Further Disintegration: Mrs May's Government Shambles

I have met Damian Green a few times, mostly in his capacity [when the Tories were in opposition] as a director of his regional water company. I would be very surprised indeed if he wasted his time, or risked his reputation, using an office computer to spend 'many hours' watching soft porn. If his computer was used in that way, by one of the staff in Portcullis House or possibly by an intern, then it is no part of the role of the police to make accusations against Mr Green on national television. The fact that the credibility of the First Secretary is being challenged suggests that there are indeed dark forces at work, with the intention of bringing about the end to the agony of failure of this government.

The precarious state of our national politics is again emphasised by the letter to the Prime Minister [which has, of course, been released to the press] from Nigel Lawson, John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others who seem to want the nation to be quite sure of their guilt if the economy hits the disaster to which their demands would drive it.

I find it difficult to concentrate on other issues - of which there are many - when the key elements of national sustenance and security are being knocked away. The people, whether the they voted to stay in or to leave the European Union, deserve a better politics than they are offered at present. The entire political class, including McDonnell and Corbyn no less than Mrs May and the Thatcherite dinosaurs who have just sent her a 'nudge' towards ruin, have forfeited the trust of the electorate; but we are left with no better choice, no alternative that could achieve any degree of visibility to the electorate before March, 2019.

If, in the coming days, there is real news about the economy or our society - or about Economics - I will not be able to restrain myself from blogging about it; otherwise, I shall go off-line for a period and try [yet again] to set out my current understanding in a longer piece of continuous text.

Corbyn and Bitcoin: Capitalist Catastrophes

A major Wall Street bank has released a piece of research which [inter alia] warns that the advent of a Corbyn-led Labour government in the UK would potentially have a more calamitous impact on London share prices that would  'Hard Brexit'. The markets have balanced out the 'risk' arising to future profits from firms if the government totally cocks-up the Brexit negotiations with the actual fall in the pound among world currencies and the day-to-day performance of the listed companies. The level of the stock market index would fall in the event of failure; but the possibility is factored in to buyers' calculations. On the other hand, the imponderable impact on the market of Corbyn actually becoming prime minister is inestimable. How far he would cling to his lifelong Marxist dogma [and how far his party would follow him there] cannot be predicated on any known basis of probability. Thus, the bank argues, there might be no 'floor' below which British stock prices would fall. Consequently, the Wall Street Crash of 1929 might be replicated, or even exceeded, once panic sets in among dealers who have no precedent for such a change in government to be assessed against.

The very worst case is a catastrophic Brexit followed by a collapse of the present government and the anointing of Mr Corbyn to preside over the chaos, while John McDonnell would try to enact some of his socialist plans. This is no longer an impossibility, with Dr Fox, Mr Davis and Boris Johnson working so hard to achieve the disaster that they cannot understand.

Meanwhile, the vicious charade of bitcoin continues. The 'price' of this nonentity is continuing to rise, giving strength to some of the unknown number of hundreds of other cryptocurrencies that are now on offer. An ever-wider range of investors, fearful of the very high level to which the world's leading stock indeces have climbed, have 'diversified' some of their holdings into these fanciful 'assets'. Some expect that [whatever they may say now] the central banks might have to buy cryptocurrencies to prop up the market: as they have propped up derivatives and other bets that existed before the crash in 2008. If the central banks do shore up the whole rotten fantasy, the real-world economy will be hammered even harder than it has been since 2008.

The prospect for Britain, host to the London market, is especially hazardous. Warren Buffer called derivatives 'weapons of mass destruction' but they have have been protected and the market in them has continued to grow. The traders in, and owners of, those assets remain complacent: that is what gives confidence to the cryptocurrency speculators. Real people have good cause to be worried; and Corbyn's communist-inspired views give no reassurance at all.

A Symbolic Bonnet?

I was brought up, long ago, with the constant admonition: 'do not mock the afflicted!'

I usually avoid doing so; but sometimes it seems that a voluntarily-adopted affliction makes an important point about the person who has adopted it. I increasingly feel this about the prime minister's selection of clothes. I recognise that she is tall and slim: as many leading models are, so there is an amplitude of clothing for women of means who are of those dimensions to choose from. Mrs May's choices vary between the odd and the wildly eccentric; and yesterday at the Cenotaph I thought that she established a new, abnormal norm. The black bonnet that she had selected - possibly it was even designed for her - looked like something that a war widow of 100 years ago would have dressed her teenage daughter in for a remembrance event: yet it was also vaguely reminiscent of a German army helmet. Yesterday it simply looked anachronistic on a grown woman.

But for me it also epitomised her situation. She gambled on winning enough seats in the Commons for the Conservative Party so that she could discount the ten-to-twenty headbanging Brexiteers who for various reasons - including pure stupidity - want to risk national economic ruin by interpreting the referendum result of 2016 as authorising the government to leave the European Economic Area altogether, on a cliff-edge date at the end of March 2019. As she totally misjudged the one-woman campaign that she ran, she lost her majority; since when the headbangers [and the DUP] have dominated her field for policy options. She has retreated into a psychological bunker, from which - so it is rumoured - she continues to radiate confidence that all will become well in the best of all possible worlds: sometime. And meanwhile, as M Barnier has said, the clock on the exit door is ticking.

Yesterday the Sunday Times - never known as a Labour-supporting vehicle - gave a prominent page to an article in the name of Jeremy Corbyn [which was, therefore, at least authorised by him]. In it he presaged a shift of parliamentary arithmetic, implying his recognition of the fact that while virtually all members of the Commons accept that the referendum result [though many of them think it unfortunate] must  - at least, minimally - be implemented. But he also accepts that an overwhelming majority of members have come to recognise that to leave the Common Market and the European Union in a simple step would be a calamity for the country.

To demand a general election - which may become necessary if Mrs May is defeated by the defection of any section of her party - would mean that the current crop of MPs have abdicated all responsibility. It is deeply unclear what the result of a general election would be: but the most probable outcome would be a small renaissance for the LibDems, the Scots Tories at least holding their position, no change in Ulster, Labour gains in Scotland [but the Nats still in the lead] and no clear result from England. Labour might just be the biggest party, though the Tories have an equal chance of that; so the construction of a coalition would be a slow and painful business: while the Europeans could fold their arms and enjoy the British discomfiture and the tick of the clock.

The last time when Britain was in a comparable situation was in June, 1940; when a paralysis of government [albeit, with a strong Conservative majority] faced an existential threat. Talk of coalition was in the air; and Labour had already made clear that they could not support a Chamberlain-led government: though they also accepted that the Tory majority required that any coalition was led by a Conservative. In the crucial debate, as a government supporter spoke for the government, a fellow member challenged him to "speak for England". The government left the debate with a clear majority, but the loss of confidence in them was equally clear. Chamberlain - a sick man - resigned, and the amazing, anachronistic career of Winston Churchill reached its apogee.

Corbyn is no Churchill: he is no patriot, he has supported obnoxious alien regimes acting on the lines of the traduced anti-patriots of whom W S Gilbert wrote they admire "all centuries but this one, and all countries but their own". Corbyn's recent adoption of statesmanlike utterances - at odds with his career-long posturing - is utterly unconvincing: but if he were to prove capable of keeping to manifesto promises [and capable of keeping his close associates within those bounds] he might be useful in the hour of crisis. 

