Neville Chamberlain was apparent a man of almost-infinite vanity, who believed of himself the quotations [from Shakespeare's Hotspur, and others] that he used to extol his success at the time of national humiliation in the days of the 1938 Munich Agreement. Perversely, public anger then and at the outset of war was directed to his predecessor as prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, who had in fact had a much clearer view of Hitler and initiated the process of rearmament and [in particular] the expansion of the RAF and the widespread development of airfields that were to save the country in 1940. Chamberlain handed over to Churchill only when his illness made continuance in office impossible, and his death was buried in the fraught news of the nation's survival and eventual victory.
Mrs May may be equally delusional with Chamberlain, but I do not believe that she is. She is, however, mortally wounded [in political terms] by her failed general election: since which, she has seemed like a doped rabbit in the headlights, buoyed-up by a remarkable self-belief that she is unable to communicate to the nation that she very rarely troubles to talk to. Even during the election, that she called herself, she did not face up to confrontation, but took a tedious road-show around the country making absurd claims about her own strength and stability and risking losing the oldie vote by a totally silly launch of a plan to pay for home care with a 'death tax'. That might be a sensible basis for consideration: but it would have to be pondered deeply and planned carefully, not drawn up on a fag packet and launched during an election campaign that was already failing to match that of the antediluvian Marxist who had repackaged himself to capture the inexperience of younger voters.
Now Mrs May is gearing up to make only her second major speech this year in the Brexit issue: the one matter that will determine her reputation and the durability of her tenure of office. Early in the year, at Lancaster House, she vaguely talked about the sort of outcome that she hoped for from the negotiations with the EU on how Britain would stand after March, 2019. Many months later, she is to go to Florence tomorrow to make a speech whose content and tone - so it is rumoured - will be determined in the Cabinet Room in Downing Street today. Given Mrs May's propensity to take up pusillanimous positions with the advice of a kitchen cabinet of close advisers, there is a possibility that what is decided in Cabinet may be transmogrified en route to Florence: but the probability of Cabinet resignations may rule that out. However, some Cabinet members in the past have brought down prime ministers and government by resigning; and at least one egotist might be tempted to go - in the hope of future glory - if he is dissatisfied by her remarks.
Rumours about the content of her draft speech are scarce; but they include the suggestion that she will offer a [low] sum of money to the EU as a divorce settlement, spread over a couple of years after March 2019, if the EU will agree to a transitional phase that could well end in British membership of a redefined European Economic Area.
It still appears to be the case that a small number of Conservative buffoons in the Commons actually believe that Britain can walk out of the political AND economic aspects of the EU and survive economically from April 2019. If they were to have their way, supported as they are by a larger number of other MPs who would be prepared to risk a 'hard Brexit' with crossed fingers and justifiable doubts, they would be open to the same treatment as the Rumanian dictator got from the people after his fall.pe
Showing posts with label Cabinet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cabinet. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 September 2017
Wednesday, 20 September 2017
The Present State of Economy and Society
Official statistics are compiled by honest professional people, and tell the 'truth' in simple numerical terms. But much can be done to interpret them, either favourably or unfavourably, according to the wish of the interpreter. Hence, although the United Kingdom now has the highest proportion of its available adult citizens in employment since 1975 [one of the three years during which the mixed economy was tested most severely] it is sobering to note that in almost every way the present pattern of employment is massively more fragile than was that which NeoKeynesian inflation undermined. The effect of the inflation of prices, especially after the oil price hike of 1973, was that production was interrupted by strikes when the authorities took action to suppress wage rises in their clumsy attempts to cap the wage-price spiral. In each period of pay 'restraint' government costs rose while government revenues declined, and the balance of payments with the rest of the world became strongly negative. In those circumstances, the Labour government [which relied on minority parties to retain control of the House of Commons] sought a loan from the International Monetary Fund; and the conditions applied to that loan [in retrospect] can be seen as a demand for the state to bring in Monetarist policies to replace they failed pseudo Keynesianism that the Economic establishment had applied.
The Labour Party was torn apart by the consequent dissent from the new policy, with the trade unions - the traditional paymasters of the party - doggedly opposed to the government. Consequently the Conservatives won the 1989 general election. The new Tory leader, the largely-unknown and completely untested Margaret Thatcher, embraced monetarism enthusiastically; and she deplored the less-than-half-hearted attitude towards her radical policies from most of the Tory establishment [including most of her cabinet]. They had been broadly content with the mixed economy and were scared by the new radicalism. Mrs Thatcher and her close cohort dismissed the majority as 'wets', and became more intent on radical change in the economy. As to the social consequences of disruptive economic policies, Mrs Thatcher was simply to say 'There is no such thing as Society'.
The people who could be identified as the 'enemies' of the new Monetarist policies began with the Economists, 364 of whom signed a letter to the TIMES condemning her policies from a standpoint of NeoKeynesianism [and who succumbed thereafter, with amazing speed, so that those who remained in their 'profession' become locked in to the new Econocracy by the millennium]. Next among the 'enemies' were the trade unions, that had frustrated the attempts by the Labour government of 1974-79 to control the wage-price spiral. Here the Thatcher gang decided on a radical solution: if you close the coal mines and a large section of the iron and steel industry [including shipbuilding] you take the cash and the members away from the unions, leaving them as shell organisations with no real power. These radical solutions were adopted; and the majority of the electorate was unmoved by the pleas of miners and steel workers whose communities were largely isolated geographically and socially from the cities where banking, finance and smart retailing were providing more nice, clean jobs for the middle classes. While the traditionally unionised areas continued to return Labour MPs from constituencies with very high percentages of the industrial and ex-industrial population, other urban centres and the less-densely-populated majority of constituencies were content to return Tory [or, in some cases, irrelevant Liberal] MPs; and thus the wrecking job was done.
It is now more than thirty years since the steelworks of Sheffield, the pit sites across the country with their unmistakable winding-gear, the massive cranes on the dockyards to the Tyne and the Tees and the Upper Clyde, and other symbols of the most basic and essential industries were first left derelict; then cleared away. It is hard to believe that Meadowhall in Sheffield was once the world's leading steel and engineering centre, or that the placid banks of the Upper Clyde were once the proudest shipyards in the world.
