Category: Commentary

Tory additions to the Independent Group bring a boost and a hitch

https://on.ft.com/2XiunEy
https://www.ft.com/content/4c9375c2-3504-11e9-bb0c-42459962a812?hubRefSrc=email&utm_source=lfemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=lfnotification#lf-content=241701869:826466378

With the advent of the Independent Group, we have to accept and, hopefully, get used to consensus politics. It is absolutely symptomatic of the UK’s political problems that the media are already trying to establish that there are differences of opinion amongst the members of the Independent Group.

Consensus politics means exactly that!  That is one of the reasons why the new group is made up of Remainers – they actually think politics in a more European manner by looking at what they can agree on rather than what they might disagree on.

It is this disavowment of the adversarial style with which our leaders have traditionally been brought up on that is so attractive. I can hear the worn out expressions already like “Strong and Stable”, “Wet and Weak” and “Left versus Right”. That is exactly what must change and these courageous people are the vanguard.

Pretending that, in order to succeed, they must all agree on everything is only playing into the hands of journalists who have an ulterior motive in underlining discord. Let us hope that there are more MPs courageous enough to join them.

Trump’s Wall

https://on.ft.com/2tskbfd

https://www.ft.com/content/2262b88e-33ed-11e9-bb0c-42459962a812?segmentId=6132a895-e068-7ddc-4cec-a1abfa5c8378

We have moved from “beautiful” wall paid for by Mexico to declaring a state of emergency so that Trump can take funds from other badly needed budget allocations.  By his own admission, this will probably end up in the Supreme Court, where, of course, he now has a supposed majority. We will have to wait to see if the judges are prepared to interpret the law in a partisan manner or not. They will have to bear in mind the precedent they will set. The further to the right they may be politically, the more reluctant they might be to set that precedent. As has been said, it would probably be easier to classify deaths from gun violence as a National Emergency than the building a wall that locals do not regard as necessary. So this will not be as easy as he implied with characteristic petulance. The situation highlights the fact that he did not win the last elections – which his ego obliges him not to accept – and that he has no intention of taking a bipartisan approach. This, after all, was just a campaign commitment as all candidates make. But once elected, the president should be acting on behalf of all US citizens, not just his own supporters. That is what is different with this guy – he doesn’t really seem to care about the opinions of others

Carney says Brexit is ‘acid test’ on future of global trade in his speech to the City of London

See Financial Times 12 February, 2019

https://on.ft.com/2GCFFh4

What is amazing, is how some Brexiteers have managed to present Carney’s speech as somehow softening his stance on the harmful effects of Brexit. As usual, they are seeing things in black and white terms when several shades of grey are called for. The fact that there is a worldwide scepticism about globalisation is in no way an indication that we can do away with supranational institutions. Indeed, we can argue that it is an indication of exactly the opposite. What is all the more surprising is that the Brexit justification of wanting to be able to strike our own trade deals when the supporters of Brexit are actually revolting against globalisation shows the abject populism that is rampant amongst politicians worldwide.  Three examples: Some leavers, we are told, want to reduce immigration. Yet some Brexiteers simply want to reduce European immigration and replace it with global immigration. Some leavers, we are told, regard the EU as protectionist, yet there are Brexiteers that propose greater protection for our industries. Some leavers, we are told, want to regain sovereignty, but are prepared to abide by WTO rules or any rules laid out in diverse Free Trade Agreements. But to come back to Carney’s speech, he in no way softens his approach to Brexit or diminishes his warnings about the disastrous effects of a disorderly withdrawal What his speech suggests is that there is a link between the various rejections of globalisation including Brexit and Trump’s simplistic mercantilism and that the outcome of Brexit could be an indicator of things to come. That is a statement of fact not a judgment or softening of anything.

EU “Deal” is a dog’s breakfast

In response to an article by Nick Herbert in the FT dated 03/02/19

Nick Herbert is the guy that did an appalling job, almost by his own admission, in the referendum campaign. One can tell that he was a Remainer “on balance” rather than “by conviction” by this typical discourse.

That was the whole reason the Leave campaign won. They appeared to have conviction and listed all that was bad about the EU, and what could be gained by leaving, even if it was mostly untrue.  

The Remain campaign under his leadership, however, felt it was necessary to say “although we don’t really want to be mixed up with all these foreigners we should stay because, on balance, we get a good deal”. They felt this approach was necessary because of the existential threat posed to the Conservative Party by UKIP and the need to appease their out of touch membership.

So he is now asking the readers of the FT to pressure the EU to help the Conservative Party to get a “deal” through for the same party political reasons. He misread things then and does so now. The idea that we face either “crashing out” or an unrealistic modification to a rejected plan is to deliberately ignore the other choices available if we give ourselves more time.