What Brexit? What Price?

The future of Mrs May as the Prime Minister is being much discussed this morning, while her distress in delivering her conference speech yesterday was so awfully exposed on television and excessively discussed on all the media almost as soon as the coughing began. She was 'escorted' from the platform by her husband, and one could pause to ask how she would have been able to walk without his immense support. The scene was one of extreme [and most unfortunate] personal stress, exacerbated by the security failure that allowed the 'prankster' - as the media all-too-quickly dubbed him - to hand her a sheet of paper. Boris Johnson could have secured his future as leader by grabbing the man by the collar and frogmarching him towards the exit, but in the stress of the moment he merely [weakly] tried to wave him away.

The whole episode was sad.

But it was also shameful.

If Mrs May and Mr Hammond have agreed to spend £2 billion on more social housing [of what kinds, where, when?] they must have an idea how much they are going to offer to the European Union in the next round of Brexit talks. Mrs May should have told us. Just as she should have made her 'Florence speech' in the House of Commons last spring, she should have regarded her speech yesterday as the very final chance to share her thinking with the electorate on the uppermost issue of the day. The reaction of the EU Commission, Council and Parliament to the imprecision of the Florence proposition should, surely, have impressed even on Johnson and David Davis [though perhaps not yet on Liam Fox] the understanding that waffle never had its day, and is now deeply irritant to the rest of the European Union.

It is legitimate to say that resolving the question of the Irish border is inseparable from the resolution of the question what sort of economic border it is going to be; which can only be decided when the question of Britain's membership of the European Economic Area is determined. But the Irish question would be much easier to set aside until a later stage in negotiations if the British government would clearly articulate its hopes in that area.

On the other two questions that the EU insist must be close to resolution before the wider issue of trade is discussed, the answers must be simple. Davis has implied his acceptance of the two-year transitional period, Johnson has specifically agreed to his version of that, and Philip Hammond has advocated it consistently and strongly.

For two years after March, 2019, the existing rights of EU citizens in the UK will remain as they are, with the European Court as the ultimate arbiter. After March 2021 a new relationship must be agreed; and here Mrs May - as a 'failed' Home Secretary - apparently has a serious hang-up. The UK has been willing to make laws which allow US courts to require the extradition of British citizens to the United States to stand trial for alleged offences committed while the Brit [usually, but not always, a geeky young male who has developed perverse software or algorithms] was safely located back home; usually in the back bedroom. This has always seemed to me to be an amazing concession, which puts the British courts in the role of part of the supply chain to the US Justice System. Surely, something similar can be devised for EU citizens in the UK, and for UK citizens in the EU, after we leave the political union?

This then leaves the most basic issue. Does Brexit automatically mean that the UK MUST leave the single market, and must leave the customs union, and must leave all the agreements on drugs, nuclear control, civil aviation,. research co-operation and a long catalogue of other working agreements whose abrogation would desperately hurt the UK [and which would take decades to replace, once abandoned]? These issues were not specified in the referendum question, which referred solely and specifically to membership of 'the European Union'. The extreme Brexiteers who have taken up the negative position are relatively few in number; and for that very reason, as empty vessels, they are making most noise. They will be opposed massively in the House of Lords; but the Commons is the forum in which the debate will be focused in the end. And here one man can ruin the country on his own: Jeremy Corbyn has been viscerally against the 'club of capitalist states'  for decades; and although his party has adopted a sensible stance, he could undermine it on the basis of his antediluvian Marxism. He must be corralled.

Meanwhile, Mrs May's total failure of leadership is now apparent to all. Let the agony end, soon.

Brexit Buffoons, Regulations and Point Protectionism

Boris Johnson has sounded-off again, this time to the Sun, with his demands about Brexit. The transition must be absolutely no more than two years, and the UK should not accept new EU regulations in that period. This keeps him in front of the 'hard Brexiteers' in the Conservative Party, ahead of what is certain to be a very painful party conference for the Prime Minister who decided to hold an election, then ran it the way her close advisers suggested, and so lost her parliamentary majority. Members of the party from all factions know that the Corbyn-McDonnell chances of winning a general election [in England, Wales, and - just possibly - the lost Labour heartlands of Scotland] are astonishingly high. Thus the Tories dare not topple the leader, simply because there is no obvious alternative who could surely prevent the party from disintegrating sufficiently to force a general election.

Thus the Conservatives have to negotiate Brexit: with an increasing majority of the party daily becoming more aware [as are Labour MPs] that the complete separation of the UK from the European Economic Area would put the livelihoods of all sixty million people who depend on the UK economy in grave jeopardy. The Minority of fervent Brexiteers, together with the ambitious chancers who have joined them, assert that the UK can open up huge vistas of trade all over the world, by making trade agreements with a whole raft of countries under WTO Rules.

The World Trade Organisation had its origins in GATT - the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - which was set up alongside the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [normally called the World Bank] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] by the victorious allies at the end of the Second World War in the belief that the two devastating wars of the twentieth century were largely economic in origin. The USSR was wholly, dogmatically convinced that the First World War was the result of expansionist imperialist competition between the European powers; and they ascribed the second to a re-run of the same conflict between a resurgent Germany and the 'Anglo-Saxon' states that had succeeded in 1918 and then dissipated the fruits of victory in the Depression of the 'thirties. The USA and the UK shared the view that the competitive inefficiencies of capitalism had exacerbated the economic problems of the late 'twenties and early 'thirties. The idea behind the new system was to provide transparent means by which each economy could grow as part of a successful international community.

The USSR soon withdrew from active participation in the institutions, and compelled its satellites to leave as well. Then the international organisations served the 'capitalist' world, in an uneasy relationship with the 'third world' of notionally 'non-aligned' countries [which asserted their independence of both the USSR-led and US-led pattern of alliances that maintained the cold war from 1949 to 1992]. During that period the GATT became the WTO, and had to accommodate itself to a global reality where the rhetoric of free trade was greatly modified by each country building up defensive mounds of regulations that kept out many imports that other countries could offer them in greater quantity and of more sophisticated design than their own factories  could produce; without imposing tariffs that openly breached WTO rules. When such rules failed, and a government wanted to exclude some import, they could - and did - simply impose 'extraordinary' tariffs, usually 'temporarily' to keep out the unwelcome export. That is what I have called point protectionism in this blog. The recent spat engineered in the USA by Boeing is merely one of thousands of examples.

If Boris Johnson and Liam Fox are such starry-eyed innocents that they believe that WTO Rules will be enough to ensure that the UK can make a safe transit into a post-EU trading world, they are profoundly dangerous.

Cheap and Nasty Government; But Would Labour Be Any Better?

The present government constantly provides ministers and 'spokespersons' who will defend any policy and any situation. Thus, in the past 24 hours, a survey has shown that the majority of NHS nurses go home from their shift, not only physically exhausted but emotionally drained as well. They report not being able to be present when people die, completely alone. They are anxious and embarrassed that medication is not given on time; and is sometimes missed altogether due to the pressure of work. Some clown in the Health Department did not deny that the report was true, but made the irrelevant comment that there were 7,000 more doctors in the hospitals that there had been seven years ago.