No thanks to successive governments, pharmaceutical and biological companies have developed lucrative new products; creative industries [including computer games] have developed magnificently and - despite the idiocies that created the financial crisis of 2007-9 - the financial services based in London lead the world in expertise and innovation. So Britain has high spots, and remains uniquely innovative; but fools in government have congratulated themselves on 'attracting inward investment' as one after another the innovative firms [along with the intellectual capital] are snapped up by aliens. This almost-constant alienation of the most valuable assets that the British continue to create means that the balance-of-payments becomes increasingly adverse, as British consumers have to pay foreign firms to access British inventions, even if they are manufactured here.
The final knell of heavy industry has been sounded today, with the news that Tata is selling its steelworks in the UK to Thyssen-Krupp: whatever promises are made [and especially if we really do leave the European Economic Area] Port Talbot will go; and with it the last evidence of heavy industry will be consigned to the film archives and to history books.
The Labour Party was torn apart by the consequent dissent from the new policy, with the trade unions - the traditional paymasters of the party - doggedly opposed to the government. Consequently the Conservatives won the 1989 general election. The new Tory leader, the largely-unknown and completely untested Margaret Thatcher, embraced monetarism enthusiastically; and she deplored the less-than-half-hearted attitude towards her radical policies from most of the Tory establishment [including most of her cabinet]. They had been broadly content with the mixed economy and were scared by the new radicalism. Mrs Thatcher and her close cohort dismissed the majority as 'wets', and became more intent on radical change in the economy. As to the social consequences of disruptive economic policies, Mrs Thatcher was simply to say 'There is no such thing as Society'.
The people who could be identified as the 'enemies' of the new Monetarist policies began with the Economists, 364 of whom signed a letter to the TIMES condemning her policies from a standpoint of NeoKeynesianism [and who succumbed thereafter, with amazing speed, so that those who remained in their 'profession' become locked in to the new Econocracy by the millennium]. Next among the 'enemies' were the trade unions, that had frustrated the attempts by the Labour government of 1974-79 to control the wage-price spiral. Here the Thatcher gang decided on a radical solution: if you close the coal mines and a large section of the iron and steel industry [including shipbuilding] you take the cash and the members away from the unions, leaving them as shell organisations with no real power. These radical solutions were adopted; and the majority of the electorate was unmoved by the pleas of miners and steel workers whose communities were largely isolated geographically and socially from the cities where banking, finance and smart retailing were providing more nice, clean jobs for the middle classes. While the traditionally unionised areas continued to return Labour MPs from constituencies with very high percentages of the industrial and ex-industrial population, other urban centres and the less-densely-populated majority of constituencies were content to return Tory [or, in some cases, irrelevant Liberal] MPs; and thus the wrecking job was done.
It is now more than thirty years since the steelworks of Sheffield, the pit sites across the country with their unmistakable winding-gear, the massive cranes on the dockyards to the Tyne and the Tees and the Upper Clyde, and other symbols of the most basic and essential industries were first left derelict; then cleared away. It is hard to believe that Meadowhall in Sheffield was once the world's leading steel and engineering centre, or that the placid banks of the Upper Clyde were once the proudest shipyards in the world.
No thanks to successive governments, pharmaceutical and biological companies have developed lucrative new products; creative industries [including computer games] have developed magnificently and - despite the idiocies that created the financial crisis of 2007-9 - the financial services based in London lead the world in expertise and innovation. So Britain has high spots, and remains uniquely innovative; but fools in government have congratulated themselves on 'attracting inward investment' as one after another the innovative firms [along with the intellectual capital] are snapped up by aliens. This almost-constant alienation of the most valuable assets that the British continue to create means that the balance-of-payments becomes increasingly adverse, as British consumers have to pay foreign firms to access British inventions, even if they are manufactured here.
The final knell of heavy industry has been sounded today, with the news that Tata is selling its steelworks in the UK to Thyssen-Krupp: whatever promises are made [and especially if we really do leave the European Economic Area] Port Talbot will go; and with it the last evidence of heavy industry will be consigned to the film archives and to history books.
Thursday, 7 September 2017
More Pathetic Government Papers on Brexit
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the British State does not have the resources that are necessary to arrange for any sort of Brexit. Some commentators [from both sides of the debate] have welcomed this absence of any clear thinking and positive planning as a time during which a consensus can emerge in the wider public, in favour of a 'soft Brexit' based on remaining in the European Economic Area [EEA]. Such commentators argue - persuasively - that Mrs May's government does not possess sufficient brainpower [either in numbers of people or on a basis of their average intelligence] to work out alternative solutions to the tens of thousands of issues that are emerging, within eighteen months.
The EU has now produced two papers [among others] that are unanswerable by the May team within the constraints of time and human resources that apply. One challenges Britain to find a way of carrying forward the European system for designating such products as Cornish pasty, Stilton, Camembert and Parma Ham. The other carries the ultimate challenge: it throws entirely on the British government the initiative in creating open borders in Ireland that is acceptable to the Irish Republic and supported by all 26 other EU member states. England opened the 'Irish Question' when the English Pope Hadrian gave King Henry II an invitation to assume the role of Lord of Ireland, and the Union of England and Scotland has been struggling with the aftermath for at least two hundred years. The chances of it being resolved, other than in the context of the EEA, are negligible. Mrs May depends on the support of the most hardline opponents of concessions to the Irish Republicans for her majority in the House of Commons; thus there is no chance of the Irish Question leading to any new answers.
This blog has also emphasised the simple fact that a 'hard Brexit' could only be implemented at the cost of many billions of pounds of extra state spending on border and customs controls, both to implement the hard border then to maintain it. It would be impossible to continue to implement 'austerity' if such extra costs were being imposed on the state budget. Borrowing to pay for such border controls would make the government's attempt to end state borrowing [that has failed so far] even more ridiculous than it already is. The alternative, to try to pay for the new resources of equipment and manpower by increasing taxes, would result in revolt by business lobbies and the general public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose department would have to present this scenario to the public [and must, surely, have attempted to warn the Brexiteers in the Cabinet of these facts], has argued for the general acceptance of a transition period in recognition of the fact that none of these issues can be resolved by March 2019: which is deadline set by Mrs May when she formally notified the EU of her interpretation of the referendum result.
