financially and its just a matter of time before one goes bust. But the government’s official policy is that there will be no bailouts of third level institutions. And, as can probably guess, the other week we learn that, contrary to this policy, a university WAS bailed out to the tune of nearly a million pounds.

As I’ve mentioned before, several universities in the UK are in dire financial straits. At least three uni’s were recently reported as being close to bankruptcy (living hand to mouth on short term credit), with one (presumably the one that was bailed out) already in talks with insolvency lawyers. This should not come as a surprise. Universities were encouraged by the government to expand and market themselves aggressively, in particular overseas. As well as to seek out research funding, both private and public, with the EU being a major contributor.

Now however, international students are shunning the UK, thanks to Theresa May’s hostile environment. And both EU students and EU research money is drying up thanks to brexit. Furthermore a demographic necking means less home students being recruited (quite apart from the fact that quite a number are going to university in the EU, where they can, at least for a few more years, get free tuition). Some uni’s are now so desperate for students that they’ve dropped their entry requirements considerably. A third of UK applicants last year got unconditional offers (meaning they were effectively guaranteed a place regardless of their A level grades).

_100086534_average_university_fees_charged_624_chart_v4

On the spending front, some uni’s borrowed quite heavily in order to expand. And, in line with government policy, they did not allow salaries of staff to rise with inflation, which means all lecturers in the UK have taken essentially a 12% pay cut since 2009. Now with post-brexit inflation pushing up the cost of living yet further, staff are demanding higher salaries (and with less international staff coming in, uni’s will likely have to cave in to those demands eventually). Interest rates are rising too, pushing up loan repayment costs. So universities are facing a perfect financial storm. Thus it should be no surprise that some have gotten in trouble and this bailout is unlikely to be a one off.

stream_img

University campuses in the UK have recently been rocked by strikes

That the government was forced to blink first in its stand off with university vice-chancellors should also hardly come as a surprise. A university represents a significant economic entity. It collapses that’s tens of thousands of well paid jobs lost to the local economy, many times more of indirect employment (shops, bars, restaurants, etc.), a crash in local house prices and of course a lot of disgruntled students who’ve just blown tens of thousands on a degree they can’t finish. Indeed, given the drop in council tax revenue and business rates resulting from a uni collapsing, its likely many councils (given the less than healthy state they are in) would also go bust as well if their local uni went down. In short, for any politician to let a university fail would be political suicide.

What I find interesting about this story however, is the covert manner in which the university was bailed out. According to the government, they only “lent” the money to the university in question for a week or so. This sounds somewhat dubious. A uni that was in talks with insolvency lawyers manages to find a million pounds down the back of the sofa around the same time the government lends it money. Ya sure! And if you believe that, I’ve got some magic beans I can sell you. More than likely what actually happened is that the government used the money to arranged a line of credit with the banks, with it taking on the uni’s debts, in return for them lending money to the university.

And these cloak and dagger tactics should come as little surprise. The situation with universities mirrors the difficulties the government faces with local councils (bankrupted by LOBO loans), ex-state owned utilities (rail, water and power companies) with similar large debts, as well as the £300 billion in PFI debts the country owes. Then there’s the +£100 billion in student debt, that’s unlikely to be paid off in full.

The truth is that the Tories policy of austerity has just been smoke and mirrors. Yes the cuts in welfare spending are very real and creating lots of hardship, but they don’t save a lot of money, given that only a tiny fraction of public spending is on welfare (compared to what is spent on pensioners for example or the NHS or the MoD).

Also its questionable whether such cuts save money at all. Sack a civil servant and replace him with a private contractor, whose employer charges three times the amount, well that’s hardly value for money. Less so if our ex-civil servant starts claiming benefits. Cut his benefits, that leave it up to food banks and local councils to pick up the pieces. And this has been the problem with austerity, its just moving numbers around a ledger to hide the fact that the Tories haven’t reduced anything, in fact they’ve made things worse. Tory economic policy since 2010 has been little more than a set of Enron style accounting tricks to hide debts, rather than reduce them.

_102621974_publicsectordebt-jul-nc

Even the UK’s official debt is higher than it has been for decades

And, much as with our unnamed university, once one of these quango’s gets in trouble, despite government protestations to the contrary, they will quietly bail them out. Recall how East coast rail was bailed out as were the creditors of Carillon. The government has to bail them out (same as our unnamed uni), because if they don’t they risk a very damaging unravelling of firms in a similar position. Its likely that if one uni goes down (or one rail company or water company) in the UK, several more will quickly follow (as nobody with a lick of sense will lend money to any other UK uni’s nor sign up for their courses). Which is of course exactly the problem with public services, they are by definition too important to be allowed to fail. So one has to question the wisdom of making them part of the private sector, as all you are doing is privatising profit and socialising risk.

And this isn’t just about saving the Tories ideological blushes. Basically what the government is doing is legally questionable. If any company or an individual did the same we’d be led away in hand cuff’s to the tune of inner circle.

The danger for the government is that at some point the rating agencies and banks are going to argue that these hundreds of billions of public debt that the government is essentially responsible for, needs to count it as part of the UK’s public debt. Which would leave the UK’s public finances looking worse than they did when the Tories took over (and Gordon Brown was dealing with the worse economic crisis in a century, while the Tories have essentially created an economic crisis). In fact they’d look worse those of Greece (which is now well into recovery and growing faster than the UK)…..and they want to at least wait until labour takes over before dropping that bombshell (so they can blame it all on Corbyn).

Of course the trouble with this Tory strategy is that events might be taken out of their hands. For example, a uni’s creditors decide to force it into liquidation, regardless of what secret offers the government makes, as they’d prefer to get their greedy paws on its billions worth of city centre property. A quango running a public service goes to illegal lengths to hide its debts, meaning the police get involved and force it into insolvency. And recall many of the UK’s public service quango’s are owned by foreign companies (many based in the EU), so its not necessarily a matter the UK government can influence.

But either way, we get the uncontrolled meltdown of a public service, council or university, with all the negative consequences that brings (as again, once one goes down, several more will likely follow). So its a case of watch this space and expect fire works in the future.