Soldiers reported that the vehicles that were designed to protect them from roadside bombs and similar hazards often break down in the hot weather conditions for which they were supposedly designed, at a huge cost. The Defence Department flatly denied this report, asserting that the vehicles were effective in keeping the troops safe: maybe so, if the failure of the vehicles keeps the soldiers in their bases. Old naval hands despair at the lack of resources to keep the massively reduced fleet operational and seaworthy and fit for action. The two new aircraft carriers have no aircraft. There are plans to reduce the number of Royal Marines beneath the present level where they cannot cover all the actions to which politicians commit them. Mrs May flies off to Estonia to declare that Britain will defend all its NATO allies: with words and sharp cuts?

More than seventy Tory MPs have signed a demand to the Prime Minister to implement her election promise to impose a cap on energy bills for millions of households: it would only affect a minority of families, but would cover many of the most vulnerable. A smaller number of Tory MPs are also agitating for delay in the implementation of the government's penny-pinching scheme to accelerate the roll-out of the single state benefit. This would save money; particularly in that as people are migrated from the complex of former benefits onto the new system there is a six-week delay before they get any money from it. This the government's outward cash-flow is deferred; while individuals and households are plunged into desperate want, forced to apply to food banks and doorstep lenders.

The sheer insensitivity of all of this calls into mind the cynicism of the worst Victorian workhouse masters and the cynical Stalinist Commissar. Both of those classes of individual - like the civil service in austerity Britain - have had drummed into them that no more resources will be made available; so they simply deny truths that are on open display.

It is the record of socialist governments, whether Marxist or not, to assert their own propaganda more often and more fervently when the truth does not accord with the official line. This is happening more intensively [and more absurdly] by the day in Venezuela at the present time. Jeremy Corbyn's  enthusiasm for the Maduro regime consequently becomes more indefensible by the day: but the Labour leader evades every opportunity to admit the lack of substance in the regime's claims and assertions; or to recognise the increasing level of oppression. Those who wore 'HANDS OFF VENEZUELA' T-shirts and baseball caps in and around the Labour Party Conference earlier this week seemed to me to be anticipating their future role as deniers on the domestic scene when the Labour Government that they expect to take office soon fails actually and humanely to implement their proposed policies. While Corbyn can still claim to be a 'seventies idealist, the people who have built his machine are ruthless advocates of extreme measures to rob the rich and to coerce the rest of the population. Nasser, Ghadfi, Ken Livingstone and a score of other 'strong men' shoved aside the much gentler figures who originally fronted their coups or electoral victories. It is well authenticated that while Mrs Attlee was driving her husband to Buckingham Palace to take the King's commission to form a government, Professor Laski, Herbert Morrison and others were plotting to hold a leadership election in the Labour Party that would choose a far different candidate than the election-winner Attlee.

There is a real and proximate danger that a Labour election victory, especially if the party won by a small majority, would quickly be followed by the overt capture of the government by a radical faction who would move quickly to consolidate their power undemocratically for a long period of authoritarian rule. As the saying in revolutionary circles goes: rely on one man one vote, once! Hence, although the Labour offering in the past week has been largely composed of highly desirable policies, and the austere Tories show that they cannot mind the shop while they flounder towards a Brexit disaster, the risks in having either party in power are immense.

Managing the Labour Party

Jeremy Corbyn may be the starry-eyed idealist that he often presents himself to be: in which case he is too good for practical politics, and certainly the last person to control nuclear weapons. Yet there is a good chance that the incompetence of the Tories, and the egomaniacal economic illiteracy of Boris Johnson in particular, could hand him the control of Downing Street.

It is therefore particularly important to note that he - or his manipulators - has prevented the Labour Party Conference from expressing a view [let alone, declaring a policy] on the dominant issue of the day: what does Brexit mean?

On one aspect of the matter his view is entirely sensible: this country needs a fundamental economic restructuring, with a significant implementation of mixed economy policies. This could well include the resumption of state ownership of natural monopolies - the railways, electricity, gas and water supply. It is also fundamental that a country with advanced manufacturing industries, which need to be fostered and developed into a new era of high productivity, retains the fundamental capability to produce steel. Corbyn has rightly said that the EU rules on 'state aid' to business would make it virtually impossible to take the necessary measures; but he has conceded that it is plausible to envisage a model in which the UK can be free to make industrial policy and still have a close customs agreement with the EU.

Given Corbyn's popularity with the new party faithful, and the anxiety of older loyalists to remain in favour, it is likely that he could win a vote on Brexit in the conference, and vindicate his stance: but he had declined to do that. This is pure Stalinist politics; the avoidance of any risk that he-who-must-be-obeyed is to experience challenge.

Also in the conference, John McDonnell is to make a major issue of the mass indebtedness that has beset the United Kingdom since the 2007 credit crisis compounded the economic disablement that Thatcherism brought upon the population of the ex-mining and formerly-industrial regions. His 'solution', to make it impossible for lenders to charge more than twice the amount borrowed, in fees and interest during the length of a loan, looks wonderful: but is utterly impractical. While it could apply to specific hire-purchase type agreements of individual items, most debt is not susceptible to a cap of that kind. Car loans are usually cut short when the car is changed: the debt outstanding on the loan is settled usually by manipulation of the used-car's and the new car's 'prices': it would be impossible to compute what would be twice the amount of the loan, in any simple terms. Even more complex is the question of credit cards, which are by definition a flexible rolling loan covering a complex of debts that are entered into and resolved in myriad individual agreements. It would be impossible to compute how much interest and service charge was imposed in respect of any item within the card's compass. To set a maximum APR would make the system non-viable for the banks, even though they would be constrained by circumstances to charge the set maximum all the time for everybody: and the system might still be non-viable. If the credit card system collapsed, a lot of people would be disadvantaged. But it is odds-on the McDonnell's proposal will be accepted with rapturous applause. This will demonstrate another Stalinist 'truth', that the practicality of a policy is unimportant: it is the principle and the intention that count in an authoritarian regime.

There is always somebody to blame when a policy fails; and McDonnell has spent the last quarter century blaming the bankers, for the much evil they have done and the many things they could not help. Thus the world rolls on, and the left changes as little as do the Tories. Time for the Liberals to re-invent themselves again?

Brexit Britain Divided

The United Kingdom is more deeply riven by economic, political and social issues than it has ever been before. I say this with the benefit of a quarter of a century teaching Economics and economic History in a major university followed by a further quarter-century living in Tower Hamlets and active in the City of London. Thus I have half a century of reading, listening and probing; and, as a bonus, I have the luck to have a second home in the Peak District where I hear another spectrum of opinions and lore. Throughout history, most constituencies were controlled by a single party, after the dominant landowners surrendered control during the nineteenth century. Rural areas and affluent inner London were solidly Tory, some mixed-economy areas tended to return Liberal MPs, and the heavily industrial and mining areas were solid Labour. There were - and still are - anomalies: the constituency in which I first had a vote [Darwen, now Rossendale and Darwen] has improbably elected Tories all my life; but such exceptions are rare. However, in a rapidly-changing context, the old certainties have gone. The Brexit vote cut right across party traditions, and leaders' admonitions had minimal impact on voters' choice.