The headbanging Brexiteers know that the longer time passes before a resolution is imposed on the country, the chances of a rational solution - withdrawal from the political EU while remaining in the EEA - will rise; and they hate this concept. They will therefore be hell-bent on pushing the weakest Prime Minister since the Second World War to take panicky decisions in a show of uncharacteristic determination that would make her ridiculous, and almost certainly push her to a position where the DUP would refuse to support her and Tory Remainers would be opposed to her.
In all this political maelstrom key facts could get lost; but here the sheer incompetence of the UK government's papers on Brexit are significant. A draft text on immigration, post-Brexit [leaked to the Guardian], assumed that Britain does have the native resources of skilled, fit and willing labour to fill most of the jobs that would be vacant in the period after a 'hard Brexit'. The mass of work that has been done on labour supply and skills shortages in the UK contradicts that naive assumption; unless - and this is a really chilling thought - the authors assume that there would be so big a contraction in the economy that skills shortages would disappear. The absence from the paper of any reference to seasonal labour from the EU, on which much of UK agriculture depends, illustrates the sheer incompetence and inadequacy of the work that is being done in Whitehall.
This all serves to strengthen one's fear that those who have a clear policy, who I call the headbanging Brexiteers, will have too much of the argument for too long; because everybody else is inadequately informed to make judgements on myriad issues that any form of Brexit will throw up.
The EU has now produced two papers [among others] that are unanswerable by the May team within the constraints of time and human resources that apply. One challenges Britain to find a way of carrying forward the European system for designating such products as Cornish pasty, Stilton, Camembert and Parma Ham. The other carries the ultimate challenge: it throws entirely on the British government the initiative in creating open borders in Ireland that is acceptable to the Irish Republic and supported by all 26 other EU member states. England opened the 'Irish Question' when the English Pope Hadrian gave King Henry II an invitation to assume the role of Lord of Ireland, and the Union of England and Scotland has been struggling with the aftermath for at least two hundred years. The chances of it being resolved, other than in the context of the EEA, are negligible. Mrs May depends on the support of the most hardline opponents of concessions to the Irish Republicans for her majority in the House of Commons; thus there is no chance of the Irish Question leading to any new answers.
This blog has also emphasised the simple fact that a 'hard Brexit' could only be implemented at the cost of many billions of pounds of extra state spending on border and customs controls, both to implement the hard border then to maintain it. It would be impossible to continue to implement 'austerity' if such extra costs were being imposed on the state budget. Borrowing to pay for such border controls would make the government's attempt to end state borrowing [that has failed so far] even more ridiculous than it already is. The alternative, to try to pay for the new resources of equipment and manpower by increasing taxes, would result in revolt by business lobbies and the general public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose department would have to present this scenario to the public [and must, surely, have attempted to warn the Brexiteers in the Cabinet of these facts], has argued for the general acceptance of a transition period in recognition of the fact that none of these issues can be resolved by March 2019: which is deadline set by Mrs May when she formally notified the EU of her interpretation of the referendum result.
The headbanging Brexiteers know that the longer time passes before a resolution is imposed on the country, the chances of a rational solution - withdrawal from the political EU while remaining in the EEA - will rise; and they hate this concept. They will therefore be hell-bent on pushing the weakest Prime Minister since the Second World War to take panicky decisions in a show of uncharacteristic determination that would make her ridiculous, and almost certainly push her to a position where the DUP would refuse to support her and Tory Remainers would be opposed to her.
In all this political maelstrom key facts could get lost; but here the sheer incompetence of the UK government's papers on Brexit are significant. A draft text on immigration, post-Brexit [leaked to the Guardian], assumed that Britain does have the native resources of skilled, fit and willing labour to fill most of the jobs that would be vacant in the period after a 'hard Brexit'. The mass of work that has been done on labour supply and skills shortages in the UK contradicts that naive assumption; unless - and this is a really chilling thought - the authors assume that there would be so big a contraction in the economy that skills shortages would disappear. The absence from the paper of any reference to seasonal labour from the EU, on which much of UK agriculture depends, illustrates the sheer incompetence and inadequacy of the work that is being done in Whitehall.
This all serves to strengthen one's fear that those who have a clear policy, who I call the headbanging Brexiteers, will have too much of the argument for too long; because everybody else is inadequately informed to make judgements on myriad issues that any form of Brexit will throw up.
Monday, 7 August 2017
Vince to Rescue the Mail?
Yesterday's Mail on Sunday had a feature that I so little expected to appear that I went out to acquire a copy to verify with my own eyes the account that I had heard on the radio. Sure enough, the LibDem leader, Vince Cable had produced an article which they published. Sadly, the headline [doubtless chosen by some minion of the Mail] was misleading. It suggested that the MPs who are pressing for a 'hard Brexit' are "masochists": when the reality is that they are aiming to torment the British nation with lower living standards. These individuals might - just - share to some degree in the pain if there is a 'hard Brexit', but they will remain relatively privileged compared to the mass of the population.
It is understood that 'the Brexiteers' are pushing their influence to the limit, as it becomes obvious that more and more of the Leave voters are recognising the idiocy of the extreme Brexiteers' position. It is taken for granted that the referendum result will be respected, and Britain will cease to use the EU flag, will cease to provide members of the Commission and the Parliament and the Court, and will open a new era of sovereign diplomatic policy. But to leave the European Economic Area would be madness. To quit Euratom would be seriously dangerous. Even to think that the UK could have most-favoured-nation status with the USA - to the exclusion of the EU and Mexico - would be a demonstration of insanity. Yet these issues are now becoming apparent: and it is reported that some members of the Cabinet, perhaps including the Brexit ministers, are on the side of the tormentors.