He has not explained why we can not ask the EU for an extension of Article 50 to get this right rather than this 11th hour rush into a dog’s breakfast!

Scanners in Prisons

I listened this morning on @BBCr4today to a discussion which involved the presenter John Humphrys, a member of the Prison Officers Association (POA) and an ex-prisoner which requires some commentary. The subject was the use of body scanner technology to detect illicit items in prison. I do not have a transcript so I will be paraphrasing throughout. Hopefully my points will still make sense.

John Humphrys played almost no constructive role in this broadcast except to push the other two to get on with it in the allotted time, which was, of course, far too short to discuss such a serious subject. I do think, however, that he could have tried much harder to make something interesting and useful out of the short broadcast. I am concerned, as usual, that the general public will receive a perverted view of prison life. To be fair to him, however, I have become disenchanted with his approach for a few years, so I will say no more except to point out what he might have discussed.

Predictably the member of the POA said they needed more resources to do the job properly. The plan is for one scanner per prison to search prisoners. Now, given that we know that there are massive amounts of contraband being brought into prisons by prison workers of all descriptions, that is lamentable. If there is to be one scanner then it should be used, as you would at customs, on everyone passing through the prison. If that causes a blockage then let some people through at random so that the potential smuggler can never be sure whether he or she will be scanned. It’s true that that might require more staff but, if contraband could be stopped before it gets into the prison system, less staff would ultimately be needed elsewhere.

The ex-long-term prisoner took an equally predictable stance. He said things were better when prisoners were smoking cannabis and staff turned a blind eye. He ignored the debt problem caused by drug dependency which leads to violence. He ignored the problems of psychologically vulnerable prisoners for whom the combination of high strength cannabis and prison conditions causes severe psychotic incidents, which can lead to violence and long-term mental health problems. He ignored the fact that smoking bans are in place that are a good thing for non-smoking inmates and staff and have been very successful. It gives the impression to the general public that the majority of prisoners are smoking dope which is false!

None of these issues were discussed by Humphreys. Moreover, the problem of overcrowding was not even mentioned even though that could release staff for this kind of work immediately because of prisoner/officer ratio requirements. And no mention was made of the effect all of this might have on compliant inmates about whom no-one ever bothers to talk. By compliant I mean the silent majority who get on with their sentence, cooperate with staff, obey the rules (where possible) do their underpaid work (where possible) help other inmates (where possible) and reluctantly accept the appalling conditions in which they are forced to endure and without whom the prison system could not function.

Finally let me give an example of how these scanners will probably be used. When a prison bus arrives at a receiving prison it is likely that the new arrivals will go through the scanner even though they have been searched or scanned on leaving the sending prison. Prisoners are handcuffed on their way into the bus, isolated in appallingly uncomfortable and unsafe conditions on the bus and handcuffed on their way from the bus into the receiving prison. What an abject waste of resources searching them again is, which is symptomatic of the mistrust between prisons. A demonstration that not all solutions require more resources!!!

The City of London as an Off-shore Centre

The film above is really worth watching for anyone interested in the UK’s democratic deficit, justice system, corruption, tax evasion, or the unpleasant aspects of international finance. I’ve chosen to post this now because I’m fed up with hearing exactly the same allegations levelled against the EU. The fact is, unpalatable as it may be for many, that the UK and in particular the City of London, has profited from what I would call tax diversion since I have been involved in business and has never been particularly more scrupulous than other countries about the source of funds.

It is the question of knowledge of the source of funds that should determine whether money laundering has taken place. We know from my case, however, that the UK Justice System feels no need for any definition when seeking to prosecute money laundering cases. I fully admit to having several axes to grind in these matters, and am prepared to discuss the ramifications of what I am saying with anyone.

It is the hypocrisy of those that claim innocence, however, that we should find so distasteful. It insults our intelligence, our knowledge and our sense of morality to continually blame foreigners for activities that the UK facilitates and from which the fortunate have profited. Moreover, there is a clear suspicion that certain activities are acceptable to UK justice if they are carried out in UK territories and by a certain class of person or company.

It is worse in many ways than most people think or this film implies. If you undermine this system in any way, you will be attacked! So there is a very personal message here.

Faith Schools

The National Secular Society has just published a report on faith schools which is worth reading. On their website, those that are interested are able to sign a petition or write to their MP in an easy and efficient fashion.