In the nineteen-nineties the Labour Party was split by the Blairites, who did not eradicate old-Labour in the new century but instead left stagnant pools of Marxist infantilism to fester while the legendary pragmatism of the big-union bosses became heavily diluted. The present mushroom growth of a new-left Labour is both an indication of voter dissatisfaction - especially [but not only] among the young - and of a search for ideals. The cupboard-love of the students and graduates who liked Corbyn's reckless 'pledge' about tuition fees during the recent election has dissipated, and the peak of the latest boom has probably passed.

The Conservative Party has never been in such disarray as it now displays: the old establishment of 'grandees' who could remove a leader with swift silence seem to have disappeared, and everything now hinges on a speech in Italy which has been heralded for weeks and will prove in the event [on Friday] to be a display of the Prime Minister's incomprehension, confusion and insecurity. Even if her cobbled-together second kitchen cabinet is able to deliver a more rational speech than I expect, the Tories will be left with the recollection that they set the referendum hare running - expecting a different result - and they have no idea what to make of the situation that they have created. Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit", a supremely silly phrase which will haunt her even more than "strong and stable"; and she has given no indication of whether she thinks the vote was to leave the political institutions of the EU [only] - as would gain massive popular approval - or to cut adrift from the customs union and the common market, which would smash the economy and make the Irish situation irresolvable.

Tories and Labour are split on which sort of Brexit was intended by the voters, and by their opinions as to where to go now. The LibDems and ScotNats are determined remainers, and may well swing parliamentary votes: especially by the LibDems in the House of Lords.

Meanwhile, media commentators cannot agree whether or not the country has a wider gap between better-off and worse-off citizens; though the gap between the most highly remunerated and the lowest has not been greater than it is now, since the economy and society were put back to zero by the Second World War.

An early General Election would not resolve the situation. In England the LibDem vote might go up, which would mitigate Labour gains and produce the spectacle of Corbyn and Cable negotiating a coalition: that would then have to try to attract the ScotNats and some Irish contingent [most of whom hate Corbyn as an IRA supporter].

Most people know that they are getting worse off. Many worry about their borrowing. Many are extremely anxious about the homes they can barely afford to keep or those they cannot afford to rent or to buy.

Just as the majority of Russians are content to have Stalin rehabilitated, and his statues refurbished in some places, so there is a nostalgia in Britain for the mixed economy and the welfare state that the Thatcherites and the Blarites did so much to destroy.

To that I will return tomorrow; as my recent blogs have become overlong.

Brexit: Farce Slides Into Disaster

I voted for Leave, on three grounds:
1. I was sure the Remain side would win; but if a strong minority voted to Leave that would provide a check on the political class in the UK and in the EU,
2. The Cameron-Clegg-Osborne policy of austerity was ruinous, economically and in its effect on social cohesion: so a strong opposition vote might cause a rethink;
3. In a despairing sort of way, I wanted to register my opposition to a European super-state.

When the result was announced, I was far from ecstatic: I then began to wonder how a post-Cameron government, inevitably to be led by Tory Remainers, would package the obvious outcome of withdrawal from the political EU institutions while remaining in the safety of the Economic Community. When Mrs May won the leadership, my hopes of any sensible outcome were smashed by her idiotic mouthing of the phrase 'Brexit means Brexit'. It was her job to suggest what Brexit might mean, in sensible political terms, and to lead her party to persuade the country of that proposition.

Instead, she blundered into the destructive notion that the vote implied complete withdrawal from all aspects of the EU. Which was soon to be modified by the recognition that from the daily business of air travel to the essentials of nuclear controls and commerce, there had to be continuity. Meanwhile, she appointed three ministers who were Levers to make and execute policy: Johnson to talk political waffle [his forte], Davis to 'get us out' and Fox to chase the chimera of compensating trade deals with the rest of the world as we left the EU.

Johnson has continued to talk nonsense, and has progressively diminished what reputation he had for intelligence behind his 'wit'. Fox has had very little to do, except propagate his fantasies, latterly helped by an imported 'negotiator' from New Zealand who expresses extreme isolationist views [based on the very different experience of New Zealand, which was cut adrift by Britain's slide into the EEC, then the EU: and saved by the rise of China as an importer country] that have no relevance to the situation of the UK in 2021.

Davis, meanwhile, says that the British people did not vote for confusion: but that is what now faces us. I have assiduously read the largely off-beam papers prepared by hard-driven civil servants for dim, obsessed ministers, that collectively do not add up to a coherent guide to anything. Britain has no recognisable policy.

And now, the Commons has voted for the bizarre power-grab of the Bill that they passed last night; by a clear majority.

Failing governments in failed states take up the power to rule by decree; then become increasingly dogmatic in their assertions of their rectitude as freedom is circumscribed and the economy collapses. This is the situation in Venezuela: so Mr Corbyn will understand what is going on as aspires to take over in the United Kingdom.

There is a slim chance that Tory Remainers - surely, still a majority of the party's MPs - will recognise the need to revolt; otherwise, the last hope for democracy would have to be fought out in the House of Lords early next year.

My vote was insignificant in leading to this outcome: but I do share in the post facto responsibility for the irresponsibility of the government that has followed it.

Brexit and Ireland

At least since the time when the only English pope 'asked' King Henry II of England to take full possession of his Lordship of Ireland, there has been an endless and fascinating sequence of tense relations between the rulers based in Westminster and the people of Ireland. Several times, kings and the Cromwellian republic tried to settle conformable populations of Scots and English in Ireland, and between 1670 and 1690 the great Sir William Petty wrote extensively about his plan to resettle half the Irish population on the island of Britain and/or in British colonies elsewhere, replacing them in Ireland with Brits, so that a short period of interbreeding could eradicate the difficult characteristics of the native Irish. Often, British policy in Ireland has been highly revealing about the actual character of British government and the real intentions of British policy.

Thus the publication yesterday of a less-than-half-baked paper on the future of the Irish border under Brexit is in that revealing context. As I have commented previously in this blog, the present UK government can not possibly give effect to any sort of Brexit that involves leaving the European Economic Area whilst retaining the policy of austerity. Actually to erect realistic customs borders and controls on the passage of people all around the UK - which would be necessary before Britain could begin to trade with anybody under the rules of the World Trade Organisation, outside the EU - is totally incompatible with austerity.

Yesterday's UK government paper on the Irish border rejects any hegemonic physical line, either on the land border between the Republic and Northern Ireland or enforced by frigates in the middle of the Irish Sea. One radio commentator summed up the potential control methods as "an iPad in every truck's cab". Interestingly, this looks as if it would put the primary cost of compliance with any new system of "technological" border and customs control onto the private sector; but, of course, billions of pounds would have to be spent for the government to acquire the equipment and train up and pay the skilled people [who probably do not exist anyway] who would be needed to create and maintain the records that would be needed of the passage of people and goods over the borders. The notion implicit in yesterday's paper is simply potty.

Both the British and Irish government are adamant that there cannot be a hard border in Ireland: not just prosperity, but also peace is dependent on free movement of people, goods and arguments.

Ireland will prove to be a sticking-point: the first - and probably the most fundamental - of all. Any genuine Brexit is not affordable to the British state, even if Osbornian austerity were relaxed. Corbyn will not understand this; but, more importantly the headbanging Tory Brexiteers - on whom Mrs May relies for her parliamentary survival - will not understand it: some because they do not want to, and some because their intellectual capabilities do not stretch that far.