The Mail group of papers was among the advocates of 'Leave', for very good reasons. Now it is allowing alternative opinions to be aired on where Brexit should aim to end up, as shown by yesterday's LibDem article. But much more significant is the opinion piece that is set alongside Cable's, which recognises the finding of serious researchers, that some Conservative 'Leavers' failed to vote Conservative in the recent general election - and some voted LibDem or Labour - in despair at the crazy determination of some Conservative to press for a 'hard Brexit'. Provided some compromise can be achieved on the migration of people within the area, the Mail wants to UK to be within the European Economic Area. The dawn of sense, in a very significant influencer of Middle Britain!
It is highly improbable that a person with such a bad dress-sense as Mrs May has very much commonsense. It is questionable what contact she has ever had with 'ordinary people' except as her father's parishioners, and subsequently as shop assistants, college and parliamentary servants, the layers of Bank of England minions who have recently been on strike; and others whose role is to serve. She may, however, continue to be presented with a digest of the media every day, as her predecessors have been: in which case whoever edits it should have marked this twist of the Mail's tale with a big, black exclamation mark. It means that hundreds of thousands of Mail readers are already forming the sort of opinion that the paper presented yesterday. It explains why Mrs May 'lost' the election, and why the Conservative Party will plummet lower and lower in the polls unless the 'hard Brexiteers' are pushed aside now.
As Cable says - and it might even be in his own words - "The cliff edge draws closer. For the Brexit martyrs, paradise beckons. No longer Project Fear but Project Near. After that it will be Project Here."
Cable has helped the Mail to signal a major shift in the opinion of middle Britain: let us hope that it is in time!
It is understood that 'the Brexiteers' are pushing their influence to the limit, as it becomes obvious that more and more of the Leave voters are recognising the idiocy of the extreme Brexiteers' position. It is taken for granted that the referendum result will be respected, and Britain will cease to use the EU flag, will cease to provide members of the Commission and the Parliament and the Court, and will open a new era of sovereign diplomatic policy. But to leave the European Economic Area would be madness. To quit Euratom would be seriously dangerous. Even to think that the UK could have most-favoured-nation status with the USA - to the exclusion of the EU and Mexico - would be a demonstration of insanity. Yet these issues are now becoming apparent: and it is reported that some members of the Cabinet, perhaps including the Brexit ministers, are on the side of the tormentors.
The Mail group of papers was among the advocates of 'Leave', for very good reasons. Now it is allowing alternative opinions to be aired on where Brexit should aim to end up, as shown by yesterday's LibDem article. But much more significant is the opinion piece that is set alongside Cable's, which recognises the finding of serious researchers, that some Conservative 'Leavers' failed to vote Conservative in the recent general election - and some voted LibDem or Labour - in despair at the crazy determination of some Conservative to press for a 'hard Brexit'. Provided some compromise can be achieved on the migration of people within the area, the Mail wants to UK to be within the European Economic Area. The dawn of sense, in a very significant influencer of Middle Britain!
It is highly improbable that a person with such a bad dress-sense as Mrs May has very much commonsense. It is questionable what contact she has ever had with 'ordinary people' except as her father's parishioners, and subsequently as shop assistants, college and parliamentary servants, the layers of Bank of England minions who have recently been on strike; and others whose role is to serve. She may, however, continue to be presented with a digest of the media every day, as her predecessors have been: in which case whoever edits it should have marked this twist of the Mail's tale with a big, black exclamation mark. It means that hundreds of thousands of Mail readers are already forming the sort of opinion that the paper presented yesterday. It explains why Mrs May 'lost' the election, and why the Conservative Party will plummet lower and lower in the polls unless the 'hard Brexiteers' are pushed aside now.
As Cable says - and it might even be in his own words - "The cliff edge draws closer. For the Brexit martyrs, paradise beckons. No longer Project Fear but Project Near. After that it will be Project Here."
Cable has helped the Mail to signal a major shift in the opinion of middle Britain: let us hope that it is in time!
Tuesday, 18 July 2017
Brexit: Hard, Soft or Stupid?
Yesterday, David Davis began his 'negotiation' with the agents of the EU Commission about the terms on which Britain will carry through its invocation of the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, for the cessation of Britain's membership. It was emphasised on all the visual media, that the EU side of the table had extensive piles of briefing material while the British had none.
The British people has no idea whatsoever their government is seeking in this vital negotiation. All inquiries are referred to Mrs May's 'Lancaster House Speech'; which is uninformative and no longer relevant. It is uninformative because it has no specifics; it is irrelevant because since she made that speech she has tried, and disastrously failed, to establish a strong political base in the Commons for herself. On becoming the prime minister, she made the spectacularly stupid remark: "Brexit means Brexit". Brexit means nothing: it was dreamed up as a code-word for the process that no-one understood - how to interpret and implement the intentions of the narrow majority in the 2016 Referendum - and it copied the term Grexit which had been coined in the previous year to cover a potential Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone.
I voted for leaving the EU as part of the mass protest against the political class - even more the continental version than the British - and, more specifically, against the idiotic scare stories that were being promoted by George Osborne and David Cameron. I expected the remainers to win, but I hoped that their majority would be so small that it would serve as a warning to the class [right across the Union] that they were pushing the mass of the people too hard in a direction of austerity and integration that the people deeply resented.
It was obvious that the political class would still be in power on the day after the referendum; and my hope was that they would be sufficiently chastened for their europhilism to be modified. Instead, the class leadership crumpled. Cameron ran away early on the morning the result was announced; and in quick time a mild remainer, Mrs May, became a prime minister who was totally unprepared to address the situation. Inevitably, she rid her government of Osborne; then, at her own discretion she appointed three 'Brexiteers' to lead the negotiations and thus to shape the path that that the UK should take in implementation of the referendum vote. Boris Johnson has developed his role as an insubstantial buffoon and a pretty ineffectual Foreign Secretary. The important role of planning the way through 'Brexit' [whatever that might mean] was divided between Davis as lead negotiator with the EU and Fox as the man who would - apparently - make trade deals with the rest of the world that would substitute worldwide markets for what Britain might loose in a Europe that was closed against British goods and services. So far as one can tell, these are two dafter buffoons than Boris, who have been given licenses separately and in their own ways to ruin the country.