The UK, via its parliament, has determined that our children cannot vote until they are 18 years old. That view cannot be compatible with the idea of them being confined to learn in a single belief system before the age of majority. We seem to be going backwards instead of forwards in trying to promote faith schools. Classes in comparative religion are a good thing, in my opinion, but can only be unbiased in a multi-faith or no-faith structure. I have no problem with religious people educating children but it should never be obvious what their beliefs are until the child is deemed to be capable of making a judgment based upon knowledge rather than heritage. It is noticeable that, in prison, we strictly adhere to the idea that prisoners should be able to practice whatever faith they wish. Although in practice, the prison system limits their choice, at least there is an attempt to recognise that there are multiple valid choices of faith, even in Her Majesty’s Prison Service in a regime where there is an established church. We do not choose where we are born nor what religion if any our parents; may choose to follow. Let’s give freedom of choice to our children.

UK employers pick EU staff for quality, not cost

In response to an article in the FT 07/12/18 about an IoD study relating to post-Brexit immigration plans.

This is one of those fundamentally divisive topics that reflects true divisions in people’s thinking which no longer maps easily onto the old-style Left/Right debate. My father-in-law would not accept that, in general, immigration was positive for the country, however much I used what I regarded as rational arguments. He had no problems welcoming foreigners, regardless of ethnicity, into his house or at the pub, but he would often make generalisations about people he did not know. He was Europhobic for that reason, even though our family exposed him to Europeans. He was basically tribal but a good, likeable and honest person.  He read the Telegraph but was happy to read any other serious newspaper if the occasion presented itself. He was an old-fashioned Tory, who disagreed vehemently with Ken Clarke and Heseltine but still regarded them as honourable, intelligent and patriotic and was always open to compromise. He would never have been discourteous to people with whom he disagreed.

Nowadays it would seem that social media have not only broken down some of those lifestyle conventions which made discussion a pleasant pastime and learning experience, but the breakdown of Left/Right has been facilitated mean because people are no longer exposed to a broad range of views. Maybe they simply subscribe to a narrow range of opinion that they can easily follow. So we have the Labour voters who are convinced that their party should suppress Freedom of Movement, the Conservative voters that are internationalists and all shades including Farage that can exist outside his own Party!  Maybe I am an irrelevant old fart that, on balance, prefers immigrant workers because they tend to try harder. Moreover, I now believe that there is no way, such as Theresa May’s plan, of healing social divides. We need another vote on Brexit simply to give legitimacy to the need to stay in the EU.

The ‘Will of the people’ – which people?

We hear often these days that to have another referendum would be to ‘deny the will of the people’. Yet, in democracies, it is of the greatest importance that elections take place at regular intervals. In the UK we have elections every 5 years or sooner. Nobody ever says that the next election will ‘deny the will of the people’ as expressed 5 years ago! The constituency where I currently live voted Conservative at the last election.  That cannot mean that the electorate has chosen a Conservative MP for life! Many would say that if that representative, having seen what the government proposes now resigns from the government (as has indeed happened) he should resign as an MP because he is no longer loyal to the manifesto! So even some opposing another vote admit that, if there is a change between what the electorate voted for and the policy that is actually pursued, that is enough reason for a new election. It is true that the last referendum only took place 2.5 years ago. But by the time the next one is held, it is probably that 3 years would have passed. There will be new voters, new ideas and clearer proposals.  How can another referendum be undemocratic? How can it deny the will of the people? If the Brexiteers wanted another referendum in 3 years time would that be so bad? Well, by then, we would have had another election and, hopefully, the parties would have clearly achievable policies on the EU in their manifestoes. If a manifesto pledge proves to be unachievable are we condemned to stick with it regardless?

The “will of the people” – which people?

Deutsche Bank Raids

 

This is what I wrote on the Financial Times website:

“Surprise, surprise! We are discovering now that major banks might be doing dodgy things in British Overseas Territories. Who would have thought it? Before everyone gloats about the demise of DB, let’s wait to see if ‘justice’ is applied equally across all banks, including those in the UK that open accounts for offshore entities. Or is that a naive,  unrealistic and above all unpatriotic wish?”

This comment received 46 recommends which is enormous by FT standards. It also received 2 incomprehensible negative and anonymous comments to which I replied, but have so far received no response. It is somewhat amazing, and possibly suspicious, that those two people reacted with such venom, but, until they bother to reply, that is their problem. To be fair, they also had a number of people recommending their comments.

I find it incomprehensible and obviously hypocritical that we accept attacks on off-shore jurisdictions and foreign banks without criticising British territories or the islands or UK-based banks that provide support for them. We know what the primary activities of off-shore financial centres are about: tax optimisation, asset protection and confidentiality. It is to be incredibly naive or deliberately blind to deny this. Now, given my background, I can honestly say that I do not necessarily think that those three activities are reprehensible. What is reprehensible is to assume that only foreigners would do anything reprehensible. Bankers that might otherwise hold very liberal views suddenly become xenophobic!