The Irish Question will again be a determining factor in British history: and [as Sellars and Yeatman said, in their inimitable 1066 and All that] the English will never solve the Irish Question because whenever they come up with an answer, the Irish change the question. This is certainly the present situation, where the new Irish Prime Minister has set new terms for the discussion of the border: and we can be sure that the great bulk of the European Union will back him to the hilt. Nigel Farage and the 'hard Brexiteers' will claim that the electorate is being betrayed as a 'transition period' mutates into continuing membership of the European Economic Area [but without membership of the Brussels political set-up]. The 'betrayal' will come from the incomprehension and incompetence of the political class: against which a majority of the nation voted on 23 June 2016. Hence, the political class - the very people who are least trusted by the nation - froth and posture about 'taking back control'. They don't know how to do it, because there is no affordable way to achieve it within their mental universe.

Interesting times indeed.

Not Another Party, Please!

When it looked as if Jeremy Corbyn was leading Labour to the expected [and deserved] electoral catastrophe a couple of months ago, siren voices were calling for a split in the party; which could lead to the 'moderates' joining up with the LibDems and hoping to attract some Tory Remainer MPs; and thus forming a coalition that could reverse the Brexit decision. The depth of politicians' squalor was again confirmed when Mrs May lost the election and Labour was beefed-up as being a potential governing party. So, although Labour MPs are viscerally split between those who are keen to compromise with Corbyn and those who know him for what he is [an unreconstructed Marxist who has a wide range of casuistic devices], the party has been held together by the fragile cement of ambition.

Subsequently, other voices have been raised - now, within the Tory ranks - hoping to cobble together an anti-Brexit coalition. As with the SDP, it would be impossible for such a party to gain traction with the electorate; even if they had a period of years available to make the attempt. As it is, the Brussels clock is ticking down to March 2019; and the chances of getting Mrs May to understand anything of the ruin to which she is driving the nation are minimal. There is not time enough to reconfigure British politics, or to educate the prime minister.

The great majority of MPs, mostly with regret, accept that the referendum vote was decisive. The question was whether the UK should "leave the European Union" or "remain in the European Union". There was no definition of the European Union. It was left unstated whether the European Economic Area, or the European Economic Community [the common market and customs union] - as Mrs May now says is inextricably the case - were included in the vote. This is the basis on which honest men and women who accept the referendum result can legitimately believe that the vote was to withdraw from the political aspects of the EU - the Parliament, the Commission and the Court - but not to undermine the economy by withdrawal from the economic area.

From everything that I have heard and read in recent weeks, there could well now be a strong majority of the electorate in favour of splitting the economic from the political aspects of the Union. The Economic Community pre-existed the Union, and membership of that club was clearly accepted in the referendum on withdrawal that was held under Harold Wilson's premiership. The electorate was not allowed an opinion on the transmutation of the Community into the undemocratic morass of Brussels under the nomenclature of the Union [and with the intention that the Union should become 'ever-closer': which means 'ever less accountable to the people']. I believe that a national petition - a reflection of the People's Charter of the 1840s - might be the most effective way of proving to the boneheaded Brexiteers that a very clear majority of the nation is capable of making the distinction between the Community and the Union.

If that could be proven, I like to think that majority of MPs have sufficient dregs of integrity then to act as representatives of the nation, and compel the government [whether the present shoddy shower, or a coalition containing the heavily-compromised Corbyn] to make a sensible and mutually beneficial deal to remain in the Community.

The issues of the European Court and of migration would remain to be resolved; but they will be much easier to define within the context outlined above. Time is short, but there is enough time to implement this suggestion of a People's Charter, deploying the resources of up-to-date social media.

The Tories' Dilemma: 'Hard Brexit' or Continued Austerity

Mrs May appeared to think that she could do three impossible things on becoming Prime Minister: now she has come to realise that not only is each of them unfeasible in itself, but that they are mutually exclusive.

First, she did not even consider an alternative to the continuance of the Cameron-Clegg-Osborne austerity, so that had to be maintained, as near intact as possible.

Second, although she had been an unconvinced remainer, she was prepared to embrace the idea of a 'hard' Brexit: though she had no idea what this might mean, so she appointed not one, not two, but three Brexiteer Secretaries of State to come up with the policies that would be needed.

And thirdly, she wanted to be a 'compassionate conservative': at zero cost [because finding any 'new money' would, by definition, breach austerity].

Then she called an election in which she thought that she could defeat Labour purely on the grounds of the intellectual and moral deficiencies of the party's leader. Because he had decades of experience of not being a conformist or conventional politician, Corbyn almost won: and Mrs May had to clear out her inept kitchen cabinet and begin to respect ministers who she was reported to have wanted to dispense with.

Meanwhile Philip Hammond as Chancellor of the Exchequer was becoming buried in 'The Treasury View', a centuries-old tradition which insists that any new expenditure is unnecessary and any unnecessary expenditure must be opposed; regardless of the social and moral benefits that the expenditure is predicted to deliver to taxpayers. Thus he learned that stopping the free movement of people from the EU into the UK, and movement the other way, would cost billions of poundsworth of new expenditure in frontier police recruitment, training and salaries, and in the construction of immigration and emigration control points and the IT backup that would be needed to make such controls achievable at all. Add to that the cost of building modern port controls that could prevent smuggling and validate the contents, provenance, ownership, insurance and compliance with health-and-safety requirements [et cetera] of every item in every cargo and every private piece of luggage - and staffing them with men and women as tough as eighteenth-century revenue officers, in sufficient numbers, adequately well-trained and remunerated and backed up by the most advanced IT - that would be more billions.

A 'hard Brexit' would not only interrupt much trade with Europe, and permanently end more - it would thereby cause massive unemployment and demands for billions more in social payments. Most firms that trade significantly with Europe would experience catastrophic falls in sales, which would force some to cull their workforces and many to declare bankruptcy and their inability to pay their debts and their taxes. The government's income would plummet as the demands of a desperate population became clamorous. Not only would austerity have to be abandoned: government would become untenable in the context of democracy.

Thus minsters have been running around, meeting groups of representatives - particularly from the business communities - whom the May team had ignored in their first year in office. Now the government is indicating that Brexit will be 'soft', and nobody or no firm will find themselves at a 'cliff edge'. There will be a 'transition period' as long as Mr Barnier will be allowed to concede; followed by a shoddy compromise which lets the Treasury maintain at least the skeleton of austerity in place. On that basis of squalid surrender to the ghosts of Clegg and Osborne, a sort of exit from the EU Commission and Parliament, and a limitation of the powers of the European Court 'of Justice' [sic] will be found; and Britain will remain within the EU otherwise. Any alternative is unaffordable in the context of Treasury thinking: and The Treasury Rules: OK?

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.

A Long Week

Harold Wilson, allegedly the Queen's favourite prime minister, said "A week is a long time in politics".

The present prime minister must be finding the weeks constantly elongated as events turn against her and more of her ministers begin publicly to cavil at the inheritance of Osbornian austerity that almost cost the Tories the election. The precarious position of the party in parliament makes it almost impossible for the leader to dismiss querulous ministers; and the chancellor [whom she expected to be able to dismiss, following an electoral triumph] is now in a position strongly to influence the Brexit discussion.