It is essential that Britain remains within the European Economic Area: news items every day show that supply chains from toffee factories to radiotherapy suites depend unconditionally upon that precondition; and the UK must be prepared to pay whatever has to be paid, immediately and for the indefinite future, to get out of the EU political institutions [Commission and Parliament, in particular] and to remain within the economic union. There must be a massive national uprising if and when it becomes clear that the 'hard Brexiteers' are trying to produce any other result. As I pointed out a few days ago, India, China and USA - in particular - are notorious for overriding trade agreements whenever point protectionism is needed to protect one of their industries or service activities. It is the height of folly for any responsible adult to pretend that a series of one-to-one trade agreements - even if they could be effected - would be validated by events.
Allegedly, some members of the Cabinet, unable to halt the buffoons, are arguing for a long adjustment period, during which more rational thinking should be allowed some space. Against such 'slow Brexiteers' there are those who argue that the national referendum result was binding, that it must be implemented in the most ruinous way, and that it must be done quickly to give effect to the 'will of the people'; who will be free to repent of their votes at leisure. Mrs May has no authority to adjudicate on this contest.
Mercifully, Corbyn has shown himself to be completely out of his depth on the matter: otherwise, the Labour opposition could be extremely difficult at this time. The Labour party will not provide the focus for the national revolt: so we all may have to fall back on Vince Cable to be the nation's lightening conductor. Let us hope that, if it comes to that, he has the necessary stamina. At least, he got his doctorate in Economics before the Econocracy had gained their mastery of the field.
The British people has no idea whatsoever their government is seeking in this vital negotiation. All inquiries are referred to Mrs May's 'Lancaster House Speech'; which is uninformative and no longer relevant. It is uninformative because it has no specifics; it is irrelevant because since she made that speech she has tried, and disastrously failed, to establish a strong political base in the Commons for herself. On becoming the prime minister, she made the spectacularly stupid remark: "Brexit means Brexit". Brexit means nothing: it was dreamed up as a code-word for the process that no-one understood - how to interpret and implement the intentions of the narrow majority in the 2016 Referendum - and it copied the term Grexit which had been coined in the previous year to cover a potential Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone.
I voted for leaving the EU as part of the mass protest against the political class - even more the continental version than the British - and, more specifically, against the idiotic scare stories that were being promoted by George Osborne and David Cameron. I expected the remainers to win, but I hoped that their majority would be so small that it would serve as a warning to the class [right across the Union] that they were pushing the mass of the people too hard in a direction of austerity and integration that the people deeply resented.
It was obvious that the political class would still be in power on the day after the referendum; and my hope was that they would be sufficiently chastened for their europhilism to be modified. Instead, the class leadership crumpled. Cameron ran away early on the morning the result was announced; and in quick time a mild remainer, Mrs May, became a prime minister who was totally unprepared to address the situation. Inevitably, she rid her government of Osborne; then, at her own discretion she appointed three 'Brexiteers' to lead the negotiations and thus to shape the path that that the UK should take in implementation of the referendum vote. Boris Johnson has developed his role as an insubstantial buffoon and a pretty ineffectual Foreign Secretary. The important role of planning the way through 'Brexit' [whatever that might mean] was divided between Davis as lead negotiator with the EU and Fox as the man who would - apparently - make trade deals with the rest of the world that would substitute worldwide markets for what Britain might loose in a Europe that was closed against British goods and services. So far as one can tell, these are two dafter buffoons than Boris, who have been given licenses separately and in their own ways to ruin the country.
It is essential that Britain remains within the European Economic Area: news items every day show that supply chains from toffee factories to radiotherapy suites depend unconditionally upon that precondition; and the UK must be prepared to pay whatever has to be paid, immediately and for the indefinite future, to get out of the EU political institutions [Commission and Parliament, in particular] and to remain within the economic union. There must be a massive national uprising if and when it becomes clear that the 'hard Brexiteers' are trying to produce any other result. As I pointed out a few days ago, India, China and USA - in particular - are notorious for overriding trade agreements whenever point protectionism is needed to protect one of their industries or service activities. It is the height of folly for any responsible adult to pretend that a series of one-to-one trade agreements - even if they could be effected - would be validated by events.
Allegedly, some members of the Cabinet, unable to halt the buffoons, are arguing for a long adjustment period, during which more rational thinking should be allowed some space. Against such 'slow Brexiteers' there are those who argue that the national referendum result was binding, that it must be implemented in the most ruinous way, and that it must be done quickly to give effect to the 'will of the people'; who will be free to repent of their votes at leisure. Mrs May has no authority to adjudicate on this contest.
Mercifully, Corbyn has shown himself to be completely out of his depth on the matter: otherwise, the Labour opposition could be extremely difficult at this time. The Labour party will not provide the focus for the national revolt: so we all may have to fall back on Vince Cable to be the nation's lightening conductor. Let us hope that, if it comes to that, he has the necessary stamina. At least, he got his doctorate in Economics before the Econocracy had gained their mastery of the field.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Old-World Political Stasis and US Democracy
There is a huge difference between British and Chinese politics, on the one hand, and US democracy on the other. The difference is stark, but its fundamental nature is often unrecognised even by students of politics, and it does not usually feature in economic discourse. That difference is, however, very important in the formation of economic policy: and it is even more important in the political rhetoric that wraps around the economic data.
The partisanship and pettiness of American politics shock unsuspecting foreigners when they are first exposed to it. While the vituperation against President Obama that has characterised almost the whole of his presidency is somewhat more vicious than in any previous incumbency, it is merely the latest stage in a progressive demystification of the office.Nixon became reviled, Ford was pitied and Carter became despised; then Reagan - with superb showmanship and a well-practised voice - raised the prestige of the office and forced his many opponents to raise their rhetoric against his policies while treating the President with almost old-time deference. The first Bush began in office with Reagan's legacy, but his relative lack of showmanship and his bad luck [largely the consequence of poor decision-making] set him up for defeat by the exceptionally able and charismatic Bill Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton was conscious of the dignity of his office: to a degree that allowed him the hubris to assume that the media would turn a blind eye his exploitation of the White House for sexual adventurism. Instead the press and TV channels reverted to the mode that had brought down Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter: and only the self-interested loyalty of the Democrats in Congress saved Clinton from impeachment As with all known sexual predators who also have political charisma and real power, Clinton was hugely popular and it is widely reckoned that he would have won a third term if that were constitutionally possible. It was not allowed, so his party selected a candidate for the next election who lacked both the charisma and the racy reputation: who duly lost.