A delegation from the City of London is off to Berlin this week, to make an assessment of the appetite of the Germans for a form of Brexit that would leave the UK firmly within the European Economic Area. The shock of the Brexit decision has been followed by months of assiduous work in the City, and there is no doubt that the loss of [at least] tens of thousands of jobs from the financial services would be a calamitous blow to the whole British economy. The financial bubble that has been inflated ever since 1986 in compensation for the destruction of the materially-productive bulk of the economy has provided a support mechanism for the economy, and its removal would have utterly catastrophic consequences. The chancellor is now fully aware of this; but it is doubtful if the prime minister could comprehend this: it is also questionable whether all three Brexit Ministers - Davis, Johnson and Fox - fully understands the importance of the point. Certainly the insouciance displayed by Davis on the matter is alarming.

But the clock has been ticking, and those who are capable of recognising the signs of impending crisis have begun to read them the same way. A minority of Labour MPs also showed last week that they have a pretty good idea of the problem, when they voted against the party line to stress their concern that Corbyn's left-wing contempt for capitalism could impose on the Labour party an interpretation of Brexit that would plunge the country into chaos and a whole era of impoverishment. A tiny number of extreme lefties would be happy to impose the hair shirt austerity of the Stalin era in Russia on the British nation; but they would not have many followers, and the Momentum movement has not yet gained sufficient power to unseat all the rational Labour MPs if there were to be an early general election.

All the rational Conservatives have come to realise that their precarious alliance with the Paisley faction must last for at least the two years while the Brexit negotiations continue. If the government can gets its act together in the next month, recognising that the maintenance of momentum in the economy depends on being in the European Economic Area [on the best terms that can be negotiated: though they will not be ideal], there is a chance that they will gain sufficient goodwill in the mass of the population to have a chance of winning an election. That is conditional on the change in policy that I mentioned yesterday: there needs to be more money for public sector workers' pay, as Gove and Johnson are not pointing out. And there must be a resolution of the student fees issue: the reckless promise of Labour in the last election, simply to abolish those fees [and probably write off the debts owed by past borrowers] puts the Tories in an impossible position as long as they retain the Osborn line; so they are going to have to admit that so many holes are being poked in austerity that it might just be wise to admit that the policy is not acceptable.

Wars are fought by selling government bonds, to buyers who accept the extreme urgency of the situation. The present situation is no less alarming than a war. The government must be willing to replace austerity by a combination of flexibility on key areas of public spending and a massive investment in infrastructure, coupled with the development of a facility for the state [directly and through the banking sector] to invest heavily in all the firms that have credible business plans to advance technology and innovation. Mrs May's early decision to let Japanese speculators buy ARM was a very bad indication of her incomprehension: she needs to be educated; otherwise, like Anthony Eden, she needs to be taken away on leave. And there are not many weeks left for one or the other of these steps to be taken. The Tory party has saved itself by ruthlessness in the past: the era of "you've never had it so good" followed on very soon after the Suez catastrophe. They need to find the same strength again: with or without Mrs May.  

Home-Grown British Bananas

The descent of the United Kingdom in the league table of banana republics continues apace.

The Mail on Sunday tells us that Mrs May is tempted to undertake a U-turn on student fees ahead of the anticipated election that is at present expected to deliver a Corbyn government, perhaps even this year. If the Tories plan to buy back any significant proportion of the student vote, plus the votes of people who are repaying student fees, plus those of parents who have made sacrifices to spare their children the full burden of potential debt incurred in higher education, they are going to have to throw billions of pounds a year into the pot. Since it is problematic whether students and ex-students will be conned so simply, it will be necessary to recover lost ground with the old: so guaranteed real-terms pensions and free transport will have to be retained, even if the winter fuel allowance is to be means tested.

Ministers are openly talking and writing, lobbying and leaking about the imperative need to retain some votes from the 25-60 age group by ending the arbitrary 1% cap on public sector pay increases in the face of rising inflation of the goods in the shops. Relaxation of that cap is inevitable if the National Health Service is to survive and the forces of law and order are to be maintained. As the probability of Mr Corbyn going to Downing Street is proclaimed more and more, so the potential that some self-appointed 'patriot' will attempt to assassinate Corbyn [whose record justifies extreme hostility to him in some quarters] increases. The level of protection allocated to Corbyn needs to be at least as much as the serving prime minister, regardless of cost: the nation could not afford another Jo Cox type of tragedy if some aide to Labour leader were to be struck down in an attempt on his life. So more millions of pounds will have to be found, whether Corbyn wants it or not.

Meanwhile the chaotic wanton self-destruction of the government continues. It is now announced that they intend to abrogate the 1964 London Convention by which fishermen from some European countries, including France and Germany, can fish within British waters up to six miles from the coast. The Convention was signed a decade before Britain's accession to the Treaty of Rome, so it cannot be construed as any part of our membership of the EU. But the government announces the intention to repudiate it now, carefully souring the attitude of the Continental members of the EU ahead of the Brexit negotiations. It will be interesting to see what other irritants and insults the government will be able to find, to ensure that the 27 remaining countries in the EU feel that they are well rid of us; and that they owe us no concessions at all.

It is increasingly painful to try to keep up with the News.

Defence Spending in context

The United Kingdom has some pretension - still - to be a major military power, by virtue of the nuclear arsenal that Jeremy Corbin so ardently wishes to destroy. Were he to have his wish, Britain's decline, far below the status of 'the world's fifth-biggest economy', would instantly be apparent. No sane living person who has breathed since the end of the war with Japan in 1945 has ever wanted nuclear weapons to be used. Many people deplore the use of two atomic bombs to 'bring the Japanese to their senses' and thereby save many millions of lives by enforcing the surrender of the Empire of the Sun. But the Corbyn ideal of mutual nuclear disarmament is not going to happen within decades; so to undertake unilateral disarmament would diminish Britain further than it has been diminished under Thatcher and her successors would be an act of harebrained vandalism.

Millions of people in southern England have been told so often that Thatcherism was a great restorative of the country's power and of its pride, that they at least half-believe it. I had the benefit of a Sheffield perspective, where the truth that I beheld was totally different from the myth that enabled Blair and Cameron to continue the craze for deregulation and the dissipation of economic and political cohesion that made inevitable the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The Thatcher government deliberately stood back from the steel industry, when fellow members of EFTA [notably Austria and Sweden] took simple measures to protect their equivalent production facilities. Thus the greatest concentration of skill and capital intensity in steel and related technology in the world was exposed to cheap, short-term competition; and destroyed. More than 60,000 skilled jobs [out of around 80,000] in the steel sector in South Yorkshire were redundant within three years; while the government rode high in the polls on the post-Falklands euphoria. In Sheffield the loss of HMS Sheffield during the campaign to recover the islands was a salutary symbol of what was to come when a previously-unpopular government was returned with a sufficient majority to press on with its destructive policies.

The primary target of the returned Tories was the coal mining sector. The oil industry was riding high globally. High inflation in the industrial countries had counteracted the negative impact that the OPEC oil price hike of 1973 had had on the oil price relative to that of coal; and awareness of the detrimental effects of carbon-based atmospheric pollution was increasing throughout society. In various corners of the state-owned coal and electrical power industries experiments were being undertaken - successfully - to find ways of using coal to produce energy with minimal polluting effect; and with a realisable end objective of being able to use coal indefinitely [mostly mined from the abundant resources under these islands] as a primary source of electrical energy. The oil lobby was empowered hugely by the development of oil wells in the North Sea, and their arguments against investment in coal resources had weight with a government hell-bent on simplistic privatisation of electricity generation and distribution without the successor companies being lumbered with the obligation to fund research on 'clean coal'.