When Clinton left the White House, the whole staff left; except for the housekeeping team. To show their hostile contempt for the incoming President - George W Bush - the members of Clinton's court removed the 'w' keys from keyboards. The entire archive from the Clinton Administration had been removed. The whole cabinet and many other offices in the state were vacant, and the new incumbent had to present all his new senior ministers for confirmation by the Senate. Each new President brings in a total new Administration which [at least in principle] can set its own policies in each area: and drop any programme from the former Administration that they do not wish to keep. The Administration needs congressional assent for new expenditure and to make [or repeal] laws, but otherwise it has a free hand.
In China, by contrast, any change in the personalia at the top of the government is always presented as a means of continuing and refreshing the status quo. The Communist Party has led the state in unbroken succession since 1948 and it is presented as the carrier of a single and unchanging truth, Chairman Mao's enhanced version of Marxism-Leninism. Everyone in open political life and in journalism is required to adhere unconditionally to the myth that everything that happens is in a continuum. The wild changes that occurred under the 'Great Helmsman' from mass nationalisation to the 'great leap forward' [which set the economy back for more than a decade] to 'let a thousand flowers bloom' to 'cultural revolution' to the reviling of the 'gang of four' to the cautious introduction of Deng's liberalising reforms and on to the recent amazing success of industrialisation and export-led economic growth are simply not admitted in any official record. Children learn about the truth anecdotally in the family circle or from friends whose families are more frank, but they also learn the unwisdom of denying the official line in public. Through most of 2012 the party will be finalising the distribution of authority between the present high officers of state, who will step away from centre-stage at the end of the year, and the rising stars who have been prepared to follow. There is a great deal of speculation whether the balance of the new front-of-house team will be more or less liberal than its predecessors'; but it is unpredictable how far the new leaders will feel able - or be willing - to signal significant changes in direction that could unleash unrealistic expectations among business managers, bankers, local government officals or the tiny minority of advocates for more western-style democracy and human rights.
The Chinese Communist Party has managed a phenomenal task of socio-economic change without surrender of any political muscle; and naive commentators in other parts of the world have vainly hoped that the system would eventually implode. Economic risks such as allowing banks to fund a property boom have been greeted cheerfully by doom-sayers as 'unsustainable'; yet so far control has been maintained, often by the deployment of significant devices that have been used effectively by western monetary and fiscal authorities. The great majority of intelligent western-educated Chinese claim to be broadly satisfied with the lack of western-style human rights so long as it is in combination with the success of the economy.
It is likely that Chinese party officers have taken comfort from the British example; and understood it better than British commentators recognise the context in which the embarrassing idiocy yaah-boo political gaming takes place. The ruling power in Britain is not Parliament, and does not attribute authority to politicsl parties. The Council - usually meeting as the Privy Council - has continual succession since 1661 and its role was consolidated after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. All acts of state are executed by - or with authority of - the Crown in Council. Any level of emergency powers can be created and enforced by Order-in-Council and most routine legislation [which is only granted parliamentary time by assent of the Council] demits to the Council the authority to modify, extend or defer its provisions. The Cabinet is a committee of the Council; and however different one government's policies may be from its predecessor's, after an election has changed the ruling party, the new Cabinet must work on the basis that it is continuing consistently to give advice the The Queen. Even if a new government wants fundamentally to change major policies, they must proceed slowly and continue with all existing laws and regulations. King George V was keen to bring in a minority Labour government after the collapse of the Lib-Con coalition after the First World War, provided its members took the Privy Council oath [and leading ministers even kitted themselves out in antiquated Council uniforms]: and it worked so well that no group of politicians with any chance of power has subsequently questioned this bizarre system of rule. The rhetoric in parliament and in the media may be extreme and contrarian but the reality is that all the Civil Servants [from the Clerk to the Privy Council and Cabinet Secretary downwards] continue in office regardless of the change of Cabinet level personnel. The populace are deluded by myths that play up the pretended power of the electorate to 'change' the political map; in fact, the British almost certainly have less influence over the direction of policy than do the Chinese.
The British system is suddenly placed under threat, however, by the egotistical master-tactician Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party. He is sworn of the Council - he would not have been allowed to become Scottish First Minister without that - but he now appears to seek a popular mandate to create a new constitution. It will be fascinating to see how the Privy Council - as such - will react to this potential threat to its hegemony.
The partisanship and pettiness of American politics shock unsuspecting foreigners when they are first exposed to it. While the vituperation against President Obama that has characterised almost the whole of his presidency is somewhat more vicious than in any previous incumbency, it is merely the latest stage in a progressive demystification of the office.Nixon became reviled, Ford was pitied and Carter became despised; then Reagan - with superb showmanship and a well-practised voice - raised the prestige of the office and forced his many opponents to raise their rhetoric against his policies while treating the President with almost old-time deference. The first Bush began in office with Reagan's legacy, but his relative lack of showmanship and his bad luck [largely the consequence of poor decision-making] set him up for defeat by the exceptionally able and charismatic Bill Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton was conscious of the dignity of his office: to a degree that allowed him the hubris to assume that the media would turn a blind eye his exploitation of the White House for sexual adventurism. Instead the press and TV channels reverted to the mode that had brought down Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter: and only the self-interested loyalty of the Democrats in Congress saved Clinton from impeachment As with all known sexual predators who also have political charisma and real power, Clinton was hugely popular and it is widely reckoned that he would have won a third term if that were constitutionally possible. It was not allowed, so his party selected a candidate for the next election who lacked both the charisma and the racy reputation: who duly lost.
When Clinton left the White House, the whole staff left; except for the housekeeping team. To show their hostile contempt for the incoming President - George W Bush - the members of Clinton's court removed the 'w' keys from keyboards. The entire archive from the Clinton Administration had been removed. The whole cabinet and many other offices in the state were vacant, and the new incumbent had to present all his new senior ministers for confirmation by the Senate. Each new President brings in a total new Administration which [at least in principle] can set its own policies in each area: and drop any programme from the former Administration that they do not wish to keep. The Administration needs congressional assent for new expenditure and to make [or repeal] laws, but otherwise it has a free hand.