A more urgent reason for the Tories' ideologues to oppose the coal sector was, of course, the National Union of Mineworkers and their influence over the whole trade union movement. The Labour government of the late 'sixties had encouraged union membership, and the weakness of the Wilson and Callaghan governments in the 'eighties meant that they could not resist the pressure from their trade union supporters [and funders] greatly to empower unions to recruit members in the workplace and demand negotiating rights between firms and their employees. Millions of people were members of unions under 'closed shop' types of arrangement, where people who could not prove a conscientious [usually that meant a religious] objection had to join the union to get the job. The government was keen to sweep away all such obstacles to a 'free market' in labour: and saw the Mineworkers as the inevitable block in their way. So they decided to tackle it directly, and a plan was carefully devised simultaneously to stockpile coal where it was still needed - mostly at the power stations - as the necessary preparation for a strike that would probably cause coal production to cease for a protracted period.

The National Union of Mineworkers was controlled by a clique of hard leftists, led by Arthur Scargill, who were on their side so determined to have a strike that they alienated their colleagues in some regions that those regions' miners stayed at work when a strike was called without a formal ballot and at the time of year -spring - when the demand for coal at the power stations was declining. The dispute then turned into an uprising. I saw this for myself. Hundreds of the police who were drafted in to confront the miners and their violent leftist supporters stayed in the hall of residence where I was the warden, during the vacations. Non-miner supporters of the strike [and of the revolution that they hoped it would ignite] came along for the rough-stuff; and the strike took on another political dimension when the already heavily-exploited miners of the Soviet Union were levied a portion of their wages to support the supposedly-starving families of British miners. No ordinary miner saw any of that money: it vanished into bank accounts for which no explanation nor audit has ever been issued.

People spoke openly of a potentially revolutionary situation. Those around Scargill included a cohort who believed that the mineworkers were the last mass workforce who could spearhead a revolution in the UK. From being a sympathiser with the union, I became a sceptic and then - regretfully - an opponent of the extremism that the confrontation bred. In the end, enough people went through the transition that I experienced myself for the government - despite its destructive motives - to have the strength and support to drive the miners to surrender, and return to work until the pit closure programme could be implemented.

The attitude that closed the steelworks went on to shut the shipyards and aerospace plant, and allowed the demise of the potteries and a series of other regionally-based industries. Much of industry was tied up with national defence - steel for ships and aircraft and guns, as a prime example - the rundown of the nation's defences became inevitable as the real economy slowed down. The bubble of financial services and the poison of consumer credit were encouraged as means of claiming 'economic growth' through the expansion of consumer spending: increasingly on imports.

I have warmed too much to my theme and gone on too long. Apologies to anyone who actually does read this.

Not a squalid little deal!

Mrs May's agreement with the Northern Irish DUP has a 'headline' cost of £1billion in extra cash to be available for the Northern Ireland Executive to spend. But that is not even the beginning of the cost [and I refer to the cash cost, leaving aside the reputational damage that is being done to keep  this weak and wobbly government in office, but not truly in power]. Retaining the 'triple lock' on state pensions and retaining the free winter fuel for all will cost billions more, and the deal may well last for the five years for which the parliament could remain in being. Given that some demands from Scotland, Wales and English regions will have to be met if the Tories are to have any hope of winning future election, estimates of the ultimate total cost of the deal seem to be running upwards of fifty billion pounds in the next few years. This drives a coach and horses through the residue of Osborne's austerity which Philip Hammond's Treasury Team was seeking to maintain. Thus it will be necessary for the government to increase its borrowing while the Tories negotiate with the DUP on the possible increases in taxes that Mr Hammond already knows will be necessary. Since the DUP-Tory agreement is on the basis of 'confidence and supply' the DUP will have an effective veto on any tax increases: so the overwhelming probability is that state borrowing in the coming year will be several tens of billions of pounds more than had been foreshadowed in any of Mr Hammond's [actual or imagined] spreadsheets.

I am sure that Mrs May's grasp of economic reality is slight, and that she has not yet comprehended anything of the hydra-headed monster that she has attached to her government. Austerity was becoming intolerable to the electorate as its effects on policing, schools and hospitals became apparent. The departure on sea trials of HMS Queen Elizabeth - the biggest ship ever assembled in Britain - was accompanied by comment that she went without any aircraft, amid rows about how many 'planes could ever be afforded to fly from her. Almost all the other areas of the armed services are being robbed of funds to make some sort of show of fitting out Queen Elizabeth properly, which means that Britain's power of self defence is significantly diminished at a time when perceived threats are increasing. Mrs May's new monster, that she will not be able to control, is the myriad demands for more money that will come from every sector of the public services and every region of the country. Ryedale in North Yorkshire has been given press coverage as one of the two areas on England most deprived of reasonably-fast broadband, and that part of the country has a special plea that may become irresistible if Scotland and Wales are allocated extra money for communications: and so it will go on, inexorably, for longer that than Mrs May can hold on to power.

Should Mr Corbyn come into power, he would find that all the key-turning jobs have been done for him, by default. The military are virtually prostrated. Austerity is being overcome by sectoral and regional demands that will become irresistible. Government borrowing will be high, and Mr Corbyn and his clique would have no compunction in 'taxing the rich' to fund even more state spending. In those circumstances the stock market will collapse and the pound will decline rapidly in external exchange: so a radical government could claim justification for radical measures to establish control of a 'socialist' economy.

The Tories will remain desperate to prevent Corbyn having access to the electorate. So they will have to try to control the monster that they have released. How they do this will be fascinating to watch: or perhaps the Tories have finally lost that ruthless determination to survive that has sustained then for centuries?

'Rational Markets'?

The New York Stock Market will open today, after the Memorial Day holiday, at a record high. London will also open at or close to a record high, following the Bank Holiday.

There is no obvious reason for these phenomena.

The US has a demonstrably erratic president. His business-friendly approach is offset by his commitment to restore basic industries to middle America; but the strong businessmen whom he has put in his cabinet, combined with the broad spectrum of views among Republicans in both houses of the Congress, will ensure that nothing wildly irrational becomes more substantial than a presidential tweet.

The general view of commentators is that the 'strength' of the stock market arises principally from the predominance of the 'technology' giants: Google, Apple, Facebook etc, whose popularity ensures that the prices of their shares rise almost continuously, The biggest companies in this area now have larger total share valuations than do the major real-world companies in fields like oil, mining, motors, transport and the construction of computer hardware. The valuation of such businesses depends on the number of people who use them: the more users they have, the more valuable it is for firms in the 'real world' to advertise food, drink, holidays etc alongside other IT experiences. As increasing numbers of older people wean themselves from addiction to the new media, and younger people are attracted to newer competitors of the big networkers, the market dominance - even of Facebook and Google - will crack. The bubble in the valuations of the big boys will be deflated: how many firms and individuals will be devastated by that collapse will depend on how rapid the deflation is.