In China, by contrast, any change in the personalia at the top of the government is always presented as a means of continuing and refreshing the status quo. The Communist Party has led the state in unbroken succession since 1948 and it is presented as the carrier of a single and unchanging truth, Chairman Mao's enhanced version of Marxism-Leninism. Everyone in open political life and in journalism is required to adhere unconditionally to the myth that everything that happens is in a continuum. The wild changes that occurred under the 'Great Helmsman' from mass nationalisation to the 'great leap forward' [which set the economy back for more than a decade] to 'let a thousand flowers bloom' to 'cultural revolution' to the reviling of the 'gang of four' to the cautious introduction of Deng's liberalising reforms and on to the recent amazing success of industrialisation and export-led economic growth are simply not admitted in any official record. Children learn about the truth anecdotally in the family circle or from friends whose families are more frank, but they also learn the unwisdom of denying the official line in public. Through most of 2012 the party will be finalising the distribution of authority between the present high officers of state, who will step away from centre-stage at the end of the year, and the rising stars who have been prepared to follow. There is a great deal of speculation whether the balance of the new front-of-house team will be more or less liberal than its predecessors'; but it is unpredictable how far the new leaders will feel able - or be willing - to signal significant changes in direction that could unleash unrealistic expectations among business managers, bankers, local government officals or the tiny minority of advocates for more western-style democracy and human rights.
The Chinese Communist Party has managed a phenomenal task of socio-economic change without surrender of any political muscle; and naive commentators in other parts of the world have vainly hoped that the system would eventually implode. Economic risks such as allowing banks to fund a property boom have been greeted cheerfully by doom-sayers as 'unsustainable'; yet so far control has been maintained, often by the deployment of significant devices that have been used effectively by western monetary and fiscal authorities. The great majority of intelligent western-educated Chinese claim to be broadly satisfied with the lack of western-style human rights so long as it is in combination with the success of the economy.
It is likely that Chinese party officers have taken comfort from the British example; and understood it better than British commentators recognise the context in which the embarrassing idiocy yaah-boo political gaming takes place. The ruling power in Britain is not Parliament, and does not attribute authority to politicsl parties. The Council - usually meeting as the Privy Council - has continual succession since 1661 and its role was consolidated after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. All acts of state are executed by - or with authority of - the Crown in Council. Any level of emergency powers can be created and enforced by Order-in-Council and most routine legislation [which is only granted parliamentary time by assent of the Council] demits to the Council the authority to modify, extend or defer its provisions. The Cabinet is a committee of the Council; and however different one government's policies may be from its predecessor's, after an election has changed the ruling party, the new Cabinet must work on the basis that it is continuing consistently to give advice the The Queen. Even if a new government wants fundamentally to change major policies, they must proceed slowly and continue with all existing laws and regulations. King George V was keen to bring in a minority Labour government after the collapse of the Lib-Con coalition after the First World War, provided its members took the Privy Council oath [and leading ministers even kitted themselves out in antiquated Council uniforms]: and it worked so well that no group of politicians with any chance of power has subsequently questioned this bizarre system of rule. The rhetoric in parliament and in the media may be extreme and contrarian but the reality is that all the Civil Servants [from the Clerk to the Privy Council and Cabinet Secretary downwards] continue in office regardless of the change of Cabinet level personnel. The populace are deluded by myths that play up the pretended power of the electorate to 'change' the political map; in fact, the British almost certainly have less influence over the direction of policy than do the Chinese.
The British system is suddenly placed under threat, however, by the egotistical master-tactician Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party. He is sworn of the Council - he would not have been allowed to become Scottish First Minister without that - but he now appears to seek a popular mandate to create a new constitution. It will be fascinating to see how the Privy Council - as such - will react to this potential threat to its hegemony.
Monday, 24 October 2011
Council and Congress
One of the most important aspects of the present economic crisis, though it has had little media coverage, is that the most-troubled countries are 'parliamentary democracies'. The resolution of the crisis will be as important in terms of politics as it will be in the economy: and it will be harder to resolve in some countries because the workings of their democracies may generate stalemate that will be extremely difficult to dissolve.
The German Chancellor has become much more constrained by Bundestag reluctance to opening the coffers to the rest of Europe than she would have been in the first half of this year. The obvious fury of many millions of Germans at the mere idea of keeping the Greeks on their fantasy feather-bed will surely be reflected in the voting in the elections early next-year, so deputies seeking re-election have clamped down on the government. German democracy has limited the options for a resolution of the Euro crisis.
In Britain a more complex situation is being illustrated today by a parliamentary vote on the question as to whether or not there should be a Referendum on Britain's future membership of the European Union. The politics of this matter are clear: a Sunday Times opinion poll published on 23 October showed that about two-thirds of the electors in the sample would have favoured the Referendum, which was called for by a Petition of more than 100,000 people. If Britain were a 'real' democracy the way forward would be clear. But Britain is not such a democracy. Britain is governed by the Privy Council, of which most voters have no knowledge at all. After each General Election the Sovereign invites the party leader who is most likely to command a majority of votes in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister: and a member of the Privy Council if he or she is not a member already [which would be most unlikely as it has not happened since the improbable emergence of Labour as the leading party in the Commons in the early 1920s]. The Prime Minister then invites colleagues to become members of his/her Cabinet, which is a Committee of Privy Councillors: so any chosen members who are not sworn of the Council are quickly admitted. Any Cabinet is bound by all the decisions and commitments of its predecessors, however far apart the political stance of successive Cabinets may be.