The 'strength' of the London stock market is very largely due to the large proportion of companies whose shares are listed in that exchange, but their main activities take place in the rest of the world. For them, the fall in the value of the pound means that they are able to declare rising profits [in terms of pounds in which their shares are priced] and thus their 'value' increases. Given the political circumstances in the UK, the pound is unlikely to harden against other world currencies: so the phenomenon of a rising stock market within a weakening domestic economy will continue. The result of the coming General Election is impossible to call, but the balance of probabilities is that the Conservatives will win: but by a much narrower majority of Commons seats than seemed likely when Mrs May called the election.

Mrs May talks of 'strong and stable' leadership, in what is virtually a one-woman campaign. As was clear again in the non-debate on TV last evening, she has no idea what her policy will be in the Bexit negotiations. She had no notion what is a 'good' or a 'bad' deal for the UK. She does not even consider any option to the inherited policy of austerity which is undermining the cohesion of society, the defence of the nation, the education of the young, social care [about which the Tories' "policy" becomes vaguer and more contradictory every every day] and the health service. She is a desperately bad leader: but she still comes over as probably more acceptable than Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn is an idealist. He would 'campaign for a nuclear-free world' if he were prime minister. Would not everybody, if they thought it even marginally feasible? We would all like a disease-free world, a pain-free world, a poverty-free world. At the same time, he would abandon the million Ulster protestants to the vengeance of the militant republicans, washing his hands of responsibility by saying that he believes in peaceful discussion. Corbyn is Labour's problem: he is a major reason why millions who are totally unconvinced of Mrs May's fitness to lead the country will either decline to vote, or reluctantly vote Conservative.

In my book on BREXIT I conclude that disenchantment with politics, politicians and the Economists who advise them was the principal reason for the decision that people made [against Mrs May's advice] in the Referendum last year. That mood of deep despondency will be much magnified in the coming months; and neither party leader has an inkling of it.

Campaigning to Resume: The State of the Parties

Today UKIP will launch its manifesto for the upcoming general election, and the party's implausible leader will have considerable media coverage: much of it unfavourable. Then UKIP will sink to a low rating in the opinion polls, with no prospect of being represented in the House of Commons.

The other parties will re-start their campaigns tomorrow, though local leafleting will resume in some areas today.

In the limited time on the media that has been allocated to Jeremy Corbyn in the past two days, he has spoken sensitively and sensibly about the Manchester tragedy. Labour has certainly not lost ground during the shut-down of the campaign.

Mrs May has had a big opportunity to appear to be 'prime ministerial', and has not overplayed her part. However, her campaign was faltering before the suicide bomber shut down partisan discussion, and the Prime Minister can have had little time to review the mess that she had made for herself, particularly on the costing of social care and how that bill is to be met. Like all Conservatives, Mrs May has the dilemma that the policies pursued by her party - in power for the best part of seven years - has largely stifled real economic growth. A government that is hemmed in by obsessions with austerity and the [probably notional] elimination of the deficit on state spending can only contemplate shifting some fragment of the already-existing national wealth into the state budget to meet the cost. Thus people are being asked to accept that the inflated 'value' of their homes can be raided to meet the costs of their personal care, at need.

One significant aspect of the situation is that the management of social care lies with local authorities. Therefore local authorities, whose budgets have been squeezed very hard by the Osborne-Hammond policy of cuts, are to be expected to create mechanisms for valuing property, and further mechanisms for funding the care of property-owners [whether in care homes or at home] over periods of several years until the supposed 'value' of the property is realised in a sale. To maintain the 'value' of the property, it has to be maintained properly: which is a further element of cost that the local authority will have to meet. The implication is that local authorities will have to become massive borrowers: if anyone will lend them the money.

The segment of the massive complex of financial markets that led to the crisis of 2007-8 was the exposure of 'sub-prime mortgages' in the USA. Financial institutions were bullied by the Clinton regime into allowing people with no successful record of paying their bills, often with no secure employment, to buy houses on mortgage. When economic conditions tightened, in 2005-6, thousands of people simply handed the keys to their properties to the lenders and drove away. The 'value' of those houses in the books of the lenders - who had now become, will-nilly the owners - were the prices at which they had been bought. They could not be sold on for the same prices, as thousands of such houses were dumped on the market at once.

Thus one can expect lending institutions to be very cautious of advancing large sums against properties whose 'value' will be incalculable on the unforeseeable future dates when they will be available to be sold. If the government becomes the lender, or the guarantor, of the loans that local authorities will need to fund the care that has to be given to the owners of the properties that will be drawn into the scheme on the death of the owners - or of their partners [who may, obviously, also need years of care in the further future] - that guarantee must be added to the national debt: which obviously blows away any hope of reducing or eliminating the the deficit. The more this question is emphasised in the last fortnight of the election campaign, it will be clear that the Tories' plans are no more 'affordable' than are Labour's.

At the least, Labour is claiming that their plan, especially borrowing to fund infrastructure investment, will stimulate growth of the material economy. Mrs May offers no such prospect.

Electioneering into Depression

The current General Election campaigns seem to have been running for a long time. "Strong and stable" has become a national joke; and the more earnest Mr Corbyn shows himself to be, the less convincing he is as a possible national leader. UKIP shows no capability to recover from the terminal condition in which the Brexit decision plunged them; and the LibDems have absolutely nothing to offer.

The Tories' over-emphasis on Mrs May is a very high risk strategy, and if their chances of loosing the election were at all significant it could be ruinous. She has utterly failed to show her hand on the vital questions that must be negotiated with the European Union, to an extent that causes millions to doubt that she has any ideas at all. We can expect that very shortly after the new government takes office the inevitable leaks from the negotiations will display the weakness of the government's intellectual grasp of the task in hand.

Meanwhile, the extreme economic weakness of the United Kingdom is openly to be seen: even during the election campaign. The current government dos not even try to pretend that the NHS is adequately funded, relative to the demands falling upon it and the capabilities of modern medicine. Even more bizarre, according to some government researchers, most schools are 'overfunded', and the May campaign does not offer any increase in the education budget. It is clear that the Conservatives, when elected by a surprisingly small plurality of votes, will press on with austerity; and that there will thus be no significant attempt to lift the economy into a new era of growth supported by state spending.

Labour's plans are dismissed as 'unaffordable' both by the rabid press and by relatively balanced commentators: the implementation of any significant proportion of them would massively strain the national finances to an extent that would deter investment in industry and commerce and would thus reduce the capability of the system to bear increasing taxation.

Donald Trump is daily proving the lack of maturity that will blight his entire  presidency; but there can be no doubt that he was sound in expressing his gut feeling that a chauvinistic, mercantilist economic policy would bring jobs and growth into the US economy. This is happening as a result of companies making their own decisions, in the context of Federal government policy. Whether Trump stays or goes, his impact is unstoppable.  Britain needs a similar mindset shift. The country that made the first, most significant industrial revolution; the country that pulled itself together after Dunkirk well enough to share with the Americans in the invasion and occupation of western Europe - while supplying the Russian war machine on a mighty scale - can change the world again: and it must do so.  To become a moldering  museum off the shore of the EU is not acceptable and is certainly not affordable.

May, Corbyn and the others do not have a scrap of understanding of the big issue between them. That is why the election will be a depressing experience for all of them: and for all of us.