For reasons that are not disclosed to the electorate at large, the Council is determined to suppress any real debate on Britain's membership of the EU. It may be the consequence of a major pledge to the USA: it is clearly not driven by the Monarch herself, whose preference for Commonwealth links has been unequivocal for the whole of her reign. Whatever the cause of the ban, it is very firm. Privy Councillors Clegg and Milliband {Ed] have joined Councillor Cameron in insisting that their Members of Parliament must ignore the manifest preference of the electorate and vote against the idea of a Referendum. Cameron has even descended to the old rogue's argument of 'unripe time' to escape the fact that he has made his career by indicating a general Euroscepticism. Other conspicuous issues are also placed beyond democratic resolution: 'human rights' legislation, immigration, energy policy and capital punishment are prominent among them. This pattern of suppression has seemed to be the constitutional norm for so long that the dominance of the Privy Council seems unshakable: but an economic collapse could suddenly precipitate the end of the charade. Councillor Cameron could just have allowed a minority of Tory MPs quietly to enjoy their day, with no urgent threat to membership of the EU: foolhardily, he has drawn attention to the sham of democracy.
In the USA, where the Constitution reigns supreme, the division of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial wings of the Federation is seen as essential to the functioning of their democracy. Such a system requires effective articulation between the Congress and the White House, and between the two Houses of the Congress. That is now failing, and may freeze into rigid incompatibility. As unemployment remains stubbornly high, and massive state spending.appears not to be stimulating the economy sufficiently to change the situation, the basic economic policy pursued by the Obama Administration is increasingly incredible. The hugely expensive but functionally questionable Medical Care system that the Democrats have introduced is increasing costs on employers and on taxes. The level of vituperation between increasingly-radical tendencies in both Democrat and Republican parties is reaching historically exceptional levels. The Democrats face a huge dilemma as to whether or not to support Obama for a second term, or look for a candidate who might better achieve a national consensus. The risk of loosing the black vote may well secure Obama's selection: but however much money Obama might raise for his campaign his overall failure to galvanise the country must count against him. The Republicans' problem in finding any satisfactory candidate has been painfully obvious: but that does not affect the fact that around half the electorate is open to persuasion that the Republicans cannot be as disastrous as Obama has proved over the past four years. There is all to play for in the 2012 General Election: in that sense, democracy will triumph. But in the important area of achieving functionality of Government in concert with Congress, there is no clear indication that either of the eventually-selected candidates will be able to succeed sufficiently to create a new economic environment in the USA.
It is too soon to pronounce the end of democracy: but the threat of dissolution is palpable.
The German Chancellor has become much more constrained by Bundestag reluctance to opening the coffers to the rest of Europe than she would have been in the first half of this year. The obvious fury of many millions of Germans at the mere idea of keeping the Greeks on their fantasy feather-bed will surely be reflected in the voting in the elections early next-year, so deputies seeking re-election have clamped down on the government. German democracy has limited the options for a resolution of the Euro crisis.
In Britain a more complex situation is being illustrated today by a parliamentary vote on the question as to whether or not there should be a Referendum on Britain's future membership of the European Union. The politics of this matter are clear: a Sunday Times opinion poll published on 23 October showed that about two-thirds of the electors in the sample would have favoured the Referendum, which was called for by a Petition of more than 100,000 people. If Britain were a 'real' democracy the way forward would be clear. But Britain is not such a democracy. Britain is governed by the Privy Council, of which most voters have no knowledge at all. After each General Election the Sovereign invites the party leader who is most likely to command a majority of votes in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister: and a member of the Privy Council if he or she is not a member already [which would be most unlikely as it has not happened since the improbable emergence of Labour as the leading party in the Commons in the early 1920s]. The Prime Minister then invites colleagues to become members of his/her Cabinet, which is a Committee of Privy Councillors: so any chosen members who are not sworn of the Council are quickly admitted. Any Cabinet is bound by all the decisions and commitments of its predecessors, however far apart the political stance of successive Cabinets may be.
For reasons that are not disclosed to the electorate at large, the Council is determined to suppress any real debate on Britain's membership of the EU. It may be the consequence of a major pledge to the USA: it is clearly not driven by the Monarch herself, whose preference for Commonwealth links has been unequivocal for the whole of her reign. Whatever the cause of the ban, it is very firm. Privy Councillors Clegg and Milliband {Ed] have joined Councillor Cameron in insisting that their Members of Parliament must ignore the manifest preference of the electorate and vote against the idea of a Referendum. Cameron has even descended to the old rogue's argument of 'unripe time' to escape the fact that he has made his career by indicating a general Euroscepticism. Other conspicuous issues are also placed beyond democratic resolution: 'human rights' legislation, immigration, energy policy and capital punishment are prominent among them. This pattern of suppression has seemed to be the constitutional norm for so long that the dominance of the Privy Council seems unshakable: but an economic collapse could suddenly precipitate the end of the charade. Councillor Cameron could just have allowed a minority of Tory MPs quietly to enjoy their day, with no urgent threat to membership of the EU: foolhardily, he has drawn attention to the sham of democracy.
In the USA, where the Constitution reigns supreme, the division of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial wings of the Federation is seen as essential to the functioning of their democracy. Such a system requires effective articulation between the Congress and the White House, and between the two Houses of the Congress. That is now failing, and may freeze into rigid incompatibility. As unemployment remains stubbornly high, and massive state spending.appears not to be stimulating the economy sufficiently to change the situation, the basic economic policy pursued by the Obama Administration is increasingly incredible. The hugely expensive but functionally questionable Medical Care system that the Democrats have introduced is increasing costs on employers and on taxes. The level of vituperation between increasingly-radical tendencies in both Democrat and Republican parties is reaching historically exceptional levels. The Democrats face a huge dilemma as to whether or not to support Obama for a second term, or look for a candidate who might better achieve a national consensus. The risk of loosing the black vote may well secure Obama's selection: but however much money Obama might raise for his campaign his overall failure to galvanise the country must count against him. The Republicans' problem in finding any satisfactory candidate has been painfully obvious: but that does not affect the fact that around half the electorate is open to persuasion that the Republicans cannot be as disastrous as Obama has proved over the past four years. There is all to play for in the 2012 General Election: in that sense, democracy will triumph. But in the important area of achieving functionality of Government in concert with Congress, there is no clear indication that either of the eventually-selected candidates will be able to succeed sufficiently to create a new economic environment in the USA.
It is too soon to pronounce the end of democracy: but the threat of dissolution is palpable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)